5729 People Actually Went To That????

In other Clydesdale news today, Geno Auriemma, head coach of the U-Conn Women's college basketball program, stated that he was disappointed by the half-empty arena in which his team played in yesterday. He claims that the fans are spoiled by the recent dominance of the program, roughly akin to how Atlanta Braves fans would skip out on watching their first round playoff games.

What truly is shocking is not that, of the 10,027 people that Gampel Pavilion could hold, 4298 did not go to the game. Rather, it is shocking that 5729 people actually went out of their way to witness a foregone conclusion play itself out. There is not one person that expects the U-Conn women's team to be challenged before the Final Four of their tournament. Let's face it, there has not been a run of such dominance in women's sports since Iolanda Balas won 150 consecutive high jump competitions from 1957 to 1966.

Frankly, it should be surprising that anyone went to this game. I suppose that there was a large sleep study going on, or someone was testing the effects of watching something more boring than paint drying. On it's own, the fact that so many people paid to watch this proves P.T. Barnum correct when he said that there is a sucker born every minute. At the very least, U-Conn should have provided free beer to any men in attendance. Not only would that prove incentive to go to the games, but the beer goggles might make those women look attractive. Ok, maybe there isn't enough beer in the universe for that.....

In reality, 5729 is a good crowd for such a spectacle. After all, how many people will willingly pay to watch some horses play around with a ball?

National Signing Day

Today is considered to be National Signing Day, which is the day that most of the heavily touted high school football players declare which schools they will be attending. lately, such entities as ESPN have been trying to hype this day, even going as far as to televise these kids as they announce which school will get their services.

As with anything of a similar nature, people attempt to determine who the 'winners' and 'losers' are. For instance, Florida State and Auburn are considered to have two of the strongest recruiting classes of the year. Such projections are not only meaningless, but completely asinine. To state that one schools 17 to 18 year old kids are going to outperform another schools' kids is ridiculous. How is this determined? By seeing which schools got more of the players ranked within a specific criteria? Just because pundits happen to think that certain kids make up the 150 best high school football players in the country doesn't mean that A. They will be productive in college or B. That they will considered in the top 150 from that class later when they graduate, or even next year.

Also, televising these kids as they put on the hat of whatever school that are going to attend is utterly ridiculous. People continually act surprised when big time recruits walk around and act as though everything should be handed to them. Or that their egos are incredibly inflated. Well, televising their decisions on which school to attend or discussing it in detail does not help. In fact, it just further fans the flames. Continually discussing their thought process, poring over anything said prior to their decision to try to guess where they end up, and trying to make this the biggest sports story of the day only furthers the sense of entitlement.

Yes, this is a big deal - to those kids and the schools they choose. It just shouldn't be a televised event. And it definitely should not come with a list of who 'won' and 'lost' the recruiting war.

A coach with loyalty?

In this day and age of coaching weasels, the tendency is to move on to bigger and better things at the first opportunity. Regardless of the contract, any commitments given to recruits, or any promises made, these individuals scatter as soon as more money and a bigger name comes calling. Loyalty is as foreign a concept in this world as the automobile would be to someone in feudal Europe.

As such, it is refreshing when a coach actually keeps his commitments and displays loyalty to a school and a program that he helped build. Thus, when someone such as Boise State coach Chris Petersen rejected the overtures of Stanford to remain at the mid-major school he has helped to build. "I'm really happy to be in the position I've been the last five years," said Petersen. "I think [Stanford] is a very special place. I just thought it was worth having a conversation about, but that's about as far as it went."

No one is completely certain as to whether or not Petersen actually spoke to Stanford about their position, but that is irrelevant. In an industry where coaches routinely sign multi-year extensions only to leave weeks later or bounce from job to job at the drop of a hat, it is refreshing to find someone that might just be the anti Nick Saban.

Hopefully this signifies a change in the mindset within the coaching ranks. However, in all likelihood, this is simply an aberration. Weasel coaches will continue to make up the majority of the coaching ranks, and will continue to get the major positions at the big name schools. Loyalty exists in the mind of one coach, and it will be to his detriment.

Thank you Stanford

Finally!

On December 30, 2010, something happened that hasn't occurred since November 16, 2008 - the U-Conn women lost. Ironically, the last time they lost was also to Stanford. However, this loss snapped their winning streak at 90 games.

However, something more important happened with that victory. Now, everyone can go back to their normal routines. We can watch SportsCenter again. We can go to sports related websites again. We can watch highlights of the previous nights sporting events again. Why? Because now these Clydesdales are no longer going to be forced down our throats as every media outlet tries to make us care about this 'accomplishment'.

Women's college basketball can now go back to the same corner reserved for sports no one cares about, like curling, luge, cribbage, footbag, and unicycle hockey. You have your four fans. You have better mustaches and more armpit hair than I do. Good for you. Now go away.

Hopefully this squad will continue to lose at random points in time so that they can stop being forced into the national consciousness. This is a niche sport - like kyudo. Once again, thank you to the Stanford women for getting rid of them from my television. If any of you were attractive, I'd take you out for a beer.

Hypothesis on Jon Gruden's future

There is a lot of speculation about Jon Gruden going to the University of Miami to become the next head coach of their program. At this time, however, it seems as though there is a lot more interest from Miami in Gruden than from Gruden in joining them. Despite an alleged offer of over $4 million per year and the ability to bring his brother in as part of the coaching staff, Gruden remains a member of the ESPN Monday Night Football broadcast.

It strikes me that Gruden is not the type that would have a lot of interest in building a college program and recruiting. Based off of what I gather from his present situation, he is looking for a place that he can go into and win within a couple of years. The University of Miami does not fit that profile. They are losing Florida high school football recruits to other schools, the program is simply not that good, and they really do not have a lot of impact players. Of course, landing a coach with the resume of a Jon Gruden would provide a significant boost to recruiting, but it would be a few seasons for his program to take shape. And Gruden is not exactly the most patient of people.

So, where could Gruden end up where he has a legitimate chance of winning soon? There will be the inevitable rumors of Dallas and Minnesota, but those are teams with significant flaws. He will avoid places like that as if the cities were overrun with plague carrying rodents. The team that I think he ends up with, in what may be a shock, would be the Cleveland Browns.

I realize that at first glance this would seem to be an extreme stab in the dark. However, the Browns are a team that deserve a much deeper look. First, Mike Holmgren gave Gruden his first shot in the NFL in 1990 while Holmgren was in San Fransisco. When he left to become the head coach in Green Bay, Holmgren brought Gruden with him, making him the wide receivers coach for the Packers. Also, Mangini is not a Holmgren guy - he inherited him when assuming the titles of President and General Manager. So, there is a definite link there.

Second, Cleveland has a solid core of players on offense. Gruden loves Peyton Hillis, who he regards as a Mike Alstott clone. Colt McCoy has shown that he can develop into a solid NFL quarterback, and keep in mind, Gruden turned Rich Gannon into a Pro Bowler. Also, Cleveland's defense and special teams are solid. On defense, Cleveland is only giving up 20.8 points per game, which is actually thirteenth in the NFL. Josh Cribbs, when healthy, is an absolutely dynamic returner and a potential game changer on kickoff and punt returns.

Also, Cleveland has all of it's draft choices next year. As of this point in time, the Browns would be drafting in the top ten, which would allow them to either draft the stud receiver or a pass rushing outside linebacker that they need. Given Homgren's track record on draft day, the Browns could end up being a surprise team next season with the right coach.

If Mangini gets fired, don't be surprised to see Gruden don the brown and orange.

NCAA recruiting volations and logic

On November 20th, the NCAA suspended Bruce Pearl of Tennessee for the first eight games of the SEC conference play. Until that point in time, he will be able to coach the team during games and lead practices. So, when is the beginning of the SEC season to cause the suspension to begin? Try January 8th.

In the meantime, Pearl will have plenty of time to teach his system, coach the players, and make certain that the assistants know exactly who to play when. Also, he gets to lead practices and implement game plans - he just can't lead practices on game days. This led to Bruce Pearl uttering the following quote: "I have been a very public advocate for playing by the rules," Pearl said Friday. "When you don't play by the rules, these are the things that can happen. So while these penalties that we've self-imposed and now the commissioner's imposing are unprecedentedly strong, it sets a very high standard and a high standard that I agreed to."

Let me get this straight: not being able to coach the team for a total of eight days in a span from January 8th until February 5th is a strict penalty? Especially when the coach can lead practice on every other day and see to it that the game plan he comes up with is implemented for the opponent? Seems to me that this is nothing more than a token slap on the wrist.  At first glance, this appears to be a strong punishment if one focuses strictly on the eight games. However, in reality, this is barely a punishment at all.

If the NCAA and the conferences were serious about cleaning up recruiting violations and improper benefits to 'student' athletes, they would suspend these coaches for entire seasons and put crippling sanctions on the programs they coach. Instead, typically the punishments are nothing more than something to appease the other schools while chiding the violators for being careless enough to get caught.

It is, in a way, pathetic that one can almost safely assume that every major school in the major college sports (football and basketball) is doing something underhanded in order to gain an edge. Seemingly each week, there are new reports and scandals.  This over-saturation of scandals and violations has done nothing more than to desensitize those that follow college sports. At this point, I would be shocked to find out that a major school in a major conference was running their program in a legitimate fashion.

College athletics is supposed to be about amateur players playing for a love for the game and trying to follow their dream of making it to the professional ranks. Instead, it is nothing more than a cash machine for their schools. And this is not going to change unless the NCAA gets serious about punishing any violations of the rules in place.