The World’s Biggest Outdoor Cocktail Party

In an article for the Florida Times-Union, Michael DiRocco analyzes the sportsmanship between UGA and UF in the 96-rivalry and how that has affected the yearly game. DiRocco maintains that events in recent years have re-spiced up the rivalry.

Beginning with the 2007 “Gator Stomp” where UGA players stormed the field after Knowshon Moreno’s 1 yard touchdown run, followed by Urban Meyer expending his last two timeouts with less than a minute left and a 39 point lead, continuing with Brandon Spikes attempt to gouge Washaun Ealey’s eyes in 2009 and UGA defensive coordinator Mark Grantham making the “choke” sign at UF field goal kicker Chas Henry.

DiRocco argues that these instances have spiced up the rivalry and adds passion and rivalry to the game again. He notes the unsportsmanlike qualities of these actions, but he says it also revitalized a rivalry that had become just a yearly matchup after UF’s dominance in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Mark Richt was quoted in the article arguing that the reason the rivalry has become more intense in recent years because UGA has won here and there instead of  UF winning consistently.

This article was interesting to me firstly because it was written from the Florida perspective, and secondly because it slightly glorified the unsportsmanlike behavior. Yes, I feel like big rivalries cause emotions to run high, and a little bit of taunting and trash-talking is part of the game, but some of this is a little overboard.

I will be interested to see which way the game turns this weekend, and how sportsmanly the teams play.

It’s Saturday In Athens!

In honor of our first home game as students, I chose an article from Bill King’s Junkyard Blawg. He always provides a pretty comprehensive assessment of UGA’s matchup and what to expect.

There’s no doubt about the fact that the game this weekend is a big one. The UGA v. USC rivalry is a strong one, and with USC looking to run the table in the SEC East, playing our best today is pretty important.

The article gives King’s opinion of the matchup, then looks to a Gamecocks fan for a view from the other side. The general consensus? USC has some serious talent this season. There are a lot of players that have the potential to cause us trouble this Saturday.

The upside? USC can be inconsistent. I mean, so can we, but if we rally together and they fall apart, we’re looking at an entirely different matchup. The article gives a pretty comprehensive view of what will go on on the field Saturday, but it does leave out a little bit of what’s going on behind the scenes for these teams.

King mentions the effect last week’s loss may have on the Dawgs this weekend, but he didn’t mention the media pressure on Richt. Sure, his team has openly rallied behind him, but I wonder if it affects team dynamic to have your coach and leader undercut from all other angles. For Richt’s sake, and for the hearts of all the true Dawg fans who never fully recovered from last season’s trials, I hope we win Saturday between the hedges.

Pay for play?

Brad Rock

SLC Deseret News

01 September 2011

This article from CFAA holds a brief interview with Utah AD Chris Hill, where he shares his view on pay-for-play college athletes. Hill says that for star athletes, pay for play is something that is at least worth consideration, but that the majority of student athletes are getting exactly what they deserve in academic scholarships.

I thought this article was interesting because it was something that was brought up in class this past week. We were circling around the issue of pay-for-play, and struggling with the implementation of such a system. Who deserves pay? Everyone or just the best athletes? For all sports or just the money-makers? How much should athletes be payed? How do you decide? If student athletes are payed, do they then become employees of the school as opposed to students?

Hill does not address all of these logistical concerns, though he makes a clear statement regarding who should be payed. Hill said that 98% of college football players aren’t good enough to play in the NFL, so a college scholarship is more than enough for those players. The other 2%, he implied, deserved the hypothetical salaries.

The pay-for-play debate impacts everyone involved in college sports. The recruitment process for athletes and the decisions they make will change drastically if schools began offering to pay for athleticism. Coaches would have to work with an entirely new team dynamic, yet would also have the benefit of salary players who presumably would be the most talented. If a school is well-endowed but doesn’t have exceptional sports teams, offering players money within the rules of the NCAA could be its ticket to success. A change in the rules would affect schools and how they chose to spend their money too. Finally, it would impact the fans of college sports. I think that knowing that some athletes are paid would change many people’s opinions of college sports.

There is a lot of information left out of this article. It raises a question that the interview didn’t answer and the reporter didn’t go into depth about. It does, however, remind readers that the issue is still one being talked about, and gives a link to more information for those who want to learn more.

Addition to the SEC?

There have been rumors swirling recently about possible additions to the Southeastern Conference. Up until now, most of the talk had been exactly that: rumors. However, in a letter dated this Wednesday, Texas A&M notified the Big 12 that they were exploring their affiliation options and requested details on the exit process from the Big 12.

 

Though there has been no official mention of the SEC in this communication, though in a press conference on August 15^th A&M president R. Bowen Loftin acknowledged ongoing discussions with the SEC, initiated by A&M. The story has been covered by everyone from Sports Illustrated and the Dallas Morning News to ESPN and the Kansas City Star. I’ve seen three CFAA articles in the past two days about A&M’s exploration, but am focusing on the Kansas City Star article that appears to be syndicated from The Sports Network.

 

An A&M move to the SEC would have extensive impacts.

 

“Ultimately, we are seeking to generate greater visibility nationwide for Texas A&M and our championship-caliber student-athletes, as well as secure the necessary and stable financial resources to support our athletic and academic programs,” Loftin said, according to the Dallas Morning News. “As a public university, Texas A&M owes it to the state’s taxpayers to maximize our assets and generate additional revenues both now and well into the future.”

 

The SEC switch for A&M could be potentially profitable, yet the move from the Big 12 could be messy. A&M’s letter let the Big 12 know that it would “appreciate your conferring with the other member institutions and outlining for us the process to be followed by Texas A&M should it withdraw from the Conference,” according to ESPN.com.

 

A move for A&M will impact the SEC and the current member schools. The SEC must have given some positive feedback to A&M for them to take their plans public. The SEC hasn’t changed its membership since 1991 when they added South Carolina and Arkansas.

 

A&M will have to pay severance to the Big 12 to end the contract, the amount of which will be a big factor in the deal. If A&M is added to the SEC, it will affect the other teams in the SEC and their schedules in future years.

 

All of the articles I could find on the subject focused on A&M and the Big 12’s consideration of its request. They don’t however, seem to cover the results an A&M move would have on the SEC and its member teams. To fully understand the subject, I’d need to research what SEC teams think of the possible move and how it would affect SEC records and chances at the championship level.