Grip on Sports: A Pac-12 loss unforgiveable
Friday: Alabama can lose one, maybe two games, and still will be in the hunt.
Texas A&M can have a loss. Ditto Auburn. Heck, LSU and Georgia are still in the national playoff picture and they’ve already lost.
But Oregon loses last night and it’s kaput. Done. Finished. Well, maybe not.
If there’s a saving grace for the Pac-12’s spate of night games, it’s that very few actually saw Oregon lose to Arizona last night, 31-24. Yes, Oregon played poorly. But if you just read the score this morning, you might not realize how well the Wildcats played. Or how circumstances sort of bit Oregon in the butt. I’m not going to criticize the officiating again – no one wants to be called a whiner and you know where I stand – but there seems to be a difference between celebrating and taunting, right?
Arizona’s road win does two things for the Pac-12: It shows the conference’s depth once more and it may just eliminate it from the final four. We all knew it would be hard for anyone to go through this conference undefeated. But reality is something else.
A loss to USC or UCLA or Stanford is something quite different than a loss to unheralded and underappreciated Arizona. Or at least is perceived differently around the nation. Just as the SEC is perceived differently nationally.
Say Alabama loses this weekend at Ole Miss. The narrative surrounding Oregon’s loss today is all about how poorly the Ducks played. But if Alabama plays poorly and loses, the narrative will be about the depth of the SEC West. And the Crimson Tide won’t fall in the polls nearly as far as the Ducks will. Guaranteed.
Thursday: A press release arrived in the in-box from the Pac-12 regarding the reforms being talked about in the NCAA concerning scholarships, cost-of-attendance and the like. The Pac-12 is going to move forward. No matter what anyone else does. More money for the scholarship athletes. Longer-term scholarships. Better health coverage. More education expenses. Basically making sure the student-athletes are able to be students who graduate.
Reading through the proposals, it is hard to find fault with them. They seem to be geared to putting the athlete first, which seems only fair. Is there an ulterior motive? Sure. In a nutshell, the Pac-12 is trying to defuse the results of the Ed O’Bannon decision, in which a federal judge ruled the NCAA needs to pay its athletes, and any future litigation. But that’s OK. Motivation was needed. A judge supplied it.
Are there nits to be picked? Sure. Washington State football coach Mike Leach has one, though it seems a bit misguided from a guy who once graduated law school. Leach said longer agreements would limit the ability of coaching staffs to ensure that the students were compliant with the program’s standards. “A guy’s got to act right and behave right,” Leach said. “He’s got to do his part and so I don’t see why – because as it is now, most schools will pay until they graduate and all that – but they have to be a good citizen. They have to be a good citizen. They have to show up to their tutor appointments. They have to show up to academics. They have to show up to team stuff.”
It’s hard to see how that would change under the new rules. A scholarship is nothing more than a contract between two parties, the school and the student-athlete. In any contract, both sides have obligations to fulfill. If either doesn’t, the contract can be voided.
Rules of behavior and the expectations for same do not need to change. But how the schools treat their athletes does. The Pac-12 is proposing to balance the relationship a bit. To introduce a new paradigm. Is it enough of a change to satisfy everyone? Probably not. But it’s a step. A step others should and will follow.
Wednesday: Some day M’s fans. Some day soon you will be able to cheer your team on in the postseason. Soon, of course, is a relative term. The next couple years might be considered soon for some, 10 years for others. For me, soon means they better get there next season or I’m going to be ticked.