The President says we should get rid of the Bowl Championship Series that attempts to pit #1 v. #2 in the final bowl game of the year and go to playoffs.
I say we should go in the opposite direction. Get rid of the BCS but instead of a playoff, make the national championship even more mythical, the way it used to be. Emphasize conference championships and traditional conference vs. conference bowl games the way the Rose Bowl used to always match the champions of the Pac 10 and Big 10.
Why do we want a winner-take-all system in college football? Let each of the two dozen teams that win their bowl game go home happy.
The BCS system has damaged scheduling because colleges are all trying to go undefeated to be in the top 2, so the top teams schedule patsies at home for their non-conference games.
Moreover, winner-take-all encourages rich guys like Phil Knight (Oregon, which beat USC Saturday) and Boone Pickens (Oklahoma St., which lost to Texas) to waste fortunes trying to win national championships. We should be looking to decrease spending on college football, a zero sum activity. (This ties into my contention that conservative Red State zillionaires waste a lot of their charity giving on trying to beat other conservative Red State zillionaires at college football, when they could be giving the money instead to, say, me.)
Maybe we should have one Open Conference for twelve teams (USC, Texas, Florida etc.) divided into East and West divisions who play for an annual Open Championship. "Open" means minimal test score and grade standards for athletes: i.e., gladiators. If the best thing a kid can do in his life is play football, he shouldn't have to stop at age 18 just because he's dumb as a box of rocks.
On the other hand, schools that don't care about the student part of student-athlete, such as USC, shouldn't be competing with schools that do, such as Notre Dame.
If you impose test score standards on your football recruiters, you can still put together a decent offense (there are plenty of quarterbacks and offensive linemen who are legitimate C students or batter at state flagship universities), but you really can't compete on defense.
So, let everybody else besides the 12 regional powerhouses form conferences that set their own standards for recruiting and hire their own enforcement police for student athletes.
For example, when I was at Rice, I thought it would make sense to have a conference with Rice, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Georgia Tech, and, uh, well, I'm starting to run out of high-brow Southern schools that play Div I football, but you get the idea. It would be fun to have a football team composed of guys who on average project out to be say, at least the 20th percentile in the class in GPA. And if that reduces the quality of the scholarship athletes enough that a bunch of walk-ons get some playing time each year, all the better.
I say we should go in the opposite direction. Get rid of the BCS but instead of a playoff, make the national championship even more mythical, the way it used to be. Emphasize conference championships and traditional conference vs. conference bowl games the way the Rose Bowl used to always match the champions of the Pac 10 and Big 10.
Why do we want a winner-take-all system in college football? Let each of the two dozen teams that win their bowl game go home happy.
The BCS system has damaged scheduling because colleges are all trying to go undefeated to be in the top 2, so the top teams schedule patsies at home for their non-conference games.
Moreover, winner-take-all encourages rich guys like Phil Knight (Oregon, which beat USC Saturday) and Boone Pickens (Oklahoma St., which lost to Texas) to waste fortunes trying to win national championships. We should be looking to decrease spending on college football, a zero sum activity. (This ties into my contention that conservative Red State zillionaires waste a lot of their charity giving on trying to beat other conservative Red State zillionaires at college football, when they could be giving the money instead to, say, me.)
Maybe we should have one Open Conference for twelve teams (USC, Texas, Florida etc.) divided into East and West divisions who play for an annual Open Championship. "Open" means minimal test score and grade standards for athletes: i.e., gladiators. If the best thing a kid can do in his life is play football, he shouldn't have to stop at age 18 just because he's dumb as a box of rocks.
On the other hand, schools that don't care about the student part of student-athlete, such as USC, shouldn't be competing with schools that do, such as Notre Dame.
If you impose test score standards on your football recruiters, you can still put together a decent offense (there are plenty of quarterbacks and offensive linemen who are legitimate C students or batter at state flagship universities), but you really can't compete on defense.
So, let everybody else besides the 12 regional powerhouses form conferences that set their own standards for recruiting and hire their own enforcement police for student athletes.
For example, when I was at Rice, I thought it would make sense to have a conference with Rice, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Georgia Tech, and, uh, well, I'm starting to run out of high-brow Southern schools that play Div I football, but you get the idea. It would be fun to have a football team composed of guys who on average project out to be say, at least the 20th percentile in the class in GPA. And if that reduces the quality of the scholarship athletes enough that a bunch of walk-ons get some playing time each year, all the better.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
46 comments:
One of the best ideas I've seen regarding the NCAA College Football Championship quandary. Why shouldn't the football "factories" compete in their own conference? Leave the old fashioned type football to the Notre Dames and the Northwesterns. Bravo!
Of course, no one is going to take a proposal like this seriously.
Steve, I thought you were all for diverting the interests of the rich & powerful into football? Thus diverting them from real-life war and conflict and other unwise foreign policy adventures.
For example, when I was at Rice, I thought it would make sense to have a conference with Rice, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Georgia Tech, and, uh, well, I'm starting to run out of high-brow Southern schools that play Div I football.
The Dukies aren't going to be happy about this.
I've been saying the same thing for years...
I like the way it used to be, say, back in the mid '70s: a few minor bowls as prelude, with the big ones -- Sugar, Cotton, Rose, Orange -- on Jan 1. Although I thought having the Sugar Bowl on New Year's Eve, which they did a few times, was a good idea -- I especially remember the 1973 matchup between Notre Dame and Alabama as a good game.
This desire to find the definitive national champion is so...digital. Bring back the analog.
Boone Pickens is already diverting a serious amount of money into promoting alternative energy - a scheme that will transfer tax money from middle-class people to zillionaires who get into the resulting subsidized industry. Why do you imagine he'd look to you if he weren't wasting money on football? How many (journalistic, opinion-driving) divisions have you, at least when it comes to shifting cash from the hoi polloi to T. Boone?
I oversell his cynicism, of course. Pickens seems to be a genuine conservative with a vision, but as far as I can tell, the vision is corporatist. Your citizenist ideas could go together with a corporatist state, I suppose, but they don't have to.
Your best bet to attract Pickens' attention is probably to dream up a way for Oklahoma State to win by leveraging unspeakable HBD truths, and then discreetly share your scheme with the OSU braintrust. Easy-peezy. Good luck.
Too bad there is no way to end white America's obsession with football and basketball. That would do more for our cause as a people than just about anything else. Steve has already noted that whites are turning to "X" type sports requiring balance etc. If the beer companies can find a way to sell their product at such events (maybe they can learn from the Red Bull guy) then I can see a gradual drift away from watching black dominated sports.
You got it exactly right. College football was more interesting back when (I'm 66) we could argue about who's number one, when the bowls meant something.
I would also get rid of overtimes and instant replay (in all sports) for the same reason. Does anyone remember Duffy Dougherty and the 10/10 MSU ND game? Some people sill talk about it. Let the fans argue over bad strike zones or whether the pass was bobbled, but don't stop the game just so some official can use 10 minutes of slomo, and still screw up the call.
If the president is devoting serious thought to crowning a true national college football champion, then he needs to spend even more time on his golf game.
It's good that this issue finally has the attention of a president of the US. Maybe something will be done now.
...conservative Red State zillionaires waste a lot of their charity giving on trying to beat other conservative Red State zillionaires at college football...
I've sometimes wondered about the motivations of college athletics "boosters" and the role they play at their alma maters. Does anyone know of any articles or (prefereably short) books about them?
As for NCAA football, I don't really follow it, but I'd probably be more interested if they had, say, an eight-team playoff over three weekends. They can rotate the top bowls through the brackets, and still have all the other podunk bowls that everyone understands are pretty much meaningless.
And, eight is a small enough field that each regular season game would still be important, unlike basketball where a team really has to fall off a cliff not to make the 65-team "March Madness."
"For example, when I was at Rice, I thought it would make sense to have a conference with Rice, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Georgia Tech, and, uh, well, I'm starting to run out of high-brow Southern schools that play Div I football, but you get the idea."
You could definitely add Duke and Wake Forest to the list. You could arguably add UNC and UVA (yeah, they field credible Div I teams, but they're never going to contend for anything other than the ACC Championship, and they are distinctly above average public universities).
I've made this argument before here, but I would advocate giving players on the so-called "gladiator" teams an educational scholarship that they can use anywhere from a vo/tech school to a comunity college to a legitimate university, so that they are under no compulsion to "attend" the school they're playing for (what's the point of sustaining this fiction anyway?). This scholarship could even kick in after their playing days are over, so that they could study something congruent with their academic abilities once it becomes clear that -- for most of them -- a career in the NFL isn't in the cards.
Ha, that was 35 years ago and I STILL Remember the Penn State/Alabama game.
The last thing college football needs is more professionalism and control from the national level.
We need to go back to the student athlete. Get rid of scholarships or limit the teams to normal sized men - Say, no one over 210 lbs.
bad idea, playoffs would be much more entertaining. Also, love the instant replay - nothing more frustrating than when a team (even one I'm supporting) wins due to bad officiating.
If the best thing a kid can do in his life is play football, he shouldn't have to stop at age 18 just because he's dumb as a box of rocks.
Right, he should keep playing football until age 22, but not be paid anything for it. And then when he turns out to not be one of the best 2000 football players in the world, he can go rob liquor stores or whatever.
OT:
but relevant to the Steveosphere
Racial quotas in Brazil
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8285350.stm
ah, one of president basketball's favorite things. NCAA football. personally i wish president basketball would simply use his entire 4 years in office playing more basketball, playing more golf, watching more white sox games, and thinking about NCAA football.
he sucks at sports, so let him suck at sports without damaging america. he sucks at law too, but sucking at law won't stop him from trying to inflict deep and permanent damage on the US.
i went back and read the bios of every guy who was in the 08 election. it's hilarious how much better at sports almost all of them were than barack obama, yet the US mainstream news media focused on the sports background of only one candidate. it was a true convergence of two of their favorite subjects.
As a commenter noted above, you omitted Wake Forest (essentially a mirror image of Vanderbilt in its undergraduate experience), Duke, UNC, and UVA from your list of high-brow southern schools. It's always funny thinking about Vanderbilt next to the football juggernauts in the SEC. If they were, say, on the "Atlantic Coast," they'd be a shoe-in for transferring to the ACC.
Rice, Vanderbilt, Emory, and Duke used to be called the Southern Ivy League (although I don't think the admins liked the term much. When I was at Vandy many, many years ago (BE, Mech. Engineering, 1967) the school had very good BBall teams and atrocious football teams.
The players were real students and fought against the headwind of anti-jock professorial prejudice. The athletes often missed practices because of afternoon labs that had to be attended. Many a HS all-star (usually local) was recruited by a new hot-shot coach who didn't know the culture. He (the player) was usually gone by November.
The teams (unlike the student body, which was diverse when diversity wasn't cool) were all white until Perry Wallace (a local HS BB star and member of the class of '68) joined the team, didn't flunk out, and integrated SEC sports.
Something called Joint University Library system was started about that time to allow students from other Nashville-area colleges (many traditionally black) to use VU's library. Soon they could play in the band. I look at Vandy's sports teams these days and wonder if a lot of the athletes aren't also "JUL".
My solution--let the universities hire their athletes. A discounted scholarship could be part of the package for those that want it. Get rid of junk courses, let the jocks be jocks, and make the students be students.
I'm an alumni of the University of Utah, the only undefeated team in the 2008 season, and they were ranked #2.
Having said that, I'm against a playoff system. These are amateur players. The last thing they need is X number of games that will add to the wear-and-tear of their bodies.
Heck, I'd support shortening the pro season back to 14 games and fewer playoff teams.
"sports requiring balance etc. If the beer companies can find a way to sell their product at such events"- One guess as to why audiences watching feats of balance do not show interest in beer ads.
"This scholarship could even kick in after their playing days are over"- That's what I've been saying for years! If American colleges want to sponsor minor-league sports franchises, fine. If they want to include scholarships as part of the compensation package they offer the players, fine. But it's absurd to require the players use that scholarship while they are playing, and criminal to deny them any other compensation.
It would be fun to have a football team composed of guys who on average project out to be say, at least the 20th percentile in the class in GPA.
The easiest way to increase the IQ of the football team is to change the rules and get rid of the platoon system.
If players have to play both sides of the ball, then you immediately lose the 320lb linemen and the 160lb wide recievers and suddenly all the guys on the field would start to weigh a much more uniform 190lbs to 210lbs.
Furthermore, without the ability to send in plays from the sidelines [as phoned down from on high by the assistant coaches], the players would have to think for themselves, and call their own plays on offense and defense - memorizing and wielding their own playbooks and creating their own spur-of-the-moment improvisations without any help from the coaching staff.
BTW, As an example of the fundamental importance of the rules of the game [and the sense of fidelity with which the referees approach the idea of adhering to what's written in the rulebook], allow me once again to broach this topic of European basketball -versus- Sternian anti-basketball.
Brandon Jennings, the runaway star of the 2008 MacDonald's All-American game, couldn't make his SAT scores to play at the University of Arizona, and didn't meet the 19-year-old age limit to play in the NBA, so he opted to head off to Europe and play for Pallacanestro Virtus Roma last season.
Jennings then discovered that in Europe, the referees actually enforce the rulebook, and his season in Italy was an unmitigated disaster:
High school hoops star struggles abroad
Thursday, December 4, 2008
washingtontimes.com
...The 6-foot-1, 170-pound guard has all but vanished from basketball's collective conscious. Jennings is the fourth member of Lottomatica Roma's backcourt rotation. Buried in the depth chart behind guards like former All-Big East performer Allan Ray (Villanova) and former Ivy League player of the year Ibrahim Jaaber (Penn), Jennings exited the team's first eight games averaging 4.9 points and 3.0 assists in 17.3 minutes...
Chat with Chad Ford
espn.go.com
Nick (NJ): Brandon Jennings can't "return to school" because he couldn't qualify. Everyone seems to neglect that point and assume he chose Italy over college. He couldn't get in. If I was a GM, that's a major negative for him - especially a PG which is an inteligent position.
Chad Ford: It's a good point. And for all of the talk about "life experience" and "learning how to be a pro" that he's getting in Italy ... c'mon. These are the same folks who would've criticized him had he jumped straight to the NBA. Here's my concern. Jennings hasn't been great in Italy. He's shot the ball poorly and despite a few good games, has largely been ineffective. It creates a quandry for scouts. Is Jennings struggling because of the transition from High School to international ball? Or was he over rated in high school? I'm not sure how you answer that.
Brandon Jennings, Biding his Time in Rome
May 13, 2009
draftexpress.com
...Despite the fact that his playing time has largely evaporated over the past six weeks, Jennings is taking everything in stride, handling himself with maturity not found amongst players 10 years his senior here in Europe. "That's just the hand I've been dealt" Jennings says with a smile and shrug. "If I could do it all over again, I probably would have signed with a smaller team, but things haven't worked out that bad"...
Having made a long trip out to Rome, we were all just happy to see him step on the court after notching a DNP-CD the previous week...
Now fast forward to the NBA this season, and, with David Stern's NBA officials and their non-enforcement of the non-rulebook, you've got Jennings as an early candidate for ROTY, with an Efficiency Rating 31.25% higher than the next rookie:
2009-10 Efficiency Leaders, Rookie Class
nba.com
1) Brandon Jennings, 21.0
2) Stephen Curry, 16.0
3) Ty Lawson, 14.5
4) DeJuan Blair, 14.33
5) Jonny Flynn, 13.5
6) DeMar DeRozan, 10.5
7) Taj Gibson, 9.0
8) Tyreke Evans, 8.67
9) David Andersen, 7.67
9) Terrence Williams, 7.67
Compare:
Excerpts From The Book The NBA Doesn't Want You To Read
deadspin.com
...Some players, even very good ones, were targeted by referees and the league because they were too talented for their own good. Raja Bell, formerly of the Phoenix Suns and now a member of the Charlotte Bobcats, was one of those players. A defensive specialist throughout his career, Bell had a reputation for being a "star stopper." His defensive skills were so razor sharp that he could shut down a superstar, or at least make him work for his points. Kobe Bryant was often frustrated by Bell's tenacity on defense... Let's face it, no one completely shuts down a player of Kobe's caliber, but Bell could frustrate Kobe, take him out of his game, and interrupt his rhythm.
You would think that the NBA would love a guy who plays such great defense. Think again! Star stoppers hurt the promotion of marquee players. Fans don't pay high prices to see players like Raja Bell - they pay to see superstars like Kobe Bryant score 40 points. Basketball purists like to see good defense, but the NBA wants the big names to score big points.
If a player of Kobe's stature collides with the likes of Raja Bell, the call will almost always go for Kobe and against Bell. As part of our ongoing training and game preparation, NBA referees regularly receive game-action video tape from the league office. Over the years, I have reviewed many recorded hours of video involving Raja Bell. The footage I analyzed usually illustrated fouls being called against Bell, rarely for him. The message was subtle but clear - call fouls against the star stopper because he's hurting the game...
Screw football. In America, it is the opiate of the white masses and serves the same function that rugby does in South Africa: it keeps you quiet, stupid and doped up with goofy feelings of brotherhood while you are being exterminated.
Go to www.zasucks.com and read about their rugby obsession.
South African whites are being butchered and tortured yet they escape into sport bar consciousness -- Hooters consciousness -- rather than face what is happening and what has to be done.
"Yay Springboks!" they cry. Like that is going to make black folks love them. Feh!
Marx was wrong. Religion is not the opiate of the masses. Football, baseball, soccer and basketball are.
An adult man who distracts himself with little boys' games suffers from arrested development.
Jody, you're creepy.
100% agree. The BCS is idiotic and the idea of a college football playoff is truly insane. I hope they go back to the old system.
If you impose test score standards on your football recruiters, you can still put together a decent offense (there are plenty of quarterbacks and offensive linemen who are legitimate C students or batter at state flagship universities), but you really can't compete on defense.
Oh, you mean there are a lot of white guys who play quarterback and on offensive linemen.
Get over it! Florida is the number one team in the nation and has won 2 out the last 3 national championships because they're mean and nasty. That's the nature of the game.
Oh by the way, Georgia Tech is in the top 10, in case you haven't noticed. They're 2nd in the nation in rushing and 116th in passing. So even in your fantasy league for geeks, a running team from the south would still dominate.
I must admit I favor a playoff myself. Division 2 and 3 have playoffs. There is a basketball tournament (playoff). The baseball teams have a playoff also.
It would take 5 weekends for 32 teams to achive a champion on the field, and 4 weekends for 16 teams to do so. I dont think 64 football teams at the end of the year deserve a shot at the championship, but 16 probably do. The games could be seeded where the lower ranked team has to play an away game at the higher ranked team's home field. The final few games could be played in attractive locations.
*****Gotta be honest here: I have long felt the resistance to a playoff grows from schools in the Big-Ten and Notre Dame who are well aware of the problems of playing fast southern and western teams in warm weather late in the year. Ohio State just got out-sped for the most part the last two times they reached the championship team in domes against SEC teams. To make this fair, the southern and western teams would have to go play a cold-weather game in December or January if the big-ten (or big 12) team was higher rated. The teams that play in cold weather are built to play in wetter, slower, colder, and windier conditions. Its a lot to ask of a team like Ohio State, Notre Dame, or Michigan to go play a very fast Florida, Oklahoma, LSU, or USC team in a 75'degree-windless, dry, astro-turfed dome where their "built-for-speed" teams have an unfair advantage. I have a feeling that OSU would have done much better against LSU and Florida if they had played in 35' degree weather on a boggy field with a prevailing 10 mph wind.
Of course Steve's idea was the way it was done for a long, long time, and football was exceedingly popular then as it is now. The intersectional games are interesting to myself personally though. It would be fun to see LSU play Oregon, Alabama play USC, Florida play Texas and the like.
The real outrage is not paying the players. Some kid who's earning millions for his school as a running back busts his knee on the turf and ends up packing groceries the rest of his life. Pay them as minor leaguers and put the money in trust funds.
Duke.
Steve-O, you are so far behind the times. The best minds in the land are right now thinking of ways to crown a real national champion in HIGH SCHOOL football.
steve: mr denninger has put up those mushroom cloud animations on his site again.....big wave down in the markets coming apparently......
football obsession in america seems even more sick in a depression economy.........time to stop the escapism and tune in to reality before things get even more painful for main street.......
get off the couch and call/write your congressman.......or better yet get out and protest the oligarchy.....protest the federal reserve....the protests of individuals do have an impact....amazing how much impact a motivated individual can have on the events of entire country.........
or make protest videos about how the criminal banksters have affected the lives of your family and friends and put them on internet........
From Norman, OK: The bowl games provide more pinnacles of achievement, give more teams and their fans a chance to end the season with a win. Some of the best moments in college football are when a school that's been dwelling in the cellar for decades somehow manages to put together a winning season, gets invited to a bowl, even a minor, plays a big name school, plays out of their minds and pulls it out. It happens rarely, but it can happen, and when it does, it's great. Players, fans and band go nuts, THEY could not care less about the "National Championship".
A playoff would diminish the bowls, those smaller regional pinnacles, for the sake of focusing on just one national pinnacle, a pinnacle that few schools have much shot at.
I have long felt the resistance to a playoff grows from schools in the Big-Ten and Notre Dame who are well aware of the problems of playing fast southern and western teams in warm weather late in the year.
I actually agree that an NCAA football tournament champion would need to prove that it can win in the cold.
I would have something like the following:
QUARTERFINALS
[round of eight, four games]
Christmas Eve & Christmas Day
maybe some mix of Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Cotton Bowls [???]
SEMIFINALS
[round of four, two games]
New Year's Day
Soldier Field & Lambeau Field
FINALS
[championship game]
January 7th or thereabouts
Rose Bowl
The big problem is that the quarterfinals would be on warm fields and might weed out all the cold-weather teams up front.
[So maybe you could play the quarterfinals in moderate temperatures, like Charlotte and Memphis and Oklahoma City?]
But at some point, the champions really ought to prove that they can win in the snow & ice.
Also, if you wanted to expand to a field of 16, then you could add eight games on December 18th [the week before Christmas].
Abolish athletic scholarships (an oxymoron anyway)and admit only for merit. Then let anyone who wants to play tryout.
Rice, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Georgia Tech, Duke, Wake Forest, UNC, UVA
Maybe Baylor would fit into this group as well.
"Jody, you're creepy."
no more creepy than a television media that has decided that the knoxville horror is absolutely, positively not national news, but the duke rape hoax is.
no more creepy than a television media that has decided to pull boxing now that black americans are getting knocked out badly by white europeans, but approves of classless serena williams owning 1% of the dolphins while rush limbaugh gets the usual treatment for simply pointing out the media's agenda.
It seems to me the best solution is to make football more like baseball - as a senior in high school, you're eligible for the draft, and you can go into a sort of minor league system to develop for a few years. This would involve the creation of a minor league system to compete with college football, and everyone making money off college football can't have that. But it would largely solve the problem. A lot of "students" would just go pro, and those who want to (or who want to improve their draft status) would go to college.
One other note is that the high-brow southern conference wouldn't work all that well for what it's intended. At Vanderbilt (and I'm sure it's similar at the others) football players are automatically accepted into Peabody College, the teachers' school (as opposed to Arts & Sciences or Engineering or Music). The default major is "Human Organizational Development", which is as harrowing as it sounds. A common complaint among freshmen was having to write 20-page stream-of-consciousness essays. Generally, anyone who is projected to maintain a C average in this phony major (where the vast majority of students graduate at least Cum Laude, GPA>3.25 I think) is good enough to play football. Granted, they are way smarter than football factory schools, but still not close to representative of the Vanderbilt student body. This is really unsurprising, as this type of treatment, particularly in admissions, is plainly visible even at the high school level (see e.g. Mater Dei and De La Salle high schools in California).
There is still something to be said for Vanderbilt student athletics, as I think they're still the only Division 1 school without an athletic department.
If you want to make sure it's real student athletes competing against each other, there's one other way to take a big step forward: eliminate athletic scholarships.
The problem is, as an above commenter noted, not all football conferences are created equal. If a college football playoff system were instituted and heavily black Southern teams frequently dominated Western and Northern teams, non-southerners are going to be drawn away from the sport.
A school’s football program is basically a function of how seriously it invests in coaches and equipment and how good it is at recruiting (blacks). Small-time programs in urban areas are able to compete with the best(Cincinnati, Houston, TCU) and even your supposed “high brow” schools recruit athletes with the same SATs as Mississippi state (Hint: I doubt Jon Dwyer is an Engineering Major).
Here's from a profile of Georgia Tech running back Jon Dwyer:
Personal
Full name is Jonathan Avery Dwyer ... Parents are Tony and Keely Dwyer ... Born July 26, 1989 ... Majoring in management.
I don't know anything about him, but just judging from the fact that his father and mother have the same last name, and that they gave him a traditional-sounding first and middle names without any apostrophes or Qs in them, I suspect he's fairly middle class in background.
"January 7th" should be January 8th.
It's not just Red State zillionaires who are throwing money at college football, North Carolina was a blue state last year and I remember reading (can't find the link right now) about a guy who as part of his will gave a zillion dollars to UNC.
Half of it was for academics. The other half was for a fund to increase the salaries of assistant coaches. That money is going to be paid to the football team after the guy dies.
So what's this guy going to do after he's dead, sit around with the angels watching UNC games in heaven and try to impress them by telling them, whenever UNC gets a first down, that he's the one paying half the offensive coordinator's salary? What if the angels aren't UNC fans? Whenever UNC goes 3 and out, they're going to let the guy know he's paying half the offensive coordinator's salary, and they can do it for all etermity.
The guy should have thought of that before he made the will.
Notre Dame football players, at least some of them, are "students" but let's not go overboard. Isn't the average SAT there for football players only about 1000, if that? Average SAT for the student body is 1400. Like any other school, including Stanford, there must be jock majors. Stanford has the truly highest academic standards and even there, there are many students majoring in "Science Techonology and Society".
Duke, Virginia Tech
"allow me once again to broach this topic of European basketball -versus- Sternian anti-basketball."
All I know is that he may be 125 lbs. but The professor IS GETTING SCREWED BY THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN!!! DAVID STERN IS HOLDING THE WHITE MAN DOWN!!!!
Brandon Jennings just had another monster game tonight.
And this from a guy who couldn't get any playing time in Europe a mere six months ago.
What a joke - what a farce - is David Stern's NBA.
Post a Comment