DJ Swearinger's Hit: Get Used to It

Following his hit on Miami tight end Dustin Keller on Sunday, I am quite sure that many will be calling into question the character of former South Carolina Gamecock DJ Swearinger. Most of them will be wearing orange overalls, but still...

Swearinger, fighting for a roster spot on the Houston Texans, ended the season, and perhaps the career, of Miami Dolphins' tight end Dustin Keller during a preseason game on Sunday. Swearinger denies doing anything intentional, and blames the new NFL rules on tackling and head shots for his tackling technique.

No need to set the DVR for that interview. You'll hear that story a lot in the next few years.

The NFL has declared that defensive players will always be held responsible for helmet-to-helmet shots, no matter how the ball carrier or receiver changes position. That sets up a situation where players have only one choice when tackling: Go low.

If you go for the legs, there is little chance that an adjustment by the receiver will result in a blow to the head. So the smart defender is going to target the area where there is a maximum opportunity to make the tackle while minimizing the chance for penalties. Not to mention the inevitable follow-up fine and suspension.

Clearly, Swearinger is no Holy Roller, and is a far cry from the defensive version of Tim Tebow in the Character Dept. (At least on the field). But this hit was not dirty; and what he said after the fact is not an excuse. It's a reason, regardless of when and where he decided to implement it. Keller's teammates and others can complain all they want, but this is going to be a common scene on Sunday afternoons.

And more players will get hauled off on a stretcher because of it.

We all understand the rules about launching, head-hunting, etc. But the league has taken those rules to a whole new level in its effort to hold defensive players solely responsible for head trauma. Worse yet, that escalation is filtering down to the NCAA, and has even made its presence felt in the Southern Conference.

Here's the thing:  The problem with these changes is that football isn't intended to be completely safe. In an effort to avoid litigation--and perhaps legislation--Roger Goodell and the NFL are fundamentally changing the game. And it's not all for the better.

What happens if more knees get popped like Keller's did? Furthermore, what happens when defensive players start getting concussions from taking a kneecap to the head? Catching the full force of a kicking leg or knee could surely cause some head trauma.

I will not be at all shocked if the league mandates a "strike zone," much as they do in baseball, where a defender can actually hit and tackle. This will be nearly impossible for defensive players, especially since the most recent collective bargaining agreement severely limits their practice time for tackling.

Football to this point has been the Roman Coliseum of sports gatherings. It is brutal, violent and inherently dangerous when played as it was intended. The players know that before they engage in it even on the Midget level.

Nevertheless, this is the "new" football, full of flags and rules and regulations to keep it from being played with that original intent. It may be safer and less likely to involve lawyers, but it's just not football. You cannot make something safe out of something that is inherently dangerous.

DJ Swearinger's words and actions in a meaningless preseason game may not seem significant. But it may actually signal an even greater change in the way the game is played and legislated.

Get used to it. More guys will lose a knee in the new NFL, at least until Roger Goodell finds a way to put "tackle flags" on the players.

And don't think for a minute that he won't do it.

SoCon Should Limit "Titles" to its True Members

It is stunning just how inept the Southern Conference has looked in the last year. In the 80s, it was considered the best football conference in The-Artist-Formerly-Known-As-IAA. In the 90s, it was considered at least among the best, even after Marshall (or Marsha to their SoCon opponents) left for Division I.

Even after the name change to FCS, it has battled the Colonial Athletic Association for football supremacy. Now, it looks a lot more like the old SAC-8 from NAIA. And it's not just because Appalachian State and Georgia Southern are leaving.

It starts with that, in a sense, because SoCon leaders seemed under-prepared to deal with those inevitable departures. Conference officials came across as scrambling, in spite of the annual signs that those departures were a matter of "When" rather than "If".

This fall, the conference website actually listed these teams in its preseason rankings when they're not even eligible to win the league title! As noted by Jeff Hartsell of the Charleston Post and Courier, this was a bone-headed move of monumental proportions.

(I must say that I am rather please with the way Furman handled the preseason listings on its website furmanpaladins.com. See GSU or AppSt anywhere?).

But as long as we're on the subject, why is the Conference allowing Elon and Davidson to continue competing for titles?

GSU and ASU cannot--at least in football--because of a scholarship discrepancy as they move to FBS. To me, none of these teams should be eligible for a SoCon title, much less a mention on the league's preseason rankings. They shouldn't even be on the ballot.

There are probably a thousand reasons why the league is treating these teams as "equals" in spite of their departure, but none of those reasons make it right.

Sure, everyone knew that the two "big boys" would eventually take this route. But why should the league offer a chance at a championship to two teams that just chose to leave? Especially Davidson, who essentially blindsided the league office with their decision?

The SoCon coddled the Wildcats for years while they couldn't field a reasonably competitive football team. Then, they went out and got more non-football schools in an effort to make them feel that they were pretty enough, smart enough, and doggone it people liked them. Elon was a virtual unknown when the league took a chance and opened the door for them to make the move to competitive FCS football.

Those schools owe nothing to the SoCon for this; but the SoCon owes nothing to them, either. The league needs to move right now to re-brand and boost the schools that chose to stay or that have accepted the invitation to enter/return.

In fact, if I was John Iamarino, I would get Mercer, VMI, and East Tennessee onto the SoCon site as soon as possible. Why not list them in the standings as "ineligible" or "future" members? Play with the cards you're dealt, stop worrying about the discarded ones.

Sour grapes, here? Absolutely. If you don't want to be in the league, then don't let the door hit you...and  go through it as soon as possible. Teams have every right to do what's best for their athletic programs and move on to new territory. But conferences have an obligation to make the teams that stay their first and foremost priority.

To me, that means reserving championships for teams that will continue to be a part of the Southern Conference. The sooner they let go of the past, the better prepared the league will be for the future.

No matter what the logic or practical reasons, it will stink on ice if one of these teams gets a hollow trophy as a reward on their way out the door.

Another Big 10 (plus 2) Farce Cuts Out the FCS

Well, praise the Lord for Barry Alvarez!

The Citadel and Furman and Wofford can all fall prostrate before him and shout in adoration, "We're not worthy! We're not worthy!" Because that's exactly what Alvarez thinks of FCS opponents for his Conference of the 1%, otherwise known as the Big 10. He and his fellows athletic directors have declared that they will no longer play FCS opponents.

We'll ignore the fact that the ADs were playing video of the AppSt/Michigan game while they made this decision. Barry has saved us from the embarrassment of watching our little guys from around South Carolina from having to play the "mighty" Big 10 teams.

Thank you, Big 10, for solving a problem that wasn't a problem. Unfortunately, it could become a big problem FCS schools just trying to make budget, particularly FCS schools that are near and dear to the Palmetto State.

Small schools have been playing "money ball" against big schools for decades. The objective is a nice, fat paycheck. Mix in the occasional upset and it's not a terrible system.

Yet, writers and pundits are suddenly concerned that someone is going to get "hurt" in one of these games. I don't know of a single instance of an FCS player losing a limb or severing an artery just because their opponent had Buckeyes on the back of the helmet.

I've argued on the air on ESPN Spartanburg about these FCS schools "prostituting" themselves in this way, and I still don't get it. It gives these smaller schools a chance to play in a setting and on a level of which they normally just dream. It offers them an opportunity to play David in the Goliath passion play and see if their best may just be good enough against a big-time program.

Here's the thing:  Some fans and bloggers believe this will mean better regular-season match-ups for Big 10 schools. I dare you to check in two years for the replacement schools for these FCS games. You won't be seeing Texas or 'Bama or Southern Cal. But I'm betting you'll see a lot of Marshall and Toledo and Middle Tennessee State.

They may be FBS (artist formerly known as Division I), but does anyone think MAC Conference USA teams are that much better than Wofford or The Citadel or Furman?

There is legitimate concern around the Southern Conference that other conferences may follow suit, although this is not set in stone. Southeastern Conference schools have plenty of tough games in their own league, and certainly don't need to ramp up the schedule. Unlike the Big 10, they play real football. The ACC might be more likely, especially since they've been embarrassed more than once against the FCS. But that could create some scheduling nightmares and end some long-standing connections.

Besides, the SEC seems content with their "SoCon Challenge" each year. Here at home, both Clemson coach Dabo Swinney and South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier support the idea of continuing to play "home grown" FCS opponents. Death Valley was full last season for Clemson-Furman, so this seems like a positive arrangement (although Spurrier might prefer to leave off the option teams in the future).

Still, it could all change very quickly. There is even some rumblings that the NCAA may try to ban games between FCS and FBS. (And we all know that things can only get better when the NCAA gets involved).

No matter what some people are saying, this really isn't about these schools "prostituting" themselves or safety or fair competition or better games for season ticket holders. This is, as always, about one thing:  Money.

The Big 10 believes that it would be more profitable for them to leave FCS opponents off the schedule, and they may well be right (particularly if they have another Mountaineer Fiasco on their hands). But this is also about an ongoing desire of the BCS-level conferences to keep their money and not share it with anyone, least of all FCS.

And that's okay. FCS will be fine and continue to play a more pure brand of football that is designed for the last remaining bastion of true student-athletes in the nation. It would just be nice if people like Alvarez and his Big 10 brethren would drop the charade and just speak the truth. They may not know how many teams they have in their conference, but they know that they want every one of their schools to keep every dollar available.

That's fine. At least our FCS teams know how to count. We'd rather play real football teams in the SEC anyway.