Unverified Voracity Wonders About Magic Money

Submitted by Brian on June 15th, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Worst State Ever goes national. On cable, but still:

You, too, can own this piece of History Channel-famous clothing. If you already own one, your Grandma needs one.

Why the hell? This is apparently the reason the Big 12 did not fall apart:

No FSN deal has been signed, and nothing is expected for several weeks at the earliest. But sources say FSN has told Big 12 officials that it would increase its annual payout to as much as $130-$140M per year. It currently pays $19.5M per year for the cable TV rights, a deal that ends following the '11-12 season

How in the flaming hell is that a good business decision for FSN? You're increasing your payout 600% for games that are on average less interesting without Nebraska—the Big 12 was recently reassured that ESPN would not demand a "rebate" on their existing contrat.

Sports Business Daily says that along with that payout will come "third tier rights" that include radio, stadium signage, local media, and third-tier TV rights. I'm not exactly sure what the value of that stuff is but since IMG is involved I imagine they're similar to the rights deals M and OSU have with IMG that amount to something like 8-10 million annually, with teams like Purdue getting maybe half of that. Ballpark those at 4 million per school (which is a complete guess*) and Fox is only… uh… more than doubling its commitment to the Big 12 after it lost a good bit of reach and interest.

We may see a system where more rights devolve to the league itself, thus artificially boosting the conference distribution without actually boosting the revenue much. It'll be like a heavily back-loaded NFL contract that's more show than substance. I'm sure the Big 12 will increase its payouts in a real sense, but the demographic realities that almost saw the conference implode aren't going away. I agree with this guy who is cited by USA Today as an expert:

However, he called the projected average annual TV splits of $20 million for Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M, with the other schools getting $14 million-$17 million each, "too high, just not realistic."

"Now, who knows? Maybe they can break the mold and come up with a model nobody's seen."

More likely they'll just dress it up real purty to save face. Doctor Saturday has more.

*(But I think it's the right range since schools will be able to hold onto whatever other rights they require to start their own networks.)

Appeal not so much. The #1 must-read piece on USC's sanctions comes from the Bylaw Blog, which delves deep into the record-length document to reach some conclusions no one else has the expertise or care to. The main takeaway:

In that detailed account, the Committee on Infractions lays out the case that USC took in two student-athletes with no regard for the amateurism rules, and then failed to notice when they began accept benefits and enter into agreements in violation of the rules. The overall gist of the NCAA’s stance was summed up by one quote from Paul Dee, the chair of the Committee on Infractions during the teleconference discussing the report:

High profile players demand high profile compliance.

IE: no more see/hear/speak no evil for Carroll and Friends. Compliance Guy also provides a heartening opinion on why the document is so long and took so long: the NCAA lacks a true smoking gun and instead laid out its case meticulously in anticipation of a USC appeal. The top priority was making the penalties stand.

At this point a USC appeal would probably damage the school more than help it, as the penalties would just be delayed. So, go ahead, USC. Appeal.

Seriously pissed off, you guys. The hockey committee dropped a couple of major rules changes on college hockey:

  1. Icing always counts even if you're killing a penalty.
  2. Hits to the head are an automatic five and a game.

The second is just another version of the committee's temporary freakout about hits from behind after North Dakota's Robbie Bina was seriously injured by a dangerous check from behind by Geoff Paukovich. The NCAA decided to combat incompetent refereeing by making all hits from behind five and a game, leading to a brief period when every hit along the boards was accompanied by a nervous glance at the ref just in case he decided to toss your guy from the game. Refs started calling boarding instead and a few years later we're back to square one when it comes to hits from behind: still illegal. We'll have an annoying period where routine minors are wildly overreacted to, refs will start calling roughing, and everything will go back to the way it was.

The icing change promises to greatly increase the efficacy of power plays and has been met with fuming, largely because the coaches voted against it… unanimously:

“I think it’s just a crime,” Bemidji State coach Tom Serratore said. “I’ve been in college hockey for 18 years and I’ve never seen anything like this in my life. It was almost unanimous for the entire coaching body. How can the committee overturn the entire coaching body? I think it’s sad, the lack of respect that the committee had for the coaching body.

“We didn’t spend any time even talking about it because it was so radical. We just voted 12-0 and moved on.”

Coaches are also irritated by a change to delayed penalties where a team that scores on the delay still gets the power play, but that hardly ever happens so at worst it's a minor annoyance.

Other changes:

  • Goaltenders now change ends in overtime. This might be a direct response to what happened at the Fort Wayne regional, when Michigan got stuck with the long change for four out of five periods in the double-OT game against Miami. It's not a rule change that will have an impact anywhere else, but it's a good one anyway.
  • Icing modifications. The "obtainable pass" rule where a player who attempted to pass to a teammate who just missed it saw his icing waved off is gone, which I don't like. On the other hand, if an offensive player is clearly going to beat the defender to the puck they will wave it off. Net impact is about neutral, I guess.

The half-shield proposal was tabled so that more studies about injury could take place.

The rules proposals aren't final—they have to be addressed by the "Playing Rules Oversight Committe" in July. One dollar says the icing rule is dropped and never discussed again.

BONUS: That last article suggests the CCHA will drop the shootout. I actually didn't mind it once they went to a system where all games were worth the same number of points.

Etc.: Bacon goes way back to cover Michigan's brief withdrawal from the Big Ten around the turn of the 20th century. All of the CU/NU penalty fees will go to OU, Texas, and A&M. NHL.com profiles Carl Hagelin. Contrasting Michigan's response to the NCAA with USC's.

Comments

mgovictors23

June 15th, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^

I hope financially FSN is doing good because their about to be spending a lot more money. Now will all the extra money their spending go to every school or just the schools that their televising? I imagine they will televise let's say Texas a lot more than they would Iowa State. So would Texas get all that money or will it be shared among the teams in the conference? Anyways interesting to see that statistic. Dan Beebe wasn't lying when he said they would get a lot more revenue if they stayed.

zlionsfan

June 15th, 2010 at 6:07 PM ^

not that I was blind to the way the Big 12 was run before, but now that Texas seems to be tilting the Big 12minus2 even more in their direction, a) I can hardly blame them for staying a couple more years and sucking the rest of the conference dry and b) maybe that isn't the kind of school we'd want to invite, regardless of the money they'd bring.

I'm looking forward to someone explaining exactly how Iowa State will be bringing in $14 million in any situation other than as a Big Tenplusseveral member.

sandiego

June 15th, 2010 at 6:08 PM ^

I'd like to see one of the many who are smarter than me tackle something I've been struggling with:  It seems apparent that conference alignments and the bowl system/lack of a true playoff are governed by one thing only:  money.  What we saw this last week is something that I haven't much considered as a factor in this equation: cable and non-cable TV $'s.

HYPO:  So with the success of the BTN, leagues around the country develop their own cable networks, leaving the Fox/ABC/CBS of the world with less broadcast content.  Ad revenues decrease accordingly.  These leagues expand to become super-leagues, enabling a realistic playoff system, the current bowl system drops by the wayside (debateable - I'll still go see a 6-6 UofM team play in the Holiday Bowl) and we have a few bigger games, but less net revenue for the networks.  Therefore, the networks have a stake in many, small, conferences and many bowls, but no champion.  At what point, does the equation for the networks, start tipping in favor of expansion and championship vs. many leagues and many bowls.

We can see by FSN's actions in the Big12, that a 6x revenue jump still keeps the status quo. 

Anyway, a diary thought for someone who has the time and brains that I don't.

JustGoBlue

June 15th, 2010 at 6:32 PM ^

used in USA team development CAMPS.  Which means it's been used in a practice.  Or a srimmage at best.  And from this, Forrest Karr, genius that he is, decides it would be a good idea to implement it NCAA-wide.  If you read enough of Karr's quotes (I suggest not doing so) you'll realize that:

1)  Not even he knows why he decided that would be a good idea after all.

2)  The reasons he says they adopted the rule are in direct contradiction with what he says the rule will do.  (For example, he says that now penalized teams won't have an advantage over un-penalized teams in being able to ice the puck when the unpenalized team can't.  He also says the rule will increase short-handed chances.  Because we all know that being able to ice the puck for a couple minutes while down a man is far more of an advantage than scoring a goal).

It's supposed to increase scoring, because someone somewhere decided that single-digit scores were far too low (Because soccer isn't at all popular internationally) and Forrest somehow decided that power plays were the purest form of hockey and thus if there is going to be more scoring it should be done on power plays.  If the numbers need to be higher to appease whatever authority thinks so, than make every goal worth 5 and leave the game alone.

I could go on and on, I have elsewhere and thinking about this makes me want to strangle Forrest.

clarkiefromcanada

June 15th, 2010 at 6:21 PM ^

As a Canadian the idea of icing during a power play for the defensive team is ridiculous. Maybe the NCAA could introduce some newer innovations to "spice up the game" like a glowing puck?

maracle

June 15th, 2010 at 6:43 PM ^

That guy they interviewed seemed to have no clue what to say...he said no one thought it would pass, but then they got some presentations from various groups like the NHL and people changed their minds.

So...he's saying that the NHL thought this was a good idea??

JustGoBlue

June 15th, 2010 at 7:18 PM ^

see Gary thinking it was a good idea, which would mean that somebody they talked to in the NHL could tell them it was being considered.  But luckily in the NHL, the GMs have to approve changes like this and there is no way in hell the GMs approve something like this.  More likely the NHL is trying to find some sucker to test it, to at least be able to make a case to the GMs and the Committee fell for it hook, line and sinker.

clarkiefromcanada

June 15th, 2010 at 9:57 PM ^

I looked into this a little bit and it seems that Bob Gainey is a proponent of this at the NHL level with the view, basically, that if a team has broken a rule then it should not be allowed to break another rule by then freely icing the puck...In analysis, that's just stupid and Bob Gainey should know better.

The net result of this sort of rule would be to eliminate the defensive team's ability to change penalty killers and ultimately will increase the scoring of cheap goals on totally fatigued defenses. Worse, however, would be the damage this would do to league credibility when Alex Ovechkin would score 50 powerplay goals in a season...

The league is desperate to increase scoring but this is no way to do it. Just appropriately size goalie pads/equipment once more to 1985 spec.

As for the college game...application of this rule will just make it a lot more like the hockey equivalent of arena football and will be one more reason why OHL recruiters like Dale Hunter in London or Warren Rychel in Windsor can identify the O as a superior option for the better player (and more like the pro game).

 

kevin holt

June 15th, 2010 at 6:21 PM ^

LOLOLOL is that guy the lawyer from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia? IT IS!!! YES!

That feels so much better than seeing the shirt, sorry guys. If it wasn't a piece on the rivalry then I would be more excited, but if we DIDN'T see the shirt it would be a shock/disappointment. Not a surprise to see it. When I clicked to play the video I expected there to be a piece on some random topic and someone interviewed was wearing it. Now that would be sweet.

shoes untied

June 15th, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^

So as i watch this video as first glance it looked like my housemate...so i paused it the first time not knowing they have him answer and think no way it is him. then i continue and realize holy crap it is. i feel like i know a celebrity now. hell i live with a celebrity

PurpleStuff

June 15th, 2010 at 7:14 PM ^

What do Brian and others think U-M's punishment should have been for fielding an ineligible player in Charles Woodson after he received illegal benefits from Marion Darnell Jones (another criminal and wannabe agent like Lake/Michaels)?  Clearly he was a high profile player but I don't recall any extra special compliance instigated on our part and any that was didn't really prove effective (since he got the money with zero consequences).  Doesn't Lloyd Carr deserve the exact same criticism being dished out to Pete Carroll when the exact same thing happened under his watch?

Yinka Double Dare

June 15th, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^

One major difference: someone (namely, Bush's running backs coach) on the USC staff apparently knew about the dodgy relationship and that there were some extra benefits going on.  And decided to say nothing.  And then lied to the NCAA about it.

PurpleStuff

June 15th, 2010 at 7:59 PM ^

I think SC deserved to get sanctioned, just not to the extent that happened, and I dislike the BS attitude that they are a bunch of cheaters for doing something when the same thing happened here with probably our most prominent player in the last 50 years. 

That being said, all the evidence that McNair knew what was going on came from a phone call after Bush left school (January 2006).  By the same rationale, you could say Carr knew what was going on with Woodson when he read the many newspaper accounts of his relationship with Jones yet said nothing about it.  The only difference is one school got hit with the most thorough NCAA investigation in recent memory while the other merely had to answer to local media members. 

PurpleStuff

June 15th, 2010 at 8:44 PM ^

Here is a list of archived news articles if you have the time or you need more convincing:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-121018415/woodson-and-agents…

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5899747_ITM

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5905140_ITM

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-6749902_ITM

Why would they have given money to Davis to secure his signature but not Woodson?  Why would Woodson sign with an agency the day after the Rose Bowl?  How do you explain the receipt for the fur coat or Jones' presence at the Heisman ceremony?  Why did Woodson owe and pay $100,000 in fees (a fact noted in the article you linked to) months before the NFL draft?  In your article, Madej didn't say, "This didn't happen," or "We've investigated the matter," but rather, "We haven't heard from the NCAA."

Now imagine the NCAA starts really investigating rather than just asking these hypothetical questions.  I remember Reggie Bush denying he took money too, but in both cases there is plenty of evidence to indicate that just isn't true.

mgoblue0970

June 16th, 2010 at 12:40 AM ^

I have NO dog in this hunt.

I have no idea what happend with Woodson.

I would like to think Michigan did the right thing but I cannot prove that.  I do know, by way of comparison and with Michigan BB, there were pics of Ed Martin up in the locker room with a caption of do not go near this person.  Yet, C Webb, et al., decided to get paid anyway.  So sometimes players cheat and sometimes schools don't always know.

But three of your four sources for your take on Woodson are from:  anonymous @ The Freep, Michael Rosenberg, and Drew Sharp respectively.  For that alone, that's an epic FAIL.

You would have had more credibility if you cited wikipedia.

PurpleStuff

June 16th, 2010 at 2:16 AM ^

Just showing that the story wasn't some big secret to somebody who asked for links.  Not surprisingly most of the coverage came from local papers (the rest of the country doesn't really view potential U-M scandals as front page news, sorry). 

If it makes you feel any better, the story was broken by The State, the largest newspaper in South Carolina and (I'm pretty sure) an organization with zero agenda or perceived bias against Michigan athletics (since we all know the big bad Freep is just out to get us with their lies about everything).  Feel free to search their archives for 2001 and read the original story if you don't believe me. 

As for your Ed Martin story, I am very curious where you got that information.  My guess is you either just made it up or you don't know your history.  Martin had a relationship with the Michigan coaching staff going back to the 1980's, regularly received tickets and was in phone contact with the coaching staff long after Webber left Ann Arbor.  If you like Wikipedia, just check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan_basketball_scandal#…

Or if you want a more impartial (i.e. biased in our favor) source, look here:

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/ed-martin-revealed-his-long-and-in…

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/history-ed-martin-and-michigan

mgoblue0970

June 16th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^

No, I don't use wikipedia at all (and I've had profs that automatically award a zero if you cite wikipedia as a source)... and you obviously missed the point.  

It doesn't matter if you post 1 link, 4 links, or a bazzlion links when the content of those links is crap to begin with.  

The Freep, Rosenberg, and Sharp have played lose and fast with facts over the years.  They've never let the truth get in the way of a good story.  I'm not going to believe a word they say.  That's the price they pay for being less journalists and more tabloid.

 

PurpleStuff

June 16th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^

I also gave you the Michigan Daily (for the Ed Martin case) and an independent newspaper in South Carolina with actual evidence (for the Woodson allegations).  Why is their content crap?  It is pretty convenient to claim no truth can ever come from the only paper that has any real interest in covering our program closely (Yay, nothing bad can ever be true!).  In this case it is also pointless and juvenile since I gave you plenty of outside corroboration for everything I said. 

Of course, everything I say will still be ignored by bitter and insecure fans who will continue to condemn SC football as cheaters based on the accusations of a criminal who wanted his money back (Lloyd Lake) while at the same time turning a blind eye to the same kind of impossible to police behavior at Michigan when there is as much if not more evidence of wrongdoing. 

mgoblue0970

June 16th, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^

For Pete’s sake... the South Carolina article is not entirely independent. They belong to the same media company as the Freep. Are you really that blinded by your bias?

Looking at the South Carolina article, if Woodson's mom did receive a fur while Chuck was in college, and there is court testimony and a receipt for such a transaction, then why hasn't the NCAA picked up on this? Answer that for us please!

Afterall, it appears to be the same situation as Reggie Bush; that is, a student athlete's family receiving benefits through a third party and related to the student-athlete's potential. It's the same situation except for dollar amounts and the amount doesn't matter to the NCAA. The benefit matters not the bottom line. So again, where is the NCAA on this? Michigan is a repeat offender... the NCAA has a hard-on for such things yet amazingly they selected to go after the cheaters at USC and ignore the cheaters at Michigan? Bullshit!

To be fair, I haven't read the 2 Michigan Daily articles. Nevertheless, 3 of 6 of the links you provided are complete crap... 50% of the data you cited are from the Freep. That corroborates nothing! Have you ever seen the way Sharp behaves at a Michigan press conference? Did you not see the way Rosenberg made sweeping generalizations with an insignificant sample size throughout his practice-gate investigation? Do you not see the way the Freep takes quotes out of context to fit their stories? The Freep has cried wolf one too many times to make me believe a thing they print. The Freep could publish the "sky is blue" and even if I was there to read it, I wouldn’t believe their source.

For crying out loud, it's NOT about who writes good press or bad press regarding Michigan. Please tell me where in any of these posts that any of us are condemning anything other than the act of making an accusation without sources or shoddy journalism? Michigan Men and Women as a whole are pretty good at policing ourselves. I'm sure if the claims you make are true there would be outrage all over Michigan nation at what happened. Also, and by way of comparison, I usually don't read Angelique Chengelis' cheerleading pieces about Michigan either.

The sad thing here is the forum here is actually giving you a chance. We're just asking for some cogent thought.  One poster asked for sources before making accusations and I challenged your sources. When faced with people calling you on your take, instead of offering some cogent thought, you reply with "bitter and insecure fans", "pointless", & "juvenile".  Such responses do nothing for furthering the conversation or lending any credibility to your opinion.

PurpleStuff

June 16th, 2010 at 5:56 PM ^

I don't know why they didn't investigate this further.  They also didn't investigate Maurice Clarett's shenanigans at OSU or UCLA basketball's years of illegal benefits under Wooden.  In fact they rarely investigate anything unless the info falls into their lap from someone making a complaint. 

I'm not even saying it happened, I'm saying that the red flags were far greater than in the Reggie Bush case and that Michigan did nothing to investigate and as such would be super guilty under the preposterous new standard the NCAA has set where high profile players face greater scrutiny (a standard Brian endorsed on the front page).  If you expect USC to find out who is paying the mortgage on the Bush family house, you have to expect Michigan to ask Woodson where he got his fancy clothes and who the gentleman from South Carolina sitting with his family at the Heisman ceremony is. 

Please don't accuse me of bias when you claim you won't believe a word of any article printed by any newspaper that has a corporate affiliation of any kind with the Detroit Free Press simply because you don't agree with everything they've ever said about Michigan athletics.  Don't complain about sweeping generalizations when you dismiss everything written or said by people involved with the single series of (obviously erroneous) practice-gate stories. 

As far as outrage by the U-M community, I don't know why you would expect any.  We are no different than any other fan base when it comes to wanting to see our teams succeed.  You can buy a "Free the Fab Five" shirt on this website.  We care about integrity when it affects us and impacts our image.  The fact that I am being attacked for posting widely reported information about Woodson (if only as the basis to show that there was enough smoke for U-M administrators to start asking questions that they never asked) or for correcting your ridiculous misstatements about the Ed Martin scandal should be evidence enough of that.  If no one asks any questions and we as fans can dismiss "conspiracy theories" and rationalize that we are the good guys, we will do so every time, especially when it involves a Heisman Trophy winner who helped us win a national title.

PurpleStuff

June 16th, 2010 at 12:58 PM ^

The $100K was just in fees paid to Summit (Jones' company).  Why would a player borrow that much money to pay an agent a month after signing with them and before that agent had done anything on his behalf (Woodson wasn't drafted and didn't sign a pro contract for months).  It may be nothing, but combined with all the other red flags (trip, fur, Heisman suit, Jones at Heisman ceremony) reported in the media, it should have been more than enough to instigate an investigation under this bizarre new NCAA standard where any high profile player is guilty until proven innocent.

wesq

June 16th, 2010 at 12:28 PM ^

Difference is in the size and scope just like Ed Martin.  The articles you linked say prior to the 1997 season all there's records of is a spring break trip to Myrtle Beach and then the infamous Heisman suit.  Carroll/USC was notorious for allowing agents around his program and developing a "pro" atmosphere.  Reggie Bush and family recieved documented benefits well into 6 figures, the moral of the story as far as the NCAA is concerned, when you have high profile players that seem to have a lot of extras you should be the ones figuring it out not Dan Wetzel at yahoo sports.   

PurpleStuff

June 16th, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^

Plus the $5,000 fur coat (with receipt found at Jones' offices) and Jones' presence at the Heisman ceremony.  Add on the odd $100,000 payment to Jones' company from a line of credit account before Woodson even got drafted.  Why sign with an agent the day after the Rose Bowl unless there was some improper contact beforehand?

And this is just the stuff that fell into the media's lap or.  Seems like a lot of extras and plenty of red flags, yet we did zero to investigate it, just like SC.  Now imagine someone with an axe to grind starts feeding information to the press and the NCAA, or that someone starts investigating and gets phone records and all that kind of stuff.  Hell, most of us had never heard of QC staff until the NCAA started poking around thanks to the silly stretching articles. 

Saying they had a duty to investigate makes no sense unless everyone else is investigating and is being held to the same standard.  We know Lloyd Carr and Marion Darnell Jones were in the same room (a claim you can't make about Lake/Michaels and Carroll) while Woodson and his family were decked out in expensive new clothes.  Unless you think Carr had a duty to ask for receipts (I certainly don't think he did) I don't know what you expect other programs to do in far less obvious situations. 

wesq

June 16th, 2010 at 1:10 PM ^

First of all we are well past NCAA statute of limitations so this is all hypothetical.  2nd yeah we saw the way the Detroit media attacked praticegate, you think if they had anything else they wouldn't have gone with it.  This was on the heels of Ed Martin's federal indictment, blood was in the water.  100k paid before the draft could've easily been racked up prior to the draft until you get evidence that says otherwise it's a bad comparison.  You can't say that about Lake/Micheals and Carroll?  I guess the USC locker room doesn't count as a room.

You can't control everyone yes, you can't ask questions about everything bought by a player but you know the USC thing went well beyond that.  Y

PurpleStuff

June 16th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^

All the evidence that SC knew what was going on came from Lloyd Lake's testimony.  The extent of his claim is that he met Todd McNair twice (once at a party hosted by Marshall Faulk and once at a Hollywood club).  There were a series of one minute phone calls from McNair to Lake on the night of the club outing and no other calls until after Bush left SC.  When Lake/Michaels weren't invited to Bush's interviewing of prospective agents, Lake called McNair for two minutes and claims he told him to "remember the agreement" and that he better get Reggie to pay them back or he would bring down the SC program.

The guy who got screwed over by Reggie Bush, the NCAA's star witness, and a guy actively trying to lash out at USC never claims he was in the same room as Pete Carroll.  On the flip side, the Heisman trophy ceremony was on TV where everyone could see Carr and Jones in the same room.

I don't know of any athlete or actor who pays their agent in advance.  They get a cut when money comes in, they don't get an hourly fee.

And please tell me what questions the people at USC should have asked Reggie Bush and how they should have followed up.  Then tell me when the people at Michigan or any other school in the country have ever asked the same questions of a high profile athlete (something the NCAA is now saying they were required to do).

mgoblue0970

June 15th, 2010 at 8:53 PM ^

Not sure I agree with the analysis about the proposed head shot rule change.  It's a good rule -- if it passes.  There's just too much head hunting in college hockey these days.  Most of these kids aren't going pro.  Protecting them so they'll be able to enjoy a long life, versus being one hit away from becoming Jack Lambert, isn't a bad thing.

Yeah, are the refs gonna overreact?  Probably!  But remember, when the NHL came back from the lockout, there were 30+ penalties being called per game as the refs tried to both enforce the new rules per the mandate they were given and find a balance.  

Go back to youtube and find game clips of the early '90s and compare that with what we see today.  Back then doesn't even look like hockey with all the clutching and grabbing.  I can barely watch games from that era -- it's complete garbage and in retrospect, as much as I hated all of Mario Lemieux's incessant bellyaching, he was right.  The NHL is much better today for the product now on the ice.  The transition was just a bit rough; that's all.

I suspect the same kind of shakeout will happen in the college game. 

On the other hand, does Shegos suck big donkey dick -- YES.  Does replay need to be overhauled -- YES.  Why the NCAA isn't looking into such things rather than changing icing and other rules is beyond me.  But I'm trying to address just the head hunting rule proposal here and I think it's a good thing.

JustGoBlue

June 15th, 2010 at 9:39 PM ^

stands, a High Stick is now considered a 5 minute major penalty with a mandatory game misconduct or disqualification.

I agree with SOME rule to address head-hunting, but not an absolute rule in which every such thing must be addressed the world isn't divided into people that have never touched another guys head ever and Conboy.  I think the exact same purpose could have been accompished with less "always" and more "malicious, blindside, intentional" etc.  I'm fine with making head hits 5 minute majors, if the ref thinks it's deserved, that's what they're paid for.  I'm just not fine with every elbow, high stick, slightly high hit resulting in a guy being thrown out.  Why don't we have 5 minute majors for kneeing?  We've had 2 captains in the last two years go down for various amounts of time because of kneeing.  We've had probably the worst, most pre-meditated contact to the head I've ever seen and as I recall Kampfer played in the next game.

I think cracking down on head hunting is a great thing, but dealing in absolutes very seldomly works.  At best, this makes the refs call all the small contact that used to be 2 minutes something else and calls legitimate (and even quasi-legitimate) head hunting moves for 5.  But it's far more likely they either let more of that go, or go overboard and every other penalty results in a guy being thrown out.  I know we're going to complain about refs regardless, but this just makes their job needlessly more difficult.  Make contact to the head a priority, make a stronger rule, make more of them majors, just don't make everything a major.

On the other hand, I do see your point, I do remember hockey in the mid-90's and it's possible that the rule works exactly as it's supposed to.  It's certainly not going to ruin the game, especially after a few weeks have gone by and the refs have settled into it.  I just don't think it needs to be uncompromising, because life isn't uncompromising.  Also, it's almost guaranteed to pass, the PROP is a rubber stamp at the best of times and the coaches aren't going to make as big a deal of the head contact rule as the shorthanded icing rule.  I'm not against the concept, just the language.

mgoblue0970

June 15th, 2010 at 9:58 PM ^

I agree 100% with everything you wrote.

I guess my post can be summed up in two points.  1.  Talking about the quality of the refs doesn't have to be a distraction to protecting players.  2.  Change, while sometimes difficult, isn't always bad in and of itself.

Your reply was cool too... I'm just waiting for the if you cannot take a hit you're a pussy post now.  There's usually one in every crowd.

JustGoBlue

June 15th, 2010 at 10:24 PM ^

if you're a hockey player that can't take a hit, you should probably find a new game :-p

But I would hope nobody would disagree that head hunting exists and shouldn't.  I would hope nobody enjoys watching people head hunt.  I would hope nobody would defend actual head hunting.  Nobody should be taking head shots and if somebody thinks that they should... Well than, I would recommend that they be on the receiving end of one, then they can defend them.

echoWhiskey

June 15th, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^

Wore that shirt recently to a Nats v. Reds game and got plenty of high-fives from Michigan fans and Ohio-haters alike.  Buy it.  It goes with every occasion.

MDubs

June 15th, 2010 at 9:56 PM ^

It seems to me that the main objection against the new icing rule proposal is tradition - simply that it hasnt been done before and WOULD have a dramatic change on the game.  that said, after reading the various articles on the subject I can't say that any of the changes would be bad.  More offense, more creative penalty-killing, less clutching & grabbing etc. 

My biggest concern is that a bad ref who is blowing the game would have a much greater impact on its outcome.  If penalties become much more important, so does the quality of officiating.  Its sad to see games decided by the refs as it is, and this would make that an even bigger issue if powerplays start turning in significantly higher conversion rates. 

JustGoBlue

June 15th, 2010 at 10:17 PM ^

that offense on the power play isn't really offense.  It's not really hockey.  If scoring has to be increased (I don't think so) at least increase it 5-on-5.  It has no guarantee at all to reduce clutching and grabbing, none.  A decent amount of clutching and grabbing going on now isn't clutching a grabbing in anybody's mind but the refs.  Making players afraid to take penalties does not at all make for good hockey.  As for creative penalty-killing... possibly.  It could also just allow for about 10 icing whistles per power play or a lot of shooting pucks into benches (not a delay of game, allows a change, however dangerous it may be).  How creative is the PK supposed to be?  At best it's going to force defenders to get to the red-line before shooting the puck down, which just makes odd-man situations the other way more likely.  Penalty-killing isn't supposed to result in shorthanded goals.  If it does, great for the team down a man, but it's generally caused more by bad defense or turnovers (which admittedly, can be forced by good penalty-killing).  Nobody (or at least I don't) wants to watch a game that's all offense.  What is the point of goals if they aren't really earned?  That's no fun at all.

Is it possible the rule change could be good and enjoyable?  Certainly.  Do I think so? No.  Does Red (or Blasi, or Blais, or Lucia, or Eaves, or Wilson, or Gwoz, or Hakstol or Owens or Jackson or even Comley) think so?  No.

grsbmd

June 15th, 2010 at 10:30 PM ^

I can't believe there's a single person who has watched more than one hockey game who would vote for enforcing icing on a penalty kill.

The NHL is famous for discussing just about any idea that would increase scoring, and even they're not dense enough to bring this to the table.  If college hockey wants to get the same respect as Canadian Major Junior, this is a huge step in the wrong direction.

rdlwolverine

June 15th, 2010 at 10:17 PM ^

The increased FSN $$ to Big 12 emphasizes what a good thing the BTN is for the Big Ten.  FSN is paying a huge premium (over past contract valuations) just to keep the PAC-10 from becoming the PAC-16 and starting its own network.  The BTN shows the true value of the content that the schools provide and it was more than the networks had been paying.

sharkhunter

June 16th, 2010 at 12:50 AM ^

cry

During the Civil War, he emerged as one of the best cavalry officers in the Union Army. His gallant Gettysburg charge (“Come on, you Wolverines!” he shouted to his Michigan volunteers) helped change the course of the battle that turned the tide of the war.

I don't think he used it or that it would have helped at Little Big Horn

lhglrkwg

June 16th, 2010 at 2:24 AM ^

the icing rule is so mind-numbingly stupid. i can't believe we actually have people who are in charge of ncaa type stuff who are dumb enough to approve of something like that.

the coaches were unanimously against it! what more do you need to know that it is stupid??

imafreak1

June 16th, 2010 at 9:42 AM ^

I don't see how calling icing on the defense during a power play will work. Seems to me the puck will rarely leave the offensive zone of the team on the power play. Most times it does, it will come right back for a face off.

Increasing the potency of the power play will put more emphasis on the officiating which is rarely a positive.