Cynical

Never said that. But the article never states how the same defense picked off Romo 5 times with 2 going for TDs, and the special teams scoring 1 TD and 1 FG. Hell, the reason the Bills were even in position to win the game was due to the defense and special teams. After the game, Romo stated the Bills defense was doing things he never saw before, and it confused him. That's why he threw 5 picks. As for not recovering the onside kick, is that the fault of the special teams coach or the fault of the players on the field? I don't have a problem with questioning the competency of the coaching under Jauron. Hell, I was one of the most vocal Jauron critics on this board. But every close loss was not due to poor coaching, as Real Football 365 is implying. Robert Royal's failure to get his foot in bounds is a coaching fault? I would be willing to bet if we watched that game we could find clear and better examples of coaching gaffes, but Royal's foot is not one of them.

Real football 365? Might as well read and believe the Bleacher Report. This says it all: Just thinking out loud, but if the Bills offense had actually bothered to do something, like score ...

Biggest problem is still the boosters and/or alumni. Schools can crack down and self report violations all day long, but boosters with deep pockets will continue to find ways to "help" aspiring student-athletes achieve their dreams. Like this guy from USC. USC did not cheat. They just broke the rules. Linky

Lovely. So if the fatter TV contracts do NOT materialize, expect Texas to upset the apple cart once again. I bet Aggie fans are just thrilled with this bit of news.

This is weird. No matter which QB a poster prefers, everybody pretty much agrees with this statement (highlighted in bold, above). What I do not understand is the logic of how Fitz is going to be cut based on that perception. The other 3 QB's have serious question marks surrounding them. So you cut your only known commodity? Of the 4 QBs, at this point in time, only Fitz has a legitimate shot to make the team. He might not be the starter, but he would make it as back up. To me, as of right now, Fitz sets the base level of QB play. The other 3 need to look at Fitz and go "I need to be at least as good as him, with the real potential of being better, otherwise, I am getting cut."

Nobody. If he's really serious about his kid playing in a BCS conference, they would be better off if the son reconsidered the school he's playing for. Let's be honest, Memphis isn't scaring anybody in football.

Right now, there are only 3 schools NOT getting hosed: Texas, Colorado, and Nebraska And hopefully Texas A&M.

And just go ahead and rename the conference to the SouthWest Conference.

The only way TT (the school) moves into the SEC is over TT's dead body (the second TT being Tommy Tuberville).

You're slow. I already posted this on the college section this morning. In other news, the Texas Gov't (the Higher Education Committee) is looking to meet on Wednesday to discuss any school movement. IMHO, that pretty much means the Aggies will be "encouraged" to reconsider any move towards the SEC now that UT, TT, OU, and OSU will be staying put. Shame. I was beginning to warm up to the idea of the Aggies playing in the SEC, and stop being the second fiddle in Texas behind UT. Texas A&M and Alabama share a history, and Arkansas could renew it's rivalry with TAMU (from the old SWC days)

Already being discussed. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?showtopic=114622

Rumor and speculation is Stallings is the driving force behind TAMU splitting from Texas. Personally, I think this cannot be overlooked. If you have a HS recruit with aspirations of playing in the NFL one day, pitching the concept of TV exposure might have an influence. Which would you rather play: 3:30PM EST on CBS, or 10PM EST on ESPN? Not just TV, but even recruiting. More SEC exposure in Texas leads to more opportunities to recruit the talent out of there. I imagine Arkansas and LSU will benefit greatly with having an SEC foothold in Texas. And IMHO, I think an SEC foothold scares the heck out of Texas, or they would not have threatened TAMU with ending a long standing rivalry if TAMU joined the SEC. GT doesn't stand a chance of ever returning to the SEC. The official SEC stance (for right now) is they have no interest in any ACC program. I think they are waiting to see what happens with the Big-12 (and the Aggies in particular) before they consider what to do next. Even though the Texas legislature may be a non-factor in what UTexas does, it may influence what the Aggies and/or SEC can do. I can see the Texas gov't. in trying to strong arm the SEC in taking another Texas program (Baylor perhaps, as they seem desperate at being left out), or convincing TAMU to "reconsider" it's position on separating from UT if the SEC balks at taking another Tex school.

Joe Schad from ESPN now saying Texas, Texas Tech, OU, and OSU departure to PAC-10 is imminent. He's further stating the Texas Higher Education meeting on Wednesday will be a non-factor. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5284375

It also seems the Texas gov't ready to get involved. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...pansion.sunday/ And this quote comes across as rather ominous: And this one: If the locals do not like what is going on, pressure the gov't to arm twist the universities back inline.

Interesting new twist: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094038 It appears the Big-12 commissioner was able to devise a last minute plan to keep the remaining 10 teams together. The new lynch pin to this plan: Texas A&M Wow. The Aggies grew a set of nuts after all. If I read the article correctly, it seems the Aggies were ready to sever their ties with Texas. However, if the new Big-12(10?) plan is legit, I doubt TAM will leave. But, assuming somehow the Aggies say screw it, we're joining the SEC, the SEC will have to add another team to balance it out. At this point, I couldn't even begin to think who the SEC might consider.

Right now, the only 2 teams that I know of that have been contacted by the SEC are Oklahoma and Texas A&M. OU flipped flopped for a little while, but now it seems it has firmly attached it's little Sooner wagon to Texas. TAM appears to be split on all levels and in different directions. Some want to follow Texas if they leave, while others have had enough of being Texas little brother. There are Aggie fans crawling the Bama boards saying if Texas leaves, they would prefer staying in the Big-12(?), picking up the pieces, invite some new teams, and move forward (if possible). If not, they are all in favor of joining the SEC. As for your suggestion, I doubt GT would ever return to the SEC (Georgia Tech was one of the original schools that founded the SEC). Word is, both UGA and Auburn have no desire in seeing GT return to the SEC. FSU and Clemson generally do get some love from Bama fans in regards to joining. IIRC, the last time the SEC expanded, Florida pushed the SEC to invite FSU. As for Miami, I see very little advocating for them. Personally, I tend to favor FSU and/or VaTech. Quite frankly, I can handle an expansion to 14 teams, but I am no fan of a 16 team conference.

'Dat right thar wuz a moral victory fur Awbarn'. 'Dem tiggers done scarred the bajeebers out of the Tide!' Wahr Iggle!

To Auburn University folks, getting TP'd is a good thing. I can only imagine what it means if somebody craps on your lawn.

WTF? You think he's worried about fan backlash? Hell, you're proof the "silent strategy" has already failed. And Peters was so "hurt" by fan backlash, he's one of the highest paid LT in the league.

And he also said: "But I don't even know if I'd play in Houston at this point. I really wanted to finish my career in Buffalo." If he's bucking for a trade, he's not making it easier for it to happen with comments like that. If you were Houston, would you trade for a player who publicly stated he's not sure he would play for you?

I stand corrected. The article I read stated he needed to pass a physical to collect his bonus, nothing more. The article did not mention there were other requirements tied to the bonus. The article reinforced this position by stating the previous year, AS initially failed his physical, and that failure caused a delay in AS receiving the bonus.

Seriously, you do not have a clue if you believe that article discusses all the facts pertaining to what happened from 1993 onward. It does not even come close. Do you know what Langham did to become ineligible? Do you know what steps the University took in attempt to verify Langham's eligibility? Bama's probationary period was scheduled to run out on 1997. Means graduated from HS in 1999. How did Bama get listed as repeat offenders, and get put into position of '"looking down a gun barrel" at the death penalty' if the probation period ended? (Hint: It didn't. The probation was extended in 1997.) Did you know the Tennessee HC Phil Fulmer was the NCAA secret witness that testified against Bama? How come the University of Kentucky got slapped with a one year bowl ban and 3 years of probation, yet Tennessee, UGA, Memphis, and Arkansas got nothing? (It was revealed that at least 3 coaching staffs were directly involved in trying acquire Means) How does a HC know who is and who is not involved from other schools?

They rolled Toomer's corner after hearing about USC's sanctions. Barn fans are hoping the AP and BCS will award Auburn the championship retroactively. Oh, the irony if it did happen.

When Bama got slapped with sanctions back in the early part of the decade, the NCAA admitted to violating it's own rules and regulations in regards to the investigation of Alabama and the student athlete involved. When Alabama appealed the decision citing said admission of rule and regulation violations, the NCAA appeals board (shockingly) said tough nuts. The NCAA wrote the rules, the NCAA interpreted the rules, and the NCAA chose to ignore their own rules. So, yes, that is "exactly how it happens." And if the NCAA truly gave a crap about the student-athletes, why are they only allowing juniors and seniors to transfer from USC (and out of the conference) without penalty? Why not remove all restrictions, and let all the student athletes impacted transfer without penalty?

Here's kind of what I was looking for: And 14.8.2 Essentially, the sanctioned school can have it's student athlete's raided (excuse me, recruited) by other schools, but the student cannot transfer without penalty unless the NCAA deems it OK.