Recent Activity

Completely disagree with the number 1 play. I personally think that on lists like these, plays should be judged on their own merit, not relative to the game. I have always hated when ESPN's top play is a walk off home run, only because it was the game winning play, but other home runs are 9 or 10, and other more impressive plays are 2 and 3. A play is great because of what happens in the play, not because of its importance to the game's result. 60 yard hail mary to beat Georgia, I think, stands up on its own. Not sure it's top 5, but definitely a strong play. The untimed play to beat Oklahoma State was a great play on its own merit, it doesn't matter that it won the game. Clemson throwing out to Renfroe on the edge was nothing special. It was a play they had run plenty of times during the season, and had actually run once earlier in the championship game. So why should that be number 1? The only reason it was was because it ended the championship game. That's stupid. USC's FG to win the Rose Bowl? Same deal. Nothing special about a 40 yard FG--those are so incredibly common throughout the season. The only reason it was top 10 was because it won the Rose Bowl. Plays like that should make the list but not edge out other incredibly athletic plays. I just hate it when legitimately great plays are downplayed because they weren't game-winners or by great teams. Any reason why Ohio State's catch against the defender's back that made the top 10 edged out the other play that was exactly the same at number 11/12 (can't recall which it was). That's dumb. Both were equally great plays.
Pretty sure that's exactly what Blackburn plans to do. If hired as AD, he wants to hire Fulmer to help with fundraising. That makes the most sense.
I think the solution is really simple: hire Dave Blackburn as the AD, and let Blackburn hire Fulmer as his number two guy. Blackburn is a proven AD with a successful record with admittedly not much to work with. Fulmer has zero experience as an AD. So why would a premier program with tons of money to throw at its sports teams not want to hire a guy with a proven record of making a lot out of nothing? This is honestly baffling and a bit enraging. Fulmer is a great guy, but absolutely nothing demonstrates that he is the best candidate for our new AD, whereas everything shows that Blackburn is, and people have been saying it for months. This all comes down to popularity and politicking. It's idiotic. Fulmer can have a place in the AD office, but he should not be the AD. I'm disgusted with this program that I've loved my entire life. I'll always love Phil, but he's just not the right choice when there are other Tennessee guys who love our program and want what's best for it, with the experience to succeed. Hire Blackburn. It's stupid not to.
Just another poor kid made to grow up without air conditioning. Saban really should invest in some central cooling for his program.
Enjoy our DLine destroying you guys again.
Absolutely a home run hire. Hoke is responsible for all of Michigan's success on DLine in the late 90s/early 2000s. He recruited pretty much their entire defense that played the past two seasons. Their entire DLine this year, which was very, very, very good, were personally brought in by Hoke. The man knows how to coach a DLine and knows how to evaluate and recruit defensive talent. Great hire.
I wonder if it's a lot of Orgeron wanting to make it "his" staff and go out and get "his" guys for certain positions.
Criminal charges and the punishment you receive on the team are two entirely separate things. He broke the law. He will be punished by the state for breaking that law. He appeared in court already. He's on notice not to do it again. If Butch feels that this offense does not warrant a serious punishment, then that's that. He doesn't have to be harshly punished. Criminal laws and private conduct are separate issues.
Wait. They were protesting at the inauguration?
How long had Juluke been with LSU? Did he play a role in developing either LF or Guice? Seems odd to relieve him of coaching duties when he was coaching an incredible RB corps. Or was he only nominally the RB coach?
Logical based on their incoming recruiting rankings. Not logical based on some of their chances to actually see the field as freshmen. Do we really think some of these incoming freshmen at Alabama are going to see serious time on the field when Bama has 5-stars from last year waiting to see the field. Plenty of these will be redshirted and won't have a chance to make All-Freshman lists.
At least Kentucky is the best at something when it comes to football!
He absolutely destroyed Alabama's OLine multiple times in that game, and Bama consistently has one of the best lines in CFB, and most are considered overwhelmingly pro-ready. Anecdotally, I just don't see how someone can look at Barnett's production against SEC level competition and say, "But can he do it against real professional athletes?" but they look at Garrett's whose production was mostly from non-SEC opponents and they assume he's going to destroy NFL linemen. Whatever. Hope Derek proves everyone wrong, and I hope he somehow falls to the Titans. I can dream.
Yeah, of course. I'd love to have more 4- and 5- stars, obviously. But who's giving them the stars? Random people working at recruiting sites, who may or may not have valuable experience grading players. The people giving recruits their stars are in the same position as the coaches evaluating talent. If the coaches judge that a player's talent and skillset fit their mold, that's good enough for me. Recruiting sites are grading these players generally, i.e., "How do we grade this player in a very general sense in how he plays football?" Whereas coaches evaluate and grade players specifically regarding their system, i.e., "How do we grade this player specifically to fit a need for our team or to fit our system?" So yeah, a team can take a 3-star, feeling that he fits the system well, whereas he may not be graded in a general sense well for the whole gamut of football teams. Are 4- and 5-stars more likely to have positive impacts on a team regardless of a team's specific need? Yeah, sure. But that doesn't mean they fill specific holes for a given team. In short, I trust coaches to recruit players to fit the needs of their teams, regardless of recruiting grades that are given out arbitrarily and are not team-specific. Stars honestly don't mean much, other than are a useful tool for fans to follow and become acquainted with recruits. After initial impressions, coaches don't rely on recruiting service grades or stars at all.
I, for one, don't mind the Tennessee getting so many three stars. Many of our best players in recent years were 3- and 4-stars. 5-stars are nice, but they don't always pan out. I'd rather the coaches take guys who fit their scheme, whom they are confident in, rather than focusing on the star ratings arbitrarily given by different recruiting services, most of which can't agree on ratings. If the coaches like guys and have confidence in being able to coach them to fit the needs of the team, then whatever. Few teams can make 5-stars consistently pan out. Bama is one of them. No one else in the SEC is going to really get the same results, so the ratings for the rest of the SEC in recruiting don't matter nearly as much as the media likes to make out.
I agree. I can't stand the way the NCAA investigates, and definitely not how they are heavy handed to some people/schools but more lenient to the bigger fish. It won't change until most major conferences and major school ADs start making a big hubbub about it, and even then it's not all that likely to change.
I'm not really sure how this would be legal. The NCAA is a private organization, of which Ole Miss is a part. There is a private, contractual relationship between the two. Ole Miss, as a member, reaps the benefits of NCAA membership but also has agreed to be bound by its rules, regulations, and ultimately its punishments. A contractual party cannot simply say, "Well I don't like how this thing we've agreed to be bound by is going, so we're going to fine you now! HA! Take that!" That's not how it works. The fact that Ole Miss is a state school makes no difference. A state cannot punish behavior that is private in nature. In fact, this may run afoul of the US Constitution, which guarantees that states may not "pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." Ole Miss is obligated to abide by the NCAA's findings and punishments, however long it sees fit to investigate and take to punish them; the state definitely can't pass a law punishing them for taking their time to investigate. This is stupid.
Well their names recruit better than teams like Kentucky... So even when they have disappointing seasons, they still can recruit better and rebuild than other teams can (like Kentucky) after one of the best seasons they've had in a decade.
Let's face it, pretty much anyone can recruit to Alabama. The real recruiter at Bama is Nick Saban's championship rings.
He's been the passing game coordinator for the past two seasons. I think he's always been the top in-house choice for OC, since he's been with Butch the longer than Larry Scott.