Jack DeWalt

Unions. That's the next thing coming.

In articles like this one talking about putting players on salary, etc., the one thing that routinely gets ignored is Title IX. From a logical standpoint, it makes perfect sense to say that the players in revenue sports get paid, and the ones in non-revenue sports don't. But that means that all the money will go to male athletes, which will never pass muster with campus wokies, the courts, or the DoJ. But if athletic departments are forced to put every female swimmer, tennis player, and equestrian team member on salary for "equity" purposes, some lower-tier athletic departments will be seriously strained. For this reason, I think there is a good chance the NCAA will lean toward allowing NIL collectives to handle the payouts. As long as the collectives are "independent" of the schools, there are no legal ramifications for only paying the athletes that are bringing in revenue.

"If Baker can succeed in getting 2 diametrically different political parties to work together..." It's Massachusetts. The parties are not that diametrically different from one another.

It's a heck of a lot more than I had.

You mean there was no one to edit this addition.

"Players — beyond education expenses and professional development, and a $5,500 stipend — get none of that ever-expanding media rights money." Not true. For a few years now, athletic scholarships have been for "full cost of attendance," which includes thousands of dollars over and above tuition and books.

"Players deserve NIL deals — once they’ve proven their worth. But that’s the rub in this entire process. What was initially birthed as a way to reward current players on the roster, has devolved into using collectives not officially associated with universities paying high school players to sign with schools." And here we come to the part where Hayes openly admits he is a dolt who couldn't see five minutes into the future, something that was blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain.

"This isn’t about players and money. These guys have been on the short end of the deal for 150 years." Really? College football programs were raking in millions of dollars a hundred years ago? 75 years ago? Steve Spurrier was the first college coach to make $1M a year, and that didn't happen until the 90s. More uninformed nonsense from Hayes.

It's pretty clear that the SEC is very mediocre this year, and Auburn is fighting and clawing just to beat the mostly lower-half teams it's played so far (combined conference record of the five SEC teams Auburn has beaten so far is 5-23). In a couple of weeks, there's going to be a reality check. Pearl made an error when he trusted that his guards would develop in the offseason and so didn't recruit replacements from the portal. Green scores points, but he utterly fails at the primary functions of his position: leading the team, making good passes, getting the ball in the hands of playmakers. He is always trying to make his own shot first, and only passing as a last resort. Johnson is still as childish, selfish, and out-of-control as last season, but less productive. And yeah, this year's freshmen are busts. Donaldson may develop into a serviceable player eventually, but Traore looks like Danjel Purifoy 2.0: A highly-rated recruit who will, at best, develop into a sometimes contributor (if he doesn't transfer, which he probably will). Given the intense competition Pearl is facing from Bama, Arkansas, etc., he needs to reassess his recruiting strategy. Start by getting some guys who can actually shoot the ball.

Not sure why you're ecstatic. This team has underperformed expectations to this point.

Auburn has a good defense, but the offense just isn't there this year. They have no consistent shooting threats. The record is good now, but the first half of the schedule is mainly against SEC cellar-dwellers. The last 12 games of the season shape up like this: Home: TAMU, Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, Ole Miss, Tennessee Away: West Virginia, Tennessee, TAMU, Vandy, Kentucky, Alabama I don't see them getting through the home schedule unscathed, and other than maybe Vandy, I'm having a hard time seeing any wins in those home games. 6-6 seems pretty optimistic right now.

I guess Florida fans have wiped from their memories how Emmitt Smith once openly lamented that he didn't go to Auburn.

Maybe, but it's probably accurate in this case.

Maybe because of the way the normally-reliable OSU kicker completely shanked the last kick so that it never had a prayer?

Um...

I wish a reporter had had the guts to ask McCartney postgame to reassess his thoughts on how Michigan was going to pound TCU's 3-3-5 defense. But since he walked out after only one question, I guess there wasn't a chance. At least he has a hot girlfriend to take his mind off his troubles.

No disrespect at all to TCU, but I don't think they're going to be much of a challenge for Georgia. The advantages they had against Michigan, particularly their overall team speed, just won't be there against Georgia. I think Georgia wins by at least 24.

For most of the game, Bennett finally looked like the former walk-on he is, but he turned it up a notch when it counted.

I picked TCU to win, so I wasn't surprised at all. Michigan always underachieves outside the B1G. TCU is a tough team with a gutty QB, two NFL cornerbacks, and a ton of speed. Congrats on their amazing season. But they'll be a greasy stain on the sidewalk when Georgia gets done curb-stomping them. I hate it, but that's just the way it is.

Gotta say... does anyone really think that Kentucky would be an underdog against EIGHT SEC teams, including UGA and MSU? Not buying it. I'm also not buying Adam's Mizzou homerism.

"Florida’s offense has been atrocious this year." Agreed. Napier was never able to figure out how to maximize Anthony Richardson's abilities. Oh wait...

K-State is a solid, blue-collar team. I was extremely impressed by their toughness and football IQ against TCU. They know who they are and play to their strengths.

Easily the most etymologically amusing game is Kansas vs. Arkansas.

"Sans" doesn't mean "other than"

So you once again show you have no idea what "figure of speech" means. There's dumb, and then there's being too dumb to know when to quit. Congrats. Maybe you can pick up a third brain cell in the portal.

No one ever questioned Sanders' ability to recruit. But with only three years coaching experience, all at the FCS level in a particularly weak conference, his ability to coach at the Power 5 FBS level is very much an open question. Maybe he'll do great, but there's no way to know that right now. Colorado made a good hire, but for any traditional football power program to hire Sanders at this point in his career would be a major risk.

Proprietary? Figure of speech? You need to consult a dictionary, friend. You attempted to make a point by using exaggeration, yet you failed miserably because the two people you cited would be completely unsuited for the jobs. Take the L and move on.

Well I have to say that if Auburn hired a HC with no football knowledge and a lifetime defensive coach as OC, the fans would definitely have something to complain about.

Not sure who you're talking to, PhildnStream, but that's not my experience. Most of the Auburn people I have talked to about it aren't thrilled with the hire and are afraid it's going to end badly (with Freeze doing something else stupid), but they are hopeful he will surprise them and be successful. Of course, most of the people I'm talking to are over-40 alumni, so it might be a generational thing, or it could be a difference between alumni and non-alumni fans.

I get it, but... if I recall correctly, it was Kansas that ended the annual rivalry in a petty snit over Mizzou leaving the Big 12 (much as Texas did to A&M when the Aggies left). I can understand why Mizzou wouldn't want to give their old rival a one-time shot at getting a win, only to have them run back and hide in their hole. It's not unreasonable to say, "Nope. Either agree to make this an annual game or just go away."