College Football 2010: So it begins

[Al B. Sure!]

Last week's news but:

Steve Addazio was introduced as the Owls' 25th head football coach during a news conference in the Liacouras Center's Fox-Gittis Room.

Addazio, 51, who previously was the offensive coordinator and associate head coach at Florida, agreed to a six-year contract to succeed Al Golden, who on Dec. 12 was named to the same position at Miami.

Anyone know how this guy is? Offensive coordinator at Florida sounds like he knows what he's doing.



By the way, little known fact. The last school the legendary Pop Warner coached at was Temple (where he coached for 6 years). He was succeeded by College Football Hall of Fame coach Ray Morrison.

Ah... the 30's and 40's... when Temple was great and had no problem getting a bowl game (like the 1935 inaugural Sugar Bowl)

Where were all your powerhouse schools like Miami, Ohio State, Alabama, etc. back then? Huh?

[SlowwHand]

Actually I don't understand why selling their jewelry is against the rules. The one guy selling what I would think is school property, his uniform, might be.

[Lord Avalon]

Just how the hell do the suspensions NOT include the bowl game?!?!

[Solomwi]

Addazio?

Hope you enjoyed Golden's run, Alby.

[SlowwHand]

Just how the hell do the suspensions NOT include the bowl game?!?!

Now compare this to Cam Newton, who had no penalty at all. During the game tonight, the commentators spoke of it, too much or not enough. No consistency.

[Solomwi]

Why should Newton be a measuring stick for these guys, or vice versa? A key distinction is that these guys were found to have broken a rule. Newton was not. LaMichael James received no penalty for the Range Rover he was driving around. Why? Because after investigating, the NCAA didn't find that he had broken any rules. The NCAA finds a violation, they impose a penalty. They don't find a violation, they don't impose a penalty. That's perfectly consistent.

[SlowwHand]

I'm saying that I can understand not knowing that selling personal jewelry was against the rules. I'm also saying, despite your explanation, that the rules are stupid.

[Guynemer]

You can't profit directly from your athletics. The rules are probably in place to keep boosters from giving money directly to players for memorabilia.

[Solomwi]

I'm saying that I can understand not knowing that selling personal jewelry was against the rules. I'm also saying, despite your explanation, that the rules are stupid.

No you weren't, but whatever. Not knowing something is against the rules doesn't keep it from being a violation. As Guy said, the rule in this case keeps boosters/agents/whoever from funneling money to players through memorabilia sales. Without it, you might as well openly pay the players. "Broken cleat? Why, I'd give $5000 for one of those, son!" Anyway, whether SlowwHand likes the rules has no bearing on how the rules are enforced. You said it was done inconsistently, and used a patently stupid comparison to make the point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As I've read over and over on the interwebs: should have just said their parents sold the stuff without them knowing .

I have mixed feelings about this. I mean, college football players can't get jobs (according to NCAA rules) and a lot of them come from poor families who desperately need help. I'm not sure if any of that applies here, but I can imagine selling off your Big 10 Championship Ring isn't something that's done without much thought.

[-Jrabbit]

I'm trying real, real, REAL hard not to gloat about Ohio State...

Oh, come on, Guy, let it out!

[SlowwHand]

Actually I don't understand why selling their jewelry is against the rules. The one guy selling what I would think is school property, his uniform, might be.

Why should Newton be a measuring stick for these guys, or vice versa? A key distinction is that these guys were found to have broken a rule. Newton was not. LaMichael James received no penalty for the Range Rover he was driving around. Why? Because after investigating, the NCAA didn't find that he had broken any rules. The NCAA finds a violation, they impose a penalty. They don't find a violation, they don't impose a penalty. That's perfectly consistent.

I'm saying that I can understand not knowing that selling personal jewelry was against the rules. I'm also saying, despite your explanation, that the rules are stupid.

No you weren't, but whatever. Not knowing something is against the rules doesn't keep it from being a violation. As Guy said, the rule in this case keeps boosters/agents/whoever from funneling money to players through memorabilia sales. Without it, you might as well openly pay the players. "Broken cleat? Why, I'd give $5000 for one of those, son!" Anyway, whether SlowwHand likes the rules has no bearing on how the rules are enforced. You said it was done inconsistently, and used a patently stupid comparison to make the point.

Yes, I was. Go ahead and defend Cam Newton and his parents though. You no doubt think that they were ignorant on that rule, but for some inexplicable reason find it less distressing than the guys who sold their rings. It's at this point that I said, and say again, there's no consistency. Not from the BCS and certainly not from you.

[Guynemer]

I have mixed feelings about this. I mean, college football players can't get jobs (according to NCAA rules)

Yes they can.

[SlowwHand]

the student athlete can earn up to $2,000 per year above the value of the full grant that is given to he or she while on scholarship.

http://technique.library.gatech.edu/issues/spring1998/may1/news2.html

Proposition 62 that this says was adopted in 1997 and took effect in 1998.

I never applied for a grant. How much are they?

[Solomwi]

Yes, I was. Go ahead and defend Cam Newton and his parents though. You no doubt think that they were ignorant on that rule, but for some inexplicable reason find it less distressing than the guys who sold their rings. It's at this point that I said, and say again, there's no consistency. Not from the BCS and certainly not from you.

You're an idiot. The post of yours I responded to was "Now compare this to Cam Newton, who had no penalty at all. During the game tonight, the commentators spoke of it, too much or not enough. No consistency." Maybe I should've quoted it for your benefit, but with mine right below yours, it didn't cross my mind that you might not be able to put that together.

I don't care whether Cam and his parents were ignorant of the rule. That's never been an issue in that case. Cam's knowledge of his dad's activities is an issue because bylaw 12.3.1 makes the athlete's consent, and therefore knowledge, an element of a violation of the agent rule. I don't know if knowledge is also an element of whichever bylaw the OSU guys were found to have violated, but even if so, it's not knowledge of the illegality of the act. It's knowledge of the act itself.

Admittedly, I have no idea where the BCS came into this, but if you meant the NCAA, I'll say again: find a violation, impose a penalty; find no violation, impose no penalty. That's as consistent as it gets. Since all I've done is point out thee distinctions between the cases that make your comparison of them moronic, I fail to see how I've been less than consistent.