Two months ago it was hard to believe, but the Virignia Tech Hokies can clinch a spot in the ACC Championship game with a win this Saturday. All they have to do is beat a Miami Hurricane squad that will still be without starting quarterback Jacory Harris. Harris' absence might, actually, be a good thing for Miami. Freshman Stephen Morris is 2-0 as a starter, and he nearly brought the Hurricanes back from a 24-0 fourth quarter deficit coming off the bench against Virginia. Morris is 28-48 for 516 yards with 2 TDs and 2 interceptions in the last two games. Harris was just 9-25 for 150 yards last year against Virginia Tech.
Hokie quarterback Tyrod Taylor has been stellar this year. He is 9th in the nation in pass efficiency. He is also the team's second leading rusher. Taylor, however, has not been stellar against Miami. The last two years, he has averaged less than 90 yards passing per game while completing less than half of his passes.
While Virginia Tech is red hot (8 game win streak), don't expect victory to come easy. The Hurricanes won the last time these two met in Miami (16-14). They have revenge on their minds as well. Virginia Tech overwhelmed then #9 Miami 31-7 last year.
KICKOFF: 3:30 PM
TV: ESPN, ESPN3.com
Showing posts with label ACC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ACC. Show all posts
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Monday Musings: BCS = Broken Championship System
After another fantastic set of games this weekend for college football, here are my 10 thoughts for Week 8.
1. BCS = Broken Championship System. Two out of the three components in the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) are human polls—the USA Today Coaches poll and the Harris Interactive Poll. This has been done with the expressed intent to give the human element more control over the top teams than the computer element. The Oregon Ducks have been number one in each of these polls the last two weeks, yet Oregon is not number one in the BCS, for the second consecutive week. Oklahoma was number one last week, and Auburn is number one this week. Someone needs to fix those computers. Even with only one third the weight, they are deciding who is number one.
2. How was this game close? The Auburn Tigers out gained the LSU Tigers 526 to 243 in total offense on Saturday. Why did Auburn have to stop LSU on a fourth down with 3:20 to play to win this game? With 526 yards you should have a lot more points. For example, Oregon “only” needed 582 yards to get 60. Why couldn’t Auburn muster more than 24?
3. We are legit. The Missouri Tigers (7-0), the Baylor Bears (6-2), and the Syracuse Orangemen (5-2) made this statement Saturday. All had glossy to semi-glossy records, but no one knew how much stock to put into these records. After Missouri beat Oklahoma, Baylor beat #22 Kansas State, and Syracuse beat #20 West Virginia, we all know that they are legitimate leaders in their conferences.
4. Progress in Pullman. The Washington State Cougars still aren’t winning games, but at least they are scoring points and making some of these losses respectable. Just a 10 point loss to Stanford. USC is the only Pac-10 team to beat the Cougars by more than 20. That includes Oregon, Stanford, and Arizona.
5. Worth the wait? Tyrod Taylor is finally starting to play up to his sky high expectations. He is fourth in the nation in pass efficiency with a 171.1 rating—this is by far the highest rating of his career. He has 527 rushing yards with a 6.2 yard per carry average. Taylor already has 15 TD passes, which is two more than he had all of last season. His completion percentage is up almost 9 percent to 63.9%. He is also on pace for his highest passing yards in a season.
6. Short lived success. Cincinnati and Georgia Tech are the latest teams to join the list of teams having reached a BCS bowl and quickly fell back to middle of the pack or worse in their conferences. Wake Forest, Louisville, Kansas, and Illinois all had a spike in wins to play in a BCS game, but quickly fell below 0.500. After playing in BCS bowls last year, Cincinnati is currently at 3-4, and Georgia Tech is 5-3 with the meat of their schedule still to come.
7. Green means go. Teams with green as a school color rolled up impressive amounts of total offense. Baylor: 682 yards; Hawaii: 614 yards; South Florida: 590 yards; Oregon 582. It was even good for one player named green. Hawaii running back Alex Green ran for 172 yards and four touchdowns on just 14 carries.
8. Yellow means go faster? In driver’s ed I was taught that you are supposed to slow down and stop when the light changes to yellow. When Oregon changed from green to yellow home jerseys, they sped up. The Ducks put up 60 points Thursday night, but what was more impressive is that they did it with only 21:29 possession time. No Oregon drive was longer than 3:37.
9. Three in a row. For the third straight week a number one ranked team lost. Alabama was the first, Ohio State was the second, and now Oklahoma fell. Will Auburn or Oregon make it four this week? Oregon faces a stiffer test with USC, but don’t count out Mississippi from pulling off the unexpected upset of Auburn. No one expected the Rebels to beat number 4 Florida two years ago.
10. Which was worse? Virginia Tech’s loss to James Madison in week two, or Texas’ loss to Iowa State this week? Okay, this is a bit of a stretch to put those two losses in the same sentence, especially since one is a 4-3 FCS team and the other is a 4-4 FBS team. However, after Iowa State lost 68-27 and 52-0 in back-to-back weeks, how do the Longhorns not put up at least 30? Sure you’re coming off an emotional win over Nebraska, but this loss looks really, really bad.
Other recent posts on COLLEGE FOOTBALL HAVEN:
Poll Results: Will either #1 Oklahoma or #2 Oregon play in the BCS National Championship Game?
College Football Haven Top 25, Week 8, 2010
Game of the Week: LSU Tigers at Auburn Tigers
Game Predictions, Week 8, 2010
Weekly Trivia: LSU starting 7-0
Heisman Trophy Hopefuls, Week 7, 2010
1. BCS = Broken Championship System. Two out of the three components in the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) are human polls—the USA Today Coaches poll and the Harris Interactive Poll. This has been done with the expressed intent to give the human element more control over the top teams than the computer element. The Oregon Ducks have been number one in each of these polls the last two weeks, yet Oregon is not number one in the BCS, for the second consecutive week. Oklahoma was number one last week, and Auburn is number one this week. Someone needs to fix those computers. Even with only one third the weight, they are deciding who is number one.
2. How was this game close? The Auburn Tigers out gained the LSU Tigers 526 to 243 in total offense on Saturday. Why did Auburn have to stop LSU on a fourth down with 3:20 to play to win this game? With 526 yards you should have a lot more points. For example, Oregon “only” needed 582 yards to get 60. Why couldn’t Auburn muster more than 24?
3. We are legit. The Missouri Tigers (7-0), the Baylor Bears (6-2), and the Syracuse Orangemen (5-2) made this statement Saturday. All had glossy to semi-glossy records, but no one knew how much stock to put into these records. After Missouri beat Oklahoma, Baylor beat #22 Kansas State, and Syracuse beat #20 West Virginia, we all know that they are legitimate leaders in their conferences.
4. Progress in Pullman. The Washington State Cougars still aren’t winning games, but at least they are scoring points and making some of these losses respectable. Just a 10 point loss to Stanford. USC is the only Pac-10 team to beat the Cougars by more than 20. That includes Oregon, Stanford, and Arizona.
5. Worth the wait? Tyrod Taylor is finally starting to play up to his sky high expectations. He is fourth in the nation in pass efficiency with a 171.1 rating—this is by far the highest rating of his career. He has 527 rushing yards with a 6.2 yard per carry average. Taylor already has 15 TD passes, which is two more than he had all of last season. His completion percentage is up almost 9 percent to 63.9%. He is also on pace for his highest passing yards in a season.
6. Short lived success. Cincinnati and Georgia Tech are the latest teams to join the list of teams having reached a BCS bowl and quickly fell back to middle of the pack or worse in their conferences. Wake Forest, Louisville, Kansas, and Illinois all had a spike in wins to play in a BCS game, but quickly fell below 0.500. After playing in BCS bowls last year, Cincinnati is currently at 3-4, and Georgia Tech is 5-3 with the meat of their schedule still to come.
7. Green means go. Teams with green as a school color rolled up impressive amounts of total offense. Baylor: 682 yards; Hawaii: 614 yards; South Florida: 590 yards; Oregon 582. It was even good for one player named green. Hawaii running back Alex Green ran for 172 yards and four touchdowns on just 14 carries.
8. Yellow means go faster? In driver’s ed I was taught that you are supposed to slow down and stop when the light changes to yellow. When Oregon changed from green to yellow home jerseys, they sped up. The Ducks put up 60 points Thursday night, but what was more impressive is that they did it with only 21:29 possession time. No Oregon drive was longer than 3:37.
9. Three in a row. For the third straight week a number one ranked team lost. Alabama was the first, Ohio State was the second, and now Oklahoma fell. Will Auburn or Oregon make it four this week? Oregon faces a stiffer test with USC, but don’t count out Mississippi from pulling off the unexpected upset of Auburn. No one expected the Rebels to beat number 4 Florida two years ago.
10. Which was worse? Virginia Tech’s loss to James Madison in week two, or Texas’ loss to Iowa State this week? Okay, this is a bit of a stretch to put those two losses in the same sentence, especially since one is a 4-3 FCS team and the other is a 4-4 FBS team. However, after Iowa State lost 68-27 and 52-0 in back-to-back weeks, how do the Longhorns not put up at least 30? Sure you’re coming off an emotional win over Nebraska, but this loss looks really, really bad.
Other recent posts on COLLEGE FOOTBALL HAVEN:
Poll Results: Will either #1 Oklahoma or #2 Oregon play in the BCS National Championship Game?
College Football Haven Top 25, Week 8, 2010
Game of the Week: LSU Tigers at Auburn Tigers
Game Predictions, Week 8, 2010
Weekly Trivia: LSU starting 7-0
Heisman Trophy Hopefuls, Week 7, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Poll Results: Who is the ACC Favorite?
The Clemson Tigers are the ACC favorite, according to 36 percent of voters. The Miami Hurricanes came in second with 22%, followed by Virginia Tech (18%), North Carolina State (9%), Georgia Tech (8%), and Florida State (7%).
Thank you to everyone who voted. Don't forget to vote in this week's poll: Which top 5 team will lose first?
Thank you to everyone who voted. Don't forget to vote in this week's poll: Which top 5 team will lose first?
Monday Musings: 10 Thoughts About Week 4
The first month of the 2010 college football season finished this weekend, and it showed. The games got tighter and the stakes have risen, but the fun and excitement keeps coming. Here are this week’s musings.
1. In the Pitts. The Pittsburgh Panthers were the clear favorites in the Big East this preseason. Now the Panthers sit at 1-2. The lone win came against New Hampshire. The second loss came at home to Miami, 31-3. Dion Lewis has gone from fab-freshman to sub-par-sophomore. Lewis is averaging less than 50 yards a game and just three yards even per rush.
2. Weapon of choice: the pistol. Nevada made the pistol offense famous, and they are riding its popularity, and success, to a 4-0 record and top 25 ranking. The Wolf Pack isn’t the only team using it these days. Alabama used the pistol regularly against Arkansas this weekend, and UCLA used the pistol to shoot down Bevo, 34-12.
3. How did Bowling Green manage to win a game? Michigan played musical chairs at quarterback, but the offense didn’t skip a beat. Denard Robinson and Tate Forcier both sustained injuries, but Michigan still rolled up 721 yards total offense and put 65 points on the board. Robinson had 128 yards rushing on five carries, Forcier was a perfect 12-12 passing the ball, and Michigan converted 10 of 12 third downs. The only way to win is to play a team with a worse defense or play a team with no offense, but Bowling Green does have one win on the year (44-28 over Marshall).
4. Who is better: Pac-10 or SEC? The Pac-10 might be giving the SEC competition for the title “Best Conference in College Football.” With the exception of Washington and Washington State, the Pac-10 is very strong. The other eight teams are a combined 23-8, and all eight losses are to undefeated teams. The Pac-10 has two upsets of top 10 teams to its credit as well.
5. The best QB in the ACC. Russell Wilson, North Carolina State, is asserting himself as the best signal caller in the ACC. Veterans Jacory Harris, Christian Ponder, and Tyrod Taylor were expected to be the cream of the ACC crop this year. Wilson has outplayed them all, to date, and he bested Josh Nesbitt on Saturday. After throwing a pick-6 that closed a 17 point lead to three, Wilson recovered and threw a 23-yard touchdown pass to push the lead back to 10.
6. Mississippi Mud Slide. The Ole Miss Rebels bounced back from an abysmal loss to Vanderbilt to inundate the Fresno State Bulldogs. Jeremiah Masoli was 8-12 passing for 153 yards, and Brandon Boldin ran for 228 yards on just 19 carries. Ole Miss had 578 yards of total offense and scored 55 points.
7. Will this be the year? The Nevada Wolf Pack has not beaten Boise State since 1998. Nevada hasn’t been 4-0 since 1991. They have been close the last few years. When Boise and Nevada meet on November 26, will the Wolf Pack pull of a monumental upset?
8. Good thing conference play is starting. With six teams in the Big 12 undefeated and seven teams in the Big 10 undefeated, it is a good thing that conference play is starting this week. Nothing is better to separate the contenders from the pretenders. We all remember how Michigan fell from 4-0 to miss a bowl last year. With Texas and Iowa not among the unbeaten teams in each conference, it is hard to believe that the win-loss records really reflect how good teams are at this point.
9. Moral victories are multiplying. The Florida International Golden Panthers notched another moral victory this weekend. FIU is 0-3 with a 19-14 loss to Rutgers, a 27-21 loss to Texas A&M, and a 42-28 loss to Maryland. The head coach said they were not going to take satisfaction in these moral victories, but they do represent how far FIU has come. Just two years ago, FIU lost 40-10 to Kansas, and 42-0 to Iowa.
10. Lost or won? Did Alabama win the game against Arkansas, or did the Razorbacks lose it? Arkansas led most of the game. They had a commanding 20-7 lead in the second half. Alabama cut that lead to three with six minutes to play. All Arkansas had to do was hold on to the ball and run the clock out. Not only did they fail to do that, but Ryan Mallett threw an interception on the third play of the drive. This miscue gift wrapped the winning touchdown for Alabama.
For the latest College Football Haven Top 25, click here.
1. In the Pitts. The Pittsburgh Panthers were the clear favorites in the Big East this preseason. Now the Panthers sit at 1-2. The lone win came against New Hampshire. The second loss came at home to Miami, 31-3. Dion Lewis has gone from fab-freshman to sub-par-sophomore. Lewis is averaging less than 50 yards a game and just three yards even per rush.
2. Weapon of choice: the pistol. Nevada made the pistol offense famous, and they are riding its popularity, and success, to a 4-0 record and top 25 ranking. The Wolf Pack isn’t the only team using it these days. Alabama used the pistol regularly against Arkansas this weekend, and UCLA used the pistol to shoot down Bevo, 34-12.
3. How did Bowling Green manage to win a game? Michigan played musical chairs at quarterback, but the offense didn’t skip a beat. Denard Robinson and Tate Forcier both sustained injuries, but Michigan still rolled up 721 yards total offense and put 65 points on the board. Robinson had 128 yards rushing on five carries, Forcier was a perfect 12-12 passing the ball, and Michigan converted 10 of 12 third downs. The only way to win is to play a team with a worse defense or play a team with no offense, but Bowling Green does have one win on the year (44-28 over Marshall).
4. Who is better: Pac-10 or SEC? The Pac-10 might be giving the SEC competition for the title “Best Conference in College Football.” With the exception of Washington and Washington State, the Pac-10 is very strong. The other eight teams are a combined 23-8, and all eight losses are to undefeated teams. The Pac-10 has two upsets of top 10 teams to its credit as well.
5. The best QB in the ACC. Russell Wilson, North Carolina State, is asserting himself as the best signal caller in the ACC. Veterans Jacory Harris, Christian Ponder, and Tyrod Taylor were expected to be the cream of the ACC crop this year. Wilson has outplayed them all, to date, and he bested Josh Nesbitt on Saturday. After throwing a pick-6 that closed a 17 point lead to three, Wilson recovered and threw a 23-yard touchdown pass to push the lead back to 10.
6. Mississippi Mud Slide. The Ole Miss Rebels bounced back from an abysmal loss to Vanderbilt to inundate the Fresno State Bulldogs. Jeremiah Masoli was 8-12 passing for 153 yards, and Brandon Boldin ran for 228 yards on just 19 carries. Ole Miss had 578 yards of total offense and scored 55 points.
7. Will this be the year? The Nevada Wolf Pack has not beaten Boise State since 1998. Nevada hasn’t been 4-0 since 1991. They have been close the last few years. When Boise and Nevada meet on November 26, will the Wolf Pack pull of a monumental upset?
8. Good thing conference play is starting. With six teams in the Big 12 undefeated and seven teams in the Big 10 undefeated, it is a good thing that conference play is starting this week. Nothing is better to separate the contenders from the pretenders. We all remember how Michigan fell from 4-0 to miss a bowl last year. With Texas and Iowa not among the unbeaten teams in each conference, it is hard to believe that the win-loss records really reflect how good teams are at this point.
9. Moral victories are multiplying. The Florida International Golden Panthers notched another moral victory this weekend. FIU is 0-3 with a 19-14 loss to Rutgers, a 27-21 loss to Texas A&M, and a 42-28 loss to Maryland. The head coach said they were not going to take satisfaction in these moral victories, but they do represent how far FIU has come. Just two years ago, FIU lost 40-10 to Kansas, and 42-0 to Iowa.
10. Lost or won? Did Alabama win the game against Arkansas, or did the Razorbacks lose it? Arkansas led most of the game. They had a commanding 20-7 lead in the second half. Alabama cut that lead to three with six minutes to play. All Arkansas had to do was hold on to the ball and run the clock out. Not only did they fail to do that, but Ryan Mallett threw an interception on the third play of the drive. This miscue gift wrapped the winning touchdown for Alabama.
For the latest College Football Haven Top 25, click here.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Poll Results: Will Michigan QB Denard Robinson finish this year as the nation's leading rusher?
The results are in, and 52% said Denard Robinson would not lead the nation in rushing this year. He is still on top after week three, but I expect that the majority will be right. That being said, you cannot deny Robinson's running ability, so I won't be shocked if he does manage to lead the nation in rushing.
Thank you to all who voted. Don't forget to vote in this week's poll: Who is the favorite in the ACC?
Thank you to all who voted. Don't forget to vote in this week's poll: Who is the favorite in the ACC?
Monday Musings: 10 Thoughts About Week 3
College Football turned in another memorable weekend. It was packed with memorable performances, unexpected events, and defining moments for teams, players, and coaches. Here are this week's musings.
1. Here we go again. Last year, the Michigan Wolverines started hot (4-0) and we all thought they were back. They only won one game the rest of the year (63-6 against Delaware State). That has made me hesitant to get excited about Michigan this year. The shootout with UMass on Saturday didn't help. Will Michigan keep winning once Big Ten play starts?
2. Houston, we have a problem. A week after Houston appeared to be in excellent shape with a ground game to go with their potent passing attack, the Cougars lost their first and second string quarterbacks. Case Keenum was the life blood of that team. Now, a season full of so much promise, is most likely shattered.
3. The ACC favorite is who? The North Carolina State Wolfpack looks to be the team to beat in the ACC. They are the only 3-0 team, and behind the arm of Russell Wilson they are legit. Tom O'Brien had struggled so far at NCState, but he looks to have assembled a solid team he can win with.
4. Escaped by their whiskers. The Wisconsin Badgers survived a scare Saturday by Arizona State. A blocked extra point attempt with 4:09 to play made the difference. Wisconsin has one more game to figure things out before Big Ten play starts. They might be 3-0 at this point, but none of their wins have been dominant.
5. Can we shorten the game to 3 quarters? This question was asked by FIU, and everyone playing Oregon. The Florida International Golden Panthers had a 20-6 lead going into the fourth quarter, only to see Texas A&M score 21 fourth quarter points to win 27-20. Oregon is humiliating everyone, do we really need to rub it in and play the final 15 minutes?
6. 'Bamas Best Back. Mark Ingram made it clear that he is, not only, the reigning Heisman Trophy winner. He is the best Alabama Crimson Tide running back. Back from injury, Ingram took his first carry of the season 48 yards. He had over 100 yards in the first quarter. He averaged 16.8 yards per carry, and scored two touchdowns. Trent Richardson is a very good player, but let's refrain from saying he is better than Ingram.
7. This is why you came back? Many experts felt Jake Locker would have pushed Sam Bradford for the number one pick in last April's NFL draft. Locker decided to stay for his senior year. I don't think he came back for games like the one on Saturday: 4-20 passing for 71 yards and 2 interceptions. Here's an idea, let's go back nine months and Locker can declare for the NFL draft and Jimmy Clausen can stay for his senior year.
8. The Pac-10 packed a punch. Although Washington didn't look so hot, several Pac-10 teams did. Arizona came up with the biggest upset of the year by knocking off Iowa, 34-27. Stanford continued to roll with a 68-24 trashing of Wake Forest. UCLA rebounded with a 31-13 win over upstart Houston. While it was just Portland State, Oregon still exceeded expectations (69 points in 45 minutes). Even Arizona State represented well in a loss at Wisconsin. The losses by Washington and Cal hurt the conference, but everyone else came through.
9. You conned me. UConn had us all fooled. The Huskies are not measuring up to contender status in the Big East. A 20 point loss to Michigan in the opener (UMass only lost by 5). A 14 point loss to Temple this week. Temple might win the MAC, but if you expect to contend in a BCS AQ conference, you put away MAC schools easy.
10. The most overrated play. Michigan State faked a field goal in overtime to beat Notre Dame. It was a risky call, and it looked cool from the camera angle on television, but don't buy into the hype that this one play was the gutsiest play of the college football season. The Michigan State head coach even explained that they didn't have much confidence in their kicker. My props to Michigan State for getting the win over one of their rivals and for executing the play well, but let's not blow this out of proportion.
For the latest College Football Haven Top 25, click here.
1. Here we go again. Last year, the Michigan Wolverines started hot (4-0) and we all thought they were back. They only won one game the rest of the year (63-6 against Delaware State). That has made me hesitant to get excited about Michigan this year. The shootout with UMass on Saturday didn't help. Will Michigan keep winning once Big Ten play starts?
2. Houston, we have a problem. A week after Houston appeared to be in excellent shape with a ground game to go with their potent passing attack, the Cougars lost their first and second string quarterbacks. Case Keenum was the life blood of that team. Now, a season full of so much promise, is most likely shattered.
3. The ACC favorite is who? The North Carolina State Wolfpack looks to be the team to beat in the ACC. They are the only 3-0 team, and behind the arm of Russell Wilson they are legit. Tom O'Brien had struggled so far at NCState, but he looks to have assembled a solid team he can win with.
4. Escaped by their whiskers. The Wisconsin Badgers survived a scare Saturday by Arizona State. A blocked extra point attempt with 4:09 to play made the difference. Wisconsin has one more game to figure things out before Big Ten play starts. They might be 3-0 at this point, but none of their wins have been dominant.
5. Can we shorten the game to 3 quarters? This question was asked by FIU, and everyone playing Oregon. The Florida International Golden Panthers had a 20-6 lead going into the fourth quarter, only to see Texas A&M score 21 fourth quarter points to win 27-20. Oregon is humiliating everyone, do we really need to rub it in and play the final 15 minutes?
6. 'Bamas Best Back. Mark Ingram made it clear that he is, not only, the reigning Heisman Trophy winner. He is the best Alabama Crimson Tide running back. Back from injury, Ingram took his first carry of the season 48 yards. He had over 100 yards in the first quarter. He averaged 16.8 yards per carry, and scored two touchdowns. Trent Richardson is a very good player, but let's refrain from saying he is better than Ingram.
7. This is why you came back? Many experts felt Jake Locker would have pushed Sam Bradford for the number one pick in last April's NFL draft. Locker decided to stay for his senior year. I don't think he came back for games like the one on Saturday: 4-20 passing for 71 yards and 2 interceptions. Here's an idea, let's go back nine months and Locker can declare for the NFL draft and Jimmy Clausen can stay for his senior year.
8. The Pac-10 packed a punch. Although Washington didn't look so hot, several Pac-10 teams did. Arizona came up with the biggest upset of the year by knocking off Iowa, 34-27. Stanford continued to roll with a 68-24 trashing of Wake Forest. UCLA rebounded with a 31-13 win over upstart Houston. While it was just Portland State, Oregon still exceeded expectations (69 points in 45 minutes). Even Arizona State represented well in a loss at Wisconsin. The losses by Washington and Cal hurt the conference, but everyone else came through.
9. You conned me. UConn had us all fooled. The Huskies are not measuring up to contender status in the Big East. A 20 point loss to Michigan in the opener (UMass only lost by 5). A 14 point loss to Temple this week. Temple might win the MAC, but if you expect to contend in a BCS AQ conference, you put away MAC schools easy.
10. The most overrated play. Michigan State faked a field goal in overtime to beat Notre Dame. It was a risky call, and it looked cool from the camera angle on television, but don't buy into the hype that this one play was the gutsiest play of the college football season. The Michigan State head coach even explained that they didn't have much confidence in their kicker. My props to Michigan State for getting the win over one of their rivals and for executing the play well, but let's not blow this out of proportion.
For the latest College Football Haven Top 25, click here.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Monday Musings: 10 Thoughts About College Football, Week 2
Week 2 of the 2010 college football season is in the books. It was another week full of surprises and outstanding play. Looking back on the weekend, here are my Monday Musings:
1. Steve Spurrier's solution for South Carolina. Steve Spurrier has struggled to win at South Carolina the same way he won at Florida. He may have found the solution. Running back Marcus Lattimore took the Gamecocks on his back Saturday in a pivotal game against Georgia. The freshman rushed for 182 yards and two touchdowns.
2. The year of the Dakotas. In week 1, Kansas lost to North Dakota State, 6-3. This week Minnesota lost to South Dakota, 41-38. Everyone circle September 25 on your calenders. Suddenly the North Dakota State-South Dakota game has become must see TV.
3. Houston, we have a run game. We all know that the Houston Cougars have a potent passing attack. Well, it looks like they found a run game to compliment it. Bryce Beall ripped off 195 yards on the ground this week against UTEP. With Case Keenum day-to-day following a concussion, Houston might have to rely on the services of Beall this week against UCLA.
4. This is the best you've got, ACC? The top teams in the ACC did not represent the conference well this week. Miami didn't even push Ohio State. Georgia Tech lost to the aforementioned Kansas team. Florida State was less of a challenge to Oklahoma than Utah State. However, the worst of the weekend was Virginia Tech coming up empty at home against James Madison. Is it time to auction off that BCS spot to the highest bidder?
5. The next move for the Pac-10. This one is so obvious that no studies need to be done. Just cast the votes and announce it later today. It is time to kick out Washington State and replace them with Boise State. From stadium size to media market it is an even swap. The quality of the product in Boise, however, is vastly superior to the product in Pullman. After dropping their opener 65-17 to Oklahoma State, the Cougars had to outscore the Montana State Bobcats 16-0 in the fourth quarter to pull out a 23-22 win and snap a 10 game losing streak.
6. That's more like it. Not to be outdone in futility, future Pac-10 member Colorado returned to its losing ways. The CU Buffaloes showed a different identity than we have become accustomed to in their opener against Colorado State (24-3 win). This week, the Buffs were back to normal. The Cal Bears hung 52 points on Colorado in a 45 point victory. Somehow, Colorado was able to win the third quarter 7-0.
7. Bye, bye, national title hopes. No I am not referring to Virginia Tech, although they can kiss the national championship good-bye as well. I am alluding to the Sun Belt Conference. Ok, maybe they didn't really have any national title aspirations in the first place. However, they are officially out of the picture now. With Florida Atlantic, Troy, FIU, and Louisiana-Monroe all losing this week, no Sun Belt member is still undefeated.
8. The nation's leading rusher is who? A quarterback. With his 258 yard outburst against Notre Dame, Michigan quarterback Denard Robinson is the nation's leading rusher with 455 yards. He has a 41 yard edge on Kendall Hunter from Oklahoma State. Robinson ran for 197 yards against Connecticut in the season opener. It appears he could maintain this lead for awhile.
9. The best 0-2 team. Vanderbilt. The Commodores lost a 23-21 decision to Northwestern in the season opener. They were in striking distance (10-3) going into the fourth quarter against LSU this week. Not too bad considering they lost their head coach only a few weeks before fall camp opened.
10. The worst 2-0 team. Arizona State. What substance is there in wins against Portland State and Northern Arizona? The next two weeks (Wisconsin and Oregon) should even the Sun Devil's record.
For the new College Football Haven Top 25, click here.
1. Steve Spurrier's solution for South Carolina. Steve Spurrier has struggled to win at South Carolina the same way he won at Florida. He may have found the solution. Running back Marcus Lattimore took the Gamecocks on his back Saturday in a pivotal game against Georgia. The freshman rushed for 182 yards and two touchdowns.
2. The year of the Dakotas. In week 1, Kansas lost to North Dakota State, 6-3. This week Minnesota lost to South Dakota, 41-38. Everyone circle September 25 on your calenders. Suddenly the North Dakota State-South Dakota game has become must see TV.
3. Houston, we have a run game. We all know that the Houston Cougars have a potent passing attack. Well, it looks like they found a run game to compliment it. Bryce Beall ripped off 195 yards on the ground this week against UTEP. With Case Keenum day-to-day following a concussion, Houston might have to rely on the services of Beall this week against UCLA.
4. This is the best you've got, ACC? The top teams in the ACC did not represent the conference well this week. Miami didn't even push Ohio State. Georgia Tech lost to the aforementioned Kansas team. Florida State was less of a challenge to Oklahoma than Utah State. However, the worst of the weekend was Virginia Tech coming up empty at home against James Madison. Is it time to auction off that BCS spot to the highest bidder?
5. The next move for the Pac-10. This one is so obvious that no studies need to be done. Just cast the votes and announce it later today. It is time to kick out Washington State and replace them with Boise State. From stadium size to media market it is an even swap. The quality of the product in Boise, however, is vastly superior to the product in Pullman. After dropping their opener 65-17 to Oklahoma State, the Cougars had to outscore the Montana State Bobcats 16-0 in the fourth quarter to pull out a 23-22 win and snap a 10 game losing streak.
6. That's more like it. Not to be outdone in futility, future Pac-10 member Colorado returned to its losing ways. The CU Buffaloes showed a different identity than we have become accustomed to in their opener against Colorado State (24-3 win). This week, the Buffs were back to normal. The Cal Bears hung 52 points on Colorado in a 45 point victory. Somehow, Colorado was able to win the third quarter 7-0.
7. Bye, bye, national title hopes. No I am not referring to Virginia Tech, although they can kiss the national championship good-bye as well. I am alluding to the Sun Belt Conference. Ok, maybe they didn't really have any national title aspirations in the first place. However, they are officially out of the picture now. With Florida Atlantic, Troy, FIU, and Louisiana-Monroe all losing this week, no Sun Belt member is still undefeated.
8. The nation's leading rusher is who? A quarterback. With his 258 yard outburst against Notre Dame, Michigan quarterback Denard Robinson is the nation's leading rusher with 455 yards. He has a 41 yard edge on Kendall Hunter from Oklahoma State. Robinson ran for 197 yards against Connecticut in the season opener. It appears he could maintain this lead for awhile.
9. The best 0-2 team. Vanderbilt. The Commodores lost a 23-21 decision to Northwestern in the season opener. They were in striking distance (10-3) going into the fourth quarter against LSU this week. Not too bad considering they lost their head coach only a few weeks before fall camp opened.
10. The worst 2-0 team. Arizona State. What substance is there in wins against Portland State and Northern Arizona? The next two weeks (Wisconsin and Oregon) should even the Sun Devil's record.
For the new College Football Haven Top 25, click here.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Game Predictions, Week 1
The game predictions each week will be pretty simple and straight forward. I will select around 20-25 games that I find interesting, but that also represent each FBS conference. Feel free to chime in with your picks, or at least where you agree or disagree. If I leave out a game that really interests you, throw out your prediction for that.
Thursday, September 2
Pittsburgh at Utah: 24-21, Pitt
Northern Illinois at Iowa State: 21-14, Northern Illinois
Florida Atlantic at UAB: 17-10, UAB
Southern Mississippi at South Carolina: 31-24, South Carolina
USC at Hawaii: 38-7, USC
Minnesota at Middle Tennessee: 31-10, Minnesota
Friday, September 3
Arizona at Toledo: 21-17, Arizona
Saturday, September 4
TCU vs. Oregon State: 24-13 TCU
LSU vs. North Carolina: 28-14, LSU
Illinois vs. Missouri: 31-28, Missouri
Colorado vs. Colorado State: 21-13, Colorado
Kentucky at Louisville: 28-20, Kentucky
North Texas at Clemson: 34-13, Clemson
Troy at Bowling Green: 24-10, Bowling Green
New Mexico at Oregon: 28-10, Oregon
Purdue at Notre Dame: 21-13 Notre Dame
Memphis at Mississippi State: 31-10, Mississippi State
Cincinnati at Fresno State: 24-21, Fresno State
Western Michigan at Michigan State: 24-10, Michigan State
Connecticut at Michigan: 31-30, Michigan
Sunday, September 5
SMU at Texas Tech: 34-27, SMU
Monday, September 6
Virginia Tech vs. Boise State: 21-17, Boise State
Navy vs. Maryland: 31-17, Navy
If you missed College Football Haven's Top 25 this week, click here.
If you missed College Football Haven's Heisman Hopefuls this week, click here.
If you missed this week's trivia question, click here.
Thursday, September 2
Pittsburgh at Utah: 24-21, Pitt
Northern Illinois at Iowa State: 21-14, Northern Illinois
Florida Atlantic at UAB: 17-10, UAB
Southern Mississippi at South Carolina: 31-24, South Carolina
USC at Hawaii: 38-7, USC
Minnesota at Middle Tennessee: 31-10, Minnesota
Friday, September 3
Arizona at Toledo: 21-17, Arizona
Saturday, September 4
TCU vs. Oregon State: 24-13 TCU
LSU vs. North Carolina: 28-14, LSU
Illinois vs. Missouri: 31-28, Missouri
Colorado vs. Colorado State: 21-13, Colorado
Kentucky at Louisville: 28-20, Kentucky
North Texas at Clemson: 34-13, Clemson
Troy at Bowling Green: 24-10, Bowling Green
New Mexico at Oregon: 28-10, Oregon
Purdue at Notre Dame: 21-13 Notre Dame
Memphis at Mississippi State: 31-10, Mississippi State
Cincinnati at Fresno State: 24-21, Fresno State
Western Michigan at Michigan State: 24-10, Michigan State
Connecticut at Michigan: 31-30, Michigan
Sunday, September 5
SMU at Texas Tech: 34-27, SMU
Monday, September 6
Virginia Tech vs. Boise State: 21-17, Boise State
Navy vs. Maryland: 31-17, Navy
If you missed College Football Haven's Top 25 this week, click here.
If you missed College Football Haven's Heisman Hopefuls this week, click here.
If you missed this week's trivia question, click here.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) Football Season Preview 2010
The Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) has been a little down the last few years, but 2010 just might be the year that the conference champion makes it to the BCS title game.
1. Who will win the conference? Miami Hurricanes. The team is very disappointed with the way 2009 ended. They are going to play like men on a mission this year. Nothing will satisfy their hunger except an ACC championship. Last year their youthfulness caught up with them. That won’t be the case this year.
2. Who is the top returning player? Ryan Williams, Virginia Tech. Williams quietly ran for 1,655 yards last year. I say quietly because that was the fifth most in the nation and only three yards less than Heisman Trophy winner Mark Ingram. Williams also scored 22 touchdowns and eclipsed the 100 yard mark 10 times.
3. Which team will be the most improved? Florida State Seminoles. After floundering in mediocrity for four years, Florida State made a coaching change at the end of last year. That change will pay immediate dividends. The ‘Noles will win the Atlantic division.
4. What will be the biggest surprise? The return of Mark Herzlich to the field for Boston College. Herzlich used his redshirt year to fight bone cancer. Now he is back. While playing time will be limited to start, by season’s end he will be playing a lot and making a difference.
5. Which coach is on the hottest seat? Tom O’Brien, North Carolina State. Since the Wolfpack hired him away from Boston College after the 2006 season, O’Brien has not delivered. North Carolina State has a record of 16-21 over the last three years.
1. Who will win the conference? Miami Hurricanes. The team is very disappointed with the way 2009 ended. They are going to play like men on a mission this year. Nothing will satisfy their hunger except an ACC championship. Last year their youthfulness caught up with them. That won’t be the case this year.
2. Who is the top returning player? Ryan Williams, Virginia Tech. Williams quietly ran for 1,655 yards last year. I say quietly because that was the fifth most in the nation and only three yards less than Heisman Trophy winner Mark Ingram. Williams also scored 22 touchdowns and eclipsed the 100 yard mark 10 times.
3. Which team will be the most improved? Florida State Seminoles. After floundering in mediocrity for four years, Florida State made a coaching change at the end of last year. That change will pay immediate dividends. The ‘Noles will win the Atlantic division.
4. What will be the biggest surprise? The return of Mark Herzlich to the field for Boston College. Herzlich used his redshirt year to fight bone cancer. Now he is back. While playing time will be limited to start, by season’s end he will be playing a lot and making a difference.
5. Which coach is on the hottest seat? Tom O’Brien, North Carolina State. Since the Wolfpack hired him away from Boston College after the 2006 season, O’Brien has not delivered. North Carolina State has a record of 16-21 over the last three years.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Conference Expansion Craziness
Sorry I have not posted a real article or anything for such a long time. Thank you to those who still frequented the site and have been participating in the opinion polls.
We are in the middle of what is supposed to be the quiet time for college football. Letter of Intent day is long passed and the spring football practice sessions wrapped up weeks ago. Classes are out and the coaches can't have contact with the players. Yet, the conference expansion craze is generating enough headlines and discussion to make this as busy as the regular season. Let's quickly run down the popular possibilities for each conference in expansion.
Big 10
We will start with the one that is responsible for this mess.
Plan A is to add Notre Dame to reach 12 and hold a championship game.
Plan B seems to be to take teams from the Big 12 and Big East to reach 14. Top candidates include the Big 12's Nebraska and Missouri and the Big East's Rutgers, Syracuse, and Pitt.
Pac-10
Plan A is to change the rule for championship games to conferences with 10 teams, as opposed to the current minimum of 12.
Plan A-1 emerged just last weekend to add six Big 12 schools that would include Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Colorado or Baylor.
Plan B Add Colorado and Utah to reach 12 and get a championship game to leverage a better TV deal and start a Pac-12 Network.
Big 12
Plan A is to weather the storm by keeping the nucleus of Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. They would prefer not to lose any team, but if Missouri goes they will survive.
Plan B add BYU, Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis, Arkansas, or another team NOT IN THE CURRENT BIG 12 FOOTPRINT to replace Missouri.
SEC
Plan A is to wait and see what happens knowing most likely they won't have to do anything.
Plan B is to expand to 16 teams by attacking the ACC and/or Big 12. Popular candidates include Texas, Texas A&M, Florida State, Miami, Clemson, and Georgia Tech.
Big East
Plan A is to give Notre Dame an ultimatum to join the conference for football or lose membership for its other sports. This is viewed as the best hope for survival, regardless of Notre Dame's response. The idea is to stop radical changes by forcing Notre Dame to join the Big 10 or, in their dreams, to stabilize the Big East by having Notre Dame as a football school.
Plan B die.
Plan C reach into the mid-majors again and repopulate the conference after the dust settles.
THE REST
Plan A is to wait and see. The Mountain West Conference (MWC) made this clear yesterday in a press conference announcing that Boise State would not be added. The ACC will only add teams if it loses teams or 16 becomes the new 12. The rest of the mid-majors won't expand unless one of the major conferences disbands and they feel they can capitalize with one of the once privileged "BCS schools."
With all these options on the table, which make the most sense and are the most likely?
Big 10 Plan A. Probably not going to happen. Notre Dame is being very vocal about wanting to stay independent, which means that is probably the message the boosters are sending. Notre Dame will listen to its boosters more than the Big 10.
Big 10 Plan B. Rumors are that Nebraska and Missouri to the Big 10 is immenent and could be annouced very soon. I think this has a high probability of happening, but not this month. Expansion is as big of a decision for these conferences as marraige is to an individual. The conferences will take the time that they need. These two teams would bring the total to 13 for the Big 10, which means one Big East team needs to come along. Pitt has the best football program, but offers the least new market. Rutgers has shown promise and the head coach is committed to the school, but how much market do the Scarlet Knights really bring? Syracuse has been putrid in football, but is great in basketball. However, the Orangemen seem to have the potential of delivering the most TV sets. I would rank the likelihood of these teams joining the Big 10 as 1-Rutgers, 2-Pitt, 3-Syracuse.
Pac-10 Plan A and A-1. Until the news broke about the 6 Big 12 schools I thought changing the championship game rule was going to happen and the Pac-10 would not change. If the numbers add up for Texas, I think the six Big 12 teams will end up joining the Pac. I have no expertise in projecting TV revenues, but I think there is a good chance that Texas would stand to profit with this arrangement with the Pac-10. If not, I think this opens a new can of worms for the top teams from the Pac and the top teams from the Big 12 to form a new 12-16 team conference hand picking the teams that would make the $$$ numbers work.
Pac-10 Plan B. What was once the most likely and reasonable scenario is as good as dead, I think. If this was such a great idea, the Pac-10 would not be bending over backwards to try and make other scenarios work.
Big 12 Plan A. Your guess is as good as mine about keeping the Big 12 nucleus together. It is hard to imagine that the Big 12 could cease to exist, but at this point we have to accept that it just might.
Big 12 Plan B. If Missouri is the only school to replace you can rule out Arkansas and Memphis as candidates. It won't happen. Cincinnati is very unlikely as well. I think it will come down to Louisville or BYU. Anyone who knows me will know that BYU would be my preference, but my gut feeling tells me that the Big 12 would prefer to expand east, not west. A presence east of the Mississippi could be very valuable.
SEC Plan A. This is the plan I envision the SEC following. Even if conferences expand to 16 teams now, the SEC is in a position to wait and see if these expansions really work. If they do, the SEC is strong enough to rip teams away from almost anyone.
Big East Plan A. I don't see the ultimatum happening. I really think the Big East will go down (Plan B) without much of a fight if two or more teams are taken. Raiding other conferences will prove fruitless because the Big East will be so weakened that BCS automatic qualifying status will be lost.
To summarize, the biggest players in the conference expansion game are: Notre Dame, Texas, and the NCAA rule for minimum teams required for a championship game. Notre Dame is capable of keeping the structure of eastern college football largely in tact by joining the Big East. Texas is capable of exploding the structure of college football nationwide by breaking up the Big 12. An NCAA rule change could keep everything status quo. Not only would it satisfy the Pac 10, it could satisfy the Big 10, or keep the Big 12 from expanding if one or two teams leave.
We are in the middle of what is supposed to be the quiet time for college football. Letter of Intent day is long passed and the spring football practice sessions wrapped up weeks ago. Classes are out and the coaches can't have contact with the players. Yet, the conference expansion craze is generating enough headlines and discussion to make this as busy as the regular season. Let's quickly run down the popular possibilities for each conference in expansion.
Big 10
We will start with the one that is responsible for this mess.
Plan A is to add Notre Dame to reach 12 and hold a championship game.
Plan B seems to be to take teams from the Big 12 and Big East to reach 14. Top candidates include the Big 12's Nebraska and Missouri and the Big East's Rutgers, Syracuse, and Pitt.
Pac-10
Plan A is to change the rule for championship games to conferences with 10 teams, as opposed to the current minimum of 12.
Plan A-1 emerged just last weekend to add six Big 12 schools that would include Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Colorado or Baylor.
Plan B Add Colorado and Utah to reach 12 and get a championship game to leverage a better TV deal and start a Pac-12 Network.
Big 12
Plan A is to weather the storm by keeping the nucleus of Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. They would prefer not to lose any team, but if Missouri goes they will survive.
Plan B add BYU, Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis, Arkansas, or another team NOT IN THE CURRENT BIG 12 FOOTPRINT to replace Missouri.
SEC
Plan A is to wait and see what happens knowing most likely they won't have to do anything.
Plan B is to expand to 16 teams by attacking the ACC and/or Big 12. Popular candidates include Texas, Texas A&M, Florida State, Miami, Clemson, and Georgia Tech.
Big East
Plan A is to give Notre Dame an ultimatum to join the conference for football or lose membership for its other sports. This is viewed as the best hope for survival, regardless of Notre Dame's response. The idea is to stop radical changes by forcing Notre Dame to join the Big 10 or, in their dreams, to stabilize the Big East by having Notre Dame as a football school.
Plan B die.
Plan C reach into the mid-majors again and repopulate the conference after the dust settles.
THE REST
Plan A is to wait and see. The Mountain West Conference (MWC) made this clear yesterday in a press conference announcing that Boise State would not be added. The ACC will only add teams if it loses teams or 16 becomes the new 12. The rest of the mid-majors won't expand unless one of the major conferences disbands and they feel they can capitalize with one of the once privileged "BCS schools."
With all these options on the table, which make the most sense and are the most likely?
Big 10 Plan A. Probably not going to happen. Notre Dame is being very vocal about wanting to stay independent, which means that is probably the message the boosters are sending. Notre Dame will listen to its boosters more than the Big 10.
Big 10 Plan B. Rumors are that Nebraska and Missouri to the Big 10 is immenent and could be annouced very soon. I think this has a high probability of happening, but not this month. Expansion is as big of a decision for these conferences as marraige is to an individual. The conferences will take the time that they need. These two teams would bring the total to 13 for the Big 10, which means one Big East team needs to come along. Pitt has the best football program, but offers the least new market. Rutgers has shown promise and the head coach is committed to the school, but how much market do the Scarlet Knights really bring? Syracuse has been putrid in football, but is great in basketball. However, the Orangemen seem to have the potential of delivering the most TV sets. I would rank the likelihood of these teams joining the Big 10 as 1-Rutgers, 2-Pitt, 3-Syracuse.
Pac-10 Plan A and A-1. Until the news broke about the 6 Big 12 schools I thought changing the championship game rule was going to happen and the Pac-10 would not change. If the numbers add up for Texas, I think the six Big 12 teams will end up joining the Pac. I have no expertise in projecting TV revenues, but I think there is a good chance that Texas would stand to profit with this arrangement with the Pac-10. If not, I think this opens a new can of worms for the top teams from the Pac and the top teams from the Big 12 to form a new 12-16 team conference hand picking the teams that would make the $$$ numbers work.
Pac-10 Plan B. What was once the most likely and reasonable scenario is as good as dead, I think. If this was such a great idea, the Pac-10 would not be bending over backwards to try and make other scenarios work.
Big 12 Plan A. Your guess is as good as mine about keeping the Big 12 nucleus together. It is hard to imagine that the Big 12 could cease to exist, but at this point we have to accept that it just might.
Big 12 Plan B. If Missouri is the only school to replace you can rule out Arkansas and Memphis as candidates. It won't happen. Cincinnati is very unlikely as well. I think it will come down to Louisville or BYU. Anyone who knows me will know that BYU would be my preference, but my gut feeling tells me that the Big 12 would prefer to expand east, not west. A presence east of the Mississippi could be very valuable.
SEC Plan A. This is the plan I envision the SEC following. Even if conferences expand to 16 teams now, the SEC is in a position to wait and see if these expansions really work. If they do, the SEC is strong enough to rip teams away from almost anyone.
Big East Plan A. I don't see the ultimatum happening. I really think the Big East will go down (Plan B) without much of a fight if two or more teams are taken. Raiding other conferences will prove fruitless because the Big East will be so weakened that BCS automatic qualifying status will be lost.
To summarize, the biggest players in the conference expansion game are: Notre Dame, Texas, and the NCAA rule for minimum teams required for a championship game. Notre Dame is capable of keeping the structure of eastern college football largely in tact by joining the Big East. Texas is capable of exploding the structure of college football nationwide by breaking up the Big 12. An NCAA rule change could keep everything status quo. Not only would it satisfy the Pac 10, it could satisfy the Big 10, or keep the Big 12 from expanding if one or two teams leave.
Friday, April 23, 2010
NFL Draft: Round 1 Reaction
While this is a college football blog, I think the NFL draft still fits the scope of college football. For me, college football starts with a player signing a letter of intent, and ends with a player being drafted or signing as a free agent, or just moving on to grad school or the less glamorous part of the workforce. With round one in the books, five things stuck out to me.
1. Sam Bradford was the number one pick. Talk about the biggest case of “much ado about nothing” that football has ever seen. Bradford could have been the number one pick a year ago, but he decided to come back. He was injured less than 30 minutes into the season and the frenzy started about how much money he lost and how he should not have come back. It turns out it was all a waste of time and energy. What more productive and constructive thing could have been done with all that time and energy?
2. Big night for the Big 12. I saw the USA Today front page headline, “1-2 for the Big 12,” but that is only half the story. The first four picks were from the Big 12, three from Oklahoma, as well as picks six, fourteen, nineteen, twenty-one, and twenty-four. Nine players in all. If I had the resources, I would do the research to find out if this is precedent setting.
3. Three WAC players drafted. Ryan Matthews (Fresno State) was drafted number 12 by the Chargers, Mike Iupati (Idaho) was drafted 17 by the 49ers, and Kyle Wilson (Boise State) was taken number 29 by the Jets. As you can see, only one played for Boise State, and he was the last one taken. For all the criticism that Boise State gets for playing in such a weak conference, the WAC produced more first rounders than the Pac-10 and the MWC, an equal number of first rounders as the Big 10 and the Big East, and just one less first rounder than the ACC.
4. Tim Tebow at number 25 was not shocking. It happens every year. Someone is taken much earlier than expected. We all know the adage “it only takes one.” I just want to know what inside information Denver had that made them move back into the first round. Denver had the 22nd pick. If they really wanted Tebow this bad, they could have taken him then, or else wait for the second round. Someone else must have been hot on Tebow and was going to select him before the night ended, even with Jimmy Clausen still available. No only was this pick not shocking, but I like it. With the success Kyle Orton had last year in the Denver system, then I don’t see why Tim Tebow won’t be able to have a good NFL career there.
5. Jimmy Clausen. Quarterbacks falling in the first round has become common, but they still make it out of the first round. Not this time. Clausen is still without a team. Was leaving Notre Dame early really the right decision? How smart does this make Jake Locker in Washington look?
1. Sam Bradford was the number one pick. Talk about the biggest case of “much ado about nothing” that football has ever seen. Bradford could have been the number one pick a year ago, but he decided to come back. He was injured less than 30 minutes into the season and the frenzy started about how much money he lost and how he should not have come back. It turns out it was all a waste of time and energy. What more productive and constructive thing could have been done with all that time and energy?
2. Big night for the Big 12. I saw the USA Today front page headline, “1-2 for the Big 12,” but that is only half the story. The first four picks were from the Big 12, three from Oklahoma, as well as picks six, fourteen, nineteen, twenty-one, and twenty-four. Nine players in all. If I had the resources, I would do the research to find out if this is precedent setting.
3. Three WAC players drafted. Ryan Matthews (Fresno State) was drafted number 12 by the Chargers, Mike Iupati (Idaho) was drafted 17 by the 49ers, and Kyle Wilson (Boise State) was taken number 29 by the Jets. As you can see, only one played for Boise State, and he was the last one taken. For all the criticism that Boise State gets for playing in such a weak conference, the WAC produced more first rounders than the Pac-10 and the MWC, an equal number of first rounders as the Big 10 and the Big East, and just one less first rounder than the ACC.
4. Tim Tebow at number 25 was not shocking. It happens every year. Someone is taken much earlier than expected. We all know the adage “it only takes one.” I just want to know what inside information Denver had that made them move back into the first round. Denver had the 22nd pick. If they really wanted Tebow this bad, they could have taken him then, or else wait for the second round. Someone else must have been hot on Tebow and was going to select him before the night ended, even with Jimmy Clausen still available. No only was this pick not shocking, but I like it. With the success Kyle Orton had last year in the Denver system, then I don’t see why Tim Tebow won’t be able to have a good NFL career there.
5. Jimmy Clausen. Quarterbacks falling in the first round has become common, but they still make it out of the first round. Not this time. Clausen is still without a team. Was leaving Notre Dame early really the right decision? How smart does this make Jake Locker in Washington look?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The Evidence: Performance on the Field
This is the third part of the BCS Bash series. For part one, click here. For part two, click here.
We all come to a point in life when we have to make a decision, but the best choice is not clear. However, after we make and carry out that decision, we are able to judge if the decision we made. The Bowl Alliance decided to include the Big East, Big 8, Southwest, Atlantic Coast, and Southeastern conferences and to exclude the Western Athletic, Mid-America, and Big West conferences. The Bowl Alliance decided to have the participants in its three bowl games be the conference champions of the five included conferences, plus one at-large team. The BCS made these same decisions three years later. (Note: The Big 8 and Southwest conferences merged in 1996 to form the Big 12. For clarity, I will refer only to the Big 12 for the rest of this article.)
The declared intent was still to match number one and number two in a bowl game, but the actions of the organizers sent a clear message that participating in the elite bowls was for conference champions. If you are a champion you have automatic access. If you are not a champion get in line and hope your name is called. The automatic access, however, was not granted to all conference champions because not all conference champions were viewed as equal. Champions of the SEC, ACC, Big East, and Big 12 were in a higher class than the other conference champions. They were given automatic qualifying status because they were "extra special." The other conference champions were merely mediocre.
This is America and we have the freedom of speech, so there is nothing illegal with anyone making that statement. In America you are also innocent until proven guilty, so let’s take this to the judge.
Court is now in session. Charges have come against the Bowl Alliance/BCS for unjustly limiting the automatic qualifying status for conference champions to the ACC, SEC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac-10. The prosecution argues that for anyone to be a conference champion, they earn that distinction through their performance on the field of play. If these six conference champions are so superior to the other conference champions, their performance on the field of play will reflect that.
Exhibit one is the win-loss record and winning percentage before bowl games for the conference champions for the automatic qualifying conferences dating back to 1996.
Year....ACC....SEC....Big East..Big 10...Big 12...Pac-10
1996....11-0...11-1......10-1.........10-1.....8-4......11-0
1997....10-1...11-1.......9-3.........11-0....12-0......10-1
1998....11-1...12-0.......8-3.........10-1....11-2......10-1
1999....11-0...10-2......11-0..........9-2....11-1.......8-3
2000....10-1....9-3......11-0.........10-1....10-2......10-1
2001....10-1....9-3......11-0.........10-1....10-2......10-1
2002.....9-4...12-1......12-0.........13-0....11-2......10-2
2003....10-2...12-1......10-2.........10-2....11-3......11-1
2004....10-2...12-0.......8-3..........9-2....12-0......12-0
2005.....8-4...10-2......10-1.........10-1....12-0......12-0
2006....11-2...12-1......11-1.........12-0....11-2......10-2
2007....11-2...11-2......10-2.........11-1....11-2......10-2
2008.....9-4...12-1......11-2.........11-1....12-1......11-1
2009....11-2...13-0......12-0.........10-2....13-0......10-2
Total 143-26..157-17..143-19....154-17..157-19...145-17
Win % 0.846...0.902...0.882.....0.901...0.892....0.895
Relevance: The ACC champion had the lowest winning percentage (0.846) among the conference champions awarded automatic qualification to a BCS bowl. If this winning percentage is significantly higher than that of the conference champions not awarded automatic qualification to a BCS bowl, then the BCS is justified for excluding those other conferences.
Exhibit two is another table that shows the win-loss record and winning percentage before bowl games for the conference champions for the non-automatic qualifying conferences dating back to 1996.
Year...MWC*...WAC**...MAC...Conf. USA
1996...13-1.......8-3........8-3.........8-3
1997...10-2.......6-5.......10-2.........8-3
1998...11-1.......8-3.......11-1........11-0
1999....8-3.......8-4.......12-0.........8-3
2000....9-2......10-1........7-5.........9-2
2001...12-1.......7-4........9-2........10-2
2002...10-3......11-1.......10-2.........9-2
2003....9-2......12-1.......12-1.........9-3
2004...11-0......11-0........9-3........10-1
2005...10-1.......9-3........7-5.........8-4
2006...10-2......12-0........9-4........10-3
2007...10-2......12-0........8-5........10-3
2008...12-0......12-0........8-5.........9-4
2009...12-0......13-0.......11-2.........9-4
Total 147-20...139-25......131-40.... 128-37
Win%..0.880...0.847.......0.766......0.775
* = The Mountain West Conference (MWC) did not exist prior to the 1999 season. The data used for 1996-1998 are the records of the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) champion since the MWC members competed in that conference at that time and all WAC champions during that time are now members of the MWC.
** = Most of the teams comprising the WAC today were members of the Big West Conference from 1996-1998, so the records of the Big West Champion was used for those years.
(Note: The Sun Belt Conference did not exist prior to 2001, so for lack of data, the Sun Belt Conference was not used in this comparison.)
Relevance: On the field of play, both the MWC and the WAC champions, over a 14 year period, have sustained better on the field performance than the ACC champion. The WAC champion’s winning percentage was 0.001 better, and the MWC champion’s winning percentage was 0.034 better. It is also important to point out that the MWC champion’s wining percentage was only 0.002 less than the Big East champion. The performance on the field of play by the WAC and the MWC champions has exceeded that of the ACC. The MWC champion is even on par with the Big East champion.
Exhibit three is the results of the “BCS Busters” against teams from automatic qualifying conferences.
2004: Utah 35, Pittsburgh 7 (Pittsburgh was the Big East Champion)
2006: Boise State 43, Oklahoma 42 (Oklahoma was the Big 12 Champion)
2007: Georgia 41, Hawaii 10
2008: Utah 31, Alabama 17
Overall Record: 3-1 (2-0 versus automatic qualifying conference champions)
Relevance: On the field of play, non-automatic qualifying conference champions have won 75% of the time they have played in BCS bowl games against teams from AQ conferences, and 100% of the time these non-automatic qualifying conference champions have played automatic qualifying champions.
While Hawaii lost to Georgia by 31 points that does not hurt my case. Teams from conferences with AQ status have lost by 31 points or more in Bowl Alliance or BCS games on six occasions.
Florida lost to Nebraska by 38 points in 1995
Florida State lost to Florida by 32 points in 1996
Notre Dame lost to Oregon State by 32 points in 2000
Maryland lost to Florida by 33 points in 2001
Oklahoma lost to USC by 36 points in 2004
Illinois lost to USC by 32 points in 2007
The BCS’s decision to exclude cannot be justified by Hawaii’s blowout loss since it is not the only time that a BCS game has had such an outcome. In fact, Hawaii did not have the greatest losing margin of all teams in BCS games in 2007. On the other side of the coin, Utah won in 2004 by 28 points, which begs the question, “Why would such a superior conference champion lose so lopsidedly?”
Exhibit four is the changes in conference make up. Since the Bowl Alliance formed in 1995, the composition of the Big 8, the ACC and the Big East have all changed. The Big 8 added teams from the SWC and the ACC swiped teams from the Big East. The Big East, however, reached into the pile of leftovers (teams not in a conference granted automatic qualifying status) and added three teams. Since the Big East added teams, three out of five years one of the former outsiders won the conference.
Relevance: While the Big East conducted research to determine the best candidates to add to the conference, the Big East did not need authorization by the BCS. The BCS did not conduct its own analysis of performance on the field of play and conclude who were the three most qualified teams in college football for membership in the exclusive BCS circle. The precedent established in 1995 changed the rules for conference expansion. The ACC added teams from a fellow AQ conference, but if a conference was going to reach outside the AQ boundaries, then the BCS should have to approve the move.
Furthermore, the immediate success of these new Big East members shows that, on the field of play, teams from conferences without an automatic qualifying conference champion are NOT inferior to the teams in conferences with an automatic qualifying conference champion.
Exhibit five is that the expressed purpose of the Bowl Alliance, which the BCS continued, was to create a system that would match the number one and number two ranked teams in the same bowl game.
Relevance: On two occasions (Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003) teams who were not conference champions played for the national championship. To play for the national championship, a team must be ranked either number one or number two. Since teams who were not conference champions qualified for the national championship game, the BCS showed that automatic qualifying status for conference champions was not necessary to accomplish its intent. Therefore, one or more of the parties involved in creating the Bowl Alliance and the BCS were working to protect special interests by creating the automatic qualifying status for a limited number of conferences in college football.
Closing Arguments: The defendant will, undoubtedly, attempt to counter my evidence with the strength of schedule for teams from the conferences with automatic qualifying champions. I rebut that argument by reiterating what was covered yesterday regarding “overall conference strength.” This notion of “strength of schedule” is a false perception born out of misconceptions that have, unfortunately, corrupted all forms of rankings and ratings for college football. When the issue is automatic qualifying status for conference champions, the only evidence that matters is performance on the field.
Specific to exhibit three, the defendant might rebut by incorporating regular season head-to-head competition of teams from conferences with automatic qualifying status versus teams from conferences without automatic qualifying status. That is irrelevant evidence. First, any head-to-head comparison should be between conference champions in the year that both teams were conference champions. Second, head-to-head competition is not a criterion used for selection of any team to the BCS bowls. USC and Notre Dame have both played in BCS bowls in the same year, regardless of the results on the field of play in the regular season. The same can be said for Florida and Florida State. Even in 2008, USC embarrassed Ohio State during the season, but both played in BCS bowls. The tables in exhibits one and two include all regular season games. Any head-to-head competitions that occurred are a part of those records. Bringing in regular season head-to-head competition is another bad cover up. It would be like lying: once you lie, you have to use another lie to cover it up. Regular season head-to-head competition would be using an injustice to cover up the original injustice.
The evidence I have presented clearly shows that two conference champions that don’t have automatic qualifying status have performed equally on the field of play to the conference champions that do have automatic qualifying status.
When we find out that we made a bad decision, we take corrective action. The BCS needs to take corrective action. Like most corrective action, it will hurt the wrongdoer. Fortunately in this case, the corrective action is simple. For now, though, we have had enough for one day. Come back tomorrow for The Solution.
Part 4: The Solution: It's About Conference Champions
Sources:
www.shrpsports.com/cf/
www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809942
We all come to a point in life when we have to make a decision, but the best choice is not clear. However, after we make and carry out that decision, we are able to judge if the decision we made. The Bowl Alliance decided to include the Big East, Big 8, Southwest, Atlantic Coast, and Southeastern conferences and to exclude the Western Athletic, Mid-America, and Big West conferences. The Bowl Alliance decided to have the participants in its three bowl games be the conference champions of the five included conferences, plus one at-large team. The BCS made these same decisions three years later. (Note: The Big 8 and Southwest conferences merged in 1996 to form the Big 12. For clarity, I will refer only to the Big 12 for the rest of this article.)
The declared intent was still to match number one and number two in a bowl game, but the actions of the organizers sent a clear message that participating in the elite bowls was for conference champions. If you are a champion you have automatic access. If you are not a champion get in line and hope your name is called. The automatic access, however, was not granted to all conference champions because not all conference champions were viewed as equal. Champions of the SEC, ACC, Big East, and Big 12 were in a higher class than the other conference champions. They were given automatic qualifying status because they were "extra special." The other conference champions were merely mediocre.
This is America and we have the freedom of speech, so there is nothing illegal with anyone making that statement. In America you are also innocent until proven guilty, so let’s take this to the judge.
Court is now in session. Charges have come against the Bowl Alliance/BCS for unjustly limiting the automatic qualifying status for conference champions to the ACC, SEC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac-10. The prosecution argues that for anyone to be a conference champion, they earn that distinction through their performance on the field of play. If these six conference champions are so superior to the other conference champions, their performance on the field of play will reflect that.
Exhibit one is the win-loss record and winning percentage before bowl games for the conference champions for the automatic qualifying conferences dating back to 1996.
Year....ACC....SEC....Big East..Big 10...Big 12...Pac-10
1996....11-0...11-1......10-1.........10-1.....8-4......11-0
1997....10-1...11-1.......9-3.........11-0....12-0......10-1
1998....11-1...12-0.......8-3.........10-1....11-2......10-1
1999....11-0...10-2......11-0..........9-2....11-1.......8-3
2000....10-1....9-3......11-0.........10-1....10-2......10-1
2001....10-1....9-3......11-0.........10-1....10-2......10-1
2002.....9-4...12-1......12-0.........13-0....11-2......10-2
2003....10-2...12-1......10-2.........10-2....11-3......11-1
2004....10-2...12-0.......8-3..........9-2....12-0......12-0
2005.....8-4...10-2......10-1.........10-1....12-0......12-0
2006....11-2...12-1......11-1.........12-0....11-2......10-2
2007....11-2...11-2......10-2.........11-1....11-2......10-2
2008.....9-4...12-1......11-2.........11-1....12-1......11-1
2009....11-2...13-0......12-0.........10-2....13-0......10-2
Total 143-26..157-17..143-19....154-17..157-19...145-17
Win % 0.846...0.902...0.882.....0.901...0.892....0.895
Relevance: The ACC champion had the lowest winning percentage (0.846) among the conference champions awarded automatic qualification to a BCS bowl. If this winning percentage is significantly higher than that of the conference champions not awarded automatic qualification to a BCS bowl, then the BCS is justified for excluding those other conferences.
Exhibit two is another table that shows the win-loss record and winning percentage before bowl games for the conference champions for the non-automatic qualifying conferences dating back to 1996.
Year...MWC*...WAC**...MAC...Conf. USA
1996...13-1.......8-3........8-3.........8-3
1997...10-2.......6-5.......10-2.........8-3
1998...11-1.......8-3.......11-1........11-0
1999....8-3.......8-4.......12-0.........8-3
2000....9-2......10-1........7-5.........9-2
2001...12-1.......7-4........9-2........10-2
2002...10-3......11-1.......10-2.........9-2
2003....9-2......12-1.......12-1.........9-3
2004...11-0......11-0........9-3........10-1
2005...10-1.......9-3........7-5.........8-4
2006...10-2......12-0........9-4........10-3
2007...10-2......12-0........8-5........10-3
2008...12-0......12-0........8-5.........9-4
2009...12-0......13-0.......11-2.........9-4
Total 147-20...139-25......131-40.... 128-37
Win%..0.880...0.847.......0.766......0.775
* = The Mountain West Conference (MWC) did not exist prior to the 1999 season. The data used for 1996-1998 are the records of the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) champion since the MWC members competed in that conference at that time and all WAC champions during that time are now members of the MWC.
** = Most of the teams comprising the WAC today were members of the Big West Conference from 1996-1998, so the records of the Big West Champion was used for those years.
(Note: The Sun Belt Conference did not exist prior to 2001, so for lack of data, the Sun Belt Conference was not used in this comparison.)
Relevance: On the field of play, both the MWC and the WAC champions, over a 14 year period, have sustained better on the field performance than the ACC champion. The WAC champion’s winning percentage was 0.001 better, and the MWC champion’s winning percentage was 0.034 better. It is also important to point out that the MWC champion’s wining percentage was only 0.002 less than the Big East champion. The performance on the field of play by the WAC and the MWC champions has exceeded that of the ACC. The MWC champion is even on par with the Big East champion.
Exhibit three is the results of the “BCS Busters” against teams from automatic qualifying conferences.
2004: Utah 35, Pittsburgh 7 (Pittsburgh was the Big East Champion)
2006: Boise State 43, Oklahoma 42 (Oklahoma was the Big 12 Champion)
2007: Georgia 41, Hawaii 10
2008: Utah 31, Alabama 17
Overall Record: 3-1 (2-0 versus automatic qualifying conference champions)
Relevance: On the field of play, non-automatic qualifying conference champions have won 75% of the time they have played in BCS bowl games against teams from AQ conferences, and 100% of the time these non-automatic qualifying conference champions have played automatic qualifying champions.
While Hawaii lost to Georgia by 31 points that does not hurt my case. Teams from conferences with AQ status have lost by 31 points or more in Bowl Alliance or BCS games on six occasions.
Florida lost to Nebraska by 38 points in 1995
Florida State lost to Florida by 32 points in 1996
Notre Dame lost to Oregon State by 32 points in 2000
Maryland lost to Florida by 33 points in 2001
Oklahoma lost to USC by 36 points in 2004
Illinois lost to USC by 32 points in 2007
The BCS’s decision to exclude cannot be justified by Hawaii’s blowout loss since it is not the only time that a BCS game has had such an outcome. In fact, Hawaii did not have the greatest losing margin of all teams in BCS games in 2007. On the other side of the coin, Utah won in 2004 by 28 points, which begs the question, “Why would such a superior conference champion lose so lopsidedly?”
Exhibit four is the changes in conference make up. Since the Bowl Alliance formed in 1995, the composition of the Big 8, the ACC and the Big East have all changed. The Big 8 added teams from the SWC and the ACC swiped teams from the Big East. The Big East, however, reached into the pile of leftovers (teams not in a conference granted automatic qualifying status) and added three teams. Since the Big East added teams, three out of five years one of the former outsiders won the conference.
Relevance: While the Big East conducted research to determine the best candidates to add to the conference, the Big East did not need authorization by the BCS. The BCS did not conduct its own analysis of performance on the field of play and conclude who were the three most qualified teams in college football for membership in the exclusive BCS circle. The precedent established in 1995 changed the rules for conference expansion. The ACC added teams from a fellow AQ conference, but if a conference was going to reach outside the AQ boundaries, then the BCS should have to approve the move.
Furthermore, the immediate success of these new Big East members shows that, on the field of play, teams from conferences without an automatic qualifying conference champion are NOT inferior to the teams in conferences with an automatic qualifying conference champion.
Exhibit five is that the expressed purpose of the Bowl Alliance, which the BCS continued, was to create a system that would match the number one and number two ranked teams in the same bowl game.
Relevance: On two occasions (Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003) teams who were not conference champions played for the national championship. To play for the national championship, a team must be ranked either number one or number two. Since teams who were not conference champions qualified for the national championship game, the BCS showed that automatic qualifying status for conference champions was not necessary to accomplish its intent. Therefore, one or more of the parties involved in creating the Bowl Alliance and the BCS were working to protect special interests by creating the automatic qualifying status for a limited number of conferences in college football.
Closing Arguments: The defendant will, undoubtedly, attempt to counter my evidence with the strength of schedule for teams from the conferences with automatic qualifying champions. I rebut that argument by reiterating what was covered yesterday regarding “overall conference strength.” This notion of “strength of schedule” is a false perception born out of misconceptions that have, unfortunately, corrupted all forms of rankings and ratings for college football. When the issue is automatic qualifying status for conference champions, the only evidence that matters is performance on the field.
Specific to exhibit three, the defendant might rebut by incorporating regular season head-to-head competition of teams from conferences with automatic qualifying status versus teams from conferences without automatic qualifying status. That is irrelevant evidence. First, any head-to-head comparison should be between conference champions in the year that both teams were conference champions. Second, head-to-head competition is not a criterion used for selection of any team to the BCS bowls. USC and Notre Dame have both played in BCS bowls in the same year, regardless of the results on the field of play in the regular season. The same can be said for Florida and Florida State. Even in 2008, USC embarrassed Ohio State during the season, but both played in BCS bowls. The tables in exhibits one and two include all regular season games. Any head-to-head competitions that occurred are a part of those records. Bringing in regular season head-to-head competition is another bad cover up. It would be like lying: once you lie, you have to use another lie to cover it up. Regular season head-to-head competition would be using an injustice to cover up the original injustice.
The evidence I have presented clearly shows that two conference champions that don’t have automatic qualifying status have performed equally on the field of play to the conference champions that do have automatic qualifying status.
When we find out that we made a bad decision, we take corrective action. The BCS needs to take corrective action. Like most corrective action, it will hurt the wrongdoer. Fortunately in this case, the corrective action is simple. For now, though, we have had enough for one day. Come back tomorrow for The Solution.
Part 4: The Solution: It's About Conference Champions
Sources:
www.shrpsports.com/cf/
www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809942
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The Cover Up: Overall Conference Strength
This is the second part of the BCS Bash series. For part one, click here.
Once the Bowl Coalition and its successors adopted a platform that would use conference champions as a means to its end, and then gave automatic qualifying status to the champions of the participating conferences, these entities needed to justify that platform. Justifying this platform was easy to defend in the beginning. Few criticized them and most just glossed over the automatic qualifying element. As time has passed and very good teams from the other conferences were overtly excluded from playing in one of the bowls, greater scrutiny has been given to the automatic qualifying status for six conferences.
The automatic qualifying provision has been exposed as a bad cover up. The conferences with automatic qualifying status needed some incentive to join this pact, and the automatic qualifying status for their champion was the incentive. Of course, if you are going to extend privileges you need to justify those privileges. To justify this privilege and to try and keep the hidden agendas safe, the battle cry became “overall conference strength.” The overall conference strength of these six conferences is so much better than the rest of the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences that these six conference champions earned, by play on the field, one of the ten (formerly 8) slots in the participating bowl games. The other conference champions were relegated to parading themselves for style points from the voters and computers in a competition with the second and third place teams from conferences with automatically qualifying champions for the four (formerly 2) remaining slots.
Overall conference strength!!! Are you serious? How do you quantify that? Do you compare the last place teams in each conference? Do you look at each team’s non-conference record? Do you look at the end of the year rankings? While each of these can appear reasonable on the surface, the truth is they are all ridiculous.
Last Place Teams
This overall conference strength argument tells me that the powers that be must have done something to evaluate and compare the last place teams in each conference. Maybe they conducted 10,000 computer simulations of Vanderbilt vs. Tulane, Duke vs. Louisiana-Lafayette, Iowa State vs. UTEP, Indiana vs. Kent State, Rutgers vs. Northern Illinois, and Oregon State vs. New Mexico State (in the early to mid 1990s these were the perennial losers). The results of these computer simulations must have been so compelling that any reasonable person would look at them and say, “You know, if the WAC champion had to play Iowa State instead of UTEP, then I would support automatic qualifying status for the WAC champion. I mean look at last year (1994). A win over Iowa State (0-10-1) was much more impressive than a win over UTEP (3-7-1).” Reality check: The competitiveness of the worst team in the conferences was never discussed and it had no bearing on handing out the automatic qualifying status for conference champions. Reality check #2: A last place team is a last place team, and two wins in a season is two wins. There is no way to sugar coat bad teams.
Non-Conference Record
Since it wasn’t head-to-head competition between the last place teams, it must have been the better non-conference record by those bottom-of-the-bucket teams that made the overall conference strength so great. It is quite logical that in 1994 Wake Forest was only 1-7 in conference games because the ACC was so strong top to bottom. Look at the Demon Deacon’s 2-1 non-conference record. However, in 1994 Hawaii was 0-8 in the WAC because Hawaii was awful, never mind that Hawaii was 3-0-1 in non-conference games. Sorry, but that logic is grossly flawed! The facts reveal that Wake Forest beat Appalachian State 12-10, beat Army 33-27, and lost to Vanderbilt 35-14. Hawaii beat Pac-10 champion Oregon 36-16, Cal 21-7, and Southeast Missouri State 34-0, and tied Missouri 32-32.
The overall records at face value for the worst teams in the automatic qualifying conferences often do look better than their non-automatic qualifying conference counterparts. When you start to compare, it is evident that this difference can be attributed to the bad AQ teams playing more Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) teams or other bad FBS teams than the bad non-AQ teams. Am I the only one that cringes when a team that was 2-6 or 3-5 in league play goes to a bowl game because they were 4-0 or 3-1 against terrible non-conference opponents (case in point: Auburn, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Texas A&M, and UCLA in 2009)? Any ground that is gained by playing in a conference with greater “overall conference strength” is lost by playing much softer non-conference schedules. In other words, the season schedule as a whole is usually comparable.
Rankings
We were wrong about comparing the worst teams from each conference, and we were wrong about the non-conference records. Therefore, the answer to the overall conference strength mystery must be those hallowed national rankings. Sadly, the rankings have lost their integrity and now have a decided BCS bias. In 1994, Utah was 10-2, second place in the WAC, and ranked number 10 in the final Associated Press poll. Every other team in the top ten had one loss or less, except one other two loss team, so I have to say the number 10 ranking was fair. Fast forward 10 years and let’s track how the Mountain West Conference (MWC) champion finished in the final BCS standings (Note: The MWC is comprised of virtually the same teams as the WAC was in 1994.)
2004: Utah was 11-0 and ranked number 6, behind one-loss Texas and one-loss California; teams that finished second in their conferences.
2005: TCU was 10-1 and ranked number 14. A 10-1 record for a conference champion from an automatic qualifying conference garnered a no. 3 and no. 11 ranking that year, while two-loss Georgia was no. 7, two-loss Ohio State was no. 4, and two-loss Notre Dame was no. 6.
2006: BYU was 10-2 and ranked number 20. However, the AQ conference champions with two losses were ranked numbers 5, 10, and 14, while two-loss LSU was no. 4 and two-loss Notre Dame was no. 11.
2007: BYU was 10-2 and ranked number 17. The AQ conference champions with 2 losses were ranked numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9, while the teams ranked numbers 12 through 16 all had three or four losses.
2008: Utah was 12-0 and ranked number 6. Every team ahead of Utah had one loss, including its Sugar Bowl opponent Alabama. Utah won that game convincingly, 31-17.
2009: TCU was 12-0 and ranked number four. Every team ahead of TCU was undefeated as well. However, all season long, TCU was ahead of Cincinnati, an AQ conference champion, until the final standings when the Bearcats leapfrogged TCU.
The last six years the BCS standings have shown a clear bias towards teams from conferences labeled as automatic qualifiers. (If we looked at the first six years of the BCS the bias would be even more apparent.) A similar pattern is reflected in the individual polls—human and computer. The examples cited above only look at conference champions, but it has a trickle down effect on the overall conference. If voters are going to rank a non-AQ conference champion lower than the AQ conference champions, they will also rank the second and third place teams lower. A second place team cannot be in the top 10 if the conference champion isn’t even in the top 10. The third place team won’t even be ranked if the second place team is stuck in the 20s.
Although I love the rankings, they are very flawed because they are largely influenced by opinion. At present, the human voters’ opinions and the computer formulas are biased by the two misconceptions previously addressed, and other subjective elements like unreliable recruiting class ranks, theoretical strength of schedule ranks, and the historical success of a team. The BCS has caused the voters and computer programmers to draw a line of demarcation between schools in AQ conferences and schools in non-AQ conferences. If you happen to be in one of those six AQ conferences you are given the benefit of the doubt, but if you are on the outside you are handicapped. The outsiders have to repeatedly prove themselves to be considered legitimate, but if they slip up once along the way the voters and computer matrices hastily slam the outsider schools back to ground zero. An outsider must finish a season undefeated to play in a BCS game, while an AQ team can expect a spot in the national championship game if it finishes undefeated.
(NOTE: I used 1994 for many of my arguments because that is the last year before the Bowl Coalition morphed into the Bowl Alliance, and it is the time frame that would have been used when analyzing conference strength and weighing the merits of the decision to have automatic qualifying conferences.)
SEC
The SEC is currently considered the gold standard for football conferences. Interestingly, Chris Low, the ESPN.com blogger for the SEC compiled the record of each SEC team against teams in the final Associated Press and USA Today top 25 over the last five years. Here are the results:
• Florida – 14-9 (.609)
• LSU – 13-11 (.542)
• Alabama – 10-12 (.455)
• Auburn – 8-12 (.400)
• Georgia – 8-12 (.400)
• Tennessee – 5-17 (.227)
• Ole Miss – 4-14 (.222)
• South Carolina – 5-19 (.208)
• Arkansas – 3-20 (.130)
• Kentucky – 2-17 (.105)
• Vanderbilt – 2-17 (.105)
• Mississippi State 2-20 (.091)
Two SEC teams have a winning record. Seven teams (over half of the conference) average one or fewer wins per year against a top 25 team. The winning percentage for each of those seven teams is below 0.250 (1 out of 4). Thank you, Mr. Low, for providing more numbers to expose the fallacy that is “overall conference strength.”
At this point, we still have no evidence supporting the overall conference strength argument. The fact is that each conference has three or four teams at the bottom that are "easy" victories, and each conference has four or five teams that pose a legitimate threat to the eventual conference champion. All these arguments that one team had a harder conference schedule are not compelling arguments.
Proponents of the BCS and its predecessors use the cover up that the overall conference strength is so much better in certain conferences that the champions from those conferences merit preferential treatment (automatic qualifying status). As we can see, that cover up is full of holes, and the situation only gets bleaker when you look at the evidence against those supposed merits. The evidence will be on display tomorrow.
Part 3: The Evidence: Performance on the Field
Part 4: The Solution: It's About Conference Champions
Sources:
www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819366
www.shrpsports.com/cf/
espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/9443/tracking-the-sec-vs-the-final-top-25-polls
Once the Bowl Coalition and its successors adopted a platform that would use conference champions as a means to its end, and then gave automatic qualifying status to the champions of the participating conferences, these entities needed to justify that platform. Justifying this platform was easy to defend in the beginning. Few criticized them and most just glossed over the automatic qualifying element. As time has passed and very good teams from the other conferences were overtly excluded from playing in one of the bowls, greater scrutiny has been given to the automatic qualifying status for six conferences.
The automatic qualifying provision has been exposed as a bad cover up. The conferences with automatic qualifying status needed some incentive to join this pact, and the automatic qualifying status for their champion was the incentive. Of course, if you are going to extend privileges you need to justify those privileges. To justify this privilege and to try and keep the hidden agendas safe, the battle cry became “overall conference strength.” The overall conference strength of these six conferences is so much better than the rest of the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences that these six conference champions earned, by play on the field, one of the ten (formerly 8) slots in the participating bowl games. The other conference champions were relegated to parading themselves for style points from the voters and computers in a competition with the second and third place teams from conferences with automatically qualifying champions for the four (formerly 2) remaining slots.
Overall conference strength!!! Are you serious? How do you quantify that? Do you compare the last place teams in each conference? Do you look at each team’s non-conference record? Do you look at the end of the year rankings? While each of these can appear reasonable on the surface, the truth is they are all ridiculous.
Last Place Teams
This overall conference strength argument tells me that the powers that be must have done something to evaluate and compare the last place teams in each conference. Maybe they conducted 10,000 computer simulations of Vanderbilt vs. Tulane, Duke vs. Louisiana-Lafayette, Iowa State vs. UTEP, Indiana vs. Kent State, Rutgers vs. Northern Illinois, and Oregon State vs. New Mexico State (in the early to mid 1990s these were the perennial losers). The results of these computer simulations must have been so compelling that any reasonable person would look at them and say, “You know, if the WAC champion had to play Iowa State instead of UTEP, then I would support automatic qualifying status for the WAC champion. I mean look at last year (1994). A win over Iowa State (0-10-1) was much more impressive than a win over UTEP (3-7-1).” Reality check: The competitiveness of the worst team in the conferences was never discussed and it had no bearing on handing out the automatic qualifying status for conference champions. Reality check #2: A last place team is a last place team, and two wins in a season is two wins. There is no way to sugar coat bad teams.
Non-Conference Record
Since it wasn’t head-to-head competition between the last place teams, it must have been the better non-conference record by those bottom-of-the-bucket teams that made the overall conference strength so great. It is quite logical that in 1994 Wake Forest was only 1-7 in conference games because the ACC was so strong top to bottom. Look at the Demon Deacon’s 2-1 non-conference record. However, in 1994 Hawaii was 0-8 in the WAC because Hawaii was awful, never mind that Hawaii was 3-0-1 in non-conference games. Sorry, but that logic is grossly flawed! The facts reveal that Wake Forest beat Appalachian State 12-10, beat Army 33-27, and lost to Vanderbilt 35-14. Hawaii beat Pac-10 champion Oregon 36-16, Cal 21-7, and Southeast Missouri State 34-0, and tied Missouri 32-32.
The overall records at face value for the worst teams in the automatic qualifying conferences often do look better than their non-automatic qualifying conference counterparts. When you start to compare, it is evident that this difference can be attributed to the bad AQ teams playing more Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) teams or other bad FBS teams than the bad non-AQ teams. Am I the only one that cringes when a team that was 2-6 or 3-5 in league play goes to a bowl game because they were 4-0 or 3-1 against terrible non-conference opponents (case in point: Auburn, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Texas A&M, and UCLA in 2009)? Any ground that is gained by playing in a conference with greater “overall conference strength” is lost by playing much softer non-conference schedules. In other words, the season schedule as a whole is usually comparable.
Rankings
We were wrong about comparing the worst teams from each conference, and we were wrong about the non-conference records. Therefore, the answer to the overall conference strength mystery must be those hallowed national rankings. Sadly, the rankings have lost their integrity and now have a decided BCS bias. In 1994, Utah was 10-2, second place in the WAC, and ranked number 10 in the final Associated Press poll. Every other team in the top ten had one loss or less, except one other two loss team, so I have to say the number 10 ranking was fair. Fast forward 10 years and let’s track how the Mountain West Conference (MWC) champion finished in the final BCS standings (Note: The MWC is comprised of virtually the same teams as the WAC was in 1994.)
2004: Utah was 11-0 and ranked number 6, behind one-loss Texas and one-loss California; teams that finished second in their conferences.
2005: TCU was 10-1 and ranked number 14. A 10-1 record for a conference champion from an automatic qualifying conference garnered a no. 3 and no. 11 ranking that year, while two-loss Georgia was no. 7, two-loss Ohio State was no. 4, and two-loss Notre Dame was no. 6.
2006: BYU was 10-2 and ranked number 20. However, the AQ conference champions with two losses were ranked numbers 5, 10, and 14, while two-loss LSU was no. 4 and two-loss Notre Dame was no. 11.
2007: BYU was 10-2 and ranked number 17. The AQ conference champions with 2 losses were ranked numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9, while the teams ranked numbers 12 through 16 all had three or four losses.
2008: Utah was 12-0 and ranked number 6. Every team ahead of Utah had one loss, including its Sugar Bowl opponent Alabama. Utah won that game convincingly, 31-17.
2009: TCU was 12-0 and ranked number four. Every team ahead of TCU was undefeated as well. However, all season long, TCU was ahead of Cincinnati, an AQ conference champion, until the final standings when the Bearcats leapfrogged TCU.
The last six years the BCS standings have shown a clear bias towards teams from conferences labeled as automatic qualifiers. (If we looked at the first six years of the BCS the bias would be even more apparent.) A similar pattern is reflected in the individual polls—human and computer. The examples cited above only look at conference champions, but it has a trickle down effect on the overall conference. If voters are going to rank a non-AQ conference champion lower than the AQ conference champions, they will also rank the second and third place teams lower. A second place team cannot be in the top 10 if the conference champion isn’t even in the top 10. The third place team won’t even be ranked if the second place team is stuck in the 20s.
Although I love the rankings, they are very flawed because they are largely influenced by opinion. At present, the human voters’ opinions and the computer formulas are biased by the two misconceptions previously addressed, and other subjective elements like unreliable recruiting class ranks, theoretical strength of schedule ranks, and the historical success of a team. The BCS has caused the voters and computer programmers to draw a line of demarcation between schools in AQ conferences and schools in non-AQ conferences. If you happen to be in one of those six AQ conferences you are given the benefit of the doubt, but if you are on the outside you are handicapped. The outsiders have to repeatedly prove themselves to be considered legitimate, but if they slip up once along the way the voters and computer matrices hastily slam the outsider schools back to ground zero. An outsider must finish a season undefeated to play in a BCS game, while an AQ team can expect a spot in the national championship game if it finishes undefeated.
(NOTE: I used 1994 for many of my arguments because that is the last year before the Bowl Coalition morphed into the Bowl Alliance, and it is the time frame that would have been used when analyzing conference strength and weighing the merits of the decision to have automatic qualifying conferences.)
SEC
The SEC is currently considered the gold standard for football conferences. Interestingly, Chris Low, the ESPN.com blogger for the SEC compiled the record of each SEC team against teams in the final Associated Press and USA Today top 25 over the last five years. Here are the results:
• Florida – 14-9 (.609)
• LSU – 13-11 (.542)
• Alabama – 10-12 (.455)
• Auburn – 8-12 (.400)
• Georgia – 8-12 (.400)
• Tennessee – 5-17 (.227)
• Ole Miss – 4-14 (.222)
• South Carolina – 5-19 (.208)
• Arkansas – 3-20 (.130)
• Kentucky – 2-17 (.105)
• Vanderbilt – 2-17 (.105)
• Mississippi State 2-20 (.091)
Two SEC teams have a winning record. Seven teams (over half of the conference) average one or fewer wins per year against a top 25 team. The winning percentage for each of those seven teams is below 0.250 (1 out of 4). Thank you, Mr. Low, for providing more numbers to expose the fallacy that is “overall conference strength.”
At this point, we still have no evidence supporting the overall conference strength argument. The fact is that each conference has three or four teams at the bottom that are "easy" victories, and each conference has four or five teams that pose a legitimate threat to the eventual conference champion. All these arguments that one team had a harder conference schedule are not compelling arguments.
Proponents of the BCS and its predecessors use the cover up that the overall conference strength is so much better in certain conferences that the champions from those conferences merit preferential treatment (automatic qualifying status). As we can see, that cover up is full of holes, and the situation only gets bleaker when you look at the evidence against those supposed merits. The evidence will be on display tomorrow.
Part 3: The Evidence: Performance on the Field
Part 4: The Solution: It's About Conference Champions
Sources:
www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819366
www.shrpsports.com/cf/
espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/9443/tracking-the-sec-vs-the-final-top-25-polls
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The Scam: Automatic Qualifying Conference Champions
Note: This is the first part of a four part series on the Bowl Championship Series. Links to the other three parts are found at the end of this article.
The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a scam. Why? The provision that grants automatic qualifying status to certain conference champions. The BCS toots its own horn about how great it is because it guarantees that the number one and two teams will play in a bowl game to finish each year. Okay, so where does the need for automatic qualification come in? First a little history, so we can understand the real answer to this question.
Historically, bowl games had agreements with one or two conferences for the right to host certain teams in their games at the end of the year. The bowl games operated completely independent of any entity that ranked the top teams in college football. As attention to both bowl games and the rankings increased, the desire to see the top two teams play each other at the end of the year increased.
In 1992 the Bowl Coalition was created between the Big East Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big 8, Southeastern Conference (SEC), Southwest Conference (SWC), and Notre Dame with the expressed intent to create better possibilities for a bowl game to feature number one and two. This coalition involved the Cotton, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Gator, and John Hancock bowls.
The Bowl Coalition was dumped in 1995 for the Bowl Alliance. The Bowl Alliance consisted of the same five conferences, but reduced bowl participation to the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta bowls. Each conference champion would automatically qualify for one of these bowls and one at-large team would be selected. Theoretically, that at-large team could be from any conference in NCAA Division 1-A football.
That brings us to the BCS. The BCS brought all the “major” conferences and bowl games together for the first time in 1998. The Pac-10, the Big 10, and the Rose Bowl joined the others to form the BCS. In 1996, the Big 8 and SWC had consolidated, more or less, to form the Big 12, so the official make up of the BCS was the Big East, the ACC, the SEC, the Big 10, the Big 12, the Pac-10, and Notre Dame, as well as the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange bowls. The BCS continued the automatic qualifying status for champions from the six participating conferences. Notre Dame could automatically qualify if it had 9 wins and was ranked in the BCS top 10. Teams from outside the six participating conferences could automatically qualify if they were ranked in the BCS top 6.
In most cases, I give people the benefit of the doubt and believe they act with good intentions. In the case of the Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance/BCS, it is pretty hard to accept that some other interests besides matching the top two teams in the same bowl were not driving this process. All that would have been necessary to accomplish the declared intent was to have an agreement between the bowls that the bowl with the number two ranked team would release its rights to that team so that team could play in the same bowl as the number one ranked team. Of course the bowl losing the number two ranked team would want retribution for its losses, but I think retribution would be a minor detail that could be worked out easily and beneficial to all. Furthermore, if we are talking about having the top two teams play, why wasn’t the Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, and BCS all inclusive—all bowls, all teams. When was it ever decreed that a team from a conference with ties to one of the other bowls could not be number one or two? If a team from one of these outsider conferences and bowls was number one, why would that team not deserve to play for the championship in its affiliated bowl? Limiting the conferences and bowls involved and by giving automatic qualifying status to those conference champions was self-serving and collusive. The real intent was to have number one and number two play every year in a bowl game and to ensure that number one and two were teams from this select group of conferences.
Digging into history a little further makes this whole bowl confederation look very sketchy. I am still scratching my head wondering how the Big East and the ACC were able to gain favored nations status if the organizers’ motives were pure.
First, the Big East did not even exist until 1991 (Bowl Coalition began in 1992), so there was little to no historical evidence that this conference was important in accomplishing the objective to have number one and number two play in a bowl. Now, it is true that the University of Miami, Florida, technically was a Big East member and won the national championship in 1991 (as well as in 1983, 1987, 1989 as an independent), the Hurricanes played only two conference games that year. Now that 20 years have passed, the evidence we do have is that the Miami Dynasty unraveled shortly after it became affiliated with a conference.
Second, the ACC was a glorified Western Athletic Conference (WAC) before the 1992 season. Sure, Clemson won the national championship in 1981 and Georgia Tech split the national championship in 1990, but that is it. Once in a decade the ACC champion was relevant. The WAC was having the same level of success as the ACC during this timeframe. In 1992, however, Florida State left the ranks of the independents to join the ACC. Florida State was 53-8 and ranked in the top 5 from 1987-1991. Again, the evidence we have post-1991 is that the ACC, as a whole, was mediocre; the Seminoles dominated the ACC for the next decade. Furthermore, the ACC has never fielded an at-large BCS team.
Let’s be honest with ourselves and accept that the only reason the Big East is an automatic qualifying conference is Miami, and the only reason for the ACC is Florida State. No entity stating that it was trying to match number one and number two in a bowl game would have any credibility if it left these two national powerhouses out. However, all credibility would be lost if several schools were being hand picked like Notre Dame was.
Now, back to the original question, where does the need for automatic qualification come in? The short answer is it is not needed, all it is merely a cover up. I will uncover this cover up tomorrow. Don’t miss it!
Part 2: The Cover Up: Overall Conference Strength
Part 3: The Evidence: Performance on the Field
Part 4: The Solution: It's About Conference Champions
Sources:
www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819366
www.shrpsports.com/cf/
The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a scam. Why? The provision that grants automatic qualifying status to certain conference champions. The BCS toots its own horn about how great it is because it guarantees that the number one and two teams will play in a bowl game to finish each year. Okay, so where does the need for automatic qualification come in? First a little history, so we can understand the real answer to this question.
Historically, bowl games had agreements with one or two conferences for the right to host certain teams in their games at the end of the year. The bowl games operated completely independent of any entity that ranked the top teams in college football. As attention to both bowl games and the rankings increased, the desire to see the top two teams play each other at the end of the year increased.
In 1992 the Bowl Coalition was created between the Big East Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big 8, Southeastern Conference (SEC), Southwest Conference (SWC), and Notre Dame with the expressed intent to create better possibilities for a bowl game to feature number one and two. This coalition involved the Cotton, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Gator, and John Hancock bowls.
The Bowl Coalition was dumped in 1995 for the Bowl Alliance. The Bowl Alliance consisted of the same five conferences, but reduced bowl participation to the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta bowls. Each conference champion would automatically qualify for one of these bowls and one at-large team would be selected. Theoretically, that at-large team could be from any conference in NCAA Division 1-A football.
That brings us to the BCS. The BCS brought all the “major” conferences and bowl games together for the first time in 1998. The Pac-10, the Big 10, and the Rose Bowl joined the others to form the BCS. In 1996, the Big 8 and SWC had consolidated, more or less, to form the Big 12, so the official make up of the BCS was the Big East, the ACC, the SEC, the Big 10, the Big 12, the Pac-10, and Notre Dame, as well as the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange bowls. The BCS continued the automatic qualifying status for champions from the six participating conferences. Notre Dame could automatically qualify if it had 9 wins and was ranked in the BCS top 10. Teams from outside the six participating conferences could automatically qualify if they were ranked in the BCS top 6.
In most cases, I give people the benefit of the doubt and believe they act with good intentions. In the case of the Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance/BCS, it is pretty hard to accept that some other interests besides matching the top two teams in the same bowl were not driving this process. All that would have been necessary to accomplish the declared intent was to have an agreement between the bowls that the bowl with the number two ranked team would release its rights to that team so that team could play in the same bowl as the number one ranked team. Of course the bowl losing the number two ranked team would want retribution for its losses, but I think retribution would be a minor detail that could be worked out easily and beneficial to all. Furthermore, if we are talking about having the top two teams play, why wasn’t the Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, and BCS all inclusive—all bowls, all teams. When was it ever decreed that a team from a conference with ties to one of the other bowls could not be number one or two? If a team from one of these outsider conferences and bowls was number one, why would that team not deserve to play for the championship in its affiliated bowl? Limiting the conferences and bowls involved and by giving automatic qualifying status to those conference champions was self-serving and collusive. The real intent was to have number one and number two play every year in a bowl game and to ensure that number one and two were teams from this select group of conferences.
Digging into history a little further makes this whole bowl confederation look very sketchy. I am still scratching my head wondering how the Big East and the ACC were able to gain favored nations status if the organizers’ motives were pure.
First, the Big East did not even exist until 1991 (Bowl Coalition began in 1992), so there was little to no historical evidence that this conference was important in accomplishing the objective to have number one and number two play in a bowl. Now, it is true that the University of Miami, Florida, technically was a Big East member and won the national championship in 1991 (as well as in 1983, 1987, 1989 as an independent), the Hurricanes played only two conference games that year. Now that 20 years have passed, the evidence we do have is that the Miami Dynasty unraveled shortly after it became affiliated with a conference.
Second, the ACC was a glorified Western Athletic Conference (WAC) before the 1992 season. Sure, Clemson won the national championship in 1981 and Georgia Tech split the national championship in 1990, but that is it. Once in a decade the ACC champion was relevant. The WAC was having the same level of success as the ACC during this timeframe. In 1992, however, Florida State left the ranks of the independents to join the ACC. Florida State was 53-8 and ranked in the top 5 from 1987-1991. Again, the evidence we have post-1991 is that the ACC, as a whole, was mediocre; the Seminoles dominated the ACC for the next decade. Furthermore, the ACC has never fielded an at-large BCS team.
Let’s be honest with ourselves and accept that the only reason the Big East is an automatic qualifying conference is Miami, and the only reason for the ACC is Florida State. No entity stating that it was trying to match number one and number two in a bowl game would have any credibility if it left these two national powerhouses out. However, all credibility would be lost if several schools were being hand picked like Notre Dame was.
Now, back to the original question, where does the need for automatic qualification come in? The short answer is it is not needed, all it is merely a cover up. I will uncover this cover up tomorrow. Don’t miss it!
Part 2: The Cover Up: Overall Conference Strength
Part 3: The Evidence: Performance on the Field
Part 4: The Solution: It's About Conference Champions
Sources:
www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819366
www.shrpsports.com/cf/
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
MORE CONFERENCE EXPANSION THOUGHTS
Since conference expansion usually takes months and years to happen, this will probably be a hot topic until September. There are about a million angles to take on this topic. Today, I will elaborate on three: TCU going to the Big 12, the Big 10 targeting ACC or SEC teams, and the impact on the BCS.
1.TCU to the Big12
Since it appears that the Big 12 is going to be hit by either the Big 10 (Missouri or Nebraska) or the Pac-10 (Colorado) the Big 12 will need to replace one or two schools, or shrink to 10 teams. TCU seems to be a perfect fit geographically and competitively. It doesn't hurt that TCU has tradition with several Big 12 schools as a former Southwestern Conference (SWC) member. That, however, is the exact reason I would be leery, if I were TCU, to join the Big 12. TCU was kicked to the curb while the then Texas Governor struck a deal to bind membership of one state school to the inclusion of three others. In other words, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Baylor are a package deal. If one is in they all are in, if one is out they all are out. As the last one in, TCU would be the first one out if the Big 12 ever decided another rising team (Houston, Tulsa) became more desirable in the future and rather than increase to 13 teams it wanted to stay an even 12. Then again, this is TCU, who was rejected by the other eight teams in the Mountain West Conference (MWC) ten or so years ago when they left the Western Athletic Conferenc (WAC). When the MWC came calling five years later, TCU fully embraced reuniting with the eight schools who felt they were better off without the Horned Frogs.
2. Big 10 targeting ACC or SEC schools
Everyone seems set that the Big 10 will expand with either a Big 12 North team or with a Big East team. Money seems to be the biggest reason behind this round of expansion talks, and the Big 10 seems to be on par with the SEC in that regard, even if the performance on the field has not reflected it. Isn't there a middle of the pack SEC team that would provide just as much added revenue as Missouri or Pitt and would also want to go to the Big 10 to compete better in football? Kentucky would help Big 10 basketball and Kentucky football might fare better in the Big 10. It is also situated nicely geographically. What about Boston College from the ACC? Huge media market, and no strong roots in the ACC. Georgia Tech? The Yellow Jacket's big rival (Georgia) is already in a different conference, and the Atlanta media market would be a nice catch.
3. The Impact on the BCS
Lost in all of the conference expansions and realignments is how this impacts the "solid" foundation of the BCS. The BCS formed itself on the premise that the best football teams were in the ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, and Pac-10. The ACC and Big East realignments last decade resulted in three teams (Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida) that were originally considered outsiders to become insiders. By the time this potentially catacalysmic round of conference expansion finishes we could have another three teams "promoted" to the BCS level. Who says that these six teams (the former three and the hypothetical future three) were the most deserving? It is unfair if a team like Boise State is left out of automatic qualification status, but a team like South Florida gains automatic qualification status. Boise State has done everything in its control (win on the field), but South Florida has all the uncontrolable variables (location, media market). Conferences expand for money, but the BCS was designed, on the surface, to get the top two teams to play each other. With a new composition, who says the Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, ACC, SEC, and Big East of 2012 will be worthy of the automatic qualification status they gained in 1998? The BCS should be null and void and a new system put in place after the conference expansions conclude, unless, like conference expansions, the BCS is really all about money.
1.TCU to the Big12
Since it appears that the Big 12 is going to be hit by either the Big 10 (Missouri or Nebraska) or the Pac-10 (Colorado) the Big 12 will need to replace one or two schools, or shrink to 10 teams. TCU seems to be a perfect fit geographically and competitively. It doesn't hurt that TCU has tradition with several Big 12 schools as a former Southwestern Conference (SWC) member. That, however, is the exact reason I would be leery, if I were TCU, to join the Big 12. TCU was kicked to the curb while the then Texas Governor struck a deal to bind membership of one state school to the inclusion of three others. In other words, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Baylor are a package deal. If one is in they all are in, if one is out they all are out. As the last one in, TCU would be the first one out if the Big 12 ever decided another rising team (Houston, Tulsa) became more desirable in the future and rather than increase to 13 teams it wanted to stay an even 12. Then again, this is TCU, who was rejected by the other eight teams in the Mountain West Conference (MWC) ten or so years ago when they left the Western Athletic Conferenc (WAC). When the MWC came calling five years later, TCU fully embraced reuniting with the eight schools who felt they were better off without the Horned Frogs.
2. Big 10 targeting ACC or SEC schools
Everyone seems set that the Big 10 will expand with either a Big 12 North team or with a Big East team. Money seems to be the biggest reason behind this round of expansion talks, and the Big 10 seems to be on par with the SEC in that regard, even if the performance on the field has not reflected it. Isn't there a middle of the pack SEC team that would provide just as much added revenue as Missouri or Pitt and would also want to go to the Big 10 to compete better in football? Kentucky would help Big 10 basketball and Kentucky football might fare better in the Big 10. It is also situated nicely geographically. What about Boston College from the ACC? Huge media market, and no strong roots in the ACC. Georgia Tech? The Yellow Jacket's big rival (Georgia) is already in a different conference, and the Atlanta media market would be a nice catch.
3. The Impact on the BCS
Lost in all of the conference expansions and realignments is how this impacts the "solid" foundation of the BCS. The BCS formed itself on the premise that the best football teams were in the ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, and Pac-10. The ACC and Big East realignments last decade resulted in three teams (Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida) that were originally considered outsiders to become insiders. By the time this potentially catacalysmic round of conference expansion finishes we could have another three teams "promoted" to the BCS level. Who says that these six teams (the former three and the hypothetical future three) were the most deserving? It is unfair if a team like Boise State is left out of automatic qualification status, but a team like South Florida gains automatic qualification status. Boise State has done everything in its control (win on the field), but South Florida has all the uncontrolable variables (location, media market). Conferences expand for money, but the BCS was designed, on the surface, to get the top two teams to play each other. With a new composition, who says the Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, ACC, SEC, and Big East of 2012 will be worthy of the automatic qualification status they gained in 1998? The BCS should be null and void and a new system put in place after the conference expansions conclude, unless, like conference expansions, the BCS is really all about money.
Monday, February 15, 2010
END THE PAROCHIALISM OF COLLEGE CONFERENCES
College sports have thrived under the organizational structure of conference for several decades now. These conferences have created identities through the years, which, in many cases, involves the geographical location of the schools in the conference. The Atlantic Coast Conference, Mid-America Conference, Southeastern Conference, and Pacific 10 Conference all refer to specific regions of the country.
From time to time, these conferences have grown in size by incorporating additional teams. Currently, the Big 10 and the Pac-10 conferences have expressed an interest in growing. Ask any “expert” on the subject of conference expansion and he or she will tell you that expansion consists of many factors in addition to the regional location aspect already mentioned. Academics (admission standards, research accreditation) and athletic competitiveness in all sports, and money are some of the bigger issues.
I have been reading about the possible conference expansions and all this rhetoric about academics and water polo being as important as football brings one word to mind: parochial. I don’t expect anything different since educating America’s brightest young minds should be the primary goal of colleges and universities, but let’s be honest with ourselves. When expansion is announced where does it make headlines and generate endless discussion and debate? College football media outlets. Football is the driving force behind all expansion. I graduated from a school that is a member of the Mountain West Conference (MWC), but we never competed academically with other MWC schools. The chemistry department did not have trivia bowls with conference rivals. The English department did not meet on weekends to have essay write offs with other MWC member schools. Maybe it looks good for recruiting after a down year or it helps with those conference advertising spots during athletic events when your team is losing by 30 points to be able to promote a strong academic resume, but people rarely associate athletics and academics in college sports. Conference alignment pertains to sports and sports only, and even then, conference alignment is flexible. The smaller sports like lacrosse and wrestling are not sanctioned by all schools, so some schools compete in one conference for the small sports and another conference for the big sports.
It is time to revamp the conference structure we have come to know in college sports. We need conferences that are assembled based more on competitiveness. It is time to kick out teams like Vanderbilt, Baylor, Iowa State, Duke, Maryland, Kansas, Mississippi State, Washington State, and Indiana who show little commitment to football and field a competitive team once a generation, and let teams like Boise State, BYU, Utah, and TCU replace them.
From time to time, these conferences have grown in size by incorporating additional teams. Currently, the Big 10 and the Pac-10 conferences have expressed an interest in growing. Ask any “expert” on the subject of conference expansion and he or she will tell you that expansion consists of many factors in addition to the regional location aspect already mentioned. Academics (admission standards, research accreditation) and athletic competitiveness in all sports, and money are some of the bigger issues.
I have been reading about the possible conference expansions and all this rhetoric about academics and water polo being as important as football brings one word to mind: parochial. I don’t expect anything different since educating America’s brightest young minds should be the primary goal of colleges and universities, but let’s be honest with ourselves. When expansion is announced where does it make headlines and generate endless discussion and debate? College football media outlets. Football is the driving force behind all expansion. I graduated from a school that is a member of the Mountain West Conference (MWC), but we never competed academically with other MWC schools. The chemistry department did not have trivia bowls with conference rivals. The English department did not meet on weekends to have essay write offs with other MWC member schools. Maybe it looks good for recruiting after a down year or it helps with those conference advertising spots during athletic events when your team is losing by 30 points to be able to promote a strong academic resume, but people rarely associate athletics and academics in college sports. Conference alignment pertains to sports and sports only, and even then, conference alignment is flexible. The smaller sports like lacrosse and wrestling are not sanctioned by all schools, so some schools compete in one conference for the small sports and another conference for the big sports.
It is time to revamp the conference structure we have come to know in college sports. We need conferences that are assembled based more on competitiveness. It is time to kick out teams like Vanderbilt, Baylor, Iowa State, Duke, Maryland, Kansas, Mississippi State, Washington State, and Indiana who show little commitment to football and field a competitive team once a generation, and let teams like Boise State, BYU, Utah, and TCU replace them.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
COACHING: COACHES ON THE HOT SEAT
With the temperatures sinking across the country, this is the time of year that the heat is turning up on some college football coaches. Memphis (2-7) and Western Kentucky (0-9) have already fired their coaches. Who else can we expect to join the unemployment ranks within the next month?
- Charlie Weis, Notre Dame: He barely survived last year. Supposedly he has the talent on the roster that should have resulted in a BCS birth. Now, the Fighting Irish have three losses and no hope for the BCS.
- Steve Kragthorpe, Louisville: When he took over Louisville had just entered elite territory with an Orange Bowl win. The last three years Louisville has won a total of 14 games. Rumor is that his relationship off the field with school administration is not any better.
- Mike Locksley, New Mexico: The Lobos are win less and to make matters worse he has some anger management issues. It does not matter that it is his first year, the program cannot maintain dignity by retaining Locksley for another year.
- Dan Hawkins, Colorado: He predicted 10 wins at the beginning of the year. For most of the year they have been the laughing stock of the Big 12. He hasn’t helped himself by having his son start at quarterback. The tricky part of this one is that the Colorado Athletic Department is so strapped for cash right now that it might be impossible to buy out Hawkins’ contract, so he might have a job for one more year.
- Al Groh, Virginia: Virginia has wallowed in mediocrity for the last five years, with the exception of 2007. The embarrassing start to this year coupled with the current three game losing streak have made this firing almost a foregone conclusion.
- Paul Wulff, Washington State: Has any team in college football been as bad as Washington State over the last two years? The Cougars only won two games last year against win less Washington and FCS Portland State. This year a lone overtime win is the only time Washington State has walked of the field victorious. I don’t see any signs that this program is ready to make a turn in the right direction.
- Rich Rodriguez, Michigan: Although the Wolverines have already improved their win total from 3 to 5 with two games to go. The problem is that Michigan does not stand much of a chance to win those games, and that all 5 of Michigan’s losses this year have come to Big 10 teams. In Ann Arbor the faithful expect to be the best in the Big 10 and Michigan isn’t winning conference games.
Hopefully, the coach of your favorite team is not listed above. Who else do you think should be on the list?
Monday, September 7, 2009
ANOTHER BCS SMOKESCREEN
With the various BCS debates raging on, staunch BCS supporters are now turning to a new line of reasoning to justify excluding the Mountain West Conference (MWC) from being an automatic qualifying conference: overall conference strength. In 2008, the MWC champion and runner-up were ranked above the Big East and Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) champions. Naturally the question has followed: Is the MWC better than the Big East or the ACC? Most people seem satisfied that the ACC is clearly better than the MWC. However, when compared to the Big East, many feel that the MWC is slightly better on top (BYU, TCU, and Utah), but the bottom 2/3 of the Big East is better than the bottom 2/3 of the MWC. Therefore, the Big East automatic BCS bid is justified.
Can any other argument be more bogus? Name a “Big Six” conference that does not experience significant drop off after its top three teams.
My biggest concern is that the MWC will fight this criticism by expanding to include Boise State. With all due respect to the Broncos, that is the wrong way to go. The MWC is good the way it is. As I have explained three strong teams at the top is as good as everyone else. It is time to stop the hypocrisy.
Can any other argument be more bogus? Name a “Big Six” conference that does not experience significant drop off after its top three teams.
- ACC:
The ACC has never fielded two BCS teams. Virginia Tech is the preseason favorite. A lot of people are high on Georgia Tech, and Florida State seems to be a quality team again. In this case, the drop off starts before we leave the top three teams. Only Virginia Tech is considered as good enough to play in a BCS game. - BIG 12:
Texas and Oklahoma are neck and neck at the top of the conference, and this year Oklahoma State looks to be number three. After that, Texas Tech has a lot of question marks, and the whole North Division is closer to mediocrity than being contenders. - BIG 10:
Historically, the Big 10 has been dominated by Ohio State and Michigan, with one other team always making a strong showing. The rest are not considered competition. Why else is everyone assuming the Big 10 race title will be decided by an undefeated Penn State playing undefeated Ohio State (at least undefeated in conference play)? - PAC-10:
USC is the undisputed number one followed by Oregon and Cal. Again, the drop off starts immediately. That is more because USC is so dominant and not so much because Oregon and Cal are weak. Is there any other Pac-10 team that you expect to post more than 8 wins? - BIG EAST:
The parity in the Big East is so great, how do you start with three teams as the top three? I guess West Virginia, Pittsburgh, and Rutgers are the three best, but is there much difference between them and South Florida, Cincinnati, and Connecticut? This is not an all-star line up that screams “elite conference” to anybody. - SEC:
Here you might have a case that beyond the top three. Florida, Ole Miss, and Alabama seem to be the top three this year, followed by Georgia, and LSU. The teams after that are not considered to be on the same plane.
My biggest concern is that the MWC will fight this criticism by expanding to include Boise State. With all due respect to the Broncos, that is the wrong way to go. The MWC is good the way it is. As I have explained three strong teams at the top is as good as everyone else. It is time to stop the hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)