harveycmd

Those shots look like tennis balls in his hands.

This has been going on the last two years.

It's a temporary injunction until the case is formally adjudicated by the federal district court. Given the strong language of the Supreme Court ruling that allowed NIL a few years ago, however, there is very little doubt it will stand. That's what everyone said when the NCAA first came out with their attempt to slap the Vols a few weeks ago. They should have known they had no chance to enforce it, but, like Bobby said, they refuse to accept reality and move forward. Hence they probably must go.

That would make the most sense for the well being of the program.

"The leader of the Tennessee collective is apparently saying that he plans to send financial offers out to players beginning next week." You have to think the Tennessee coaching staff doesn't like this. It's not a good idea to have non-football staff making offers (financial or otherwise) independent of the coaches. That basically tells you the coach really isn't in charge. Ask Cowboys fans how well it works to have the money man stepping between the coaches and players.

It's all over but the crying now. The NCAA is going to need to go away or get out of the way.

Typical Mavs fan. They take on the character of the owner.

Seems like Sark's zone run scheme would fit Stewart's game well.

Gerry, is Jordan Davison significantly or even marginally better than Stewart?

I know Gerry said Lacey can make all the throws, and Sark doesn't recruit QBs who can't make all the throws, but looking at his tape, he doesn't appear to me to have much zip or overall arm strength. I'm sure that will improve quite a bit over the next two to three years.

Legally, it looks like they're moving to some kind official employee status with binding contracts.

Any word on replacing William Gay with another DB analyst?

Must admit I don't agree with the "grading." Any player drafted in the first three rounds (with the exception of some QBs) is taken with the expectation that he will be a starter within two, at the outside, three years. Many RBs, LBs, and OGs are taken in the fourth or fifth round with the expectation they will be starters within three years. That covers all these guys down to Christian Jones, maybe Ford and Watts too.

Someone else asked, "How are you coming up with this?" The answer is demographics, which control the two factors that make up the lifeblood of college football: recruiting and television audience. Now, those two factors are correlational, if not in some kind of reciprocal cause and effect relationship. That said, demographic trends project to favor Texas, Florida and Georgia over the next generation, if not longer. I threw LSU, Auburn and Tennessee (although Tennessee has positive demographic trends too) in the mix because I don't think you can get both Georgia and Florida to give them up.

Someone asked who OU would then have as their permanent rival(s). I don't really care, but geographically Missouri makes the most sense if Texas puts OU in the place where they belong. If OU has two, they can add Arkansas. If the SEC goes to nine games, I still want OU shut out of the game with the Longhorns. A&M wants LSU and then probably Texas. You could then give the Aggies an easier one with Arkansas. The Razorbacks certainly want a permanent Texas team. Arkansas could then have OU, Missouri and A&M. I don't think LSU wants A&M, but if they think about their best long term interests, they will conclude they better off with A&M and Texas as two of their permanent rivals. They can then pick Ole Miss or Alabama. Bama could have Auburn, Tennessee, and then either LSU or Ole Miss. Georgia would probably like Florida, Auburn and then either Tennessee or Texas (the Longhorns from a recruiting perspective). Florida takes Georgia, Tennessee, and then Texas or whomever. For the long term interests of the Longhorns, it's A&M, LSU and then either Florida or Georgia. OU can have Missouri, Arkansas, and then Mississippi State or whomever. Obviously there's are many other teams who would need to sort out their one to three rivals. My point is that it's in our interest to remove OU from the rivals of the Longhorns if we seriously want to consistently play for titles and pursue what's in our best interest.

I would prefer to move the Red River Rivalry to LSU. Play it in Houston every year. The Red also runs through Louisiana, LSU is better than OU, and it will do more for Longhorn recruiting. As a side benefit, it will place the Sooners in recruiting purgatory.

I'll go with 10-2, which should put them in the playoff.

Grice, (east) Texas here. Where are you moving, Blake?

That doesn't surprise me. As I said, I basically knew it wasn't going to happen from a common sense perspective. What I found instructive was the worry you could see from the Sooner guys at just the thought that they wouldn't be able to play Texas every year. After that, they became what I think of as irrational by saying they think the Sooners will be much better next year with a new QB, a completely new offensive line and pedestrian run game while the Longhorns will almost certainly be noticeably worse than they were in 2023. They offered no analysis on that.

I've watched a couple of Sooner channels talk about CDC's comments on the nine game schedule and the Longhorns playing A&M every year. There is a mixture of Sooner reaction to the nine game schedule. About half want to keep the extra cupcake on the schedule that goes with having eight conference games, knowing it's going to be really tough for them to take another heavy hitter every single year. The other half says, that's why they joined the SEC, so let's do it. What really interested me was that there was some conjecture on the "one permanent rival" game if there isn't a nine game conference schedule. If the Longhorns play the Aggies every year, and there's only one permanent rival with an eight game schedule, then where does that leave Texas/OU? I would personally love to see OU denied the opportunity to play the Longhorns every year. That would be the best way to take them out of being able to recruit well in Texas, and would eventually then result in them being somewhere between Arkansas and Nebraska. I know that's not going happen, but I would like to see it.

When you have a two team "conference" attempting to blackmail their way into being treated as a fully equal member of the other "power" conferences, you are watering down the level of competition in the sport if you give in to them. Most people seem to think it doesn't matter too much. They have two years of veto power. Pay them and try to get them to go away. If you pay them, why would they go away? They won't. It'll be the same thing next time, or worse. It's better to cut the cord now by letting them and NCAA know who's really in charge.

Sholz's veto power is meaningless if the SEC and Big 10 leave now. He can put that in his pipe and smoke it. Who is going to believe that an NCAA football champion is better than an SEC/Big 10 combined champion? I'll tell you who, no one. Call their bluff and ball them out.

Any change to the compensation and playoff format requires a unanimous vote from the former "Power 5." They can block a vote to change the automatic bids to the CFP unless they get a full share of the money, which is what they're doing. Yes, there is money at play for them. Bottom line is the SEC and Big 10 can blow them up by simply leaving, which is what they should do. If they want to play hardball, then you should play real hardball, kind of like Michael Corleone in "The Godfather."

Washington State and Oregon State are trying to maintain their status as a "power" conference with an automatic bid to the CFP. This is clear evidence that the NCAA can't work much longer. They're willing to destroy the sport because they're mad about the break-up of the Pac 12. It seems there is little choice for the SEC and Big 10 but to disassociate from the goobers and play a real sport.