Friday Links: Will A.J. Green Be The No. 1 Pick?

Friday is here and that means the 'Lady' will take a break from writing about sports, but not before I drop a few interesting links to buffer your morning web wandering.

Could A.J. Green go No. 1?

According to Adam Schefter, a noted NFL Insider, A.J. Green is considered by many to be the "top-rated player in the draft". Does that mean he could go No.1 overall—defying the opinion of some pundits who felt that Julio Jones' great combine, coupled with Green's bizarre pro day, made the former Dawg slip down many a draft board. We shall see what happens with this one, but it sounds to me like Green is still in a very good position.

Domonique Wilkins in brawl.

Apparently someone didn't give this man the memo. Didn't he know that Wilkins is known as the "human highlight reel"? Surely, he didn't think he was going to get a punch in on this former Bulldog great—tsk, tsk. According to this publication, Wilkins was attacked by a former NBA ref seeking to collect a debt of $13,000 from 'Nique.

Jakar Hamilton and Shawn Williams: dueling safeties.

Neither Jakar Hamilton, nor Shawn Williams, were better than true freshman Alec Ogletree last season. Now, on 2011, with Ogletree moving to linebacker, these same two players are hoping to do what they couldn't do last year—win the starting safety job and play it well. I hope that they both are committed to getting the job done, Georgia's options here are relatively slim.


Could the Bulldogs run the table in 2011?

This mailbag question by a college football fan prompted this response from a Rivals writer, "...
even if Georgia did go unbeaten in the regular season, it still would have to play in the SEC championship game, where Alabama or LSU likely would be looming. Your optimism is respected, but I cannot share it." Read the whole response here.

What's next for Auburn after the HBO report?

"The NCAA would need more than just allegations made by these players to bring a case against Auburn. But it’s enough for it to start asking questions." I don't know if the NCAA will ask questions that actually lead them anywhere, but perhaps they'll do their due diligence—you recall how they handled the Cam Newton situation, right? They'll just ask. 'did you cheat'? to which Auburn will reply, 'no'. Okay, carry on then.

Not everyone is convinced Cam Newton will be successful at the next level.

"Newton has only been exposed to basic coverages in the SEC due to the nature of the Tigers' offense, leaving scouts and coaches diligently working to determine his football acumen in workouts and meetings." So, what you're saying is, Newton looks good in person, not on paper? Well...who didn't know that?!?

Oh, I get it now, it's okay for Auburn to pay players—if they did. 

Funny, I don't think this guy would have this opinion if Alabama were the school on the proverbial hot seat for running an elaborate pay-for-play scheme, "...It's time to say, yes, Auburn paid players. And that did everyone else does too." So, as long as everybody else is doing it, Auburn shouldn't be penalized. Well, I'll buy that convenient logic for $1.


Steve Spurrier is unimpressed with his quarterbacks—as usual.

This is hilarious. I love the part where Spurrier says the mediocre play of his quarterbacks is likely why they'll be "running the ball about 50 times a game with Marcus". You hear that, SEC? Focus on the run!

(h/t GamecockAnthemTube)




HBO Roundtable With Rich Rodriguez, Jason Whitlock, etc. 

The NCAA: Oh What A Tangled Web You Weave...

"The NCAA is amazing...every time you turn around, they come up with something new to ensure that the young men that have poured their hearts and souls and energy and intellect into their craft are continually kept at a disadvantage when everybody else around them is running to the bank." (Bill Rabinowitz, Columbus Dispatch, 12/24/10)

The comments above were made by the mother of Ohio State wide receiver, DeVier Posey. Posey, if you'll remember, was one of the players suspended by the NCAA for selling his Big Ten Championship ring.

Once the dust settled on the scandal, it was revealed that Posey's mother, Julie, was the reason the ring was sold. The widowed mother of four is constantly struggling to make ends meet and Posey saw no harm in selling his ring to help her out—as Ms. Posey put it, "There's no crime here. None. They're not involved with agents. They didn't steal anything. They didn't borrow anything from anybody. It was theirs. Nobody told them it 'almost belongs to you.' It belonged to them."

While it's easy to empathize with a son who simply wishes to help his mother in any way that he can, it also begs the question (yet again) of who the bad guy truly is in these situations—is it the player or is it the NCAA?

Jason Whitlock, a reporter for FoxSports.com, published an article lashing out at the "greedy" NCAA and it's exploitative nature where collegiate athletes are concerned. The article references the forthcoming HBO Special (airing tonight), "Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel", which speaks of former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon.

O'Bannon has sued the NCAA for the contract he, and thousands of other players have been forced to sign. A contract which states that they are forbidden from earning a dime off their college careers—ever.

Can you imagine that? A player not being granted control over his image, his likeness, or his name—as it applies to his collegiate career—while the NCAA has the ability to do so in perpetuity?

Granted, if this is indeed true, the player is made aware of this before he puts pen to paper. He could always just walk away and leave the scholarship, a chance at collegiate glory, and an opportunity to play at the next level, on the table. He doesn't have to do anything, really.

But, let's be honest, what player is going to walk away from that opportunity? Not many, and both the player and the NCAA are well-aware of this fact.

More and more the NCAA proves itself to be as self-serving and hypocritical as any other monopoly. They aren't governed by any outside entity and haven't, until now, been forced to answer to any one about how they choose to operate. However, at some point, the fit hits the shan and you have to start asking the question of whether or not the NCAA is operating in the best interests of amateurism or in the best interest of itself—especially when more and more, the latter appears to be the case.

Related articles

• Auburn Football Players To Claim Widespread Pay-For-Play In HBO Special (sbnation.com)

Jim Tressel: Playing The NCAA Like A Fiddle

Photo Credit: Marvin Fong/The Plain Dealer

Listen to this: Jim Tressel has decided to increase his suspension from the paltry, pathetic, and laughable two games that he initially felt was fair to five—like his players.

For those of you who don't remember the story, here's the recap: in January, five of Ohio State's football players were suspended by the NCAA for the first five games of the 2011 season for accepting tattoos in exchange for signed memorabilia. Tressel, at the time, feigned ignorance and said he had no knowledge of what his players were doing. He admonished them for their actions and moved on from the matter with no further commentary.

However, it was recently discovered that not only did Tressel know what was going on with said players, but he hid what he knew from the public as best he could by lying. His reasoning for doing so, he "feared" for the safety of his players.

Ohio State's response to finding out what Tressel did was to suspend him for two-games and fine him $250,000.

Well, obviously, the NCAA isn't looking for anymore criticism from the college football pundits of the world because they told Ohio State and Tressel to shove that two game suspension and come up with something better. Tressel's response, get this, he'll accept five games. The hell you say?...You'll accept five?!? Is that a joke? Surely, Tressel has to understand that his punishment, by virtue of his stature and crime, should be worse than that of his players.

After all, he did lie to the NCAA. Quite frankly, in my humble opinion, anything less than the a season-long suspension isn't worth talking about.

There should be no mercy for him or Ohio State because this isn't a case of, "aw, man, I had no idea". Tressel's actions were committed with full-knowledge of the consequences and he should be held to the fire for his actions.

Now, before we get the folks who'll scream, 'Hey, Lady, you think college football is a clean sport? You think Tressel is the exception and not the rule', let me make this clear, I don't care about the perception of college football. Perception is not the point.

We all understand that coaches break rules, teams cheat, and players can be bought—this isn't me living in a Utopian paradise where those kinds of things never happen. But, if the NCAA doesn't address this situation more forcefully, then why bother having the rules in the first place?

You have to start making an example of coaches at some point and, if that lesson begins with Jim Tressel—so be it.

Tressel should be forced to sit out the season for what he did, anything less is a joke.

Related articles

• Jim Tressel hit with two-game suspension, $250K fine (collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com)

EA Sports and The NCAA: You Made Your Bed, Now You May Have To Lie In It

I'm no lawyer and there won't be any self-righteous spouting of what the law states and how said law should or could be interpreted—I'm simply not an expert in that arena. However, Sam Keller's lawsuit  against the NCAA and EA Sports does interest me a bit because of the far-reaching effect it could have on college football. 

In a nutshell, Keller—the former star quarterback for Arizona State—is suing EA Sports and the NCAA for monies received as a result of using his likeness in their popular NCAA college football game.

For years, the NCAA has shared "...undisclosed royalties with the NCAA for use of college stadiums, team names and uniforms and the players' images..." while the players, themselves, receive nada.

The case will be argued on this Tuesday in Pasadena and revolves around a ruling made more than a year ago by Judge Claudia Wilken that rejected the notion that the images used in the popular EA Sports games should be protected under the First Amendment.

EA's lawyers argued, at that time, that the depictions are used to "...create works of art much in the same way authors, filmmakers and songwriters insert real people in novels, movies and songs."

Judge Wilken contended that the images were not "transformed" enough to be considered art and, therefore, EA is liable to the plaintiff—in this particular, case, Sam Keller—for damages.

Apparently, under the transformative defense, "a work is considered protected by the First Amendment if it contains "significant transformative elements" or "the value of the work does not derive primarily from the celebrity's fame." 

Obviously, by using all the same characteristics of each player—i.e. height, weight, jersey number, hometown, and college team—EA is not exactly transforming anything. In fact, the only thing missing from the game's version of these players is the name itself which, to be honest, can be altered by the player after purchase.

In other words, EA isn't fooling anyone with their intent. 

So, if that defense holds, what will it mean for the thousands of players who have been basking in the glow of an empty hand for years? Will the NCAA and EA be forced to fork over millions of dollars to not only former players, but current ones as well, for profiting off their likenesses?


That's hard to say at this juncture, but a ruling against the NCAA and EA could open the barn door wide open for other athletes looking to cash in.

Should college athletes be allowed to make money off their names—especially if the NCAA is making billions off of them each year—and be granted the opportunity to say "yes or no" to being marketed and sold against their better judgment? Maybe. Some might say the athlete is already getting paid enough. After all, they receive free room and board, a full scholarship, medical attention, and many outside perks that many will never garner.

However, isn't there a catch-22 inherent in that situation? Don't the universities, at least at competitive Division-I institutions, recoup a great bit of that investment through television and licensing deals that dwarf the actual cost of the scholarship itself?

Doesn't one hand simply wash the other?

Don't misunderstand, I am not about to start advocating issuing paychecks to athletes—there could be a lot more negatives in that than some can imagine—but I am not against seeing a trust fund being made available for them after they've finished their playing careers—that's something that could be particularly helpful for guys who don't have a shot at the pro level.

It's a suit that definitely bears watching, but it's possible that EA has seen it's luck run out on this one—it could finally be time for them to pay the piper or, in this case, the player.

What say you?

Related articles

• Former NCAA player's suit threatens Hollywood (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Former USC Running Back, Stafon Johnson, Is Suing His Alma Mater

Former USC running back, Stafon Johnson, is bringing a lawsuit against his alma mater for the weightlifting accident that nearly cost him his life in 2009.

During a supervised training session with the strength and conditioning staff, Johnson almost died from the injuries he suffered when a 275 pound set of weights fell onto his neck.

Jamie Yanchar, who was assisting Johnson on that day, is no longer on the staff at USC, but he is also named in the lawsuit.

The incident, which happened in September 2009, was likely thought to have been water under the bridge for the USC football program—especially after Johnson signed on with the Tennessee Titans.

But with Johnson's professional career in doubt after suffering a season-ending ankle injury, you have to wonder about the timing of this.

Would he be pursuing this measure if his NFL success, to this point, were more significant?

To be sure, Johnson deserves compensation for the carelessness of USC's training staff, and there is little reason to believe he won't get something out of the deal; It just seems like he might have considering doing so sooner rather than later.

Georgia Bulldogs: Mark Richt Has Faith, But How Many Still Have Faith In Him?

If you're a Georgia Bulldog fan, it's not likely to have escaped your attention that Auburn's Gene Chizik became yet another SEC coach to win a national title in under five-years.

Believe and say what you will about Cam Newton, and the dirty NCAA, the fact remains, Auburn has a recent national championship to brag about and Georgia does not.

Gene Chizik, booed by Auburn fans a mere three seasons ago, has a Sears Trophy and a Heisman winner on his head coaching resume.

Mark Richt has????

And it's not just Chizik that boils you. It's the departed Urban Meyer (won two titles in five years), the fiery Nick Saban (won a title in his third year), and the gunslinging Les Miles (won a title in his second season). All won the big one within a short period of time.

And Mark Richt has????

Yet you are told to have faith that Richt's time will soon come.

Well, it's tough to have faith when you're losing players left and right— Justin Houston and Brandon Boykin could follow A.J. Green to the NFL, Darryl Gamble is gone, and both Marcus Dowtin and Nick Williams (sleeper talents to start 2010) are transferring—and necessary staff changes take so long to get made—the offensive coordinator is still...coordinating.

Your faith will only take you as far as your ability to overlook certain truths and, for a great many, that truth is this: Mark Richt's window to win a national championship has closed.

Does that mean McGarity should have dumped him after the bowl game? No, not in my opinion.

In truth, McGarity has done the right thing in allowing Richt this one last season to show what he's made of.

If 2011 proves mediocre, then he's out and McGarity has had more time to evaluate the program as well as identify possible candidates for the future.

He's just being sure all of his bases are covered.

In the meantime, one can only trust in the possibility that 2011 holds a better outcome.

It's all or nothing next season for Georgia football, under coach Richt, and faith or no faith, we are all hoping for a miracle.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

College Football: Arkansas Legislators Want New Rules After Newton Scandal

It looks like the lawmakers of Arkansas want to see some major changes in the way sports-agents are penalized for "rogue" behavior—at least by their state.

According to published reports, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel is introducing new legislation that would make it a "Class D felony for agents or their representatives to induce student-athletes to sign a contract by furnishing goods or services of value".

The bill would also "make it illegal for parents or others to seek the same illegal financial benefits in exchange for the promise of a student-athlete's commitment to a college or university athletic program."

Hmmm, sounds like Mr. McDaniel may not be too happy that his alma mater's (no surprise here, it's the University of Arkansas) shot at BCS glory was thwarted by a team many still feel was winning games with a dirty player who should have been deemed ineligible—Auburn.

Not that this was his only motivation for pushing the bill—sponsored by David J. Sanders—said McDaniel,

"Sports agents need to know that we in Arkansas will not tolerate them coming into our state, breaking the law, and jeopardizing the future of our student-athletes...further, we're going to make sure that our kids aren't used as pawns by their parents or others who think they can get away with selling their services to the highest bidder."

Wow, that language sure sounds pointed, no? He goes on to say,

"NCAA penalties could cost the hotel owner in Fayetteville or the convenience store owner in Jonesboro, all because of the actions of some unethical sports agent from outside the state...we support this legislation because we want our local economies to thrive and we want our student-athletes and our universities to be protected. It just makes for a better experience all around when everybody plays by the rules."

Well, not for nothing, Mr. McDaniel, but your head coach isn't exactly a saint himself—just saying.

If put into place, the penalties could be pricey if an agent or agent-representative is found in violation. The current penalty is $50,000 per offense, that would increase to $250,000 under this new law.

Beware Auburn Fans! The Cam Newton Smear Campaign Is In Full Effect

Boy, that Cam Newton sure has a lot of "haters" all of a sudden.

If it's not FoxSports.com's, Thayer Evans, urging voters to leave Newton off their Heisman ballots, then it's the Orlando Sentinel grabbing onto whatever negative stories they can find to discredit Newton's season.

There's so much mud-slinging going going on with this kid right now, you'd think he was running for a political office.

To be fair to the vitriol-spewing media, we have to admit that some trepidation in voting for Newton will be present. Based on the pay-for-play allegations and the newest dagger that accuses Newton of academic cheating while he was at Florida (although given the fact that Thayer Evans wrote the article, you have to wonder how much truth there is to the account), some voters are bound to be getting a little gun-shy.

That said, it doesn't seem fair to penalize the kid for unproven actions—we have seen proof of nothing, yet, so why risk your credibility grasping at the whispers?


If Newton ends up being blameworthy of either, or both, of the allegations then, by all means, re-evaluate his worthiness for receiving any post-season accolades.


Until then, let the NCAA do their job, let Newton continue his season, and refrain from damaging the reputation of a, to this point, innocent young man.

College Football Debate: To Pay or Not To Pay—Should There Be A Question?

By now, most everyone has either read or heard about the interview that, Josh Luchs gave to Sports Illustrated regarding his time as a sports agent. It's an interesting read, chocked full of all types of tidbits that make you raise an eyebrow at just how seedy the world of college athletics can truly be— when no one is watching.

However, after finishing the article, only one question can possibly come to mind: Should the NCAA allow amateur athletes to be paid or not?

The question is simple enough, but the answer is more complicated than any could possibly imagine because there is no black and white response to a query that has so many shades of gray. Of course the hard-line response would be to say that athletes are paid already—via their cushy $100,000 plus scholarship.

While the majority of college graduates will exit with a mountain of debt, most athletes will exit not only debt free, but with a degree that will be worth something in the job market, and a level of recognition that, depending on where they live, will grant them an opportunity to find a career that pays well.

Think about the sheer number of former athletes who find their way into the broadcast booth, onto the radio, and linked to lucrative business offers just for the use of their name and image—mostly because they played football or basketball.

There are benefits to being a successful collegiate athlete—even if you aren't an all-conference player who manages to garner a pro contract.

That said, the NCAA, and the institutions that these athletes serve, are also getting paid. The A.J. Green incident shed new light on the fact that a college athlete is powerless to what they can do for monetary gain. He sold his jersey for $1,000 and, while he was wrong for doing so, the NCAA sells a replica of his jersey for—at minimum—$50.00.

Look around Sanford Stadium and count the number of No. 8 jerseys—how many do you see? Is it more than a $1,000 worth—does Green get a cut of that? Did Reggie Bush reap the benefits of his No. 5? I bet Tim Tebow could have paid for a lot of circumcisions with his No. 15—just putting that out there.

Furthermore, look at the video game industry, they've struck gold with NCAA football series—the recently released NCAA 11' football sales increased 8% over the previous version. Keeping that in mind, it has to sting a little when a popular college football player sees their jersey number, but not their name, featured amongst the 100-plus schools the game promotes—knowing that most fans will know exactly who they are on said game.

And then there's the issue with players accepting monies, gifts, or favors. If they do so, there are steep consequences attached. Yet, the NCAA expects them to get by only on what they are allowed to have under the guidelines: tuition, books, meals, and on-campus housing are covered. However, there are no stipends given to cover other non-academic expenses: clothing, entertainment, etc.

Many of these athletes are poor and don't have the means to do anything.

Sure, the NCAA allows them to work but, let's be honest, what student-athlete has the time to fit a job into their daily commitments? Between practice, training, classes, tutoring-sessions, and study time, there isn't enough time in the day to hold down a job?

So, that leaves the athlete to depend on his/her family for any extra expenses and most cannot afford to do so.

That said, there will be some athletes who will take advantage of their popularity by accepting money and gifts from an agent, a booster, or an overzealous fan. Is that the right thing to do? No, but, despite what the NCAA has to say about why student-athletes aren't paid, there is a need for further discussion on how to best address these matters.

The debate is one that has so many angles that it's difficult to tackle them all, but it's anything but black and white—it always has been.

What say you?

The NCAA Don't Need No Stinking Investigators...TMZ Will Do Just Fine

Who needs to investigate the wrongdoings of the collegiate athlete when you can just find a cheap tabloid television show to do it for you?

The fact that A.J. Green jeopardized his season for a few extra spring break ducats was a lot less surprising than his mention of TMZ being the initial impetus of the NCAA's investigation into his actions.

Said A.J., "I didn’t know anything about it, Green said of the party. "When the NCAA told me about it, they said they heard it from [website] TMZ. [The NCAA] just heard it was a rumor, so they came down here and asked me." (AJC, 9/28/10).

In case you have no idea what TMZ actually is, it's a celebrity gossip site known for being very unfriendly to famous people. If tabloid journalism had rungs, TMZ would fall somewhere between US Weekly and The Enquirer—in other words, it's pretty close to garbage.

So, it seems rather comical that the NCAA has agents patrolling cheesy tabloid websites for information on what the college athletes they get paid to keep tabs on are doing. It makes you question their ability to actually find out anything major, that's not self-reported by the institution, on their own.

Perhaps that's why it took them five years to figure out that Reggie Bush was dirty, North Carolina was paying tutors, and South Carolina players were living in hotels—jeez, Marc Emmert (the new NCAA president) has a lot of work left to do if he expects to streamline that operation.

Adding more insult to injury was the fact that the NCAA investigation into A.J. Green's actions continued long after it was established that he wasn't in attendance at the South Beach party. Why was that even necessary? Just thinking out loud here, but, wasn't that the reason for the inquiry in the first place? He was rumored to have been there and—shocker—the rumor turns out to be a fabrication.

Why then mull over his bank statements from the previous 15-months?

Did the NCAA agent feel a little silly coming away empty-handed after their "source" ended up being complete hogwash? Did it then become necessary to find something—anything—to justify their contacting Green in the first place? If that wasn't case, why didn't they just leave well enough alone?

Unfortunately for Green, they did unearth his dirty, little secret. One that he, admittedly, knew was wrong but didn't properly calculate the consequences of after the fact.

It's all over now, thankfully, and Georgia can see what restitution Green can  repay the Bulldogs on the football field. Georgia offensive coordinator, Mike Bobo, is already foaming at the mouth trying to come up with better plays than the slants, draws, and iso's he's been blindly running over the last three weeks.

Even still, it's perplexing to think that the NCAA expects anyone to take them seriously when they rely on such trashy mediums as TMZ to point them in the right direction—Seriously?

You know that somewhere, someone is thinking, "if not for that POS (piece of shhhh) website, Georgia could be 4-0 right now", right?...just putting that out there because someone is thinking it—no doubt.

As for the NCAA, when asked about the allegation that they don't have agents who can find their own dirt, minus the help of entertainment news, they had no comment. 

Georgia Coach Mark Richt Talks High-Dive and 2010 Bulldogs (VIDEO)

Georgia Mascot Gets Some ESPN Love...

I have to give some props to Senator Blutarsky over at Get The Picture for queuing me into this little video. I particularly love the part at the end where Hairy knocks the remote out of the guy's hand—classic!

Enjoy...

The NCAA Needs To Tighten It's Rules Regarding Facebook Contact

The NCAA needs to decide what is and isn't okay where Facebook is concerned. According to Kyle Veazey of the ClarionLedger.com, Ole Miss may be in line for a "secondary" recruiting violation after assistant coach, Chris Vaughn, commented on the public wall of Mississippi State commit, Jermaine Whitehead—the NCAA does not allow this.

However, here's the kicker:

“Our members are concerned about the level of intrusion in a young person’s life related to recruiting, and the celebrity culture that can develop around the recruitment process, which is why limits are placed on how often coaches can contact recruits,” NCAA spokesperson Stacey Osburn said. (ClarionLedger.com, 6/26/10).

Huh?

Let me explain my perplexed state, the NCAA does allow a coach to send private messages to a potential prospect. How is that not intrusion? After all, the NCAA would have zero knowledge of what's said or sent in that message.

So a coach can decide to compile a video presentation featuring an ESPN highlight reel of the prospect's future accomplishments and opportunities if he chose to sign with their school, link that video as a part of the private message, and the NCAA would have no idea—how is that okay?

Of course, one might say that the same can be done in a recruits living room or on their official visit—the NCAA won't be present in those situations either.

That's a point well-taken but as stated above, limits are imposed on the amount of contact a program can make with a potential recruit. Visits to the home and/or the school are set in advance. There are specific guidelines one fact-to face contact and telephone calls. This is not the same thing as being allowed to send a private message on a social medium.

Social mediums provide the added bonus of being able to attach video messages that can, indirectly, be considered face-to-face contact. A coach could video himself talking one-to-one with a recruit and no one would be the wiser—including the NCAA.

Again...I am perplexed.

A "secondary violation" amounts to nothing so Ole Miss is likely willing to take a calculated risk if it nets them a player—assuming that they truly did anything at all. If nothing else, Facebook has proven to be a place where you can be anyone you wish to be—identities are rarely verified unless a barrage of complaints are levied against a particular user. So this whole thing could be a whole lot of nothing.

If not, the NCAA needs to consider the legitimacy of this rule altogether because at the simplest level it doesn't make a lick of sense. 

The Georgia Bulldogs Have Two Commits in Rivals Initial Top 100

Rivals, one of the nations premier scouting services has released it's Top 100 recruiting rankings for 2011 and the Georgia Bulldogs have snagged two of their players in Christian LeMay (QB) and Sterling Bailey (DE, pictured at right).  LeMay is listed at No. 65 while Bailey slots in at No. 82.

Rivals is considered one of the more reputable and consistent sources of prospect information in the country and the evaluation process used in sizing up prospects is often said to be more intensive than that of other services. That said, if a prospect receives a five-star rating, you can be certain that he didn't come by it easily.

So far, the list has ten guys who were awarded a five-star distinction and, surprisingly, none of them are named Ray Drew (No. 15), Isaiah Crowell (No. 17), or Jay Rome (No. 40)—all Georgia targets—all of whom were given four-star ratings. 

Even still, if Georgia were able to haul in 6-10 of the guys on the list, and there is a possibility that will happen, then they would assuredly have a Top 10 class in 2011; no question. That fact is not lost on Mark Richt's staff, I am sure, as they have been out recruiting hard this offseason. The message to  prospects has been that they can be a part of Georgia's "Dream Team" next year if they decide to sign with the team.

For their part, those prospects who have already given their early commitment, are offering their assistance on the recruiting trail and hope to sway other top players towards Georgia's direction. The final result, it is hoped, would be a No. 1 recruiting class in the nation for 2011. That would definitely ease some of the pain still felt from 2010's National Signing Day which was the lowest ranked class of Mark Richt's tenure.

In the meantime, Georgia continues to secure early commitments from some solid prospects—they have nine so far.

Here is the link to the Rivals Top 100.

Memorial Day Charcoal: Links To Get You Cookin'

The Georgia Bulldogs Softball team will take on the Washington Huskies tonight as the Women's College World Series opens up in Oklahoma City. The game will air at 9:30 PM (EST) on ESPN2. Good luck to the team as it tries to continue it's hot streak against the nation's No. 1 team.


The Sporting News released it's preseason Top 100 on last week and the Georgia Bulldogs football team came in at No. 27. 


The NCAA is closer to announcing the findings of their investigation against the Southern California football and basketball teams. I'll believe it when I see it and I cannot believe that it has taken this long in the first place—ridiculous.

This writer feels that the SEC needs to beef up it's non-conference schedule. I agree but the SEC isn't the only conference with a cupcake addiction so, perhaps, he needs to give this advice to the Pac-10, Big 12, and Big Ten as well—just a suggestion.  


The president of Boise State University takes issue with the athletics over academics model that seems to be creeping into the college football philosophy. He feels that there is too much emphasis on the player and not the student and that is a problem. I see his point but, at the same time, when a player signs on with a big-time program as a highly-touted recruit, he is well aware of the perils of such a decision. Scrutiny will be a part of that equation and, it's possible, that his Boise, ID residency doesn't give him the proper perspective. He may dislike the emphasis on the "student" part of "student-athlete" but schools don't sign players just for their book smarts—they are trying to win football games. 


Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to honor the great veterans and current soldiers who fight and risk their lives to keep us all free. Thank you to all the servicemen and women who sacrifice so much for us on a daily basis—among that group, I can count a member of our very own family who serves proudly in the USMC.  Happy Memorial Day!