Connect with us

Indiana

UCLA football hires Tino Sunseri as offensive coordinator: What to know

Published

on

UCLA football hires Tino Sunseri as offensive coordinator: What to know


UCLA football coach DeShaun Foster has moved quickly to hire Tino Sunseri as its next offensive coordinator.

The Bruins moved on from Eric Bieniemy last week after one season as the program’s coordinator.

Sunseri spent this season as the co-offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach at Indiana.

He shared coordinating responsibilities with Mike Shanahan, who served as the primary playcaller for Curt Cignetti’s offense.

Advertisement

Sunseri was credited with being responsible for bringing Kurtis Rourke in from the transfer portal before the Hoosiers’ successful season.

“Tino Sunseri is a natural leader of young men and a rising star in coaching,” Foster said in a statement. “He puts his quarterbacks in positions to succeed and it shows when you look at their production. Players will feed off his passion for development and I can’t wait to have him in our building.”

Rourke completed 202 of 287 pass attempts for 2,827 yards, 27 touchdowns and four interceptions. He also rushed for two touchdowns.

The Hoosiers averaged 43.3 points per game, which ranks second nationally in scoring offense. Rourke and Indiana lead all FBS programs with a team passing efficiency rating of 179.

Advertisement

Indiana will play at Notre Dame on Dec. 20 in a College Football Playoff opening-round game. Sunseri is expected to remain with the team throughout the playoff run.

Foster finished his first season as UCLA’s head coach with a 5-7 overall record, which includes a loss to Indiana at the Rose Bowl in September.

What roles will Tino Sunseri have at UCLA?

Sunseri was announced as the offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach, meaning he will handle the duties divided between two individual coaches during the 2024 season.

Bieniemy served as the offensive coordinator while Ted White worked with the signal callers.

Advertisement

Who are some of the other notable coaches Tino Sunseri has worked with?

Sunseri worked under Jimbo Fisher at Florida State (2016-17), Jeremy Pruitt at Tennessee (2018) and Nick Saban at Alabama (2019-20).

What is Tino Sunseri’s relationship with DeShaun Foster?

Tino’s father Sal Sunseri was the Carolina Panthers’ defensive line coach while Foster was the team’s running back. Tino would often go out to practice to spend time with his father in Carolina.

“I can’t tell you how excited I am to be here and how much respect I have for coach Foster,” Sunseri said in a video posted by UCLA football on X. “The coolest thing about this is that me and coach Foster’s relationship goes back to a time when my dad was coaching with the Carolina Panthers and I wanted to be in the building as much as I could.”

Who else will join the UCLA offensive staff?

The Bruins will also have to hire an offensive line coach following Juan Castillo’s departure. He arrived with Bieniemy for the 2024 season.

Advertisement

Andy Kwon has reportedly been targeted by Foster and UCLA, according to Football Scoop’s John Brice. Kwon currently works at Arkansas State.





Source link

Indiana

College sports wants Congress’ help. Why Indiana Sen. Todd Young voted against bill

Published

on

College sports wants Congress’ help. Why Indiana Sen. Todd Young voted against bill


The Protect College Sports Act, legislation meant to introduce and codify sweeping reforms related to college athletics, passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday morning.

It now heads to the Senate floor.

The bill passed out of committee by a 19-9 vote. Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young voted no, his decision reflecting Big Ten concerns over the bill.

Advertisement

A spokesman for Sen. Young told IndyStar, “Senator Young hopes that additional changes can be made to the bill to address concerns raised by the Big Ten.”

Co-sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), the Protect College Sports Act represents Congress’ most substantial success so far in a yearslong effort to bring legislative reform to college athletics. Since before the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders in college sports — including the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and other major players — have lobbied for national solutions to what have become state and regional problems.

Several pieces of legislation have been introduced across the last several years, only to fizzle long before reaching the floor of either chamber. The SCORE Act, introduced last year in the House of Representatives, gained some traction and passed out of committee, but was never brought to the floor.

Which makes Thursday’s news meaningful. Moving the Protect College Sports Act to the Senate floor, while not a guarantee of any outcome, potentially takes the bill past a threshold no other such piece of reformative legislation has yet been able to cross.

Advertisement

Cruz told Yahoo! Sports’ Ross Dellenger on Thursday that Cruz believes Sen. Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is committed to introducing the bill to the Senate floor soon.

The bill provides a legal framework for a host of potential reforms and protections for college sports. It grants limited antitrust protection to the NCAA, places limits on certain things including potential conference realignment, builds safeguards meant to protect non-revenue and Olympic sports, addresses potential broadcast rights reforms, and more.

It enjoys significant backing, and not just among leaders in college sports. This week, the NFL, its players’ association, the National Basketball Players Association and Major League Baseball all voiced their support for the bill.

Two key constituencies not in lockstep on the bill voiced their own concerns Thursday.

Advertisement

In a joint statement issued just after 10 a.m. Thursday, the Big Ten and SEC — far and away the two most powerful conferences and arguably two greatest power centers, full stop, in college athletics — suggested they still hold significant reservations over the bill.

“From the outset, we identified a set of essential revisions to the PCSA necessary for the long-term sustainability of college athletics,” the statement read. “We have worked with both majority and minority staff to advance those revisions, which focus on better supporting student-athletes and stabilizing the college sports environment. We continue to believe revisions are needed to secure our support for the bill.

“Despite our sustained engagement and good faith efforts, these critical revisions have not been accepted.”

The statement went on to note the “several Commerce Committee members that share our concerns and support these recommendations.”

Young is one of several members of the committee representing a Big Ten state, including one of three Republicans. He is the only Republican member of the committee whose state contains multiple schools in the conference.

Advertisement

Allowing for those reservations, Thursday’s news is still significant. It marks the first time a bipartisan bill on the subject has reached this point in the Senate and, should it be brought to the floor, it would be the first such legislation to reach that stage, in either chamber.

The bill could be brought to the Senate floor as early as July, though that timeline remains fluid.



Source link

Continue Reading

Indiana

State regulators OK $71 million rate increase for AES Indiana

Published

on

State regulators OK  million rate increase for AES Indiana


(INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE) – The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission voted 3-1 Wednesday to approve a $71 million electricity rate increase for AES Indiana customers.

That is about 37% of what the utility initially requested and lower than a settlement agreement proposed in October.

Neither Gov. Mike Braun nor consumer advocates are happy with the outcome.

“My top priority is affordability, which is why I am deeply disappointed by the IURC’s approval of another AES rate increase,” he said. “Hoosiers have spent years tightening their belts and making tough financial decisions. It’s time for utility companies to do the same.”

Advertisement

Members of the commission didn’t explain their votes Wednesday. IURC Chair Andy Zay focused his remarks on the process.

“There’s a lot of eyes on this order and what we’re doing today,” he said. “What is before you on the floor is a nearly a year’s worth of work, evidence, deliberations, and considerations that bring us to this moment in this decision. None of this was taken lightly. I want to thank my colleagues for the patience and working through this amongst the auspice of affordability, which is certainly a hot topic now, as well as the resiliency, reliability that we see in this increased demand in electricity.”

The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor last year recommended that state regulators deny AES Indiana’s request for a $193 million base rate increase — instead proposing a $21 million reduction in current rates.

“The AES rate order issued today is an outrage and Hoosiers deserve better!” Counselor Abby Gray said in a statement Wednesday. “Governor Braun has made it clear that ratepayer affordability is a priority, far more than just a ‘hot topic’ as described by the chairman of the IURC today. This order fails the governor’s call to overhaul how utilities are regulated in order to lower bills for ratepayers.”

Gray’s office represents Hoosier ratepayers in regulatory cases.

Advertisement

“The order approves a substantial profit margin for shareholders in addition to a rate increase for customers,” she continued. “It even requires ratepayers to pay approximately $3 million to AES lawyers and experts.”

AES Indiana provides electricity service to about 490,000 homes and businesses in Indianapolis and some nearby areas.

The utility originally sought $193 million in rate increases. The previously proposed settlement agreement dropped that to $91 million, while the final, approved settlement agreement lands at $71 million.

Three IURC members supported the increase: Zay, David Veleta and David Ziegner.

Commissioner Bob Deig voted no. A fifth member, Anthony Swinger, recused himself because he worked on the case previously when he was on the consumer counselor’s office staff.

Advertisement

Ben Inskeep, program director for ratepayer advocacy group Citizens Action Coalition, said utilities across the country often ask for a larger increase than they need, knowing that regulators will disallow “roughly half” of it.

“The latest AES Indiana fuel adjustment clause proceeding shows AES Indiana is actually not only earning all of their allowed profit but over-earning by $19 million their return amount,” he said. “They’re already extremely financially successful at this moment in time, so it’s rather bizarre to even get an extra $71 million dollars approved here.”

Inskeep also noted that the increases will fall disproportionately on residential customers over commercial and industrial users.

Brandi Davis-Handy, president of AES Indiana, said the company has maintained some of the lowest rates in the state for more than a decade “through disciplined planning and a focus on efficiency. We applied the same approach here by working closely with stakeholders to make balanced decisions that keep the system reliable, limit customer impact, and align with the state’s energy pillars.”

AES said for a typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month, the increase will be less than $5 per month per phase. Phase one rates will be implemented in July 2026 and phase two rates will be implemented in January 2027.

Advertisement

The final order says the utility “will not seek to implement a change in basic rates and charges as a result of its next base rate case before January 1, 2030.”

A new law, however, requires all utilities to file a multi-year rate case in 2029, though implementation wouldn’t happen until 2030.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Indiana

Indiana AG seeks execution date for death row inmate convicted in 2010 killings of two children

Published

on

Indiana AG seeks execution date for death row inmate convicted in 2010 killings of two children


Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita on Wednesday asked the Indiana Supreme Court to schedule the execution of death row inmate Jeffrey Weisheit.

The filing came just eight days after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in Weisheit’s case.

He was sentenced to death in 2012 for the murders of 5-year-old Caleb Lynch and his 8-year-old sister, Alyssa Lynch, who were killed in a Vanderburgh County house fire in 2010.

Advertisement

In a verified motion filed with the state’s high court, attorneys for the state argued that Weisheit has exhausted all available avenues of review and that no active stay remains in place to prevent his execution.

The state requested that the court set an execution date 30 to 45 days after granting the motion.

“For more than 15 years, the family of these two innocent children has waited for justice,” Rokita said in a Wednesday statement. “A jury lawfully convicted Weisheit and sentenced him to death. That sentence has been upheld through every level of the judicial system. It is long past time to carry out the sentence.”

Weisheit killed the children during the early morning hours of April 10, 2010, according to court records. Prosecutors said he “hog-tied” Caleb and placed railroad flares in the boy’s underwear before igniting them and fleeing the home. Alyssa was also inside the residence when the fire spread through the house, killing both children.

Advertisement

Authorities later apprehended Weisheit in Kentucky after a high-speed chase. Court records indicate he threw a knife at pursuing officers before being taken into custody.

A Vanderburgh County jury convicted Weisheit in 2012 of two counts of murder and recommended a death sentence after finding multiple aggravating circumstances, including that both victims were younger than 12 years old. The trial court subsequently imposed the death penalty.

The case has spent more than a decade moving through state and federal courts.

The Indiana Supreme Court upheld Weisheit’s convictions and death sentence in 2015. His request for post-conviction relief was later denied, and the state’s high court affirmed that decision in 2018.

Weisheit then turned to federal court, filing a habeas corpus petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in 2020. The petition was denied in 2022, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision last August before rejecting a rehearing request the following month.

Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case on June 8.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending