UGA blog finds new home
Morning all. As I’ve said a couple of times this week, we’re converting this blog over to a WordPress platform and it will be a permanent move the first of next week.
Those of you who are regulars probably know that I’m not what you’d call techno-wizard when it comes to these things. But from what I understand the technology offered in this new format should make the blogging and commenting experience better for all. Of course, I’ll be learning as we go along, too. But I’m hoping to provide more pictures and video and things like that which should bring the blog more to life.
Of course, this blog is nothing without all you guys so I want to heartily invite (read: beg) you to come over to the new site by CLICKING HERE ON THE NEW ADDRESS and save it in your browsers. As of Monday, Feb. 23rd, this will be the permanent home of the UGA blog you so love or, in the case of some of you, love to loathe. If you’d prefer to copy and paste or just memorize, the new address is: http://blogs.ajc.com/uga-sports-blog/.
See at the new place!
AJC > Sports > UGA > Blog > Archives > 2007 > February > 16 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USDogs, Hogs and fun with numbers
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
It’s Friday, which means it’s my last blog of the week, which means it’s time to empty the ol’ in box and let ya’ll have at it.
Rumor of the week: Looks like the shoe is getting to drop over in Arkansas. There are all kinds of Internet reports that athletics director Frank Broyles, 82, is preparing to retire and that football coach Houston Nutt may not be far behind. The Razorbacks have been a mess since their 10-win season and SEC West championship. Hard to figure how everything goes to pot after your best season in years.
Close calls: The Bulldogs get a big time spooking from little ol’ Kennesaw State. The best thing about it is the Owls are coached by one of the nicest and funniest men in sports in Tony Ingle. If you ever get a chance to catch one of his speeches, don’t pass it up. He’s both hilarious and profound. Played golf with him one time a few years ago and I’ve never laughed so hard. My cheeks hurt at the end of the round.
Dogs OK: I don’t think you can read too much into Georgia’s sorry performance against the Owls. They were truly sleep-walking and Kennesaw was totally jacked and actually made some unconscious plays. If anything, it should serve as a wake-up call for the Dogs, who need only to protect their home court and win one game in the SEC tournament to make the NCAA tournament, in my opinion.
RPI collapse: The worse thing about playing Kennesaw State is Georgia RIP dipped 15 spot from 38th to 53rd thanks to the Owls low ranking. But the Dogs will get it all back with a few more SEC wins.
Mat drills: I’m reminded while watching the football team go through mat drills that this is indeed still a very talented squad with a lot of awfully impressive physical specimens who either didn’t play at all last season or didn’t play much. Like Coach Richt always tells me, media types tend to pay attention to how many seniors you’ve got back and what kind of freshmen you signed but they tend to forget about the groups in between. Georgia ‘tweeners are pretty darn good.
Searching for sellouts: Hoping to see the Stegosaurus filled to the rafters tomorrow. Less than 500 tickets remained as of Friday. It’d be pretty impressive - for Georgia and for the recruits considering playing for Felton - to have four SEC sellouts in a row. The UGA students have been impressive in their following this season.
Meanwhile, I’d be happy to hear from all of you with suggestions for blog topics for the coming week. Just like in our recruiting blog, you ask for it and I’ll do my best to find it out.
Have a great weekend!
Comments
By Uncle T
February 16, 2007 03:33 PM | Link to this
Chip, Good write on Tony. I remember, as a kid, watching him and the rest of the Dalton Junior College Roadrunners play. He was absolutely “Mister Hustle”. He will always hold a special place for us here in Dalton. I wish the three pointer had been around then for Tony. Go Dawgs!
By Max Sizemore
February 16, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this
Tony once told a story about playing in an opponent’s gym with a pair of homers for officials. Mid-way the second half, with his team out of contention, Tony called time out. The next time the other team has the ball, he told his guards, guard the two officials wherever they go — forget about the opponents. So after 15-20 seconds of this, an official blew his whistle and came over to Tony. “What the hell is this all about,” he demanded to know. “Well,” Tony replied, “My old coach always taught me to guard the people who were hurting you the most.” Tweet. The best technical he ever got.
By Bryan G.
February 16, 2007 04:21 PM | Link to this
Great points on the football team. I think if we get a decent job from the O-line, I honestly don’t see a reason we can’t win the SEC East. Obviously Florida is going to be very very good again, but it’s hard to catch that kind of lightning two years in a row.
The Auburn game should be a good barometer of how good our team is going to be the rest of the year. We need to win and win by 8-10 points, I think. At least we should. If we keep feeding TKB, we ought to win the damn game.
By JB
February 16, 2007 04:29 PM | Link to this
The Dawgs will spend 2007 prepping for 2008, in which they will have 18-19 starters back and should be able to play with anyone. we’ll have a dissapointing 9-2, or 10-2 year next year getting ready for 2008.
By godawg
February 16, 2007 04:32 PM | Link to this
Now here’s someting crazy:
Markish Jones signed with Clemson on Feb. 7, but never faxed his letter-of-intent. But after talking that morning with Florida State officials, he signed a letter of intent with the Seminoles and faxed it to the school.
But the National Letter of Intent service has ruled that since he and his mother signed the Clemson document first, the Clemson letter was binding.
Clemson is now essentially forcing him to come there or sit out a year. I know one thing: If I were them, I’d sit him every time we play FSU.
By Atlanta Gator
February 16, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this
I’ll stick with my original prediction: Dawgs need to win 4 of their remaining 5 SEC games to get an NCAA bid. They might get a bid with 3 SEC wins plus a 1st-round win in the SEC tournament. Given their RPI and SOS, the Dawgs are in slightly better position than Ole Miss.
Whoever handles basketball scheduling for UGA AA needs to catch a clue about not scheduling non-Division I weaklings like KSU this late in the season. The win actually hurt UGA’s RPI and SOS. In fairness, though, a year ago, no one expected the Dawgs to be legitimate contenders for an NCAA bid.
By pj
February 16, 2007 05:24 PM | Link to this
the game was scheduled for earlier in the year and had to be postponed till now… not Georgia’s fault.
Georgia 77 Auburn 70
I’ll be there.
By LArs
February 16, 2007 05:24 PM | Link to this
Chip, you’re as full of poopie as a Christmas turkey.You are wrong on just about every account except the Kennesaw thing, and I was the one to warn UGA they better not count that as a win before they played.
By The Truth
February 16, 2007 05:56 PM | Link to this
Chip:
How about some insight as to how terrible the SEC’s t.v. basketball contract is. I’m a student and couldn’t get a ticket to the UF game, yet couldnt even watch it on t.v. I found myself sitting at home listening to the radio. Come to find out, the Auburn game won’t be televised either. Meanwhile CSS and Fox Sports South continue to televise DII games…unreal. Anyways, Atlanta Gator, they originally scheduled the KSU game for December but it got bumped back due to finals…get your facts straight sir.
By Atlanta Gator
February 16, 2007 06:25 PM | Link to this
pj & The Truth——I stand corrected. As you might have guessed, I am not on the UGA AA’s mailing list for basketball schedule refrigerator magnets, and I was unaware that it was a postponed game.
By Chip Towers
February 16, 2007 08:50 PM | Link to this
Ten responses? Is that all? Don’t tell me you guys have something better to do than to sit home on a Friday night and monitor the UGA blog! Oh, wait a minute. That’s what I’m doing… . The Truth, I will check on the SEC’s TV deal because it’s clearly a stinker. I know from conversations with Commissioner Slive that they’ve been trying to raise the specter of SEC basketball. They’ve finally worked with ESPN so that every Tuesday night game does not start at 9:45 p.m. while the Big Ten got all the 7 p.m. games… . LArs, you’re so eloquent that you left me speechless!
By Bryan Carver
February 16, 2007 11:15 PM | Link to this
Topics for blogs next week:
By Gen Neyland
February 16, 2007 11:36 PM | Link to this
Friday Follies in the Blogosphere, huh..? Topics seem to have a wait and see approach. Here goes this… College Hockey…If you learned to appreciate it, it’s the best ‘tweener sport going…My time spent in the Twin Cities has me yearning for MSC and college hockey on Friday and Saturday nights…If you’re curious, ESPN will carry the Frozen Four at least…Go Gallopin’ Gophers
By SamoanDawg
February 17, 2007 12:33 AM | Link to this
Has Caleb King made the grades yet?
What about Ben Harden… did he pass?
By SamoanDawg
February 17, 2007 01:07 AM | Link to this
Topics: Update on the O-line.. who is truly emerging. Also, how is our back-ups.. 2nd/3rd stringers. Is Fernando Velasko or Kevin Perez will be the starter at center?
What is Joe Cox’s progress and Blake Barnes.
Corey Irvin’s conditioning progress… last I heard he’s out of shape.
Linebackers/cornerbacks… what is Thomas Flowers progress?
By SamoanDawg
February 17, 2007 01:13 AM | Link to this
One of my favorite players was Decory Bryant. I was at the UAB game when he hurt his neck. Surely missed him. Chip, what is his prognosis? Not sure how severe his injury was, compared to Pollack.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 01:57 AM | Link to this
.
.
Blog topics are best ones in reply to the news of the Day Chip.
Big Ten (11) Academics according to the ONLY official Football Comparison:
929 is what Ohio State thugs have as a NCAA APR (Academic Progress Report) this morning.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/5182005_apr.pdf
952 for Michigan.
950 for Iowa.
910 for Purdue.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/5592005_apr.pdf
918 for Illinois.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/3012005_apr.pdf
931 for Indiana.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/3062005_apr.pdf
961 for Northwestern.
957 for Penn State.
914 for Wisconsin.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/7962005_apr.pdf
907 for Michigan State.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/4162005_apr.pdf
918 for Minnesota.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/4282005_apr.pdf
What the hell is so bloody great about that ?
SEC :APR :
966 Florida APR.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/2352005_apr.pdf
981 Auburn.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/372005_apr.pdf
916 Alabama.
940 Arkansas.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/312005_apr.pdf
950 Georgia.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/2572005_apr.pdf
926 Tennessee vols of Phillip Fulmer.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/6942005_apr.pdf
911 South Carolina.
957 Vanderbilt.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/7362005_apr.pdf
958 Ole Miss.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/4332005_apr.pdf
920 Mississippi State.
940 Kentucky.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/3342005_apr.pdf
935 LSU.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/3652005_apr.pdf
8 SEC Schools are above 935 in the APR.
4 Big Ten (11) schools are above 932 in the APR.
The SEC is twice as good academically speaking than the Big Ten (11) ever will be for Official NCAA Academic Comparisons in Football between the Big Ten (11) schools and the SEC schools.
There is ONLY 1 measure of Academics Officially for an NCAA spokesperson to speak to on this day about his conference. This takes no more than 11 minutes to look up and report.
931 Big Ten (11) Average APR in Football.
941 SEC Average APR in Football.
There is NO comparison Academically of the two football conferences in Academics.
It is as one-sided as it has ever been either in the Classroom, in the Recruiting Rankings, in the NFL Players, or on the Football Gridiron between the Big Ten (11) and the SEC.
The Big Ten (11) have also Won the Worst Percentage of their football games against The SEC at only a 42 percent Winning Percentage :
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/multi-conference.pl?start=1932&end=2006&team=Illinois&team=Indiana&team=Iowa&team=Michigan&team=MichiganState&team=Minnesota&team=Northwestern&team=OhioState&team=PennState&team=Purdue&team=Wisconsin
On the Road, The Big Ten (11) wins only 29 percent of its games against The SEC.
And, in Bowl Games the Big Ten (11) wins only 38 percent of its games against The SEC.
Football Academics the Big Ten (11) Commissioner wants to talk ?
BS.
Where is his URL Link to such BS ?
Georgia Institute of Technology APR in Football of Chandler Gailey is 948 to Coach Richt’s at UGA in Football of 950.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/2552005_apr.pdf
.
.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 02:22 AM | Link to this
.
.
Printer-Friendly Format
E-mail this article
To Fans of the Big Ten and College Football
Feb. 9, 2007
Greetings from the Big Ten Conference,
With the conclusion of another tremendous college football season and the recent national signing day, there has been a lot written and said about the Big Ten’s recruiting efforts across the country, including a recent article in the Chicago Sun-Times entitled “Big Ten needs to find new talent pool - fast” (see full article here). In response to these commentaries, it seems premature for us to lower our admission standards or give up on the tremendous talent pool in the Midwest. No doubt national programs must recruit nationally wherever the talented students and athletes live. Hats off to Florida and the SEC — they had a great year. We believe that both the Big Ten and the SEC have been and remain two of the greatest college football conferences in the country. But you may want to keep in mind the following as you review the various recruiting services, listen to talking heads and reflect the blogosphere out there as they compare these two fine conferences. I think most people would agree that head-to-head competition is an effective method to compare relative strengths between competitive entities:
The Big Ten was 2-1 vs. the SEC in this past season’s bowl games. The Big Ten is 8-6 vs. the SEC in bowl games over the last five years The Big Ten is 13-13 vs. the SEC in bowl games over the last decade. Over the last nine years of Bowl Championship Series games, the Big Ten leads all conferences with 15 berths while ranking second with eight victories. The SEC tops all leagues with nine wins and ranks second to the Big Ten with 13 appearances. In the last 10 years the Big Ten has produced two national champions compared to three for the SEC. In the last 15 years the Big Ten has produced five Heisman Trophy winners, more than any other conference. Over that same time span, the SEC has claimed one Heisman. While the SEC ranked first among various recruiting rankings, the Big Ten ranked second or third nationally with four to five programs rated among the top 25 recruiting classes. The Big Ten has a history of developing players - the most recent Heisman Trophy winner, Troy Smith, was one of the last players to receive a scholarship from Ohio State. The Big Ten has slightly less than 300 players in the NFL while the SEC has slightly more than 300; Sixteen former Big Ten players earned Super Bowl rings with the Indianapolis Colts earlier this month.
I love speed and the SEC has great speed, especially on the defensive line, but there are appropriate balances when mixing academics and athletics. Each school, as well as each conference, simply must do what fits their mission regardless of what a recruiting service recommends. I wish we had six teams among the top 10 recruiting classes every year, but winning our way requires some discipline and restraint with the recruitment process. Not every athlete fits athletically, academically or socially at every university. Fortunately, we have been able to balance our athletic and academic mission so that we can compete successfully and keep faith with our academic standards.
Let’s see if the five- and 10-year trend lines hold or whether the recruiting services and talking heads are seeing a new day. We are quite proud of our history and tradition and remain optimistic about the future of Big Ten football.
Thanks.
Jim Delany
February 17, 2007
Football
.
.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 02:38 AM | Link to this
Preps :: printer friendly » email article »
TOP STORIES ::
NEWS
Hospital cop slaps cuffs on Sun-Times reporter
Big Ten needs to find new talent pool — fast
RECRUITING
February 9, 2007
BY TAYLOR BELL
There was a time when the Big Ten was the most feared and most respected college football conference in the country. The conference of Grange, Butkus, Brady and Griffin dominated the Rose Bowl, won national championships and produced more NFL players than the SEC, Pac-10 or any other league.
So what happened?
It got slower.
The Big Ten fell behind because it stayed north of the Mason-Dixon Line and failed to bring in the athletes who were coming out of the Deep South, especially Florida.
And they were reluctant to challenge the traditional powers in Texas and California, the mother lodes of high school football talent.
For the first time in memory, the Big Ten failed to sign at least one of the top 10 recruiting classes in the nation. When the No. 1 prospect in Michigan invited five coaches to visit, Michigan’s Lloyd Carr wasn’t one of them. He chose USC. And the No. 1 player in Ohio went to Tennessee.
”The Southeastern Conference is much faster on defense than the Big Ten,” said CSTV recruiting analyst Tom Lemming, who has been evaluating players from coast to coast since 1978.
”In the Midwest, people are thinkers. In the SEC, they rely on athleticism and aggressiveness on defense. They pride themselves on rushing the quarterback. They appear to be much more aggressive than the Big Ten.”
If the Big Ten hopes to catch up to the SEC, Lemming suggests the conference must lower its academic standards.
”Then they can get anyone into school that they want,” Lemming said. ”It seems to me that no matter who the kid is, he finds a way to get into school. A lot of times it is an SEC school, after the kid spends only four months at a prep school.
”People have turned poor students into very good ones and make them eligible to play in the SEC. Few of them wind up in the Big Ten. But many of them are difference-makers and game-breakers. If the Big Ten can’t get those kind of players, it will keep falling behind.”
Bob Chmiel, a former recruiter at Michigan and Northwestern, cites two other reasons the Big Ten has fallen behind. Except for Michigan and Ohio State, other schools were slow to become national recruiters. And assistant coaches in the SEC and Pac-10 are paid more than those in the Big Ten.
”Some say recruiting rankings don’t make a difference,” Chmiel said. ”But look at the past. It is a direct reflection on their success. You can’t miss a year without bringing in a top 10 class.
”Contrary to when I was coaching, competition for great assistant coaching talent has turned into a bidding war. There is a lot more movement among assistant coaches than 10 to 20 years ago. The salaries of assistant coaches at the elite teams in the SEC and Pac-10 are by far the highest in the country.”
Chmiel said the best recruiters combine the ability to sell their programs with the ability to evaluate and project talent. He says the great Miami teams were laden with high school fullbacks who ended up as defensive linemen, linebackers and strong safeties — big guys who could run.
”LSU’s defensive linemen — those are the kind of guys you have to get, big guys who are athletic and can run, who are relentless in their pursuit,” Chmiel said. ”You have to go where they are and they are all over the country, not just in California, Florida and Texas.”
By Professor Albert
February 17, 2007 02:43 AM | Link to this
Mr. BuLLdawg, one of your best and most relevant posts ever. For all of its schools’ claims of academic emphasis and athletic tradition, the Big 10 appears to be just an average athletic conference.
From recent APR history, we expected Florida (966 APR) and Vanderbilt (957 APR) to be at our near the top ranks of Academic Progress Reports for their football players. The big surprises of the SEC (at least based on our own biases and expectations): Auburn (981 APR) and Ole Miss (958 APR). Tommy Tuberville has earned recognition for coaching a winning team on the playing field and encouraging exemplary student-athletes in the classroom.
With no pleasure, whatsoever, we note the four SEC schools whose football teams are below the all-Division-I average APR of 929.
We also note that Georgia Tech, if it were still an SEC member, would have ranked sixth in the SEC in academic progress for its football players, behind Auburn, Florida, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt and Georgia.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 07:06 AM | Link to this
.
.
I find it interesting that you would highlight 4 SEC schools, Tennessee vols, Alabama, Mississippi State and South Carolina, who are below the minimum acceptable Academic Progress Rate (APR) which is the ONLY measure the NCAA uses to determine Academic Status and the ONLY measure the NCAA uses to dole out punishment to football teams of one conference versus another.
I mean, for God’s sake, why not say that there are 6 Big 10 in the same boat ?
929 Ohio State thugs APR.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/5182005_apr.pdf
910 for Purdue.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/5592005_apr.pdf
918 for Illinois.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/3012005_apr.pdf
914 for Wisconsin.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/7962005_apr.pdf
907 for Michigan State.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/4162005_apr.pdf
918 for Minnesota.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/4282005_apr.pdf
And another Big 10 is only 931, barely acceptable.
Wouldn’t that be what you meant to say Professor ?
.
.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 07:45 AM | Link to this
I do not understand the Big 10 Commissioner, Jim Delany, in his statement after the SEC wiped his butt in recruiting once yet again this season :
QUOTE:
” I love speed and the SEC has great speed, especially on the defensive line, but there are appropriate balances when mixing academics and athletics. Each school, as well as each conference, simply must do what fits their mission regardless of what a recruiting service recommends. I wish we had six teams among the top 10 recruiting classes every year, but winning our way requires some discipline and restraint with the recruitment process. Not every athlete fits athletically, academically or socially at every university. Fortunately, we have been able to balance our athletic and academic mission so that we can compete successfully and keep faith with our academic standards. “
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 08:14 AM | Link to this
.
.
7 of the Big 10 football programs are worse than 932 in the Academic Progress Rate used to calculate academics in football and punishment doled out for peforming so poorly, while 8 of the SEC are ABOVE 934 APR.
One Conference is dramatically worse at Academics in Football than the other when the Big 10 has two-thirds of its Conference worse than 932 APR compared directly thereto the other Conference having instead three-fourths of The SEC Conference Football Programs better than 934 APR.
This is an advantage for the Big 10 over The SEC in Academics of its respective football programs ?
Jim Delany Big 10 Commissioner on Academics better in the Big 10 than The SEC in Football : ” I love speed and the SEC has great speed, especially on the defensive line, but there are appropriate balances when mixing academics and athletics. Each school, as well as each conference, simply must do what fits their mission regardless of what a recruiting service recommends. I wish we had six teams among the top 10 recruiting classes every year, but winning our way requires some discipline and restraint with the recruitment process. Not every athlete fits athletically, academically or socially at every university. Fortunately, we have been able to balance our athletic and academic mission so that we can compete successfully and keep faith with our academic standards. “
That is BS.
.
.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 08:22 AM | Link to this
The Big Ten (11) has in fact recruited very poor academic football student-athletes who are big, slow and stupid.
That is no way to go through life, especially thinking they are greater at academics in football in the big, slow, stupid Big 10 than the SEC who obviously is bigger, faster, and academically stronger.
By Big Dawg
February 17, 2007 09:18 AM | Link to this
Thomas Brown was qouted by Carter as saying the following:
A new-look offensive line doesn’t hurt things, either.
“They look beautiful, all 6-6, 6-7, 310, 320 pounds,” Brown said. “I saw them and I felt like a kid in a candy store.”
I think this says it all. Now to those of you who are worried about the offensive line I hope this relieves some of your fears/unesyness etc.
By BadgerDawg
February 17, 2007 09:59 AM | Link to this
BuLL, nice distortions again…if anyone actually took you seriously on this, it would be a bad day. I’m a Dawg, but anyone with a brain knows that the Big Ten has a better set of academic institutions, and it’s not even close. The fact that more athletes graduate from SEC schools only indicates they a)are easier to pass, b)have better academic support(special treatment) for the athletes,or c)are cheating. The fact is that only Vandy, UF, and UGA would be worthy of Big Ten status, academically speaking. See an actual report on the universities and not their pass rates for athletes for a real indication of this:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php
It can’t be any clearer. There are only three SEC schools rated 70 or better. Every Big Ten school is. This conversation came up several months ago with a well meaning but absolutely stoned out of his mind Alabama fan when Saban was hired. He called the Alabama schools two of the premier universites in the country. After laughing for several minutes, I put out this link confirming how ridiculous that comment was. The SEC as a whole is only better than the Big 12 among the major 5 or 6 conferences.
With that being said, I don’t think it really matters much as it relates to athletics, but you brought it up, and again I am here to put the truth out.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this
Slive welcomes comparison `in spirit’ of competition, writes Teddy Greenstein
Teddy Greenstein
February 12, 2007
The Southeastern Conference didn’t exactly fire back in response to Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany’s “open letter.”
In an e-mail, SEC Commissioner Mike Slive adopted a mostly genteel tone, opening with:
” I can appreciate why the Big Ten wants to compare itself to the Southeastern Conference. This is a comparison we welcome in the spirit of wholesome intercollegiate athletic competition.* ”
In a letter addressed to college football fans and national reporters, Delany had pointed out such head-to-head advantages as the Big Ten going 8-6 against the SEC in bowl games over the last five years and the Big Ten producing five Heisman Trophy winners to the SEC’s one over the last 15 years.
Slive responded by pointing out the SEC has five national titles since 1992, and those were won by four different schools: Florida, Alabama, Tennessee and LSU.
The Big Ten has two titles during that span: Michigan’s in 1997 and Ohio State’s in 2002.
Slive also noted that since 2000, the SEC had placed more teams in the final coaches poll than any other conference.
Delany’s motivation for the letter, which can be found at www.bigten.org, was a newspaper report suggesting that the Big Ten needs to find a new talent pool and to lower its academic standards to compete with the SEC.
Slive sidestepped the issue of whether the Big Ten, on average, has higher admission requirements than the SEC.
” While academic missions may vary from institution to institution,” he wrote, “there is one common goal that all conferences and institutions share … for student-athletes to get a quality education, earn their degree, enjoy a positive athletic experience and become contributing members to society. ”
Delany said Saturday he hopes to see more head-to-head competition between the Big Ten and SEC on the football field.
“We challenge the best,” Delany said.
BS, the Big Ten (11) has only played Vandie and Kentucky in the last two regular seasons.
By BadgerDawg
February 17, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this
BuLLjoke could be a supporter of some community college, and if they graduated their athletes he could make the same statements. It has no bearling on the actual intelligence of the players or the quality of the institution.
By Professor Albert
February 17, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this
Mr. BuLLdawg, I am Professor Albert, not “Professor Homer.” Nevertheless, we do have a weakspot in our otherwise stern academic heart for the southern charm of the SEC football schools, and we wish to see all 12 do well in the classrooms and on the playing fields.
While we agree with all that you have posted so far on this topic, 4 of the SEC schools (Tennessee, Mississippi State, Alabama and South Carolina) clearly need to strengthen their academic support programs for their student-athletes. That the SEC football programs have received better Academic Progress Reports than the Big 10 programs should not be good enough.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this
Now, as you probably guessed, Jimbo’s little missive has provided plenty of fodder for off-season college football blogs (thank you, Jim). And as you also probably guessed, SEC fans are none too pleased by Jimmy’s insinuation that their schools are stocked with - oh, what’s the phrase I’m looking for…? Oh yeah - f’ing morons.
On the positive side, like anybody defending a conference they head up (especially one that has been blasted of late about a certain “speed” issue, aka “the thing cfb writers write about when they don’t have any new angles to write about), he sticks up for member schools, pointing out that the popular “SEC is hands down the best” myth is really just that, OSU’s recent drubbing not withstanding.
On the not so positive side, I’m really not sure what Delany hoped to accomplish with the letter and, more specifically, his “you’re only good because you recruit stupid people” implication regarding the SEC.
What say you, dear MZone reader?
http://michiganzone.blogspot.com/
By BadgerDawg
February 17, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this
BuLLjoke’s comment:
BS, the Big Ten (11) has only played Vandie and Kentucky in the last two regular seasons
Well, Einstein, I think both sides have to agree to play. Couldn’t your fact be interpreted as “the SEC won’t play the Big Ten?” The fact is that neither conference is known for playing quality out of conference competition.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this
QUOTE :
Orson and I got into a somewhat heated discussion about this and the Jim Delaney thing. He contended that the Big Ten’s retention/graduation rate was only marginally higher than the SEC’s — using what data I don’t exactly know — but it’s clear that when you give a scholarship to someone, someone else loses one. It’s a zero-sum game. The SEC’s willingness to sign anyone who will put pen to paper no matter how dire their academic situation or general level of what we’ll term “Willie-itis” leads to stuff like this: Georgia plummets from 2nd to 7th when you factor out number of recruits because they always seem to have large classes [29, 25, 21, 19, 28, 23; ave: 24] as compared to, say Michigan [22, 17, 22, 23, 19, 20; ave: 20.5]. What’s up with that? How can Georgia have 22 more scholarships used over the last six years?). That’s an entire extra class of recruits that bombed out somewhere along the way; many of those never saw the field because they didn’t qualify or couldn’t remain eligible long enough to be useful. But recruiting rankings don’t take this into account, nor do they acknowledge the opportunity cost of a scholarship (i.e., any recruit no matter how marginal boosts your score, favoring large classes over small) and so things like the SEC’s uniformly giant classes get rewarded. In reality, it’s like Enzyte: you really wish it was bigger but it just ain’t.
Does this fully explain the gap? No. The only Big Ten schools on Dan’s revised star-average top 20 over the past six years are Michigan and Ohio State, though there is a suggestion that only the top 11 really matter. There’s a cliff after Tennessee at #11 and twelve through twenty — PSU, ND, Auburn, ‘Bama, Nebraska, A&M, UCLA, UVA, Maryland — were more Music City Bowl than BCS with the exception of Auburn.
(Aside: evidently, once you get past a certain assurance point recruiting rankings become extremely poor predictors of performance. There are two primary reasons for this, IMO: The star system makes no distinction between the first four-star, a guy who’s always one of the top 30 (Rivals) or 60 (Scout) recruits in the country, and the last, who usually hangs out somewhere around number 300. This despite the fact that the sites do have more detailed breakdowns of talent. Rivals ranks their four-stars from 5.9 to 5.7. I’d rather grab the #30 player in the country and a three-star than two low fours. The weightings are all off. A player like Ryan Mallet or Jimmah Clausen, the surest things available at the most important position on the field, is worth fractionally more than the aforementioned low-four star when he should be an order of magnitude more important. Take a look at 12-20 above: every one of those teams has had poor quarterback play for a large portion of the window, and the one that didn’t had four years of totally shirtless Jason Campbell. (Quinn as a freshman/soph == bad). Certain positions should be more important than others, probably along the same lines as NFL draft rating: QB, DT, DE, CB, RB, OT, WR, LB, TE, S, G/C, K, P, and recruting services should emphasize their relative proficiency at the top of the board instead of their nebulous middle. )
This is the long way of saying that the much discussed SEC b*** delivered by Jim Delaney in this line… I wish we had six teams among the top 10 recruiting classes every year, but winning our way requires some discipline and restraint with the recruitment process. …is just true. You cannot consistently sign 28 player classes without regularly discarding players before their time is up, and where do these guys go once you throw them overboard? I’m guessing the answer is not Harvard.
The fundamental issue is that the LOI provides no benefit to the kid. I don’t understand why any top recruit would bother to sign one. If Pete Carroll takes the Chargers’ job, all those recruits are locked into letters of intent they may not want to honor, but if one of those recruits fails to qualify the school can cut bait and move onto the next freaky stud freak. The school owes the player nothing; the player is an indentured servant of the university for at least two years. The solution: make that reciprocal. A signed letter of intent fills a scholarship slot for two years, no matter the recruit’s playing status.
Or you can just keep throwing the rotten ones into the sea. You know, whatever, as long as you get to be the best conference in the history of the world.
END QUOTE :
http://mgoblog.blogspot.com/ MICHIGAN FOOTBALL BLOG SITE
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this
.
.
BadgerDawg
February 17, 2007 09:59 AM
” anyone with a brain knows that the Big Ten has a better set of academic institutions, and it’s not even close. The fact that more athletes graduate from SEC schools only indicates they a)are easier to pass, b)have better academic support(special treatment) for the athletes,or c)are cheating. “
Bhole, Jim Delany said ” ACADEMICS AT FOOTBALL. “
What, no dispute of the Academic Progress Rate of the Big 10 shows 7 of the Big 10 are under 932 while 8 of The SEC are ABOVE 934 in APR in Football ?
Just BS about rankings of the schools ? What did you attend Tech actually ?
By BadgerDawg
February 17, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this
It’s bad enough that Joke posts 5k word essays,but cutting and pasting other statements may be even worse.
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
BuLLjoke
By Professor Albert
February 17, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this
Mr. BadgerDawg, while we do not always agree with Mr. BuLLdawg’s more partisan and parochial prespective on intercollegiate athletics, in this instance he has found a kernel of objective truth. Over the past two academic years, and as measured by the NCAA, the Big 10 football programs have not done as well as the SEC in assisting their football student-athletes to graduate. That is an undeniable and objective fact.
In your opinion, only 3 SEC institutions would be worthy of Big 10 membership, which may or may not be true. If, as you suggest, the Big 10 universities are academically superior to those of the SEC, that should make the less-than-average academic performance of Big 10 football players even more embarrassing to Big 10 member institutions.
Rather than directing your anger at Mr. BuLLdawg, perhaps your time would be more productively spent penning a letter of concern to the University of Wisconsin president and athletic director regarding the Badger’s APR score of 914, which places the Badgers below all but one SEC school.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
.
.
Wisconsin is worse than all but 1 SEC Football Program in Academic Progress Report ?
929 Ohio State thugs APR.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/5182005_apr.pdf
910 for Purdue.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/5592005_apr.pdf
918 for Illinois.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/3012005_apr.pdf
914 for Wisconsin.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/7962005_apr.pdf
907 for Michigan State.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/4162005_apr.pdf
918 for Minnesota.
http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2005/4282005_apr.pdf
931 for Indiana.
These ENTIRE Seven (7) Big 10 Football Programs are worse ranked than Eight (8) SEC Football Programs in APR.
And, THAT was the point Jim Delany was making ? Or, not ?
.
.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
In College Football, coupled with their pansy Number 78 NCAA Official Strength of Schedule for the entire season just ended as of 8 January 2007, Wisconsin Badgers’ APR of 914 clearly makes Wisconsin, Badger Fan, the worst team in America at being slow, dumb and playing nothing but pansies.
By BadgerDawg
February 17, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this
This is not hard for most people to understand. BuLL, maybe you really went to Dekalb and this might be harder for you, but the academic progress is absolutely no indicator of the actual intelligence of the student-athlete or the quality of the university. All it means is that the SEC is passing athletes. If the curriclulm is a joke(or we could just say “easier”), it’s not exactly hard to figure out that it may be easier to pass courses. It would make sense that with a harder school and athletes generally under the normal admission standards(at any school) that it is an even bigger drop at a more prestigious school. As for bringing in smarter players, I very rarely see Big Ten players going to a Hargrave because the HS education was so poor. That is a tool that is not unique to the SEC, but it is only commonly used among the SEC. Why? Easier admission standards and southern states are generally bad on education to begin with, which requires many athletes to go through remedial courses. In general,the Big Ten is a)not bringing in athletes that most SEC schools take with open arms,and b)not passing as many athletes because the curriclum is more difficult. I think you would point to some high schools passing everybody,even if they can’t read, as proof that the HS is turning out smarter people.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this
” academic progress is absolutely no indicator of the actual intelligence of the student-athlete or the quality of the university. “
Who in the hell said it is Badger Fan ?
Jim Delany, see if you can follow this now or not yet once again nincompoop, Big 10 Commissioner said that the Academics of the Big 10 Football Player Recruits are BETTER THAN THE SEC’s.
BS.
By BadgerDawg
February 17, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
Professor, the SEC is a better diploma mill based on these numbers. It does not mean anything else. Would an urban or rural HS in Georgia get a lot of credit for having a 100% pass rate if the reason was that the teachers were simply passing them all to avoid any of the hassles associated with failing someone? We all know that happens. Also, if by passing them you mean giving them preferential treatment in the support area over students as a whole, if that’s the predominant reason for the higher pass rate I don’t think the numbers matter anyway. Dexter Manley graduated from Okie State without knowing how to read. Are you commending the university in that case?
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
Jim Delany Big 10 Commissioner on Academics better in the Big 10 than The SEC in Football :
” I love speed and the SEC has great speed, especially on the defensive line, but there are appropriate balances when mixing academics and athletics. Each school, as well as each conference, simply must do what fits their mission regardless of what a recruiting service recommends. I wish we had six teams among the top 10 recruiting classes every year, but winning our way requires some discipline and restraint with the recruitment process. Not every athlete fits athletically, academically or socially at every university. Fortunately, we have been able to balance our athletic and academic mission so that we can compete successfully and keep faith with our academic standards. “
That is BS.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this
You’re NOT discussing his STATEMENT at ALL. Why is THAT ?
Because you KNOW IT to be WRONG, which is what EVERYONE ELSE has told you repeatedly, while you sit there like a lump on a log happy in your ignorance.
By BadgerDawg
February 17, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
Well, BuLL, you’re saying the SEC student-atletes are smarter, and I am refuting that. Are the academics better for the athletes? If you’re talking about Arkansas passing anyone who can spell their own name, then I don’t think Delaney is off the mark. If you’re talking about Arkansas admitting anyone who can spell their own name, and those people are simply off limits for every Big Ten school, then I don’t think Delaney is off. You’re referring to report that is based on passing, no matter how low the level of edeucation, and then using that to say that the SEC has smarter student-athletes. That is an inaccurate basis for comparing the intelligence of the athletes. Would you be talking about some JUCO having smarter athletes if they were passing at a higher rate than the Ivy League? If you’re consistent,you would say yes; if you’re intelligent, you would say no.
By BadgerDawg
February 17, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this
My previous post just discussed his comments. The only thing I disagree with him on is that there are many more athletes in the south, and the reality is that many people in FL don’t exactly like the idea of spending winters in WI or MN,and some don’t want to be that from home either. That in my opinion is the bigger reason for the gap, the academics are secondary. You will also note that Slive didn’t dispute the academic gap in his statement, he smartly ignored it. If he chose to comment he would either be denigrating his own conference or lying.
By BadgerDawg
February 17, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this
Professor, my BuLL repeated over and over was simply to try and rival his ridculously long posts without wasting 2 hours of my day.
By Buck Cochran in the NW
February 17, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
…..TIME OUT! IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ SOMETHING ABOUT A FORMER dAWG qb. THAT’LL MAKE YOU FEEL VERY, VERY GOOD AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FOOTBALL GO TO ….ONLINEATHENS.COM, THE bANNER-hERALD. IT’S ABOUT D.J. AND IT’S A GREAT READ!…TIME OUT OVER.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this
It does not look like the football recruits to the Big 10 fit academically with the conference’s schools.
In fact, the largest discrepancy of all Division 1 Football Conferences exists in the Big 10.
And, none more so than at Wisconsin with 914 APR in Football and Football Strength of Schedule Number 78. http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/Internet/toughest%20schedule/ia9gamescumm.pdf Dumb, Slow, Pansy-playing Yankee Nincompoops STILL cannot compete.
Are you sure your name is NOT Jim Delany, Badger Fan, for you certainly have the same Northern bias that somehow unmentioned that the Big 10 is better at Football or Academics in Football, or playing better Strength of Schedules in Football, or having more in the NFL in football, or having better attendance in football, or having 6 of the top 10 in recruiting in football – all of which, The SEC dominates the Big 10 in – including especially your 42 percent “winning” parentage against The SEC on the Gridiron.
Wisconsin. What a load of hogwash is any good at Football Academics.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
Your geographically biased statements, one after the other in this blog Badger Fan, are NOTHING but excuses for the fact that the Big 10 has the largest difference of all Division 1-A Football Conferences between its student body and its student-athletes.
In the Big 10, if the student body can do the work, the student-athletes cannot.
Thus, it appears that the Big 10 Football recruits fit academically, and THAT is what Jim Delany’s point is. That they don’t fit in down here in The Rural South, but DO fit in in the Big 10.
BS.
By Professor Albert
February 17, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
Mr. BadgerDawg, we comprehend your argument, and it is unnecessary for you and Mr. BuLLdawg to repeat and restate your arguments with the frequency that you do. Your professor understood your arguments the first time you stated them.
For greater perspective on the relevance of the NCAA’s Academic Progress Report scores, I post the following additional APR scores of perennial Division I football powers and several other programs that were prominent during the 2006 season. None are Big 10 or SEC institutions.
. Boise State 948 . Boston College 982 . California-Berkley 945 . Florida State 959 . Georgia Tech 948 . Louisville 952 . Miami (FL) 956 . Nebraska 932 . North Carolina 943 . North Carolina State 933 . Notre Dame 946 . Oklahoma 928 . Stanford 995 . Texas 931 . Texas A&M 923 . UCLA 915 . Virginia 956 . Virginia Tech 935 . Wake Forest 970 . Washington 935 . West Virginia 926
You will note that only for scored below the all-Big-10 average APR of 931. I also note that the following four Big 10 football programs scored relatively high APRs:
. Iowa 950 . Michigan 952 . Northwestern 961 . Penn State 957
Thus, these four Big 10 schools are able to balance classroom success and winning on the football field. The performance of these football programs is also consistent with our understanding of their schools’ relative academic weight within the Big 10. It is the 7 remaining schools of the Big 10 that appear to have some work to do in revamping their academic support programs for their student-athletes, in comparison to the SEC, in comparison to these four Big 10 academic leaders, and in comparison to many other Division I football programs. After all, they can’t all be “diploma mills,” can they. Mr. BadgerDawg?
We also note, for better or worse, that scholarship reductions and other NCAA sanctions will soon be implemented for intercollegiate athletic programs that do no meet the NCAA’s minium APR standards. It is time to take this seriously, and hiding behind a university’s past reputation for strong academics will not protect institutions that fail to assist their student-athletes in graduating.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
Prof : Or, go to class and study like the rest of the student-bodies at every other school in comparison with the 7 Big 10 schools who simply put have NOT recruited football players that FIT their school at ALL.
By BadgerDawg
February 17, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
OK, I’ll be really slow this time, BuLL, if Dekalb CC or whatever its called now had a high APR, would you being saying their students are smarter than an Ivy League school’s athletes with a lower score? All that report says is that players pass, it doesn’t reference taking 5th grade equivalent material as your coursework to attain these scores. The only accurate information you can gain from this is that SEC athletes pass more courses. The Big Ten athletes are smarter, but are not passing at as high of a rate due to the difficulty of the classwork. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp. Big Ten Schools on average are more prestigious and harder to get into, especially for regular students but also to a lesser degree for athletes. The fact that more athletes don’t pass at these schools can be attributed to harder classes and perhaps a zero tolerance attitude towards letting athletes pass just to keep them eligible. I’d love to see an IQ test comparison of any Big Ten school’s athletes and any SEC school’s athletes. Unless Vandy was the school selected, we all know it would not be close and BuLL’s whole point of the last three hours would be invalid.
By BadgerDawg
February 17, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this
Prof, this is the only criticism that can be thrown at the Big Ten because if these scores: they apparently either don’t do enough in the way of extra academic support just because a student happens to be an athlete, they don’t cheat enough, or they lower their admission standards for athletes too far, even if they are still above the SEC’s. In none of these sceanrios is there an implication that the SEC athletes are actually smarter, they just pass more.
By BuLLdawg
February 17, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this
” I love speed and the SEC has great speed, especially on the defensive line, but there are appropriate balances when mixing academics and athletics. Each school, as well as each conference, simply must do what fits their mission regardless of what a recruiting service recommends. I wish we had six teams among the top 10 recruiting classes every year, but winning our way requires some discipline and restraint with the recruitment process. Not every athlete fits athletically, academically or socially at every university. Fortunately, we have been able to balance our athletic and academic mission so that we can compete successfully and keep faith with our academic standards. “
Mr. Delany, the Big 10 has NOT kept faith with your academic standards in football recruiting when 7 of the Big 10 schools are WORSE at FITTING IN in the Big 10 schools academically than 8 of The SEC schools whose football players ALL 8 do BETTER than the 7 Big 10.**
That is not smarter, no statement from me about I.Q., and has nothing to do with the academic reputation of the school; it is a statement of FACT that the Big 10 recruits do NOT FIT IN in the Big 10, now do they ?
By BadgerDawg
February 17, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this
I’m through with this topic. I’m just going to say that the balance Delaney is referring to does in some ways limit their recruiting(but not as much as he’s implying, I believe more of it is regional as I stated before.) As far as the ratings, which BuLL did claim proves SEC athletes are smarter in previous posts before backing off because of how ridiculous that statement is, it should be easier to pass inferior schools, especially if their are mechanisms in place to pass people who don’t even deserve to pass the remedial classes they take. I will not criticize the balance of the Big Ten, the athletes that go there know they’re not exactly going to Arkansas and it’s not going to be easy. Is a school doing its job by passing people? That’s what you’re implying with all these accolades for a bunch of inferior institutions(again, only UGA, Vandy, and UF are ranked in the same universe as every Big Ten school.)
By Buck Cochran in the NW
February 17, 2007 04:13 PM | Link to this
Is class over for the day?
By Professor Albert
February 17, 2007 05:06 PM | Link to this
Class is not yet over, Mr. Cochran.
Mr. BadgerDawg, as he often does, Mr. BuLLdawg has rhetorically overstated his case. But he is not wrong regarding Mr. Delany’s indiscreet and hypocritical excuse-making on behalf of the Big 10 football programs. The academic success rates of 7 off 11 Big Ten schools simply do not bear out the Big 10’s claims of overwhelming academic prowess.
For a better perspective, we have compiled the following data regarding the middle 50% percent range of SAT scores for each of the Big 10 and SEC schools from the College Board’s website:
Penn State 1080-1280
Iowa 1060-1310
From this compilation of publicly available data, we can see that Vanderbilt, Florida and Georgia would all fall in the upper half of Big 10 schools in terms of freshman admissions credentials, and LSU would also be among the top 11 schools on the combined list. As we can also see, the second 12 schools on the combined list are very much a mixed bag of Big 10 and SEC schools. In fact, if Indiana’s freshman admissions credentials are the minimum standard by which one judges the SEC, all but the student bodies of Mississippi and Mississippi State would “qualify” for membership in the Big 10.
It would appear that Mr. BuLLdawg is not the only one who engages in rhetorical hyperbole, Mr. BadgerDawg. Clearly, the majority of SEC institutions are ranked well within “the same universe” as a majority of Big 10 schools.
Frankly, your professor is aware of no statistical correlation, negative or positive, between student-athletes’ 40-yard dash times and their high school GPAs and/or SAT scores. If you find such a regression analysis study, please share it with your professor and fellow students.
Class is now dissmissed, Mr. Cochran. We now return you to your regularly scheduled SEC smack talk and recruiting channels.
By Big Dawg
February 17, 2007 05:07 PM | Link to this
I would be p** but it was so funny all you guys arguing over much to do about nothing. Badger you seem to have forgotten about not responding back to BuLldawg it only makes it worse when you do. Professor Albert I would have stayed out of it.
By Buck Cochran in the NW
February 17, 2007 05:28 PM | Link to this
Thanks you Mr. Prof., does anyone know the score of the game? Can’t find the game tracker.
By Atlanta Gator
February 17, 2007 05:39 PM | Link to this
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/boxscore?gid=200702170230
Buck——the score is Dawgs 59-42 over Auburn, with 10:16 remaining. I’ve posted Yahoo’s game ticker URL above.
By Jimmy
February 17, 2007 06:55 PM | Link to this
You can’t argue w/ a northerner about anything. They think they are superior to southerners in everything. What a waste of time. Funny stuff though.
By Gen Neyland
February 17, 2007 10:33 PM | Link to this
Was today National Debate Club Day..?
By BuLLdawg
February 18, 2007 03:46 AM | Link to this
.
.
.14. Northwestern.
.
.18. Vanderbilt.
.
.24. Michigan.
.
.34. Wisconsin.
.
.47. Florida.
.
.47. Penn State.
.
.57. Ohio State.
.
.60. Georgia.
.
.64. Iowa.
.
.64. Purdue.
.
.70. Indiana.
.
.70. Michigan State.
.
.88. Alabama.
.
.88. Tennessee.
.
.88. Auburn.
.
.112. South Carolina.
.
.112. Kentucky.
.
America’s Best Colleges 2007. National Universities. Top Schools. U.S. News and World Report of 1900 Schools and Universities.
17 of the Top Schools. 17 of America’s Best Colleges 2007.
Of the 17, 9 are Big Ten (11) and 8 are SEC. That indeed would appear to be in the same Universe; but that is once again NOT what Jim Delany said, for his statement is about Football Recruiting that the Big 10 recruits players who FIT IN BETTER at the Big 10 schools and do better than the football recruits for the SEC FIT IN at their schools who he says do worse when in fact 7 of the Big 10 schools are all 7 WORSE RANKED at actually FITTING IN than 8 of The SEC schools who all 8 are BETTER RANKED at actually FITTING IN at their schools.
Since when is 9 versus 8 not in the same Universe ?
We have seen these schools in The Rural South significantly enhance their status on lists of the Top Colleges and Universities in the World and this nation over the recent years and it is becoming more and more so as the population shift to The Sunbelt continues to see the North LOSE population growth to The South.
In fact, of the Top Schools, America’s Best Colleges 2007 of the 1,900 schools listed in this U.S. News and World Report, 32 are in fact in The South and yet only a half a dozen of the largest population centers are located within this area.
55 are in The North, and yet two dozen of the largest population centers are located within this area.
39 are in the West and yet only slightly more of the largest population centers are located within this area than there are in The South.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the population is still so predominantly centered in the megalopolis of the frozen tundra in the industrial North today, that there are in fact a huge majority of not only the population but also a huge majority of the 1900 colleges found within the Industrial North.
And, yet with this vast majority of the population centered there, with this vast majority of the 1900 colleges centered there, and with the vast majority of the football players centered there, the fact remains THAT IT IS THE SOUTH WHO DOMINATES WITH 61 percent of the players in the NFL on this day from The Rural South.
So much so that everyone watches Southern Football, not Northern Football and therefore has found The South DOMINATES THIS SPORT The football players on these teams do NOT fit in less well in The Rural South than they do in the Industrial North. They in fact, do better as measured by their success rates not only in their Sport, in the Recruiting Rankings of their Sport, and in their percentage of NFL players in their Sport, but in how well they perform their responsibilities representing their Colleges and Universities in going to classes, attending tutorial sessions, and performing their responsibilities of doing well at 8 of the Top Universities in this nation compared to 9 Big Ten (11) colleges.
If you want to do better in football, then you had better heed the call of your fellow Northerners up there in the frozen tundra, and reverse this population trend known to all but you, and get our boys to come to your schools to compete against our boys from The South.
For we are kicking your butts in Academics of our Football Players at our schools compared to your Football Players Academic lack of success at your schools, according to The NCAA.
The Big Ten (11) Conference has 9 of America’s Top Schools and The SEC 8, according to your URL Link. Yet The SEC has 8 of its Schools who are ALL 8 higher ranked Academically at FITTING INat their schools they represent then 7 of the Big 10 schools who are ALL 7 ranked worse at FITTING IN at their schools they represent in football academics.
Mr. Jim Delany’s statement is NOT TRUE.
If there is anything that IS TRUE it is that the Big 10 is NOT IN THE SAME UNIVERSE at getting their football players to go to class and take their college careers seriously academically.
.
.
By BuLLdawg
February 18, 2007 06:42 AM | Link to this
I also find it amazing that the same posters who state repeatedly every day on this blog that Sundiata Gaines is dragging our men’s basketball team down with his poor free throw shooting (63% on 58 made of 92 attempts) are wholly unable to bring themselves to say one time ever that in fact Mike Mercer is the dead last worst free throw shooter on the team of the top 8 in the rotation on only 34 of 58 for 58%.
There are two clear points.
Neither is very good at free throws, but the one who should have been singled out, was not.
And, not only was he no good at it, but he - for all his athletic driving to the goal - was specifically inept at getting to the charity stripe.
Mercer did not even shoot more free throws than Sundiata Gaines has MADE.
As a result of his team-leading minutes, with the team’s worst free throw percentage of the top 8 in the rotation and with the team’s worst percentage of free throw attempts earned per minute played, we have in fact taken fewer free throws than our opponents have for the season.
We turned that around last night. And, did so while Mike Mercer’s 53 Turnovers remain 2nd worst on the team, and he was not even our point guard, nor got our opponents in foul trouble by driving the ball to the hoop when he did play for us.
314 field goal shots is still the team-leading number of shots jacked up yet of his 314 shots taken, Mercer made only 128.
Takais Brown is 132 of 234 field goal attempts for your edification.
He missed 4 more of 90 more attempts.
How sorry is that ?
I told YOU that Georgia would beat Auburn.
While you ponder free throw shooting and hope to glean some understanding of the game of basketball with regard to free throw shooting and its importance and relevance to winning basketball, I offer up for your perusal that our team otherwise is 48.6 percent on 587 of 1207 in field goal shooting while Mercer was only 40.8 percent himself and that our 3-point shooting otherwise is 41.6 on 176 of 423 while Mercer was 24.7 percent from behind the arc himself.
http://www.georgiadogs.com/pdf4/63174.pdf?ATCLID=800211&SPSID=40731&SPID=3593&DBOEMID=8800
So, if you want to have some fun with numbers, try these.
We played 8 last night at home in our rotation who took a shot from the 3-point arc, who took a shot from anywhere on the court, or who took even a free throw shot in the Win over Auburn.
Of the 8, all 8 scored at least 6 points.
6 of the 8 scored 9 to 21 points.
We had 43 rebounds, including 9 by Sundiata Gaines, 7 by Billy Humphrey, and 6 by Terrance Woodbury.
Instead of .95 Assists to Turnover with Mike Mercer, we were 1.38 last night against a team this blog’s beat writer said we would lose to.
I told him we would NOT.
Georgia was up by 21 points and got tired in the second half, Winning by 86-79.
Georgia made 14 of our 27 shots in the 1st Half, while Auburn hit only 9 of 28. For the game, we shot the ball better from the field, from behind the arc and from the charity stripe than we did when Mercer played.
http://admin.xosn.com/fls/8800/stats/mbasketball/2007/mb2507.htm
Duh.
By BuLLdawg
February 18, 2007 06:55 AM | Link to this
Mike Mercer made 4 fewer of his shots, 128, than Takais Brown has, 132, yet Mercer took 90 more shots.
By Cuz
February 18, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this
Does Number 39 ever sleep?
This was excruciating trying to read. It was as painful as my double hernia surgery. Please let that sleeping dawg lie.
By Gen Neyland
February 18, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this
Cuz
Reading the ‘BuLLdawg Blather Report’ isn’t what the doctor ordered for a speedy recovery from double hernia op…Works wonders for insomnia, though…Get better…
By Jimmy
February 18, 2007 02:26 PM | Link to this
…and the South shall rise again!!..
By Buck Cochran in the NW
February 18, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this
Atlanta Gator, a day late but thanks.
By tim
February 18, 2007 06:46 PM | Link to this
wow, # 39 is back with a vengance!!
all hail number 39!!!
By Atlanta Gator
February 19, 2007 12:45 AM | Link to this
Buck——Quite understandable. Easy to get lost in the crossfire. LOL
By DB
February 19, 2007 05:37 AM | Link to this
How many preferred walk-on’s can a D-1 school bring in each year? Who wll UGA bring in this year, where are they from and what are their height, weight and positions?
A good follow-up would be something on all the walk-on’s that UGA will have on the team this year not just the new kids or preferred ones.
By BadgerDawg
February 19, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this
Are Frank Broyles and Bob Barker the same person?
By Ft Worth Dawg
February 19, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this
Women’s Gymnastics question: Do teams advance to the NCAA’s via regionals a la baseball? If so, doesn’t this mean UGA and Florida will likely end up in the same regional (with the regional likely being the national championship)
By gdawginkalamazoo
February 19, 2007 03:41 PM | Link to this
Will somebody kindly poke my friggin eyes out with a stick?
Delany wrote that letter because he was pi$$ed that OSU got spanked and he was tired of hearing about it. It only took him two months to come up with a tart letter that takes aim at the SEC.
Badgerdawg and Bulldawg, I have lived in the North long enough to know that neither the SEC nor the Big Ten can brag about the academic prowess of their athlethes. Matter of fact about the only conference that can would be the Ivy league. All you have to do is watch the “you know” ,post game interviews, “you know”.
As Georgetown alumni Patrick Ewing once said in a postgame interview “We came after the half and tried to..ummm …….what’s the word I am looking for….. ummmmm….. STOP … them under the boards.” Back to you in the studio Brent.
By scooter11
February 19, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this
Ft. Worth: There are ‘regionals’, but I’m pretty sure the regionals send more than one team (e.g., 6 regionals, top 2 from each, for a total of 12 teams to national). Also, I think the regionals can be set up so that they are not necessarily geographic regionals (i.e., UGA, UF and Bama would not have to be in the same regional). Sorry this is not totally definitive, but it scares me that I even have sort of an idea about it.
By scooter11
February 19, 2007 04:23 PM | Link to this
More gymnastics stuff for Ft. Worth: In 2002, UGA, UF, Bama and LSU all made it to the finals from the SEC, and came out of different regionals. This regional stuff is a little strange. Bama is hosting the Central regional this year, and WVU is hosting the Southeastern regional (?). Finals in Utah. Next year, finals are in Athens.
By godawg
February 19, 2007 04:31 PM | Link to this
Chip must get President’s Day off. Lucky b*stard…