Sporting News has a Q&A with Jordan Shipley.
Pete Flutak has Garrett Gilbert listed as a 2010 Heisman candidate.
14. Garrett Gilbert, QB, Texas
Remember, Vince Young couldn't be replaced, either. Gilbert might be the most talented quarterback Mack Brown has ever coached.
Six AP All-Americans is a record.
No team has had more since 1964, when the AP started selecting both an offensive and defensive team.
"You aren't going to have six guys make first-team All-American unless your team is playing at a high level week in and week out. It's a credit to our entire team and our coaching staff."
Avery Bradley is finding his place.
Avery Bradley's coach never brings it up and says he doesn't even think about it. Bradley's teammates insist it's not an issue.
But as much as the Texas Longhorns would like to believe their most touted freshman guard is just like any other newcomer and as much as Bradley commits to the idea that his own success should be judged simply by whether the Longhorns win or lose, he realizes others don't see it that way.
SI's Luke Winn gets a Q&A with Dexter Pittman.
LW: I wanted to ask you about a few Tweets. One said that you had Twitter activated on three phones. Really?
DP: I love phones like women love shoes. Even if they're not on -- I just want to have them around. I'm known on the team to have the best phones. Like, if the iPhone is out, I get it before any one of my teammates. And then they be getting on me, like, "Man, you change numbers more than anybody I know! I'm not even saving yours in my phone!" I have the iPhone right now, but I love Blackberries, so I got the Storm and the Curve, and I don't know which one I want to give up yet.
Texas rolled right over Texas-Pan American 104-42.
"Recruit, beat Missouri, recruit, win the (Big 12) North, recruit, win the Big 12," Gill said.
Turner Gill is bringing in some impressive assistants.
"That staff that will be here is second to none," new KU coach Turner Gill said Monday as he unveiled some of his plans.
In Chuck Long and Carl Torbush, the Jayhawks have assistants who were more successful as coordinators than head coaches, and that’s what Kansas needs as it looks to 2010 with a team that loses three senior starters plus junior Dezmon Briscoe on offense and five seniors on defense.
Along with Long and Torbush, Aaron Stamm will join the staff from Buffalo. Stamm was the Bulls’ special-teams coordinator and tight-ends coach.
Someone did not like the Gill hire at Kansas.
Buff Zone's Kyle Ringo attempts to get information from CU AD about giving Dan Hawkins another season.
The president’s spokesman put the decision to retain Hawkins completely on Bohn and chancellor Phil DiStefano, saying it was made totally at the campus level.
I’ve heard otherwise. I’ve been told by people I trust and who have given me good information in the past, that this was a decision made by Benson in order to preserve some credibility in lobbying the state for more money for higher education. They say Benson didn’t want to face critics who would have asked how the school could afford to pay a coach $3 million not to coach but needs to cut classes or professors or janitors unless it gets more money from the state. The president’s spokesman says that just isn’t true.
If Notre Dame isn't interested in becoming the 12th member of the Big 10 Conference, a Big 12 team may be the next choice.
I would think that Missouri would be the most potentially desirable of the Big 12 schools because of its population and growth potential as the single football-playing school in the state. Missouri is the 18th largest state in the country according to 2008 population estimates with 5.91 million people. It would be an inviting market for the Big 12.
Nebraska would bring greater natural cache because of the traditional excellence of its football program, but would bring little extra population or additional football viewers compared to the other schools. It ranks 38th nationally with a population of 1.78 million. Iowa State would bring even less because the Iowa market is already saturated by Iowa for the Big Ten as it is.
Forbes looks at the Heisman vote.
Texas quarterback Colt McCoy's third-place finish was one of the strongest ever. McCoy received 1,145 points and was 159 points behind Ingram. McCoy's point total was third-most for a third-place finisher and only three players to finish third were closer to the winner than McCoy.
The Heisman Pundit breaks down the voting by region.
If Nebraska had beaten the Horns, Brian Kelly would might still be at Cincy.
"Who knows what would have happened if Nebraska wins that game," Kelly said on "The Afternoon Saloon" on ESPN 1000. "I might not be here at Notre Dame because we don't know if they would have waited for me, because I was going to play in the national championship game."
In case you can't afford to go to Pasadena, how about Shreveport?
The majority of A&M’s tickets are selling for $35 — student tickets are $30 — so that’s only a $5 increase from nine years ago when the Aggies played Mississippi State in Shreveport. That’s a 16.7 percent hike if my Pennsylvania math is right, which is still less than 2 percent a year. Not bad.
The NCAA wants stricter rules on concussions.
Hoping to beef up policies for handling concussions, an NCAA panel is recommending a new rule that would sideline an athlete for at least the rest of the day if he or she loses consciousness or shows other worrisome symptoms during competition.
The rule, which would affect all NCAA sports, comes from the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports, which wrapped up a three-day meeting in Indianapolis on Tuesday.
The panel also recommended sidelining an athlete with less severe concussion-related symptoms until cleared by a doctor.
And finally...
ESPN's documentary on Miami's football program.
0 recs | 57 comments
Another great round-up by dimecoverage . . .
. . . but I have this feeling that, in a couple of years, we could be looking back at this as the biggest Texas-related news item of the day.
I know, call me crazy.
Hopkins Horn - December 15, 2009
I guess I'm confused
Why would Missouri leave for an inferior athletic conference (at least right now)? Not that the differences are huge between the conferences, but doesn’t there have to be some sort of incentive? I’m not knowledgeable enough about the economics, perhaps. Then again, it could be the ego of the Big 11 just making this stuff up.
If UM did leave, whom would we pick up? There would be some interesting options out there….
Sleepy - December 16, 2009
Actually . . .
. . . my point in posting that link was that I have a pet theory that Texas would be the team the Big 10 would zero in on if Notre Dame continues to spur the Big 10’s advances. And I think Texas would be very interested in the possibility of moving.
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
It would make zero geographic sense
But it would make terrific financial sense. Three of the richest, biggest programs with three enormous stadia would make a terrific conferene, even if UT would be one heck of a black sheep there.
burntorangehorn - December 16, 2009
Geography, to me, is a non-starter
Consider that Boston College (a much smaller private school) is in the same conference in which its closest neighbor is in Maryland. Or that teams regularly have to travel between Pullman, WA and Tucson, AZ. Or, hell, look at the WAC!
So I think the geography issue is easily overcome, especially since most of the burden on the extra travel costs would fall upon the richest(?) athletic department in the country.
The “black sheep” issue, though, is one I thought about before posting my original theory. I think Texas did a great job of exploiting anti-Nebraska sentiment in the initial days of the Big XII to assert alpha dog status. But there’s no way Texas would be “the” alpha dog in the Big 10. So a question, with an answer unknown to me, is to what extent Texas already would see eye-to-eye with the Big 10’s lead dogs (presumably OSU and Michigan) on the issues it feels are vital.
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
I meant "non-issue" and not "non-starter"
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
Disagree
I think Geography is the only issue.
Copying and pasting myself from BC:
Theres no way we leave a Texas-centric setup. OU in Dallas, TTech, Baylor, Aggie.
Hell, we do our best to schedule additional in state games each year with UNT, Rice, UTEP, etc…
The football powers that be would never want to give that up. Part of the reason we make so much money is due to our dominance of the second most populous state in this man’s union. And part of why we are so good, is we have a recruiting video live and on Texan’s TVs most Saturdays of the football playing year.
We are 13-0 this year, and played TEN games in the state of Texas, which also happens to be our highest targeted area for recruiting, and the most fertile ground for it as well. These things are not coincidence, and theres no way in hell we give that up to play in the frigid north.
BoddickerIsClutch - December 16, 2009
To play devil's advocate . . .
How would that change if we were in the Big 10? I think the in-state exposure would remain the same, and the national exposure would quite possibly increase, with the Big 10’s better TV deal.
Let’s assume we keep OU and A&M on the schedule — or, more realistically, they agree to keep us on the schedule after we abandoned the conference. Let’s assume, for our other two OOC games, that we would schedule two patsies (since we’re already locked into OU & A&M).
In a typical year, we’re starting with seven games in the state — the four home conference games, the OU and A&M games, and the season-opening patsy. If in-state games are that important, the other OOC game could be reserved for games like Rice at Reliant or the occasional trip to El Paso.
I’m not sure the difference between playing eight and playing nine in-state regular season games — in other words, giving up a game in Waco or Lubbock every year — would be such a make-or-break issue for our ability to recruit in-state so effectively.
To me, there are two scheduling issues. One is not so much giving up in-state games — as I show above, I don’t think that’s an issue — as it is giving up specific rivalries with Tech and Baylor. I personally would get over it, but I understand that others might have more of an emotional tie to those rivalries than I.
The other scheduling issue is the realistic possibility that we could have an annual schedule with OSU, Michigan, PSU, Wisconsin, Iowa, OU & A&M, plus a conference championship game. Doesn’t sound that pleasurable if 13-0 is the goal, although the likely divisional structure would probably keep us from playing OSU, Michigan AND PSU all in the same regular season.
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
You are right, on TV, the Big 10 network would carry all our games, so anyone with that would get it.
2009 we had 10 games in Texas
2008 we had 10 games in Texas
2007 we had 9 games in Texas
2006 we had 10 games in Texas
So you are going to assume that we will always schedule all 4 of our OOC games as games in Texas? And even if we do that, we drop to 8 total in state games, which would be 2 less than we have had in 3 of the 4 years.
I dont know if it would be possible to get both OU and aTm on the schedule either, without them being in the conference. Does any team do 2 reoccurring OOC opponents?
Plus now we have to pay out to get additional games in state, and still come up short of what we had?
I just dont see it happening.
Please, we’re not rivals.
BoddickerIsClutch - December 16, 2009
Florida State did so with Miami and Florida before the Canes joined the ACC. I’m not sure if anyone else does so nowadays.
Not entirely uncommon for teams never to leave the home state for OOC games. I doubt Michigan leaves its borders in seasons in which it hosts Notre Dame. And I think Florida always stays inside the state. (When was the last time Florida left the state for an OOC game?)
I think we’ll need to agree to disagree as to whether the difference between eight in-state games and nine or ten in-state games would be such a difference maker.
Very true. My bad.
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
8 at best is my point
UF does it with Division 2 teams, as does Michigan. I guess we could too, though I dont like the practice.
And I agree to agree that we disagree on the impact. I just dont see the benefit out weighing the cost.
BoddickerIsClutch - December 16, 2009
Not alpha dog?
Texas would have an enormous advantage in recruiting and money no matter what conference the school joined, wouldn’t you think? Or would giving the rust belt teams inroads into Texas high school territory surrender much of that?
On the geography issue, the BC-UMD proximity (approximately 430mi.) is about half that between Texas and the nearest Big Ten school, which is Illinois (860ish miles). Illinois would be the only opponent within a thousand miles. The farthest distance between any other BCS conference opponents is BC to Miami, which is about 1500mi. by googlemap estimate. I believe UT’s distance to the farthest-away Big Ten opponent would not only be the longest in the nation, but I went over the distances between Austin and the other eleven schools, and unless I’m forgetting someone, Austin is an average of about 1200mi. from the other conference programs. Outside of BC to Miami, I think there’s only one other BCS intraconference distance of over 1200mi., and that’s the Pullman-to-Tucson one you mentioned.
burntorangehorn - December 16, 2009
With distances . . .
. . . the main concern to me would be the additional travel costs on non-revenue sports. I think the WAC provides a good model for showing that even smaller and less affluent athletic departments can survive even with extensive travel. If the Idaho women’s basketball team has to regularly travel from Moscow, ID to Ruston, LA, Las Cruces, NM and Honolulu, I think our athletic department would be able to find the means to get us to East Lansing and Madison.
(Of course, if I am severely underestimating the increase in travel costs, then this is a non-starter, but I think the increase in television revenue would more than offset the increase travel costs.)
Also, by “alpha dog,” I’m referring to conference politics. I don’t think Texas would want to join a conference in which every other school decided to allow partial qualifiers, for example. Texas got its way at the beginning of the Big XII — could its political needs be met in the Big 10, or are there issues important to Texas on which it would be outvoted?
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
That's a good question
However, as the biggest cash bull (cash Longhorn? Cash Bevo?) in college sports, UT could probably twist the Big Ten by the short and curlies quite a bit when it comes to joining. I think getting what the school wants would be relatively easy, as long as it’s realistic, because if the Big Ten really wants to add marquee power to the conference, it couldn’t possibly get any bigger than Texas. The only move that would rival it would be Notre Dame, in fact, so if Notre Dame rebuffs further overtures, UT holds the leverage.
The question is really more about whether UT would retain much power after joining. I really don’t know what political ends would be likely to be that big a deal, but I don’t think there would be a great advantage for UT in terms of leverage. In fact, short of taking its ball and leaving, I can’t think of what leverage might exist. Then again, I really don’t think UT has any leverage with the rest of the Big 12 anymore, does it? UT actually seems to get more more eff-you from within the conference than deference or political power. I honestly haven’t seen anything lately that makes me think UT has gained anything from whatever political leverage it might hold.
burntorangehorn - December 16, 2009
Also,
The key to your post is this:
The “at least right now” part. With the greater exposure and revenue coming through its television contracts, it seems to me that the Big 10 is poised, along with the SEC, to be the main two power conferences when looking a decade or so in the future. The Big XII does not have, nor will it ever have, the eyeballs within its borders to justify receiving the same revenue from television deals that the Big 10 does.
So even though one can make the case that the Big XII is currently a better conference athletically, which conference is better positioned for long-term success?
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
Better positioned for success financially or athletically?
There is a distinction there although I’m sure one could argue they are one in the same. But they’re really not. As long as the Big 12 schools can recruit the state of Texas the Big 12 will remain viable athletically. And I think the converse is true, as long as they are viable athletically they’ll be able to recruit in Texas.
From the financial aspect of UT being the richest(?) athletic department in the country is it really necessary at this point (or in the future) to seek additional TV revenue? When are the coffers ‘full enough’ and at what point do we step back and ask what’s best for our student athletes?
SpiritOfTheFedora - December 16, 2009
To clarify a bit . . .
. . . I think, if no one makes a move, Texas is pretty accepting of the status quo. The Big XII has unquestionably been good to Texas, but to what extent is that due to the Big XII and how much of that was due to a sleeping giant finally waking up?
My theory that Texas would be interested in the Big 10 comes from what I assume would be a reactive yet pro-active move to protect its long term interests and financial well-being. If the Big 10 poached a Big East team (which I consider unlikely), no big conference reshuffling would take place.
But imagine that the Big 10 were to poach another Big XII team (Nebraska or Mizzou) and imagine any plausible replacement school (TCU, Utah, Colorado State). No matter who leaves and who replaces that team, the Big XII, already weaker demographically than the Big 10 and the SEC, would be weaker still. Rather than sit back and watch another Big XII school better itself with a move to the Big 10, I think Texas would push itself to the front of the line to make sure it wasn’t left in a bigger version of the SWC (albeit one with a BCS bid and OU).
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
An interesting theory
Nebraska would seem the choice if I were the Big 10. Notre Dame has to fall in somewhere at some point, can’t picture them joining the SEC :)
SpiritOfTheFedora - December 16, 2009
Why Nebraska?
Is it purely a matter of geographic proximity? If Lincoln and Austin were equidistant from the typical Big 10 town, would Nebraska ever rate above or equal to Texas as a target?
(Sorry, any Husker fans still lurking here.)
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
Not even close, of course
I think geography and football would be in Nebraska’s favor, but of course Nebraska doesn’t fit academically or basketball-wise.
Wouldn’t UT pretty much have a huge advantage over the other Big Ten schools in all the more popular (not necessarily media-exposed) sports except basketball, by the way? There’d be Iowa in wrestling, PSU in volleyball, and Michigan in swimming, but in things like baseball, track, golf, soccer, rowing…wouldn’t Texas have a big advantage in all of those?
burntorangehorn - December 16, 2009
Couple of reasons
I think Texas would be better target but, as you mention above, extremely difficult to ‘digest’, especially for Ohio State and Michigan. Take the preliminary issues with Nebraska at the beginning of the Big 12 and multiply them by some number in discussions with Ohio State. Plus we aren’t particularly well-liked in that part of the country right now, I will briefly reference only the word ‘politics’ as being a possible source :)
Nebraska fans travel well and I think better fit the culture of the Midwest. Also they have the football tradition similar to if not better than our own. Would geographic proximity be important to schools like Illinois and Iowa?
SpiritOfTheFedora - December 16, 2009
be 'a' better target, sorry
SpiritOfTheFedora - December 16, 2009
It does seem plausible . . .
. . . that Texas would be too good of a target from the eyes of an OSU or a Michigan. Imagine the Big XII had an opening, and Florida seemed like a plausible target. (They never would br, of course — this is just for illustrative purposes only.) Would we be excited about adding such a top-tier athletic program, or would we be nervous about another 800-pound gorilla joining our ranks and making our path to conference championships that much more difficult?
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
Inferior Athlectic Conference?
Which sport? Certainly not football. I would take Iowa, Ohio State, and Penn State over Texas and Oklahoma State and it isn’t even close if you are talking “right now”. You want to add Oklahoma? I’ll raise you a Michigan.
I’ll give you basketball right now, but the Big 10 was the better conference last year.
I don’t know quite enough about the other sports (Texas and Minnesota are playing each other in the volleyball Final Four tomorrow night, while Penn State plays opposite them). Baseball would probably be owned by Texas, but Minnesota, Ohio State, and Michigan would be good competition and I’m not sure the Big 12 is deeper in that sport.
Beyond that, every Big 10 team has won a national championship in some sport in very recent history. So it is pretty deep top to bottom across the board athletically.
I don’t really understand why Missouri would be seriously considered. I guess the geography works out, but that is about it. I don’t see how the Big 10 benefits financially from adding Missouri. The conference would probably be negatively affected.
rencito - December 16, 2009
Certainly baseball
The Big XII >>>>>> Big Ten in baseball. It’s not even remotely close.
But I think he was arguing that the Big XII has been better than the Big Ten in football the last couple of years.
Texas Wahoo - December 16, 2009
Ohio State who lost to a 8-4 USC is better than Texas?
Your big 10 bias is shining bright
Wells - December 16, 2009
Oklahoma and Michigan?
Oklahoma sucks, as every Texas fan knows, but Michigan is terrible, and has been for a few years. That team has had maybe two great seasons in its last eight. Compare that to Oklahoma which has had two NOT-great seasons in its last eight.
burntorangehorn - December 17, 2009
The only reason Texas would leave for the Big Ten is academics
To be associated with schools we consider ourselves on par with (Michigan, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin). I think just being associated with such schools increases the reputation of a school, if ever so slightly.
Texas Wahoo - December 16, 2009
F the U
zamm - December 15, 2009
I did enjoy the film though
I was 7 years old in the late eighties when all of their thuggery was going on and it was a cool history lesson for me. I’d heard of their antics and seen a few clips but this film really helped me to see the entire picture.
aaronlybrand - December 16, 2009 via mobile
I was at the 1991 Cotton Bowl . . .
. . . and I remember one thing in particular that tells you everything you need to know about that game and that team.
Before Miami’s first play from scrimmage, the Canes committed back-to-back personal fouls, leaving them with a 1st and 40.
They converted in two plays.
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
The U
I really enjoyed the movie, as it was very entertaining. It is amazing what Miami was able to accomplish in little more than a decade. Miami went from being mediocre team that you play as a home-coming game to one of the elite teams in college football
It was an odd portrayal though in some regards. You had Miami players complaining about be called thugs, yet to hear from some of the players they openly stole stereos and were often committing felonies. I guess it is somewhat understandable since it was from the perspective of the players, and people tend to think of themselves as the victims no matter what they have done.
Kenny483 - December 16, 2009
...and gave birth to football exile for the next several years.
TXStampede - December 16, 2009
I was also there. That had to be the ugliest game I have ever attended. We stopped counting QB sacks at six, I believe. Someone told me they sacked Gardere nine times total that day?
The team and the fans were scary. They both looked like they were right out of the hood.
dimecoverage - December 16, 2009
Anyone have an online link?
The ESPN schedule for it, well, sucked (Saturday night? Sunday at 10?), and I don’t have a freakin’ DVR.
jc25 - December 16, 2009
So the second-half at the Big XII Championship Game must have been pretty math-free for you as well . . .
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
I just stopped counting period. Too depressing.
dimecoverage - December 16, 2009
Not to worry. When things seem like they’re at their worst they usually are.
SpiritOfTheFedora - December 16, 2009
Three Horns teams playing for National Championship in the next 3 weeks
Gazelles are in the Final Four in Tampa this weekend.
McCoy’s Boys are in the BCS National Championship in Rose Bowl.
Barnes’ Bruisers are playing two games in the next week like it’s their National Championship.
Got a good chuckle at Dexter the Molester saying “Jerry World”. He must read BON!
patienthornsfan - December 16, 2009
Its been called Jerry World in Dallas
For over a year on the radio. ESPN may have picked it up nationally by now too, Im not sure, I dont even recognize when someone says it now.
But if Dexter is reading, hello!
BoddickerIsClutch - December 16, 2009
Tar Heels will be free throw shooting without Roy Williams
Unless he made a chicken wing deal with Jerry he won’t be able to throw anyone out.
SpiritOfTheFedora - December 16, 2009
just to clarify...
in the picture of the alabama game. the dude in the air is freshman tailback trent richardson who was not one of the six selected as AP All-Americans. behind him, wearing No. 78, is guard mike johnson who did make that first-team squad.
kleph - December 16, 2009
What's it like to have a good offensive line?
burrito - December 16, 2009
I know. I just thought it was a great shot. He may be an All-American at some point…
dimecoverage - December 16, 2009
OR FIGHT CRIME!
kleph - December 16, 2009
Priceless
No penalty for illegal hurdling.
SpiritOfTheFedora - December 16, 2009
I've always wondered how the NFL would deal with the supernatural
Or mutants, perhaps. Imagine if the Flash wanted to make some coin. Or the Incredible Hulk, but I imagine he’d fall victim to PED policy, and pretty soon designer hulk juice would be all the rage in the league.
burntorangehorn - December 16, 2009
True
Everyone would suddenly have “accidental lab explosions”.
Infield Elephant - December 16, 2009
"Freak lab accident" is the new "flaxseed oil supplement"
burntorangehorn - December 16, 2009
Would have to outlaw it
Flash in the wildcat and on punt returns is overpowered.
BoddickerIsClutch - December 16, 2009
Wildcat?
Why mess with all that? Just make him the KR and linebacker. Whenever the team received a kick, he’d have no problem running it back unless it was out of bounds or out of the endzone. Even then, it’s possible that once the kicker’s foot touches the ball, the Flash could run to the ball quickly enough that he could block the kick, recover it, and put it in the endzone. On out-of-bound and out-of-endzone kicks, the Flash would just take the snap on a QB keeper and put it in the endzone within a second. On defense, he could get to the QB and strip the ball within a tenth of a second of the snap, and put the ball in the endzone. Assuming no endurance problem, he could probably put a team up by a hundred points or so in the first ten minutes by playing offense, defense, and special teams, and it would only take one play for each score.
burntorangehorn - December 16, 2009
You are right
Really, there would be no offensive snaps on Flash’s teams. He should return every kick for a TD.
On defense the only thing I can think of is if hes playing against nightcrawler as QB or someone similar, they might be able to score every snap too.
BoddickerIsClutch - December 16, 2009
Could a final score be ∞-∞?
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
Stephen Hawking as defensive coordinator?
SpiritOfTheFedora - December 16, 2009
No, no:
Will Muschamp as defensive coordinator.
burntorangehorn - December 17, 2009
Well, they're dealing with VY right now . . .
Hopkins Horn - December 16, 2009
we got that too...
kleph - December 16, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Burnt Orange Nation to post a comment.