The NCAA has announced new rule proposals to make the game safer for players, and unlike the $2000 stipend, I can't imagine these rules being overruled by the membership. The five proposals are largely concerning special teams, and they are as follows:

• Kickoffs and touchbacks: Kickoffs go from the 35-yard line instead of the 30, mimicking the rule change the NFL has made. Touchbacks would come out to the 25-yard line instead of the 20 to encourage receiving teams to take more touchbacks. Players on the kicking team must be within five yards of the 35-yard line when kicked to reduce the running start they get. The NCAA's data shows that injuries are more common on kickoffs than any other aspect of the game, so these rules are intended to cut back on those injuries.
• Helmets coming off: If a player's helmet comes off and it's not because of an opponent ripping it off, it works like an injury. The player must not participate in the rest of the play and has to come off the field for at least one play. The proposal doesn't say so, but I'll bet this is as much about getting players to wear their helmets properly as it is trying to keep them from coming off during a play.
• Blocking below the waist: Blocking below the waist would be, with few exceptions, impermissible for anyone but stationary offensive players who are in the tackle box when the ball is snapped. Under the current rules, it is possible to block below the waist anytime "the opposing player is likely to be prepared for this contact". That broad language includes on special teams.
• Shield blocking on punts: The NCAA is concerned about players who attempt to jump over the back defenders in the shield punt formation. Therefore, rules about jumping them become identical to those about jumping during place kicks: you can jump straight up in front of but not over top of the blockers.
• Kick returner safety: This proposal is vaguely worded, but it sounds like a return of the old halo rule.

Football player safety has never been more in the spotlight, especially with hundreds of former players suing the NFL over head trauma. As a matter of fact, player safety should be a central concern. Rules should adapt and change as we come to know more about the wear and tear that the game puts on players' bodies.

In college football, it's especially appropriate to try to reduce head trauma. These players are enrolled at institutions of higher learning with many on scholarship to be there. They are called student-athletes. Protecting players' brains seems like it should fit right in with the core missions of the universities themselves, no?

Weeks after former LSU TE DeAngelo Peterson panned the team's offensive game plan in the BCS title game, the game's certified goat is grousing about it too. Jordan Jefferson has come out against what his coaches cooked up and called in the rematch with Alabama:

"I definitely didn't expect for [the title game] to play like that. Alabama was a little bit more prepared than us. There was a lot of things that we should've did different to catch a rhythm on offense"...

Jefferson wanted to "put the ball in different passing areas, use our talent on the receiving side."

"... We have great guys in those areas and sometimes we just wonder why we don't use those guys," he continued on WCNN. "But we're not the one calling the plays. We still have to go out and execute what the coaches and coordinators are calling. We can't complain as players, but sometimes we do question that."

Jefferson was definitely right about a few things. He mentioned that the team faced too many second- and third-and-long situations, which is almost certain death against a defense as good as Alabama's. It also is the team's job to execute, and Jefferson certainly didn't do that much well. He made some puzzling reads on option plays and unloaded an unforgettably bad interception on a shovel pass.

Maybe I just didn't pay as much attention then, but I don't remember many players distancing themselves from the game plan after the last BCS championship game offensive horror show when Ohio State flopped against Florida. When two senior leaders come out and publicly call out the offensive staff like this with Peterson and now Jefferson, it really makes you wonder about these players and the program. Toss in a high profile recruit flipping from LSU to Texas on signing day due to perceived low team morale, and I don't know what to think anymore.

It's clear that even though the Tigers went 13-0 en route to their SEC championship, the BCS National Championship Game loss to Bama devastated the team. Whether it will end up having devastated the program is something we won't find out until next fall.

One of the immediate lessons coming out of the 2011 college football season is that a playoff is coming to the Football Bowl Subdivision. Even the traditionally anti-playoff Big Ten has leaked a plus one plan, though it's more to make the conference look like its not standing in the way of progress than anything. The wheels are turning and momentum is gaining.

It's kind of odd then to see Mike Slive of all people, who proposed a plus one back in 2008, trying to pump the brakes on the playoff speculation:

"Really a lot of this discussion is premature, and I want to respect the process that we're in," Slive told members of the Nashville Sports Council during a question-and-answer session. "We've had four-year formats since we started. We've done it on the basis of four years, so each four-year period you have to sit down and decide what format is going to be going forward. So we have decided to sit down and talk about this from every different side"...

"What would [a possible playoff format] look like and whether it's actually going to happen, all of that is premature," Slive said. "I think we need the time to sit down and analyze it. We need time to take ideas back to our respective conferences and ... a decision to be made sometime later this year as we begin to talk about the ... next format."

Given that Slive is nothing if not a lawyer, it's actually not so strange at all when you think about it. There is a negotiating process, and by God, they're going to do some negotiating. Calm down people, nothing to see here just yet.

Slive has also been an under-promise/over-deliver kind of commissioner, preferring to handle things in the background before making any public statements. Think about how conference expansion went. Every statement from the SEC attempted to pour cold water on the fires of speculation right up until the announcements and helmet-trading ceremonies were made. Plus, his policies for the league about coaches and schools handling their grievances in private first rather than in public (shout out, Lane Kiffin!) also reflect that instinct of his.

Slive and the SEC are certainly not going to be standing in the way of a college football playoff. I think the commissioner just doesn't want to get people's hopes up that a format will be announced later this spring. The current BCS contract runs for another two seasons, and it may take most of that time to hammer out details among the various conferences and their disparate desires.

It's been an up-and-down year as Mike Anderson has begun his tenure at Arkansas. The Hogs took on an understandable (UConn), a not so great (Oklahoma), and a bad loss (Houston) in the non-conference, but they started the conference season in style by taking down Mississippi State. A tough loss to Ole Miss followed, but the Razorbacks built some positive momentum to get back in the bubble discussion with wins against Michigan and Vandy.

After last night, it's fair to say that the Hogs' bubble has burst.

Arkansas fell to LSU last Saturday and just had their doors blown off 81-59 by a rebuilding Georgia team that's barely outside the conference basement. It was the first time the Bulldogs even made it to 70 points in nine games of conference play, and they had been held below 60 points five times by SEC teams. Mardracus Wade was the only Razorback starter to make it into double digit points with 15.

Arkansas has been very good at home; even its only home loss came in its one game in Little Rock rather than in Fayetteville. However, the Hogs have yet to win a game outside Bud Walton Arena. They have three more chances to finally get a road win, and two of them (at Tennessee and at Auburn) are certainly winnable for this team. Given the results last night though, I wouldn't pencil in any W's just yet.

The Razorbacks should be safely in the NIT barring any kind of collapse, which is certainly a step forwards in Anderson's first year. That they were even in the bubble discussion for a while after missing the postseason entirely last season is definitely a positive development. However, the past two games sent a clear message to the selection committee: don't worry about us anymore.

If there was any lingering doubt out there as to who the best team in the SEC is, Kentucky put it to bed with its emphatic 78-58 win over Florida last night in Rupp Arena.

The Wildcats' offense was stellar, shooting 52.7% from the field and 60% from three. Their defense was just as good on the other end, stifling the Gators' offense to the tune of 34.9% shooting from the field and 22.2% from downtown. Kentucky's play was crisp and made everything easy for itself and difficult for the visitors.

Florida, meanwhile, displayed many of the worst bad habits from any given Billy Donovan team. Guards were out of control, shooters jacked up bad threes, and the defense lost assignments at the worst possible times. It was a particularly bad night for senior Erving Walker. He shot 0-7 on the night, failed to make it to the free throw line, and had two turnovers versus just one assist.

Kentucky's Anthony Davis, meanwhile, had another brilliant night. His 16 points were two shy of the game high, and he controlled the paint on defense with four blocks and a number of other changed shots. Doron Lamb had the 18 points for the Wildcats (tied with UF's Kenny Boynton for the game-high) and was a particularly lethal four-of-five from beyond the arc.

It's important not to read too, too much into the game's outcome. The Wildcats have yet to lose in Rupp under John Calipari, and they can make games spiral out of control for their opponents there in ways that don't happen elsewhere. Plus, this team is going to hammer anyone and everyone when it makes 60% of its three pointers (season percentage: 37.9%). Florida has a troubling habit of playing poorly on the road that it will have to correct down the stretch, but it's not the bad team that UK made it look like last night.

That said, it's completely fair to ask whether this team will lose again the rest of the way. It still has road games at Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, and Florida plus another home matchup with Vandy, so it's not like the schedule is a complete cakewalk. Still though, when this team is on, it's unbeatable. Its only loss to Indiana is looking more like a glitch in the Matrix than anything.

Last year's Kentucky team made it to the Final Four on sweat, grit, and a bit of overachievement as a 4-seed. This year, it's probably going to be a tournament favorite as a 1-seed (if not the No. 1 overall seed). If last year's run to Houston was a bit of a bonus, falling short of a run to New Orleans this year would be a disappointment.

If I could put my finger on one reason why I don't like Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, it's that he comes off like the worst kind of politician. He's devoted solely to his conference and rarely acts like he cares about the big picture. He reeks of condescension while sometimes engaging in spin doctoring. And now, he's jumping on the bandwagon of an inevitability either to make it sound like it was his idea all along or to guide it in a direction that suits his desires (or both).

A college football playoff is coming. It's a matter of when, not if. Actually, it's probably not even a matter of when anymore, as "after the current BCS contract expires" is a pretty sure bet.

Yesterday, the Big Ten leaked details of a possible plus one playoff plan that would fit most of the conference's desires. I say "most" because, based on past comments by its power brokers, one of those desires is actually not having a playoff. The top four of the BCS would be skimmed off the top and entered into a separate bracket. The semifinals would be played on campuses, while the final would rotate around sites that bid on the right to hold it.

Most importantly for the Big Ten, this playoff takes place entirely outside of the bowl system. Having the final be bid on by disparate sites rather than rotate among the BCS bowls preserves the Rose Bowl, and preserving that is arguably the conference's top priority. You could even argue that it enhances the Rose Bowl over the current BCS, because it won't be overshadowed every four years by a BCS National Championship Game being played on the very same field a week later.

Honestly, I really like the idea of bidding out the final. Currently, schools essentially pay for the right to play in bowls via ticket guarantees. Sometimes the fan bases pick up the entire tab, but often the schools get stuck with giant bills for unsold tickets. This strikes me as backwards. The bowl committees should pay the schools or conferences first and then be on the hook for making that money back via selling all the tickets on their own. That's how pretty much every other non-in house ticketed event works. This idea of bidding out the title game also fits right in with the Big Ten's and Pac-12's exploration of possibly running their own bowls, another way to cut some leeches off of the surface of college football.

I've seen a lot of praise for the idea of playing the semifinals on campuses, and rightfully so. The on-campus experience is one of the big things that makes college football so awesome. However, I'm disappointed to see so many people acting like the Big Ten came up with the idea. It is part of the years-old Death to the BCS plan, and it's been kicked around in informal debates for far longer than that.

The idea of southern teams having to play up north in the cold is an appealing one to the Big Ten constituency, but it's largely overblown. For one thing, look at a map of all the I-A schools, or even just the current BCS schools. There are a lot more schools outside of heavy snow areas than in them.

Plus, let's hunt through the BCS's history. If we assume that the top four of the standings wouldn't change if we had this plus one plan—and that's a very poor assumption given how voter manipulation works*—on only five occasions would a team have been sent to a place with an average January high temperature more than 10 degrees colder than home. Two of those would have been Colorado (47°) being sent to Nebraska (35°) and Miami (74°) being sent to Tallahassee (63°). Only three times, with two SEC teams plus Oklahoma getting sent to Ohio State, would a team have played somewhere with average January snowfall greater than two inches above what they get at home. In fact, 21 of the 28 on-campus games would have been played in places that average less than two inches of snow in January, period.

This plan, by the way, is generically a "seeded plus one" because the top four teams get pulled off to the side and seeded after the regular season. I expect to see other conferences float other plans, some of which might be an "unseeded plus one". In that case the bowls would play out largely as they are now, and then the top two teams after the bowls get pulled out to play a championship game. Now you can keep those two terms straight if you haven't heard them before as the debate unfolds.

Continue reading this post »