Losing is never fun.

I think that must be an axiom.  If not, then it should be.  Still, there are degrees of losing — certain nuances to the old black and white world of one team wins and one team loses.  The Tennessee Volunteers, their coaches, their fans, and yours truly have become increasingly more familiar with the details of these degrees of losing this season.

That is not necessarily a bad thing…

On the one hand they lost two games — against the UCLA Bruins and the Auburn Tigers — which, by most measuring sticks, they should have won.  Each of those contests were marked by an anemic passing game and a defense which was exhausted at the end of the game.

In each of these games, the Vols offense floundered early in the game — spotting their opponent a substantial (though not insurmountable) lead lead, only to rebound too late in the game to have enough time to mount a complete comeback.

That is the darker side of defeat.

Then there was the “moral victory” of a ten-point loss to the Florida Gators.  Most folks had the Vols written off as dead before the opening kickoff — near 30-point underdogs.  Yet, when the final whistle sounded, the men in orange had defended their honor and managed to show the Gators that they would not go quietly.  Though they lost by 10, Tennessee left everything on the field and left Urban Meyer answering questions about why the vaunted Gators had not annihilated the out-manned Volunteers.  It was a loss — no question about it — but it was respectable.  It marked a small step forward.

The reality in that game was, however, that though the Vols were never truly “out of it,” they were likewise never truly in a position to win.  They hung around till the end, but really never had what it took to get the victory.  I suppose that is the sort of loss where you simply say, “well, they gave it their best.“

Then there is the Alabama game…

Make no mistake about it, the Alabama Crimson Tide won the game and won it honestly.  Alabama did what they had to do to win…

…but so did the Vols.

Unlike the Florida game, Tennessee was very much in a position to win and, with only a little bit of luck, everyone in Big Orange Country would be smiling right now.  The Vols did not win, but they were there at the end of the game fighting for the chance to bring it home.

This represents an amazing leap forward for this program, for this team, and for this staff.  This shows — clearly in my mind — that with a little time there are very special things to come for the Tennessee Volunteers.  The future looks even brighter than it did after the Vols victory over the Georgia Bulldogs.

Are the Vols “back“?  No.

…but they are getting closer.

– So it goes…

Allegedy Related Posts (Computer Generated):

• Big Orange Roundtable: Week 4 Round-up (4)
• 2009 Big Orange Roundtable: Week 8 — The Kickoff Edition (0)
• 2009 Big Orange Roundtable: Week 1 – the “Welcome Back” Edition (9)

It’s been a bumpy couple of weeks for the Tennessee Volunteers and their fans, on that there is little room for debate.

First, the Vols lost to Florida in a “moral victory” which amounts to losing gallantly.  The Vols then went on to beat a scrappy Ohio Bobcats team in less than runaway style, but as I said at the time: “a win is a win.”  Then, this past weekend, the men in orange were bested by the Auburn Tigers and Gus Malzahn’s semi-deranged (but highly effective) form of offense.  Finally, Lane Kiffin gave Brandon Warren his walking papers as a result of what Kiffin described as “conduct detrimental to our team.”

For my part, I have had little to offer on these issues due to my ridiculously overloaded schedule.  Trust me when I say that it was not for lack of desire or lack of observations that I have been so quiet.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective) I now have a little time to pontificate, so here we go…

Auburn and “Johnnie Cochran” Offense

Gus Malzahn is either a genius or a madman depending on whether you are a fan of the Tigers or are their opponent.  His offensive sets are as entropy-filled and outlandish as they are effective.  One of the keys to its function is to make an opposing defense deal with the constant distraction of the seemingly endless arsenal of quasi-trick plays that it includes.  This bevy of distractions vying for the attention of opposing defenses, reminds me of pretty much every argument ever made to a jury by Johnnie Cochran—focusing on the distraction rather than the fact.

Still, there is a lot of fact to Malzahn’s ability to mask his plays and to run unconventional sets regularly and successfully.  I personally cannot remember seeing a game which featured as many reverses and double-reverses as the Tennessee — Auburn contest.  I know that I have never seen a true pooch punt (seemingly taken right out of General Neyland’s own playbook from the 1930s) in person.  To Malzahn’s credit, he has taken a lackluster unit that barely produced anything other than narcolepsy in 2008 and transformed them into a machine which scores tons of points and gives defenses fits.

Going Down Swinging

All of that said, I was fairly happy with the way that the Full Monte’s defense schemes matched-up against Malzahn’s maniacal offense.  Sure, the defensive line could have performed a bit better and perhaps the secondary could have been a little more on top of things, but on the whole, the Tennessee defense played more than well enough to secure the win.  Furthermore, with the loss of Nick Reveiz the week before, there was bound to be a little bit of flux in the game as Savion Frazier assumed the task of setting the defensive backfield.  The effort was there.  Take, for instance, the tackle totals for Rico McCoy (16 tackles) and Eric Berry (14 tackles), and Savion Frazier (10 tackles) if you don’t believe me.

These things aside, the real problem for the Vols’ defense against Auburn was not anything related to the Vols’ defense.  On the contrary, it was the offense that led to the defense’s downfall.

The first half of the game Tennessee put on a clinic on how not to play quarterback and receiver.  With the exception of Montario Hardesty’s inspired running (into the teeth of a waiting defense), it was atrocious.  At the end of the first half, Auburn held a massive time of possession advantage of 19:31 to Tennessee’s 10:29.  As a result, the Vols’ defense spent most of the first half on the field chasing Auburn’s offense hither and yon.  By the end of the first half, the Tennessee offense’s ineptitude had completely tired out the typically rock-solid defense.

Everyone Wants the Headset

That brings us to the question that everyone keeps asking: why does the Blackjack General refuse to bench Crompton and give junior Nick Stephens a try?

During my liveblogging twitteriffic series of posts during the game, I asked this question, albeit indirectly.  I have since thought better of it.  The fact of the matter is that Jonathan Crompton is the quarterback that multiple offensive coaching staffs have determined is the best player to put on the field.  Thus, who am I to second-guess their decision.  While I won’t re-publish it here (due to the fact I am trying to stay positive with regard to the quarterback play) I must say that this post at VolNation did really drive home for me the reality that Tennessee is facing this season.  I trust our coaching staff and remain impressed with the progress they have made in this re-building campaign.  They know what they are doing, and more importantly, who they have in the stable.  Tennessee has strengths and weaknesses.  Strong players and not so strong players.   Either way, (with the exception of the highly talented freshmen) they are what this staff inherited and what they have to work with.

Like it or not, the players we have are the players we have and there is nothing that can be done about it at this point in time…

In the second half, however, Crompton actually performed quite well and seemed to find a rhythm.  What exactly it was that was causing a problem in the first half is anyone’s guess, but the difference in these two halves was like night and day.  In Crompton’s defense, the receivers were as bad—if not worse—than the quarterback play.  In particular, Quintin Hancock, Gerald Jones, and Denarius Moore all had drops while Brandon Warren failed to fall on a fumble which led to a change in possession.

Which brings us to the Brandon Warren situation…

Crime and Punishment, Tennessee Style

Brandon Warren

I will be the first to go on the record as saying that I am pleased (more like “thrilled” or “elated”) that we have a coach who is willing to discipline his players in a manner which respects not only the ends of the football program (i.e. “winning”) but also serves to honor the game, the University of Tennessee, its alumni, and the principles of respect that come with any hierarchy.

As I have said in the past, I have a very simple (some might say naive) perspective on how players should be disciplined:

… my thoughts are that there should only be three rules of increasing severity — built on the concept that a team lives and dies as a group — for any team, which should be enforced without exception:

Rule 1:  Never do anything that will embarrass yourself. — In this case I would lump things like not going to class, bad discipline in practices, being late to practices, and potentially recklessness in a game (such as unwarranted personal fouls), etc.  The penalty for infractions would be that the player is publicly reprimanded in very plain and unfiltered terms before his teammates, and the entire team runs or does some other unpleasant drill as a result of the infraction by one of its members.

Rule 2:  Never do anything that will embarrass your team. — This would include general bad behavior that falls under Rule 1, if it is repeated.  In other words, repeat offenses of a Rule 1 violation calls into question the cohesiveness of the team, and thus reflects on the team.  This would also include any “minor” entanglements with the local constabulary such as: drunk and disorderly, speeding, underage consumption, misdemeanor possession of marijuana, etc. — essentially anything which doesn’t involve fundamental dishonesty and/or risk to the physical well-being of others.  The penalty for infractions would be a mandatory one-game suspension, being reprimanded openly in front of teammates, all members of the player’s squad losing privileges, the entire team doing twice as many laps or drills as for a Rule 1 violation, and the team captains being required to do an even greater penance — along with the offender.  The offender would also be required to make some sort of public apology or public sign of remorse along with some goodwill public service (i.e. visiting the children’s ward at the hospital, raking leaves for the infirm, etc.).

Rule 3:  Never do anything that will embarrass your university, its staff, students, and alumni. — This would be the most serious violation.  This would include any real criminal behavior such as a felony.  The immediate response would be an investigation by the coaching staff.  If it appeared that the offender was not guilty of the charges, then the player would be suspended for the remainder of the season until cleared by law enforcement officials or the Courts, with the assumption that the player will be dismissed if not cleared.  During that time, the offender would essentially serve as the lowest-level trainer and would be given the worst jobs associated with a football team.  If the staff determined that the player was likely guilty, then the player would be immediately dismissed from the team, and a public statement issued explaining why.  Regardless of the guilt or innocence of the offender, the entire team would have a major privilege suspended for at least half of the season.  The members of the offender’s squad and the team captains would be treated as if each of them had violated Rule 1 by not taking adequate steps to prevent the offense or hold their teammate accountable.  Again, the whole team would also be required to perform additional drills.

The goal of this system would be to instill mutual responsibility among team members and to emphasize that when one falls short, all fall short.  I am responsible for my brother and my brother is responsible for me. No coaching staff can ever police or monitor players at all times — no matter how vigilant.  When properly channeled, peer pressure can be a beautiful thing, and is the sort of thing which goes with a player everywhere he goes.  This system is also meant to emphasize that, when you are in a position of honor (being a member of the team) then sometimes guilt by association is all that is required to warrant a penalty — it simply comes with the territory.

Lawvol on Rules: 2008 Big Orange Roundtable: Week 6 (Question 2)

Thus, I have no problem with the man in charge making the call that it’s time to, as Doc Holliday put it, “redefine the nature of our association” as a program with one of the players.

Associations Redefined

I honestly hate it for Brandon Warren, he is obviously a talented player and one which could have fit into the Vols plan for the future nicely, but instead he chose a different course—one which is divergent from the path that this coaching staff has set.  It is a shame, considering that Warren—who was a 2006 Sporting News Freshman All-American while at Florida State, and had tallied a total of 17 catches for 139 yards and 2 touchdowns at Tennessee—was getting quality playing time under the Kiffin regime.  So much potential…

That said, when I heard that he had been involved in some sort of altercation with wide receivers coach Frank Wilson during the game, I was hoping that Kiffin took some action.  I was honestly pleased at Kiffin’s decision—resolute, uncompromising, firm, direct.  In an environment that seems to want to welcome Michael Vick back into the NFL with open arms and defend LeGarrette Blount in the wake of his punching of Boise State’s Byron Hout, I was—I must confess—actually a little shocked to see that there are still standards in the world of big-time athletics.

The sort of behavior that Warren exhibited has no place in the game, and I applaud Kiffin for taking action.

Players who are focused only on themselves, ignoring those around them and the order that must exist within the game, should not be tolerated.  That sort of behavior is a cancer for a team and a staff.  It erodes team morale—demonstrating that some players are more important that the team as a whole.  It breeds disrespect.  It degrades the quality of the unit.  It flies in the face of what makes college football great.  No player is bigger than the team.

What’s more, Kiffin’s actions not only serve as a strong warning to other misbehavior, but it also reinforces the position of his coaching staff.  Showing everyone that the man at the top will support those who are on his side, even if it is uncomfortable, even if it is not pleasant, even if it is not easy.

Though I wish Brandon Warren all the best in his future endeavours, and thank him for his contribution to Tennessee, I applaud Coach Kiffin for taking a stand.

The Silver Lining

After this litany of negativity, there is some good news to be had.

First, the Vols, though far from their end goal, continue to make progress toward returning to prominence.  The running game has been impressive on the back of Montario Hardesty, Bryce Brown, Marsalis Teague, and David Oku.  The attitude from this group has been exceptional and their performance has improved every single week.

Furthermore, who knows, maybe Oku or Teague may now find themselves filling the shoes that Warren left empty—earning more playing time as a result.

Another key to the Vols running success has been the yeoman’s work of fullback Kevin Cooper, who has helped pave the way for the running backs out of the backfield with the help of the Vols re-tooled (and infinitely more productive) offensive line.

A few other things to smile about: there were no interceptions against Auburn and no sacks.  At least the Vols know how to pass protect.

There are many more positives that I could point to, but the end conclusion is that Tennessee is a work in progress—and will continue to be so for the remainder of the season.  The Vols are not going to win a championship, but they are going to overcome, and improve.  The coaching staff has a plan and the dedication to see it through to completion.  The pieces are all there, they simply need time to fall into place.

Rebuilding is no fun, but sometimes it is necessary.  The bright side is that it will only get better into the future.  For now, the orange-clad faithful need to simply support this team, its players, and the coaches.  They are making strides.  More importantly, this team needs the support of the fanbase.

Before every game, the players tap the lucky sign reading “I will give my all for Tennessee today!”  We ask a lot of these players, all they ask for is that we support them for trying.

I for one intend to give this team my “all” as a fan, come what may…

– So it goes …

Image(s) Courtesy of:      UT Sports.com ||  Statement on Fair Use

Allegedy Related Posts (Computer Generated):

• From the Ashes Rises a Phoenix: Western Kentucky Postgame Thoughts (0)
• 2009 Big Orange Roundtable: Week 2 (4)
• Well, now we have some sort of idea of what to expect… (0)

Western Kentucky vs. Tennessee
Postgame

7 Toppers

1 2 3 4 Tot WKU 0 0 7 0 7 Tennessee 0 28 7 28 63 Final

63 Vols

Well, there are so very many positive things to say about this game that it is hard to really know where to start, thus, I’ll just start at the top, here are the stats for the game:

The stats speak loudly.  Tennessee racked up a whopping 710 total net yards.  Last season the Vols managed only 3,225 yards on the season, today they produced over 20% of last season’s total yards in a single game.  They scored more points than they have since the 2000 game against the Arkansas Razorbacks.  Even more surprising was the balance in the offensive yardage between the pass and the run.

Passing

I am hardly surprised that the Vols managed big numbers on the ground, but the passing game was a pleasant surprise—oh what a change from 2008.

In fact Jonathan Crompton pretty much had a career day while Nick Stephens also notched  some quality time:

On this point, I am really happy for Jonathan Crompton.  After all of the adversity he suffered through last year, it is so nice to see Crompton have a strong showing.  As I mentioned during the liveblog earlier, Crompton just looked like he felt much more comfortable and confident in the pocket.  He looked like he knew what he was supposed to do.  He looked like he understood the plan and he looked like a quarterback who was having fun.  In several of the shots from the SEC Network broadcast you could see him smiling in the huddle.  After a 2008 season in which he received death threats from Tennessee fans, I am so glad for this young man to see him go out and be able to perform the way (according to Clay Travis’ “On Rocky Top”) he had dreamed of since he was a child.

What a change a year can make…

Receivers

On the receiving end of Crompton’s passes were a bevy of Volunteers.  It was nice to see a lot of players getting a lot of touches.  Of particular note were Marsalis Teague, Quintin Hancock, and Nu’Keese Richardson who combined for 182 yard receiving, while tight end Luke Stocker added 23 yards and two touchdowns.  Nice to see that the Kiffin cadre of coaches realize that the big guy at the end of the line can catch the ball too.

Despite the worst fears of fans of the Vols, the men in orange look like they have finally shaken off the sour taste of offensive ineptitude that was so pervasive in 2008.  Again, a nice change.

Running Game

Of course the running game was hardly lacking.

Montario Hardesty led with a banner day of 160 yards—more than half of the 271 yards he had in all of 2008.  Freshman Bryce Brown also showed why he was the number one ranked recruit in the country with his 107 yards in his first game in an orange shirt. Meanwhile, Tauren Poole and David Oku added 58 and 47 yards respectively.

Of course all of this was made possible by the excellent zone blocking by the Vols’ offensive line which opened holes that even I could have run through.  Nice game by the big guys in the trenches

Defense

I expected the Tennessee defense to look tough and they did.  I was really stuck by how well they seemed to be able to adapt to both the pass and the run.  This was particularly apparent when, with about 4:50 to go in the second quarter Western Kentucky attempted a reverse.  The quarterback, showing a pass had a face full of orange as he made the pitch, but the backs were all over the reverse as they brought the carrier down for a loss.

I will be honest, I am still trying to learn what to look for in the Monte Kiffin’s “Tennessee Two” defense, but all I can say is that the Vol defenders have clearly taken to the Full Monte’s scheme.

Coaching

I did not try to keep track of the specific calls today, but for the first time in years I was thrilled to see that I did not always know what was coming next.  There was a great mixture of run, pass, pocket, roll-out, off-tackle, sweep, and over-the-middle.  Heck, we even got to see the direct snap (which I imagine UCLA will be looking at meaningfully this week).  I’ll probably have a better grasp on exactly what we did and when after I get a chance to watch the game again.  For now, however, all I can say is that the Vols looked very well coached—they were not flawless, but they knew what they were supposed to do.  This game was an excellent way to start the Lane Kiffin era as the Blackjack General was clearly in command of the field.

Yes, I think we may have made the right choice in terms of coaches.

Final Thoughts

Yes, this was only Western Kentucky.  Yes, we were supposed to win this game.  We were also supposed to win our games against the UCLA Bruins and the Wyoming Cowboys last year.  I know that the competition level is going increase exponentially in the coming weeks.  Still, at least Tennessee has shown that it has a solid grasp on fundamentals.  They have shown that they can play as a team.  They have shown that they have the ability to do great things.

Do we know how they will match up against the Florida Gators?  No.  But at least we know that they are ready to play.

After all, I’ll take a win over a loss any day of the week…

– So it goes…

Allegedy Related Posts (Computer Generated):

• Giving Your All, the Rough and Tumble Way (0)
• Well, now we have some sort of idea of what to expect… (0)
• Vols 63, Western Kentucky 7: The Day After (1)

Somewhere, in front of a chalkboard—his hands coated with chalk dust—Lane Kiffin is smiling…

For the past several months Tennessee fans and the general sports-watching public have heard a near endless discussion about the various secondary infractions which have occurred since Lane Kiffin (a/k/a “the Blackjack General”) took the reins as the head football coach for the Tennessee Volunteers.  Needless to say, some have taken every available opportunity to criticize the University of Tennessee, The UT Athletic Department, Smiling Mike Hamilton, and the Blackjack General himself.  Some of it has amounted to little more than sniping and smack-talk, while others have been decidedly more direct.

Rightly or wrongly, Tennessee has self-reported (or is in the process of investigating with with an eye toward reporting) six secondary violations of NCAA Rules, the most recent coming—as HSH reported just the other day—as a result of the Blackjack General’s recent appearance on ESPN’s “Outside the Lines,” where he discussed, imagine that, secondary infractions with ESPN’s Bob Ley.

A “secondary violation” is defined in the NCAA Manual as follows:

A secondary violation is a violation that is isolated or inadvertent in nature, provides or is intended to provide only a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage and does not include any significant recruiting inducement or extra benefit.  Multiple secondary violations by a member institution may collectively be considered as a major violation.

•  2008-09 NCAA Division 1 Manual § 19.02.2.1 (emphasis added)

To put this in layman’s terms, secondary violations are the functional equivalent of talking in the NCAA’s rather large and particularly boring class.  Or, perhaps, in Lane Kiffin’s case, they amount to showing-off for all the girls (or in this case, recruits) in the back of class to impress them and passing notes reading:

I like you.  A Lot.

Do you like me?

Check One:  ___Yes  ___No  ___Maybe

— Lane

While this sort of thing—in both Mrs. Elliott’s 6th Period English Class and in the world of NCAA compliance—are annoying, they are largely harmless.  While it is true (again, with both Mrs. Elliott and the NCAA) that enough of these sorts of minor errors along the way can land you in the proverbial Principal’s office, as long as you say you are sorry after each instance (and UT has self-reported all such violations) and space the occurrences out by a day or two, usually there is little punishment to be meted out, aside from being made a spectacle in front of your peers…

… or by having to stay after class and write on the blackboard.

Kiffin at the Chalkboard

Hence, while Lane Kiffin and the UT Athletic Department are probably getting a little tired of having to deal with the issue of secondary violations, they have been merely a bump in the road thus far.

The Alabama Crimson Tide, on the other hand, is now facing a decidedly more serious situation…

Findings of the NCAA Committee on Infractions

As a result of what the NCAA described as “Impermissible benefits obtained by student-athletes through misuse of the institution’s textbook distribution program.” the University of Alabama is staring a real violation dead in the face—the NCAA’s penalty summary leaves little question about this:

Penalty Summary: Public reprimand and censure; three years of probation; vacation of records for all wins in which any of the seven involved football student-athletes competed while ineligible during the 2005-06 and 2007-08 academic years. Further in the sports of men’s tennis, men’s track and women’s track the records of the 15 involved student-athletes shall be vacated and team point totals shall be reconfigured accordingly; the institution shall pay a fine of $43,900; annual compliance reporting required.

•  via: NCAA Legislative Services Database (emphasis added)

This penalty came about as a result of Alabama’s violation of three NCAA regulations: § 15.2.3 (“Books”); § 16.11.2.1 (“General Rules on Extra Benefits“); and § 2.8.1 (“Responsibility of the Institution“).  These rules, especially the two latter ones, are not merely fluff in the NCAA Manual, they are major rules, which is why Alabama was slapped—not on the wrist, but across the face—for its major violation of NCAA writ.

Major violations are broadly and somewhat cryptically defined as: “All violations other than secondary violations are major violations, specifically including those that provide an extensive recruiting or competitive advantage.”  (2008-09 NCAA Division 1 Manual § 19.02.2.2)  I am quite sure that Alabama is familiar with this definition, since the athletic programs at Alabama have had five major NCAA violations—four of which occurred since 1995.

A little light reading for athletes.

While the definition of a “major violation” does, admittedly, leave a little to be desired in terms of clarity, the language of the NCAA’s Infractions Report is far less difficult to understand.  The report cites the involvement of “201 student-student athletes who received impermissible benefits…” from 16 different sports.  That’s right, 201 athletes!  Of that number 22 athletes were cited as being “intentional wrongdoers”. In other words enough people to fill an entire string of both the offensive and defensive squads of a football team.^ (Report, p. 1)

The offenses were first discovered by a university bookstore employee in October of 2007 and totaled approximately $ 40,000 in improperly obtained textbooks.  (Report, pp. 3, 6)  The majority of the violations arose from athletes obtaining non-required textbooks for free, which they in-turn gave to friends and family. (Report, p. 5)

Gee, it’s easy to see how that one didn’t get caught earlier.  I mean, most defensive linemen need three copies of Sandler’s Compendium of Chemical, Biochemical, and Engineering Thermodynamics…

Ignoring the fact that there was a documented 30% spike in textbook costs charged to the Athletic Department—a fact which somehow went unnoticed for almost 3 years—once bookstore officials made the administration aware of the problem, Alabama did self-report the violation.  (Report, pp. 1-2, 5-6)  The NCAA Infractions Report notes this and indicates that, in most circumstances, such violations can be adjudicated without a hearing, in Alabama’s case, however, that was not possible, “because of the institution’s status as a repeat violator.” On this point, the committee made itself abundantly clear:

Although the committee commends the institution for self-discovering, investigating and reporting the textbook violations, it remains troubled, nonetheless, by the scope of the violations in this instance and by the institution’s recent history of infractions cases. In fact, not only is the University of Alabama currently a “repeat violator,” because of the 2002 case, it was also in a “repeat violator” status when that case was adjudicated and when a 1999 case was decided.

* * * * *

In fact, because of the institution’s extensive recent history of infractions cases, the committee strongly considered making a more serious finding of a lack of institutional control, rather than a failure to monitor.

•  NCAA Infractions Report, p. 2 (emphasis added)

In other words: “Don’t even pretend you didn’t know better, and don’t complain about the penalty—you got lucky.”

In the end, the NCAA Committee on Infractions lowered the boom on Alabama and—though not mentioned—likely dodged the death penalty in football once again due to the fact that other sports were involved.

Meanwhile, back in Mr. Brand’s 3rd Period “Recruitin’, Footballin’ and You” Class

At the end of the day, I really take little joy in seeing Alabama hit with penalties.  Does it help Tennessee when recruiting against the Crimson Tide?  Sure it does, but it hurts the SEC as a whole when recruiting against other conferences.  Furthermore, the widespread perception that anything goes in the SEC is only bolstered by this most recent penalty—which increases the number of major violations committed by SEC member schools to a grand total of 49 (two of which belong to Tennessee) since 1953.  As much as I enjoy gigging the Tide for “cheatin’,” I have no desire re-live the whole “Fulmer Lied” fiasco of the decade.  While it would hardly surprise me to start hearing rumors that the Great Punkin was briefly employed as a bookstore cashier in Tuscalsoosa, it seems there is no one to blame but Alabama itself.  As I’ve said in the past, I am not exactly an Alabama hater—I’m not here to gloat over Alabama’s shortcomings. Besides, I’d rather focus on what Tennessee does on the field than what the Tide does in the university bookstore.

On the other hand, given the frequency, severity, and seriousness of Alabama’s violations I do have one general question which bothers me.  Alabama has now had three major violations in less than a decade.  Alabama has been stripped of wins on multiple occasions in that time period.  Alabama has built a strong reputation of, at best, poor compliance and, at worst, cheating.

So why exactly is it that everyone keeps pointing their fingers at class-clown Tennessee?

I suppose I should not be bothered by this, given the general tenor of discussions by both mainstream media outlets and New Media (a/k/a “the blogosphere”) providers.  Still, at some level the outcry over Lane Kiffin holding faux-news conferences, letting recruits run through the tunnel in Neyland Stadium “improperly”, for wanton use of  Twitter, and all the other recent oversights by Tennessee that have raised the ire of the NCAA seems a bit overblown in comparison to what has obviously been occurring at Alabama.

Of course, Lane Kiffin is probably feeling pretty good about it though.  Now, Alabama has gotten itself kicked out of class—sent to the principal’s office for cheating.  Meanwhile, there’s Lane, standing at the front of the classroom for being a cut-up—a seemingly forgivable sin.

Sure, he has had to make a few apologies.  Sure, he has had to suffer a bit of embarrassment.  Sure, he has had to endure a few barbs from here and there.

But standing up there at the front of the class—the focal point of every single kid in the class—might not be that bad.  Maybe he’s not the best behaved, but he’s not really cheating.  What’s more, he’s now getting all that attention from all those recruits sitting behind him.  Maybe that’s why he takes so much time to carefully copy his sentences on the chalkboard.  Slowly.  Deliberately.  Methodically.

Yes, Lane has chalk all over him.

That and a great big smile…

– So it goes …

Image(s) Courtesy of:  Textbooks.com ||  Statement on Fair Use

^ Note: The 22 “intentional wrongdoers” cited in the NCAA’s Infractions Report were not identified as being football players, and this is only used as an analogy.

Allegedy Related Posts (Computer Generated):

• 2009 Big Orange Roundtable: Week 2 (4)
• HLL: NY Times Reports NCAA Investigating “Vol Hostesses” (3)
• Headlines, Links, & Lies: Post-BCS Hangover Vitriol Edition (3)

Then I’m walking in Memphis
Walking with my feet ten feet off of Beale
Walking in Memphis
But do I really feel the way I feel

• “Walking in Memphis” by Marc Cohn

Well, it seems that Bruce Pearl will be staying in Knoxville for the foreseeable future, which is good.  The question, however, remains: What are we to make of this “Memphis Incident”?

For starters, I am greatly relieved that Bruce Almighty will still be wearing orange next season.  That is the good news, not that there is necessarily some “bad” news, but keeping Pearl on the sidelines in Knoxville is definitely very good.

That said, what exactly are we to take away from the brief and furious flirtation (so brief and furious that I never even got a chance to comment before it ended) with the notion that Coach Pearl might bolt to the Pyramid City to take the reins as head coach of the Memphis Tigers?  The real answer is probably “nothing.”  Still there are a few thoughts that jump out to me—random observations, I suppose—which seem relevant, if less than timely.

Bruce Pearl is Happy at Tennessee…

It seems to me that Bruce Pearl sent two messages yesterday.  The first is a very positive one, namely that he is happy as coach of the Tennessee Volunteers and has no desire to leave behind what he has begun.  Bruce Pearl likes it here.

Why do I say that?  Well first of all is the obvious: he is staying here.  More importantly, however, is the what he said in his public statement last night.  To me, it makes it clear that Pearl is truly happy to be at Tennessee.

I truly love my job, and I want it to be clear that I’m not interested in any other job.  There’s no place in the country I’d rather be than the University of Tennessee.  My children are happy here in the Knoxville community—one is in high school, one is in middle school and two are currently attending the university.

My staff and I are building a consistent top-25 program and I’m honored and privileged to serve the greatest fans in the country. Tennessee has all the resources necessary to win championships, from our recently upgraded facilities to our ability to schedule.

It’s great to be a Tennessee Vol!

• Bruce Pearl commenting on rumors of him leaving Tennessee | UT Sports.com

Now in the era of sports double-talk and lip service (See Bobby Petrino at any point in his career), it is rarely advisable to take public professions of loyalty at face value.  I understand that.  Still, there are different degrees of lip service and there are different types of coaches.  Pearl’s statement was anything but tepid—it was largely unequivocal and pointed.  In other words, he could have simply said “I’m staying,” and left the other assurances out of the discussion; he didn’t.

Second of all, for reasons unknown to me (considering I have never met Pearl), I trust the man.  Maybe that owes to the side of him that exudes infectious enthusiasm about everything to which he is tied; maybe it is because of his well documented history of loyalty at Iowa and Wisconsin-Green Bay; maybe it is because he is a con man and I’m snowed.  Regardless of the reasons, Pearl is unique in my mind because I do believe that he is both loyal and trustworthy as a coach.  My gut tells me that if he was not happy and was considering a move, while he might not come out and say it, he would similarly not effervesce about how much he loves it at Tennessee.

Furthermore, if he had wanted to leave, it would have been hard to argue with his decision given the suggestion that Memphis was prepared to offer up to $ 3.25 million a year (approximately $ 1.25 million more per year than his new contract is reported to provide).

Thus, I believe him when he says that he never intended to leave, and that he truly loves coaching the BasketVols.  If he truly wanted to leave, he would have.

Yeah, yeah, I know—I’ve obviously been drinking the Kool Aid…

…But he may not be Happy with Tennessee

The second message I got—and mind you I am seriously reading some tea leaves here—is that while Bruce Pearl may be happy at Tennessee, he may not be all that happy with Tennessee, and by that I mean happy with the fans and the larger Big Orange family.  I completely agree with some of the points raised in Joel’s assessment of the “nightmare scenario” of Pearl bolting to Memphis.  Pearl is stuck in a situation where, at best, he is likely to always be second fiddle to the football program, despite the fact that he has elevated the program to a new level in only a few short years.  Furthermore, despite having brought success beyond that which Tennessee has known at any point in the modern era, Pearl still had to deal with vocal detractors this year and found himself defending the program.

I think that Pearl was terribly frustrated with his squad this year and their inconsistent performances on the court.  I also think he probably did more than anyone outside the program could possibly understand to try to rectify the situation.  Still, in the end, Pearl has indicated that he was disappointed in the way the season played out.  The harsh reality for those Tennessee fans critical of Pearl is that—despite the fact that the BasketVols may not have lived up to the pre-season hype—their 2008-09 winning percentages of 62.5 % in the SEC and 61.7% overall were better than the Vols have done in 31 of the last 46 seasons (1962-63 through 2008-09).  What’s more, Pearl knows this too.

Thus, I think Pearl’s willingness to let Orange Nation swing in the breeze for a few hours amounts to him sending a tiny note something to the effect of “A little gratitude would be appreciated…”

A small note from Bruce Pearl

This little indirect reminder, probably did more to remind Tennessee fans of exactly how far the program has come under Pearl than anything else.  The great thing about it for Pearl, is that he neither started it nor fueled it.  Thereby avoiding “the Jerry Green Syndrome.”

Note to self, be a little nicer to those that bring you success…

Money and Rumormongers Talk; Speed Kills

At the end of the day, the here-and-there nature of all the chatter which had Pearl going to Memphis within 24 hours now appears to have been just that: chatter and rumors.  Still, Smiling Mike Hamilton’s quick decision to get the matter tied up quickly in the form of a nice new contract for Pearl, probably is what led to Tennessee scoring a huge win in the cross-state rivalry, and led to Memphis regaining its status as a program scorned.

In the end, it was the promise of an extension and a raise that iced the deal.  Regardless of whether it’s right or wrong to be paying basketball coaches that much money, the fact is that everyone likes getting a raise.  Obviously, Bruce Pearl is not immune to this.  That is hardly an unpardonable fault.

Furthermore, given the way the debate of yesterday seemed to play out across the internet in real time only further goes to show that internet hysteria is viral.  In a matter of one “traditional” news cycle the situation played out something like this:

• The “Bruce Pearl is Walking in Memphis” Saga: Blow by Blow
  • Calipari leaves for Kentucky, leading Memphis fans to bouts of heavy drinking;
  • Pearl is rumored to be on the list for Memphis;
  • Pearl becomes the top candidate for Memphis;
  • Memphis is reported to have made a huge offer;
  • Memphis denies making a huge offer … yet;
  • Business is good a Bruce Pearl’s ex-wife’s hair salon;
  • Tennessee denies Pearl being approached;
  • Tennessee says Pearl is not leaving;
  • Pearl denies having anything to deny (well, not really, but I am sure he would have);
  • Hamilton meets with Pearl;
  • Pearl and Hamilton share martinis; and
  • Memphis fans go back to heavy drinking on Beale Street;

That, is how things work in the internet age once the old rumor mill gets cranked up.  In the end, it worked out okay for Tennessee because Smiling Mike was quick to act and keep Pearl from taking that walk in Memphis.

Lesson learned, duly noted…

For now,, all the Tennessee faithful can breathe a sigh of relief.  For now all is good in Knoxville.  For now, Memphis still hates Tennessee.

I guess it is now safe to say that Smiling Mike and Bruce Pearl just re-wrote the song…

Put on my blue suede shoes Big Orange Blazer
And I boarded the plane
Touched down in the land of the Delta Blues
In the middle of the pouring rain
W.C. Handy—won’t you look down over me
Yeah I got a first class ticket
But I’m as blue Orange as a boy can be

	Marc Cohn – Walking in Memphis
	Found at bee mp3 search engine

Works for me (with apologies to Marc Cohn)…

– So it goes…

Allegedy Related Posts (Computer Generated):

• BasketVols: The Joy of Disappointment (7)
• 2009 Big Orange Roundtable: Week 4 (0)
• 2009 Big Orange Roundtable: Week 2 (4)

Note:  This post is essentially a comment responding to a post by Hooper over at RTT regarding the Brian Butler Saga.  I considered posting some of this as a comment on that venerable site, but opted instead to post my thoughts in an actual article.  Thus, I would encourage anyone reading this post to give the original post by Hooper a look.

For a detailed account of Brian Butler’s exploits in the world of college football recruiting you should check out an excellent article written by The New York Times’ Thayer Evans and Pete Thamel entitled “College Recruiting’s Thin Gray Line,” upon which the author of this post also relied.

Brian Butler has been called many things by many people, not all of them are nice.

Butler is a former rapper and call-center manager, and a seemingly respectable football trainer based out of Wichita, Kansas.  At present, Butler is the principal and operator of the Potential Players recruiting service through which he serves as a self-styled, come-lately, “recruiting adviser” to high school football standouts across the country.  A “gifted” self-promoter, he is also the subject of a recently announced investigation by the NCAA.

Brian Butler working a recruit (NY Times / Simmons)

There are many questions being asked about Butler by many people, especially those recruiting high school standout Bryce Brown (which includes Tennessee).  The fundamental question, however, centers on whether he is essentially seeking to act as a sports agent for players being recruited by college football programs.

For now, at least, there is no definitive answer to this query.

The reason that this is an issue is that Butler has widely taken the position that the only way that college recruiters can speak with high-schoolers that he is “advising” is by going through him.  To many, this appears—at least outwardly—that Butler is serving as an “agent” rather than simply as an “adviser.”

Again, why does anyone care?  Under NCAA bylaws, current and potential student athletes are prohibited from retaining agents, and requires that all prospective athletes undergo an amateurism certification process, which includes, among other things, certifying that the athlete has not agreed to be represented by an agent.  On the issue of agents, NCAA Bylaw 12.3 states that:

An individual shall be ineligible for participation in an intercollegiate sport if he or she ever has agreed (orally or in writing) to be represented by an agent for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation in that sport. Further, an agency contract not specifically limited in writing to a sport or particular sports shall be deemed applicable to all sports, and the individual shall be ineligible to participate in any sport.

• See NCAA Operational Bylaw 12.3.1 (PDF )

The NCAA’s website offers additional guidance stating that:

…a student-athlete (any individual who currently participates in or who may be eligible in the future to participate in intercollegiate sport) may not agree verbally or in writing to be represented by an athlete agent in the present or in the future for the purpose of marketing the student-athlete’s ability or reputation. If the student-athlete enters into such an agreement, the student-athlete is ineligible for intercollegiate competition.

Also, a student-athlete may not accept transportation or other benefits from an athlete agent. This prohibition applies to the student-athlete and his or her relatives or friends.

The term “agent” includes actual agents, runners (individuals who befriend student-athletes and frequently distribute impermissible benefits) and financial advisors.

It is not a violation of NCAA rules if a student-athlete merely talks to an agent (as long as an agreement for agent representation is not established) or socializes with an agent.

• via: Overview of NCAA Bylaws Governing Athlete Agents | NCAA.org

Thus, Butler acting as the only means of communication with a recruit could be troubling and potentially a violation of NCAA rules, hence the NCAA investigation.

This raises a particularly thorny set of issues for high school athletes and their families, college athletic departments, high school coaches, college boosters, the NCAA, and State Legislators.  That’s right, I said State Legislators.

For these reasons, I am personally of the opinion that someone—whether it be Butler, athletes, college institutions, or otherwise—will end up paying for what amounts to an infraction that lies in the proverbial “gray area” of the NCAA’s rules.  A violation in spirit, if not in the letter.  The problem is, however, that whether Butler’s conduct violates many rules or none all depends on the perspective applied to the facts, and for the record, I make no assertion that I know or understand all of the facts.

Still, let’s use a hypothetical to illustrate the complexity of the situation.

Meet Johnny Rocket

Let’s assume we have a hypothetical 17 year-old high school running back from Bugtussle, Tennessee, named Johnny Rocket.  Our boy Johnny has had a stellar career and is now looking at the possibility of playing at any number of schools across the country—all the recruiting sites have him tabbed as a 5-star recruit and the coaches across the country are salivating at the thought of having him suit up for them in the future.  Let’s also assume that no one in Johnny’s family ever played for any school and that they are simple working-class folks who really do not understand the mechanics of the recruiting process.

The Patriarch…

Using our hypothetical, let’s assume that Johnny Rocket’s father (“Jackson”) decides that his son is going to play for Tennessee, because that’s Jackson’s favorite team, he’s regularly gone with a friend to watch the Vols play for years, and “that’s just how it’s gonna be.”  Since Knoxville called and told Jackson that that they’d love to have Johnny wearing an orange shirt, Jackson has bought every single piece of orange clothing he can find and has filled Johnny’s closet.  He took Jackson to every home game in Neyland Stadium last season, and talked a friend’s son who is a UT student into letting Johnny spend the weekend with him so he could see what college life in Knoxville is like.  Jackson has also let it be known that no coaches anywhere from any school can do anything to talk to his son without first coming through him, but since Jackson’s mind’s made up, unless you know Lane Kiffin or Ed Orgeron you’re not getting in the door.  Case closed.

While this might seem a closed-minded and unfair way for the recruiting process to work, there is no violation of any rule of any kind whatsoever in this circumstance.  You see, young Johnny—like most recruits—is a minor and his parents’ have the ability to completely control the situation.  That’s because the law recognizes their parental rights to make decisions for their minor son, regardless of whether they are reasonable or not.

The Family Adviser…

Let’s say, however, that instead of Jackson making the decision that he turns to the assistance of a family friend whom he’s known and trusted for years: Lawius T. Vawlius, Esq. (known to his friends simply as “Lawvol” and not to be confused with the author).  Jackson trusts Lawvol because he is a dear family friend, and because he is—of all things—an attorney, has known Johnny since he was a kid, and knows all about the law, about going to college, and about “life, the universe, and the bounce of the ball,”  Jackson trusts Lawvol.  Oh, and since Lawvol thinks the world of Johnny and his family, Lawvol is glad to help as a friend—for free—and not as an attorney.

Still, despite being an attorney by profession, there is no prohibition on family friends and advisers helping out in the recruiting process.  It matters little whether that friend is an attorney, a coach (who probably played or went to a coaching camp somewhere), a priest (although I suppose the Notre Dame or Boston College pull might be a bit sketchy), or a former college player.  A friend giving free advice is just that—usually.

Here’s the catch.  Our hypothetical friend Lawvol is a donor to Tennessee’s VASF and has been a season ticket holder for years now.  Thus, Lawvol is a “booster” in the eyes of the NCAA.  As a result, there are limits on what Lawvol can say about Tennessee and how much he can encourage Johnny to play for the Big Orange.

Were Lawvol, in accompanying Johnny to all the programs across the country, to decide that his best choice would be to go to THE Ohio State University, with whom Lawvol has no affiliation, then Lawvol can engage in all the arm-twisting, lawerly-double-talk, and encouraging he wants—he’s not a booster and no amount of the “Come to Jesus” talk is too much.  Lawvol, as a family outsider, can talk with recruiters at Ohio State till he’s blue-in-the-face, can make endless trips with Johnny to Columbus, he can even help Johnny pick out a sweatshirt or two on Short North near campus after visiting the Horseshoe.  Lawvol could even tell coaches—as the appointed family friend and adviser—that they cannot talk to Johnny unless he approves it.

When it comes to talking-up Lawvol’s beloved Tennessee Volunteers, however, things would be much different and could result in something fairly similar to the Albert Means scenario if he went too far.  Other than that, however, everything here is perfectly within the rules.

Someone Call the Butler…

Once again, let’s say that Jackson wants help and he calls Brian Butler.  Now the dynamic changes—or does it?

Butler has made it clear that he’s willing to do much of what our preceding two advisers did, but on some points he is less willing.  First, no purchases of clothing or free trips.  Second, no prohibitions on any specific schools, just a general requirement that he be the contact for communicating with Johnny.  These are important because they could be no-no’s.

Here is what Butler offers to do for our Johnny, and any other player out there who needs a little advice on the recruiting process:

Our Goal

To assist student-athletes in making positive decisions by recognizing the impact their lives have in our world; while preparing them physically and spiritually to overcome the challenges of life.

What Potential Players Provides

• Academic College Tours
• Career Development Seminars
• Golf and BBQ Charity Event
• Host Nike Sparq Camps and Combines
• Speed, Agility and Football Skill Training
• Academic and Athletic Assessment
• Academic Enhancement
• ACT, SAT Preparation
• Player Highlight Films
• Player Recruiting Assistance
• Attending Fall College Games
• Weekly Film Study
• Attending Winter and Summer Combines and Camps
• Host Seminars and Coaching Clinics

• via: Potential Players.com | About Us

Oh, but there is the small fact that Brian Butler—unlike Jackson and Lawvol—is getting paid for his help.  He gets paid a nominal fee by Johnny’s parents and gets paid infinitely more by those sponsoring his events, courting him to gain his favor, and others “interested” in college recruiting.

Thoughts from the Bully Pulpit

In the end, you can see where the lines between one type of adviser and another are blurry and whether they are different in form as opposed to substance is really a matter of perspective.  In reality, the most troubling one would likely be my fictitious “Lawvol” dealing with a recruit who wanted to attend Tennessee.  So is what Brian Butler is doing troubling?

For me, it is.

The reason I have problems with what Butler is doing is because, at the end of the day, it is all about making money for Butler off of the talent of high school kids and their families.  Sure, he is providing advice to those who probably need it and don’t have anywhere to obtain it.  Good for him.  The difference between him and everyone else is that he is operating as if he were a sports agent and is banking the benefits.  Is he making anything approaching what some of the major sports agents make?  Probably not.  Still, I’m sure he’s making a comfortable living off of the endeavor.

Yes, I realize that college athletic programs also make money off of the student-athletes they field, but that is a little different in my mind.  The benefits that a school gets from its players are substantial, but so are the benefits provided to the student athlete—namely an education and a chance to compete.  Furthermore, most college athletics programs are in a constant state of hemorrhaging cash, only a select few (Tennessee being one of the few) actually make any money at the end of the season.  They are simply a creature of tradition which are designed to self-perpetuate as best they can.  Most athletic departments are constantly chasing dollars because they pour out as fast as they come in.  The few programs that manage to achieve solvency in a traditional business sense—like Tennessee—typically disgorge their profit back to their parent institution.  Thus, though it is a money game, it’s not the typical profit and loss system that is seen in other areas of sport.  I am, however, biased in favor of college athletics.

So what, if anything, can or should be done about it?

One of the questions that Hooper raised in his article was what exactly can the NCAA do to police Butler if they want to impose their will upon him?  The simple answer is, by itself, not much.  Butler is not a player and is not a sanctioned institution.  Thus, he can’t be given a penalty for an infraction.

Could a player be sanctioned or declared ineligible for using Butler? Potentially, but I doubt that the NCAA would be quite that draconian on a high school kid who simply wants to do the best for himself and unwittingly trusted Butler.

Could the NCAA sanction schools for using Butler? That seems doubtful considering that the programs are not the ones controlling the contacts and recruiting process—they are essentially beholden to Butler and simply along for the ride on the rollercoaster that Butler has created.  The one exception that might lead to a school getting sanctioned would be if a program provided any sort of financial incentive to Butler (a/k/a “bribes”) in return for a recruit’s ear or commitment.  That would most certainly lead to sanctions, but really is not any different than the aforementioned Albert Means scenario.

It is entirely possible that the NCAA has additional weapons in its legal arsenal of which I am simply not aware, in fact it is likely.  I am not an expert in the area of NCAA compliance, rules, and regulations.  At first blush, however, Butler does appear to be operating outside the existing regulatory framework—at least in a traditional sense.

So, if the NCAA has no control over Butler, is that it? No.

The fact of the matter is that the NCAA does not have to exercise its authority to reign Butler in—that’s where those State Legislators I mentioned earlier, and a little thing called the Uniform Athlete Agents Act (UAAA) come into play.

In the fall of 2000, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL)—a blue-ribbon panel of lawyers, judges, state legislators and law professors appointed at the state level—released the Uniform Athlete Agents Act which was intended to “provide a uniform system for regulating athlete agents.”  This Model Act was drafted by a taskforce at the NCAA’s request.  Upon release, it was submitted to all of the state legislatures across the country.  In some form or fashion, 43 states and territories have enacted the provisions of the UAAA, are in the process of enacting it, or have a similar act already in place.  Tennessee is one of the states which enacted the UAAA verbatim  (See TCA § 49-7-2122 — § 49-7-2141 ).

The UAAA imposes strict requirements on Agents in terms of how, when, and where they do business.  It also requires that they register with state officials as athlete agents.  Violations of the provisions of the UAAA can lead to civil and criminal liabilities.  In the case of civil suits, any award is trebled (multiplied by a factor of three), state officials can impose administrative fines up to $25,000 per violation of the Act, and criminal penalties—which in Tennessee are a class E felony—can result in up to six years in prison.  (See id. )

Whether Butler’s actions fall within the reach of the UAAA is a question which would be open to debate.  That said, if the NCAA were concerned enough, there is no reason that the UAAA could not be revised to include activities of precisely the sort in which Butler is engaged.  Thus, while it might not be possible for the NCAA to stop Butler at present, there is no reason that they could not potentially stop him at some point down the road though the use of the NCAA’s considerable power in the various legislatures of states far and wide.

But is all of that really worth it?

Whether or not Brian Butler is deserving of some sort of censure is open for debate.  Undoubtedly, the NCAA will let the world know its thoughts when its investigation is concluded.  Until then, it is all speculation.

If the NCAA determines that Butler is in violation of its rules, then likely as not, there will be a furor to follow.  What impact that might have on Bryce Brown’s recruitment is beyond me.  Still, until then all eyes in the recruiting world will be focused squarely on the exploits of Brian Butler and the considerable weight of the NCAA investigatory lens bearing down upon him.

Butler asserts that his service is legitimate and that he is simply helping players maximize that potential.  Helping someone maximize their potential is hardly a moral  offense.  Violating the rules of the NCAA, while hardly laudable, is sometimes understandable given their massive breadth and scope (PDF ).  Sometimes, rules get broken with the best of intentions out of no true fault on the part of the offender.  In my opinion that is not what is going on in the case of Brian Butler.

Though perhaps un-sanctionable for now, however, the use of high school athletes—their families, their hopes, their dreams, their desire to excel—to propel yourself to national prominence and wealth, in my opinion, is hardly reputable and should not be condoned.  While Butler may not have violated any rules or regulations which can be enforced, his shameless self-promotion paired with his willingness to interject himself into the recruitment of athletes in unprecented ways, makes me seriously question his motives.  I cannot say that Butler is dirty—I am not privy to those facts.  It does, however, appear to this author that he is.

Whether the NCAA agrees remains to be seen…

– So it goes…

Portions of this post relied upon information published by: The New York Times • Rocky Top Talk • Dr. Saturday • The Quad Blog |  Image(s) Courtesy of: The New York Times / Brandi Simmons

Allegedy Related Posts (Computer Generated):

• Alabama gets caught cheating, Kiffin plays with chalk (2)
• UTAD Announces Naming Rights Sold, Neyland Stadium to be Renamed (13)
• The Cost of Sports — Part 1: Big Orange, Big Costs, Big Recession (6)

Apparently, University of Tennessee students are getting a bit restless these days when it comes to the BasketVols—so restless, in fact, that they’ve decided en masse not to come to the games at all, and have chosen to stay home and take naps (or something along those lines).

According to Basilio only 312 students showed up for the Vols’ game against the Vanderbilt Commodores at the Tommy Bowl (a/k/a Thompson-Boling Arena).  Tennessee currently has nearly 30,000 students, so that adds up to around 1% of the total students bothered to come to the game.  Now admittedly, that game was played on Valentines Day, and maybe “love” was in the air, but only 312 students?  I know from my time on the Hill, there are usually plenty of undergraduates who don’t have dates at any given time (or ever, in the case of some folks).  Unlike football, students don’t have to get a ticket, and need only provide a valid student ID to get into the games, so the cost and annoyance argument is out the door.  Given the fact that students came in throngs last year, it appears that the students have simply gotten fickle and expect a little more from the program than what they are currently receiving.

So why have the students seemingly given up on this team?

I was a student at the University of Tennessee from 1994-1998.  When I arrived on campus as a freshman, the Vols were coming off their worst season in the history of the school.  The 1993-94 Vols won a grand total of 5 games under, then, coach Wade Houston who apparently did not even understand the rules of basketball.  Thus, my expectations were low when the 1994-95 season rolled around, despite the fact that Tennessee had a new head coach, Kevin O’Neill.  Still, I can say with conviction that I attended every home game that season and watched the Vols claw their way to an 11-16 record.

Great basketball, it was not.  Still, I went nonetheless.

Now I am not going to call into question the loyalties of the student body as a whole—we each make our own choices and decide what is important to us personally.  I suppose, given the lengths to which I have gone as a fan of the Big Orange (including running the Gate), I am one of those fans that you can count on to show up anytime the real Gate 21 (into Neyland Stadium) or the doors of the Tommy Bowl are open.  I suppose I am one of those nut-jobs who blindly supports the Vols regardless of the circumstances (this is not entirely true but, for the purposes of this article, it fits).  I guess that is why I always attended the games when I was a student.

Either way, only 312 students at the game is pretty slim pickings, and I am pretty sure — at a minimum — that out of the tens of thousands of students at UT, there are more than 312 students who, like me, are certifiable head-cases when it comes to supporting the Vols.

Still, over the last few games, attendance has been down.  Here are the attendance figures for all spectators thus far for the season:

Stats Courtesy of UT Sports.com • Conference Games are in Bold

Thus we have these totals:

When you look over the last few games, however, the numbers drop noticeably:

**Note: The “official” capacity for Thompson-Boling Arena since it’s renovation in 2007 is stated as 21,678 for basketball, however, the official attendance records indicate that the actual attendance exceeded that number for several games.

Now whether this drop off is due only to students staying home is a question I simply cannot answer.  That said, it seems that the fans—regardless of their stripes—who were attending the games early in the season are not coming out to the Tommy Bowl like they were before.  In particular, about 1,000 of them.

If (and this is a big “if”) this group is comprised of only students, then they better be careful.  We all remember the furor that arose over Smiling Mike Hamilton’s decision to charge students for football tickets this past fall.  Currently, students are not required to pony up any cash to gain admittance to basketball games, and I doubt that would change anytime in the near future.  What can happen—and likely will happen if students persist in not attending the basketball games—is that the Athletic Department will use that failure on the part of the students to show and be counted, as an indication that the students need fewer seats allotted (and the current allotment is substantial, if not always prime) .  This frees up more seats for paying spectators, and means more money for the athletic programs.  If given the choice between empty seats and filled seats with money in the UTAD coffers, it’s not hard to figure out the choice that will be made.  In short, if you don’t attend when the Vols are off a bit (I say “off a bit” because Tennessee’s season has hardly been bad, even if it has been disappointing), then don’t come crying when they are burning it up and there are no seats available.

Where, Oh, where have the students all gone?

On the other hand, if a substantial amount of the attendance fall off comes from a drop in ticket sales (e.g. normal paying fans), then there may be a larger issue at stake for the Athletic Department.  Declining ticket sales = less money.  As I have been discussing in my series on the Cost of Sports, many sports programs are beginning to feel the pinch of the abysmal economy swirling around us lately.  It is possible that the Vols’ average play of late, paired with a reduction in earning potential, is beginning to hit Tennessee Athletics.  If so, then that should correct once the economy stabilizes (if it ever actually does).  If not, then now might be a good time for the Athletic Department to reach out and remind everyone that there is still a lot to play for … which there is.

Either way, I hope that everyone will come out to support the BasketVols when they take on the Mississippi State Bulldogs at the Tommy Bowl tomorrow night at 9:00.  This is a very important game in terms of Tennessee’s conference hopes and, besides, what else is there that is more exciting than a Tennessee Basketball game in Knoxville on a Wednesday night in February.  In case you were wondering, yes, tickets are available.

Trust me, were I in Knoxville, I’d be there.  Since I am not, barring incident and time permitting, I will be joining in the Live Game Thread over at Rocky Top Talk, where everyone is always welcome to join in and either celebrate or commiserate throughout the game.

In the meantime…

Go Vols, Beat the Bulldogs !

– So it goes…

Image Courtesy of: UT Sports.com

Allegedy Related Posts (Computer Generated):

• The Cost of Sports — Part 2: Jerry Maguire and Professional Sports (1)
• 2009 Big Orange Roundtable: Week 2 (4)
• Walking in Memphis: a Brief Reflection on Reality, Basketball, and Bruce Pearl… (6)

Earlier this year, I was somewhat miffed at the Knoxville News-Sentinel’s Mike Griffith over his early-season criticisms of the BasketVols.  I felt that those criticisms—which were as candid as they were brutal—were misplaced.  At the time I felt that Griffith was premature in his biting critique of the Vols’ play.  I felt that the, then, 6-1 and No 10 ranked BasketVols were still just beginning to warm up.  I felt that he was putting the cart before the horse.

I take that back…

As was seen in the Vols’ utterly disappointing 81-65 loss to the Ole Miss Rebels, if anything, Griffith might have actually been a little too kind to the Vols when he assessed their performance back in December.  Lately, it has seemed that the Vols have been sliding further and further as the season progresses, raising concerns about where (or whether) this team will land in the NCAA Tournament.

After all, with their game against the Rebels presenting a chance to take control of the SEC East, there was plenty to play for…

Either way, the Tennessee Volunteers now find themselves sitting at 16-9 / 7-4 with games at Kentucky, at Florida, and at South Carolina in the next two weeks.  This after losing two of their last four games (Auburn being the other recent loss).  In terms of the Vols hopes of winning the SEC East, those are not exactly great odds.

What’s more, Mississippi didn’t just get lucky down the stretch, they beat the Vols in all of the four key areas of the game:

But enough of the doom and gloom.  The good news is that, miraculously, Tennessee is still tied for first place in the SEC East—again with Kentucky, Florida, South Carolina.  Thus, the importance of each win in the last five games of the season is amplified.  So there is a real chance for Tennessee to stretch its legs quickly and pull away from the pack.  Of course, each loss is equally as devastating in terms of conference standing. The peculiar thing is that, despite Tennessee having been mightily swatted by Kentucky—and in particular Jodie Meeks—in January, the Vols and the Wildcats actually matchup fairly evenly from a statistical perspective. As the chart below shows, Tennessee has been on a slight decline in the four key factors, but have—all things considered—held reasonably steady throughout conference play.

Of course, given the Vols’ inconsistencies over the last month, it remains to be seen whether they can manage to hold the line and man-up against Kentucky this Saturday.

I am sure Mike Griffith will be watching…

– So it goes…

Charts / Stats Courtesy of: StatSheet.com

Allegedy Related Posts (Computer Generated):

• SEC Basketball Power Poll Ballot: Week 8 (0)
• 2009 SEC Basketball Power Poll Ballot: Week 3 (2)
• 2009 SEC Basketball Power Poll Ballot: Week 1 (0)