It's all Reggie Bush's Fault!!! (UT reports possible secondary violation.)
Follow me on this:
* UT uses smoke machines to simulate gameday experience for recruits.
* U of Washington did the exact same thing earlier.
* Both new head coaches came from the Pete Carroll staff at USC.
* USC is the place where many people suspect that Reggie Bush committed recruiting violations.
Coincidence? IT'S NOT CALLED A TROJAN HORSE FOR NOTHING!!!
over 3 years ago
David Hooper
13 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Huh?
Why smoke? No such thing is used on Shields-Watkins Field. Unless they’re “simulating” risiduals of fireworks in the south endzone.
Makes no sense.
Yeah, it confused me too.
That’s the “possible” part. Since it’s not actually a part of the “gameday experience”, it wouldn’t meet the letter of the rule. I think they reported it because of the Washington situation (who does use smoke on gameday, if I understand things correctly). The only way this could be ruled against UT would be to use a “Washington can’t do it so neither can you” type of argument. But that would really open up a can of worms because you’d be expanding the definition of a gameday experience to include the gameday experience of any college.
And that is a whole ’nother discussion. ;-D
by David Hooper on Jan 26, 2009 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
That's an awful big leap....
considering USC has never been implicated the Bush mess.
But I do have to admit what are these two guys thinking? Pete Carroll has never done that before…
Maybe I should have added the winkie...
;-)
’zat help?
And FWIW, USC seems to be clear of that Bush mess, even from an outsider’s perspective.
by David Hooper on Jan 26, 2009 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
I'm reading Meat Market
and saw Feldman’s mention of the no-gameday-simulations rule. Then, this morning, when I read about them running through the tunnel and doing a “we’re up against Florida 10-0,” I thought first, “uh-oh,” and second, “I’m not putting that in the Talking Points.” I wonder what the rule actually says, though, because I’d assume that Lane Kiffin’s Coaching Chimera would know the rule inside and out and that perhaps they added the smoke to distinguish it from a true game day simulation. Which leads to the question — perhaps they should just be more over the top than usual?
Go Vols!
by Joel Hollingsworth on Jan 26, 2009 6:21 PM EST reply actions
How is shutting out Florida in any way a gameday simulation?
….. ::cough::
by Chris Pendley on Jan 26, 2009 6:36 PM EST up reply actions
Perhaps adding smoke was something they were actually thinking of doing.
We think of the “Gameday Situation” as all of the stuff we grew accustomed to seeing during the previous coaching tenures. Honestly, with the exception of the Woo!, nothing has really changed in 40ish years. (The direction of the T is different due to stadium changes, but that’s a logistics change, not a tradition change.) I guess my thought is that we shouldn’t make too many assumptions about how the experience will be this fall. I have no doubt that the core of the experience will be intact (running through the T, 10.3 kajillin Rocky Tops, Smokey, etc.), but I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to embiggen things to make it more standout-ish.
by David Hooper on Jan 26, 2009 6:46 PM EST up reply actions
Drew Edwards has a nice write-up on secondary violations.
He gives some examples, as well as the typical NCAA response. The article is here, if you’re interested. He also quotes the relevant rule, while I’ll include here:
“An institution may not arrange miscellaneous, personalized recruiting aids (e.g., personalized jerseys, personalized audio/video scoreboard presentations) and may not permit a prospective student-athlete to engage in any game-day simulations (e.g., running onto the field with the team during pre-game introductions) during an official visit. Personalized recruiting aids include any decorative items and special additions to any location the prospective student-athlete will visit (e.g., hotel room, locker room, coach’s office, conference room, arena) regardless of whether or not the items include the prospective student-athlete’s name or picture. (Adopted: 8/5/04; Revised: 5/14/05).” – Bylaw 13.6.7.9
Thanks
That phrarse “game-day simulations” is begging for a definition. Waaaay overbroad, and the example really doesn’t help much.
Go Vols!
by Joel Hollingsworth on Jan 26, 2009 9:01 PM EST up reply actions
Didn't Fulmer used to take the players through the tunnel and walk them out onto the field?
This rule seems really dumb.
I think almost every school runs the players onto the field in such a manner.
I’d bet that the only reason UT reported this is because of the flap over the smoke at Washington. After all, the only reason Washington reported theirs is because the message boards at Wazzu were heating up over it, and UW wanted to be on the right side of the question. I think the intent of the rule was to keep teams from having the recruits run onto the field during an actual game, even though the rule gives no indication on that point.
At any rate, it’s no concern.
by David Hooper on Jan 26, 2009 8:44 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE ROCKY TOP TALK STORE
Animated Drive Charts
RTT Classics
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
