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
Thursday, April 8, 2010
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/
Monday, April 5, 2010
BCS BASH WEEK
I am affectionately anointing this week as “BCS Bash Week.” For the next four days I will attack the cartel disguised as the Bowl Championship Series. The four part series will include the following:
1. Tuesday: The Scam
2. Wednesday: The Cover-up
3. Thursday: The Evidence
4. Friday: The Solution
I have made significant research while preparing each day’s topic to ensure that I present accurate information and that I make substantiated assertions. I am not simply venting. I know your time is valuable, and I have ensured that each topic has enough substance that reading it will not be a waste of time.
Come back each day as we bash the BCS.
1. Tuesday: The Scam
2. Wednesday: The Cover-up
3. Thursday: The Evidence
4. Friday: The Solution
I have made significant research while preparing each day’s topic to ensure that I present accurate information and that I make substantiated assertions. I am not simply venting. I know your time is valuable, and I have ensured that each topic has enough substance that reading it will not be a waste of time.
Come back each day as we bash the BCS.
Monday, March 29, 2010
WEEK IN REVIEW, Mar. 21-27
Let's get right to the headlines.
1. Urban Meyer is back, but he isn't taking it easy. Florida Head Coach Urban Meyer lashed out at a journalist from Orlando this week for suggesting that one of his players was taking a stab at Tim Tebow when he called John Brantley a real quarterback. I watched the video and read the quote and the journalists' writings that offended Meyer. I think both went to far. I can understand why Meyer would be mad, and I can understand why the journalist wrote what he wrote. Although I think the journalist was irresponsible to twist Deonte Thompson's words as he did, he did it in a way that was not condemning. He merely suggested that one could read that meaning into what he said. I can't fault Meyer for wanting to talk to the reporter about it, but I don't think Meyer went about it the right way. Meyer has since apologized.
2. The International Bowl is no more. What a relief, one less bowl, except the reason the International Bowl has folded is because it lost its deal with the Big East to the new Pinstripes Bowl at Yankee Stadium.
3. TCU to the SEC? This column on bleacherreport.com makes a persuasive argument for the SEC to think expansion and grab TCU. If the SEC picks up on this and expands, the organizational structure of college football, as we know it, will be history.
1. Urban Meyer is back, but he isn't taking it easy. Florida Head Coach Urban Meyer lashed out at a journalist from Orlando this week for suggesting that one of his players was taking a stab at Tim Tebow when he called John Brantley a real quarterback. I watched the video and read the quote and the journalists' writings that offended Meyer. I think both went to far. I can understand why Meyer would be mad, and I can understand why the journalist wrote what he wrote. Although I think the journalist was irresponsible to twist Deonte Thompson's words as he did, he did it in a way that was not condemning. He merely suggested that one could read that meaning into what he said. I can't fault Meyer for wanting to talk to the reporter about it, but I don't think Meyer went about it the right way. Meyer has since apologized.
2. The International Bowl is no more. What a relief, one less bowl, except the reason the International Bowl has folded is because it lost its deal with the Big East to the new Pinstripes Bowl at Yankee Stadium.
3. TCU to the SEC? This column on bleacherreport.com makes a persuasive argument for the SEC to think expansion and grab TCU. If the SEC picks up on this and expands, the organizational structure of college football, as we know it, will be history.
Monday, March 22, 2010
WEEK IN REVIEW: Mar. 14-20
This week things seemed to slow down a little. I guess it was March Madness. It took full control of the sports world this week. Three stories, however, stood out to me.
1. The University of Florida Pro Day. Tim Tebow unveiled his new throwing motion at the UF pro day on March 17. Maybe this is the real reason all the news stopped in college football this week. We all were paying homage to Tebow. Reports are positive, and the little video footage that I have seen, his throwing motion looks really good. I do agree with most, however, that the best case scenario for him is to beable to back up someone for 1-2 years to better solidify that throwing motion and all the mechanics that change ever so slightly with it.
2. Oregon AD switches coasts. Mike Bellotti left his post as Oregon Atheletic Director for an ESPN gig. Pretty unexpected, but if you read Ivan Maisel's article about it, it is understandable. Then again, Mr. Maisel works for ESPN, so why would expect anything but a positive spin on the move. I admit that Bellotti's move raises questions since the timing of this move comes at the same time that ducks by the barrell are trading jearseys for jail. I can't think that Bellotti and Chip Kelly weren't working well together through this athletic department crisis; they worked together for two years before Bellotti became the AD. In the end, I side with the timing of all this as coincidental. It is one thing for him to resign, but another to resign and immediately accept an analyst position with ESPN. Switching jobs takes time, no matter who you are.
3. Lights go on in the Big House. The Michigan Wolverines will finally have lights on their stadium. What is the bigger story here, that there will be lights, or that Michigan went all this time without lights. I can't immagine that this move is cheap, or that it will increase attendance. That means, there must be TV money involved. I have never heard of it before, but I guess ABC/ESPN pays you more money for broadcasting a night game than a traditional afternoon clash.
As for an update on the "BCS Bash" it is ready, but I am delaying it for a short time as I am working on some changes to my blog that should improve this and all future features. Thanks for your patience.
1. The University of Florida Pro Day. Tim Tebow unveiled his new throwing motion at the UF pro day on March 17. Maybe this is the real reason all the news stopped in college football this week. We all were paying homage to Tebow. Reports are positive, and the little video footage that I have seen, his throwing motion looks really good. I do agree with most, however, that the best case scenario for him is to beable to back up someone for 1-2 years to better solidify that throwing motion and all the mechanics that change ever so slightly with it.
2. Oregon AD switches coasts. Mike Bellotti left his post as Oregon Atheletic Director for an ESPN gig. Pretty unexpected, but if you read Ivan Maisel's article about it, it is understandable. Then again, Mr. Maisel works for ESPN, so why would expect anything but a positive spin on the move. I admit that Bellotti's move raises questions since the timing of this move comes at the same time that ducks by the barrell are trading jearseys for jail. I can't think that Bellotti and Chip Kelly weren't working well together through this athletic department crisis; they worked together for two years before Bellotti became the AD. In the end, I side with the timing of all this as coincidental. It is one thing for him to resign, but another to resign and immediately accept an analyst position with ESPN. Switching jobs takes time, no matter who you are.
3. Lights go on in the Big House. The Michigan Wolverines will finally have lights on their stadium. What is the bigger story here, that there will be lights, or that Michigan went all this time without lights. I can't immagine that this move is cheap, or that it will increase attendance. That means, there must be TV money involved. I have never heard of it before, but I guess ABC/ESPN pays you more money for broadcasting a night game than a traditional afternoon clash.
As for an update on the "BCS Bash" it is ready, but I am delaying it for a short time as I am working on some changes to my blog that should improve this and all future features. Thanks for your patience.
Poll results: How important is spring training?
The lastest poll closed, and the results were split 50/50 on how important spring training is for college football. Half of you said it was critical, and the other half voted that it was very important.
The next poll is the question everyone wants to know the answer to: When will Tim Tebow be drafted? (Read more about Tebow in the Weekly Review, March 14-20.)
The next poll is the question everyone wants to know the answer to: When will Tim Tebow be drafted? (Read more about Tebow in the Weekly Review, March 14-20.)
Saturday, March 13, 2010
WEEK IN REVIEW: Mar. 7-13
When this week began we were less than six months away from kick off. No wonder the spike in newsworthy headlines.
1. 'Bama meets Obama. The 2009 National Champion Alabama Crimson Tide were welcomed to the White House by President Obama on Monday, March 8.
2. Oregon head coach Chip Kelly has suspended starting quarterback Jeremiah Masoli for one year after he plead guilty to second degree burglary charges. Star running back LaMichael James will miss one game next year. Some think that losing Masoli is not a big deal and Oregon should still be the front runner in the Pac-10. I think it blows the Pac-10 wide open. USC is still a big question mark, Stanford lost Toby Gerhart, Washington is a wild card that will impact who wins the championship. Maybe this will be Oregon State's year. Mike Riely consistently overachieves with his players, and the Rodgers brothers are back. I applaud Coach Kelly for being as bold as he is with disciplining his players. If more coaches adopted his strict standards we would see a great improvement in society.
3. Wisconsin running back will miss all of spring practice. He is recovering from ankle surgery, and the recovery is slower than originally expected. I don't think this will impact him come fall. It is a fairly common practice for veteran players with any questionable health issues to participate minimally in spring drills. He knows the offense and has plenty of experience. Since he is not in tip top shape he does not need to be subjected to the physical part of spring practice. Let him come back in the fall ready to go.
4. Mike Leach testified as part of his lawsuit against Texas Tech. Nothing has been resolved yet, but his attorney's are increasingly confident. There is no question that Mike Leach did not act with prudence, but were his actions enough to justify his dismissal? A video of Leach using profane and derogatory language with his players after two games last season was released this week. While this is another "bad judgment" by Leach to talk like that with cameras rolling, I can't imagine he did anything different than most of the other coaches across the country. Maybe this negative exposure of Leach will bring a change in the language used by coaches, which would be another improvement to society.
5. The BCS and Congress go at it again. Another round of government involvement with the BCS started this week. Senators Orrin Hatch and Max Baucus. This one centers around financial disclosure to determine whether the BCS is withholding money from government funded schools. Every time the government starts to get involved the debate over the government involvement starts again. I have stated my general feelings on this before. I just want to counter all those who argue that the government has more important things to worry about. If that is how you feel, why are you worrying so much about it? Don't you have more important things to worry about?
6. Notre Dame Athletic Director hints at Notre Dame giving up independent status. He said that conference expansion may force the Fighting Irish to relinquish its independent status. The only thing that would force Notre Dame to join a conference is years of mediocrity. Win and the money takes care of itself.
7. Paying college football and basketball players. Ed O'Bannon has filed a lawsuit against the NCAA for not paying him and others for using their likeness in video games. You can read the full story here. That brings up the question, should college athletes get paid? We all accept that college football is a big cash cow. In many indirect ways, college players are compensated for their efforts. Most of them are on scholarship. They don't pay a dime for their education. The best players are drafted and given millions of dollars by professional teams. Players can be busts in the pros, but they still get those mega dollars because of their play in college. How about the all-expenses paid trips? How much would you pay to visit President Obama in the White House? I don't think anyone from Alabama paid anything. The Universities are providing free access to personalized training and to top notch facilities (in most cases). The rest of us have to pay for these. Of course, I have not seen a break down of "profits" for universities or the NCAA, so maybe the athletes are not being fairly compensated. Then again, how many of us are being "fairly compensated" at our day jobs?
That's it for this week. Don't be shy with your feedback, but do be polite and respectful. As for those waiting for the BCS series, that should be ready in one week.
1. 'Bama meets Obama. The 2009 National Champion Alabama Crimson Tide were welcomed to the White House by President Obama on Monday, March 8.
2. Oregon head coach Chip Kelly has suspended starting quarterback Jeremiah Masoli for one year after he plead guilty to second degree burglary charges. Star running back LaMichael James will miss one game next year. Some think that losing Masoli is not a big deal and Oregon should still be the front runner in the Pac-10. I think it blows the Pac-10 wide open. USC is still a big question mark, Stanford lost Toby Gerhart, Washington is a wild card that will impact who wins the championship. Maybe this will be Oregon State's year. Mike Riely consistently overachieves with his players, and the Rodgers brothers are back. I applaud Coach Kelly for being as bold as he is with disciplining his players. If more coaches adopted his strict standards we would see a great improvement in society.
3. Wisconsin running back will miss all of spring practice. He is recovering from ankle surgery, and the recovery is slower than originally expected. I don't think this will impact him come fall. It is a fairly common practice for veteran players with any questionable health issues to participate minimally in spring drills. He knows the offense and has plenty of experience. Since he is not in tip top shape he does not need to be subjected to the physical part of spring practice. Let him come back in the fall ready to go.
4. Mike Leach testified as part of his lawsuit against Texas Tech. Nothing has been resolved yet, but his attorney's are increasingly confident. There is no question that Mike Leach did not act with prudence, but were his actions enough to justify his dismissal? A video of Leach using profane and derogatory language with his players after two games last season was released this week. While this is another "bad judgment" by Leach to talk like that with cameras rolling, I can't imagine he did anything different than most of the other coaches across the country. Maybe this negative exposure of Leach will bring a change in the language used by coaches, which would be another improvement to society.
5. The BCS and Congress go at it again. Another round of government involvement with the BCS started this week. Senators Orrin Hatch and Max Baucus. This one centers around financial disclosure to determine whether the BCS is withholding money from government funded schools. Every time the government starts to get involved the debate over the government involvement starts again. I have stated my general feelings on this before. I just want to counter all those who argue that the government has more important things to worry about. If that is how you feel, why are you worrying so much about it? Don't you have more important things to worry about?
6. Notre Dame Athletic Director hints at Notre Dame giving up independent status. He said that conference expansion may force the Fighting Irish to relinquish its independent status. The only thing that would force Notre Dame to join a conference is years of mediocrity. Win and the money takes care of itself.
7. Paying college football and basketball players. Ed O'Bannon has filed a lawsuit against the NCAA for not paying him and others for using their likeness in video games. You can read the full story here. That brings up the question, should college athletes get paid? We all accept that college football is a big cash cow. In many indirect ways, college players are compensated for their efforts. Most of them are on scholarship. They don't pay a dime for their education. The best players are drafted and given millions of dollars by professional teams. Players can be busts in the pros, but they still get those mega dollars because of their play in college. How about the all-expenses paid trips? How much would you pay to visit President Obama in the White House? I don't think anyone from Alabama paid anything. The Universities are providing free access to personalized training and to top notch facilities (in most cases). The rest of us have to pay for these. Of course, I have not seen a break down of "profits" for universities or the NCAA, so maybe the athletes are not being fairly compensated. Then again, how many of us are being "fairly compensated" at our day jobs?
That's it for this week. Don't be shy with your feedback, but do be polite and respectful. As for those waiting for the BCS series, that should be ready in one week.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
WEEK IN REVIEW, Feb. 28-March 6
First, to follow up on last week's inquiry. The new excessive celebration penalty is still just a proposal. It was passed by the NCAA Rules Committee and will now go before the Playing Rules Oversight Panel. I am unable to find the date that that panel will consider this rule, but my guess is that the panel will support it and it will go into effect in 2011. To clarify the rule, the only change that it will bring is for "taunting gestures" on the way to the end zone. The penalty will be assessed from the spot of the foul and the points will be taken off of the board. Celebrations after a player crosses the goal line will still be dead ball fouls and assess on the extra point or kickoff. I agree with this proposed rule change, in principle. Any violation of the rules that happens in the field of play while the play is live should be charged that way. My problem with the rule is the language. What exactly is a taunting gesture? Some are obvious, but others are not. Can this rule be invoked if an official thinks that a player is taunting the fans? Are their rules of proximity and direction? If a player is 15 yards away from the nearest defender can any gesture really be interpreted as being directed at the defender? If the ball carrier has his back turned to the defender can any gesture by the ball carrier be interpreted as taunting the opposing player? The possibilities are endless. I am all for sportsmanship, but the language of this proposed rule needs to be clarified before it is implemented.
Now, on to this week.
1. The big event this week was the commencement of spring ball for some schools. Yes, you read that right. The first official day of spring is still two weeks away, but teams have already started practicing. That includes Air Force. Why the cadets have already started spring football beats me. I can understand if teams in the south want to get an early start to beat the heat, but Air Force is in Colorado Springs with an altitude well over 5,000 feet, plus the Academy is situated up against the mountains. I used to live in Colorado Springs and it doesn't get warm until May. Can the practices really be that effective? Maybe President Obama is going to deploy all the cadets on a top secret 3 month mission later this month, so the only time to do spring ball is now.
2. If you didn't believe it already, expansion is imminent for the Big-10. A report is out confirming what we all suspected. This is being done for money. As a side note, the report lists Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Missouri, and Rutgers as the prime candidates.
3. The NFL scouting combine concluded. Nothing too earth shattering happened there. Just one more step in the process. Players impressed, players disappointed, but with pro days and individual workouts for another month and a half, a lot of changes in projections will be made.
Those are the stories that stuck out to me. Go ahead and use the comments section to weigh in on them or put forth your own take on additional stories that you are following.
Just one other thing to add, I am working on a series of posts on the BCS, so in a not too distant week I will have daily editorials about the BCS.
Now, on to this week.
1. The big event this week was the commencement of spring ball for some schools. Yes, you read that right. The first official day of spring is still two weeks away, but teams have already started practicing. That includes Air Force. Why the cadets have already started spring football beats me. I can understand if teams in the south want to get an early start to beat the heat, but Air Force is in Colorado Springs with an altitude well over 5,000 feet, plus the Academy is situated up against the mountains. I used to live in Colorado Springs and it doesn't get warm until May. Can the practices really be that effective? Maybe President Obama is going to deploy all the cadets on a top secret 3 month mission later this month, so the only time to do spring ball is now.
2. If you didn't believe it already, expansion is imminent for the Big-10. A report is out confirming what we all suspected. This is being done for money. As a side note, the report lists Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Missouri, and Rutgers as the prime candidates.
3. The NFL scouting combine concluded. Nothing too earth shattering happened there. Just one more step in the process. Players impressed, players disappointed, but with pro days and individual workouts for another month and a half, a lot of changes in projections will be made.
Those are the stories that stuck out to me. Go ahead and use the comments section to weigh in on them or put forth your own take on additional stories that you are following.
Just one other thing to add, I am working on a series of posts on the BCS, so in a not too distant week I will have daily editorials about the BCS.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
POLL RESULTS: Who will make the biggest impression on scouts at the NFL draft combine?
Ryan Matthews received 66 percent of the vote in the latest poll: Who will make the biggest impression on scouts at the NFL draft combine?
Don't forget to vote in the new poll: How important is spring training?
Don't forget to vote in the new poll: How important is spring training?
Saturday, February 27, 2010
WEEK IN REVIEW
I have come up with a format for the offseason. Each week I will do a week in review on Saturday that touches on the big stories of the week. Then you can give your input in the comments section about what stories you want to hear more about from me. Don't feel limited by the list I provide. If something interests you and I left it off my list, put it in the comments and I will research it and give my take during the week. I want to know what interests you so I can provide a better experience for you.
This week the big stories include:
1. The NCAA finding Michigan out of compliance on practices.
2. The NCAA finishing its hearings of the USC athletic department.
3. The NFL combine in Indianapolis.
4. New rules regarding the eye black and celebration penalties. Eye black must be just that, no logos, numbers, words, or scripture references. Celebration penalties will now be live ball fouls, so touchdowns will be called back if a player celebrates excessively.
Now it's your turn to tell me what you think and want more of.
This week the big stories include:
1. The NCAA finding Michigan out of compliance on practices.
2. The NCAA finishing its hearings of the USC athletic department.
3. The NFL combine in Indianapolis.
4. New rules regarding the eye black and celebration penalties. Eye black must be just that, no logos, numbers, words, or scripture references. Celebration penalties will now be live ball fouls, so touchdowns will be called back if a player celebrates excessively.
Now it's your turn to tell me what you think and want more of.
Monday, February 22, 2010
POLL RESULTS: Best addition to the Pac-10
Colorado was the winner for the best school to join the Pac-10. The Buffs received 50% of the vote. Utah and Boise State were the only other vote getters.
Vote in the new poll posted for this week: Who will make the biggest impression on scouts at the NFL draft combine?
Vote in the new poll posted for this week: Who will make the biggest impression on scouts at the NFL draft combine?
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.
NEW HEAD COACH IN WAITING RULE
I saw the story about a new recruiting rule that assistant coaches designated as the head coach in waiting are subject to the same recruiting restrictions as head coaches. The most notable restriction is the head coach can make only one in house visit to a recruit.
This has conspiracy written all over it. What evidence was presented to prove that this was a distinct recruiting advantage? What study was done that shows that high school recruits choose a school based on how long the coach will be there? Coaches change schools so fast now that most high school students probably expect a coaching change while they are at their school. Is there evidence that assistant coaches were using the head coach in waiting label as a successful recruiting tactic? Texas and Maryland are the only schools with designated head coaches in waiting. I don't think anyone is worried about Maryland, but Texas is a perennial power. Something tells me that having a head coach in waiting is not what made the Longhorns so good.
I understood that schools used the head coach in waiting designation as an attempt to secure a good assistant coach, but that coach is still free to leave and coach another school. Do the contracts for these assistant coaches penalize them if they leave to coach another school?
Texas and Maryland have united to fight this case and they will use ex post facto laws to defend themselves. I think on those grounds alone they will win. I think the rule could get wipped out of the books if someone demands answers to the questions I just asked, because I don't think the evidence exists to support such a rule.
This has conspiracy written all over it. What evidence was presented to prove that this was a distinct recruiting advantage? What study was done that shows that high school recruits choose a school based on how long the coach will be there? Coaches change schools so fast now that most high school students probably expect a coaching change while they are at their school. Is there evidence that assistant coaches were using the head coach in waiting label as a successful recruiting tactic? Texas and Maryland are the only schools with designated head coaches in waiting. I don't think anyone is worried about Maryland, but Texas is a perennial power. Something tells me that having a head coach in waiting is not what made the Longhorns so good.
I understood that schools used the head coach in waiting designation as an attempt to secure a good assistant coach, but that coach is still free to leave and coach another school. Do the contracts for these assistant coaches penalize them if they leave to coach another school?
Texas and Maryland have united to fight this case and they will use ex post facto laws to defend themselves. I think on those grounds alone they will win. I think the rule could get wipped out of the books if someone demands answers to the questions I just asked, because I don't think the evidence exists to support such a rule.
Monday, February 15, 2010
OFF SEASON WORKOUTS
I know it is now the college football off season, but I am back training for the next year. Train with me as I cover the hot issues of college football, like conference expansion (see below), as well as spring training, the NFL combine and draft (other outlets consider this NFL news, but until the college stars suit up for NFL teams I still consider them part of college football), and all the other unforeseen stories that will arise in the next six months as we gear up for a new decade of the best sport on earth.
I have added some new features. You can now email a link to each post by clicking on the envelop icon at the end of each post. You can also subscribe to email notifications whenever I make a new post. To subscribe use the "Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)" link at the bottom of this page, or email me at collegefootballhaven12@gmail.com to be added to the email list.
As for coverage on BYU football, I have created a new blog where I will post content about BYU. That blog address is byufootballtalk.blogspot.com. Go there now to read my thoughts about BYU and Pac-10 expansion and Max Hall in the NFL draft. You can also vote in a poll about the upcoming NFL draft. I am also continuing to write about BYU football on isportsweb.com.
For anyone interested, I am now offering authorship opportunities to others to provide alternative perspectives and more expansive coverage. If you are interested, please email collegefootballhaven12@gmail.com with a sample of your writing and any areas of interest (recruiting, a specific team, etc.).
I have added some new features. You can now email a link to each post by clicking on the envelop icon at the end of each post. You can also subscribe to email notifications whenever I make a new post. To subscribe use the "Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)" link at the bottom of this page, or email me at collegefootballhaven12@gmail.com to be added to the email list.
As for coverage on BYU football, I have created a new blog where I will post content about BYU. That blog address is byufootballtalk.blogspot.com. Go there now to read my thoughts about BYU and Pac-10 expansion and Max Hall in the NFL draft. You can also vote in a poll about the upcoming NFL draft. I am also continuing to write about BYU football on isportsweb.com.
For anyone interested, I am now offering authorship opportunities to others to provide alternative perspectives and more expansive coverage. If you are interested, please email collegefootballhaven12@gmail.com with a sample of your writing and any areas of interest (recruiting, a specific team, etc.).
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.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
GAME DAY TALK
Let's get it going. Today should be a great day. Rivalries are already making things interesting. Pitt just lost to rival West Virginia last night, while Alabama and Texas were taken to the wire against their rivals. What will happen today? This is must see TV.
GAME PREVIEW: BYU vs. Utah
The game preview for BYU vs. Utah is posted on http://www.isportsweb.com/. Check it out to see what I will be watching for and what other story lines have caught my interest If you have not been to that sight lately, take a good look at the other posts. I have made several this week.
Let me address some specific questions from you who follow the blog that I was unable to work into the post on isportsweb. No, Utah does not have the right personnel to stretch BYU to the breaking point. I think BYU is in complete control whether they win this game and by how much. That isn't to say that Utah does not have talented player who will put up a fight, but if BYU executes well then BYU will get their points and the Utah offense will struggle with an inexperienced quarterback, whether it is Terrence Cain or Jordan Wynn. I don't consider the Utah passing game aggressive. They rely on a solid run game and use the pass to keep teams honest, and with this year's quarterbacks, the run definitely comes first with Utah. Yes, I think BYU will excute well enough to win, and I just might get what we have not had yet this century, a big BYU win. All four of our wins have been fourth quarter comebacks, while Utah has had two blowouts this decade.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
PERSPECTIVE: BCS list of teams still under consideration
NOTE: A similar post can be found at http://www.isportsweb.com/ on the BYU Football page.
In the end, I find one other question more pertinent than all others. Why does the BCS put out this list? There is still a lot of football left to play. The changes that can occur, and have occurred in the past, in the BCS standings can propel a team to the forefront of discussion that is out of the picture now. Why open yourself up for more criticism and controversy? Just let the games be played and tabulate the final BCS standings and make the selections from those results.
The BCS released earlier this week a list of 20 teams still under consideration for the nine remaining BCS bowl positions. Ohio State has already secured a Rose Bowl spot as the Big 10 Champion. The list included the following teams:
Clemson, Georgia Tech, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Nebraska, Texas, Oregon, Oregon State, Florida, Alabama, Boise State, BYU, Iowa, LSU, Miami (FL), Oklahoma State, Penn State, USC, TCU, and Virginia Tech.
The first 10 teams are obvious since they can gain an automatic berth by winning their conference championship. It is the second 10 that is perplexing. TCU and Boise State are givens to be on this list, since they are in the top 6 and undefeated. Iowa, Penn State, and Oklahoma State are understandable; they are the next best teams from conferences that have an automatic berth for their champions. However, the rational and common sense starts to get fuzzy with LSU, Miami (FL), USC, and Virginia Tech. Each school has three losses, and no team with three losses, except for Illinois in 2007 as Ohio State's replacement in the Rose Bowl, has ever played in a BCS bowl game. The BCS could really get itself into trouble if one of these three loss teams is invited while an undefeated Boise State is not. I don't know what could be better evidence that the BCS is unfair and that money comes first in the BCS.
The first explanation I can offer is that this is all politics. For the BCS to appear equitable it needs to show that schools from conferences without automatic bids for their champion have the same chance to get a BCS invite as any non-champion from those conferences with an automatic bid for their champion. This reminds me of 1996 when then BYU head coach LaVell Edwards was invited to the selection show for the Bowl Alliance, the precursor to the BCS. In 1996, BYU was the third highest ranked team available for the six alliance bowl spots, and the highest ranked team that was not guaranteed a spot as a conference champion. BYU was not invited to play in one of the Bowl Alliance games and having Edwards present was merely a gesture to make the Alliance appear to be an equitable system. In reality, BYU will not be invited to play in a BCS bowl, even if every team with two or three losses loses again and Boise State and one of the undefeated SEC teams lose their two remaining games. The BCS just won't let it happen. My second explanation is that BYU is the next highest rated team after TCU and Boise State from a conference that does not have an automatic bid for its conference champion. In their effort to appear fair, the BCS just did the simplest thing. That is why it was BYU and not Utah. My third explanation is that BYU was the second team from the Mountain West Conference on the list. The BCS bylaws prohibit a conference from having more than two participants in BCS bowls. Maybe if Utah was in the Western Athletic Conference or some other conference the Utes would have made the list, but since they are below BYU in the standings and in the same conference as BYU and TCU, Utah was left off.
In the end, I find one other question more pertinent than all others. Why does the BCS put out this list? There is still a lot of football left to play. The changes that can occur, and have occurred in the past, in the BCS standings can propel a team to the forefront of discussion that is out of the picture now. Why open yourself up for more criticism and controversy? Just let the games be played and tabulate the final BCS standings and make the selections from those results.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
HEISMAN HOPEFULS, WEEK 12
The pack is thinning. This week I am cutting Ryan Matthews and Dion Lewis from the list. Lewis is having a phenomenal freshman season, but I don't feel he is playing at the same level as the other running backs. The concussion that Matthews sustained last week kept him out of action this week, and that is hurting him. For him to really have had a chance, he needed to play very well in every game. As for the remaining three candidates, they are all neck and neck. Toby Gerhart has turned into a touchdown machine with seven in the last two weeks, but Stanford's loss to Cal does hurt him slightly. Case Keenum rebounded beautifully from last week's loss. Mark Ingram is doing the best he can with the limited number of touches that he is getting. He could be the clear cut leader if he could get his hands on the ball more often. No one can afford to slip up now.
Case Keenum, Houston, 29 completions, 39 attempts, 405 yards, 5TD (387-553, 4599, 36 TD, 6 INT, 3 rush TD)
Toby Gerhart, Stanford, 20-136, 4 TD (282-1531, 23 TD)
Mark Ingram, Alabama, 11-102, 2 TD (205-1399, 12 TD, 3 rec TD)
Dion Lewis, Pittsburgh, DID NOT PLAY--BYE (203-1291, 13 TD, 1 rec TD)--WILL NOT CONTINUE TO TRACK
Ryan Matthews, Fresno State, DID NOT PLAY--INJURED (213-1491, 14 TD)--WILL NOT CONTINUE TO TRACK
Monday, November 23, 2009
REMEMBERING THE RIVALRY
As a special feature for www.isportsweb.com, each day this week I will highlight a game from the BYU-Utah series. Today is 1989, 20 years ago. Don't miss it.
POLL RESULTS
You were right with the poll this week. LSU vs. Ole Miss received 57 percent of the vote, and sure enough, Ole Miss pulled off the upset. Oregon vs. Arizona received 28 percent, and that game nearly ended in an upset, too. An Oregon touchdown with less than 30 seconds left to force overtime game Oregon the extra time it needed to beat a tough Arizona team. Don't forget to vote in this week's poll: Which rivalry do you enjoy the most?
REACTION TO THE RANKINGS
My reaction to BYU's spot in the rankings is posted at www.isportsweb.com. Check it out and see if you agree.
TOP 25, WEEK 12
After rewarding Rutgers and Stanford with significant jumps in the rankings last week, they showed me they did not care for my respect as they lost their respective games. Rutgers was pummelled by Syracuse, and Stanford lost to its rival. Both fell from the rankings. They may make it back into the final rankings, but at this point they are on the outside looking in. Everyone in the top 12 either won or was idle, so no changes there. I was poised to move Temple up significantly to number 14, but after I saw the results of Rutgers and Stanford following their big leaps, I kept them at a more modest 17 (the lowest ranked 2 loss team). I have joined the Temple bandwagon and want to see them keep winning, so I did not want to jinx them with an 8-3 Ohio team on the schedule this week for a chance to play Central Michigan in the Mid-American Conference (MAC) Championship game. Therefore, Central Michigan and Temple swapped spots. I have to say my favorite part of doing the rankings this week was dropping LSU out following its loss to Ole Miss. I think I am getting too much gratification over LSU's misfortunes, but I don't think unranked status is too harsh of a punishment. There are many other quality three-loss teams. With rivalries getting into full swing next week, we may see more major shake ups in the rankings. Stay tuned.
OTHERS TO WATCH: Troy, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Miami (FL), USC, Boston College, LSU, Rutgers, Stanford1. TCU (11-0)
2. Cincinnati (10-0)
3. Alabama (11-0)
3. Texas (11-0)
5. Florida (11-0)
6. Boise State (11-0)
7. Georgia Tech (10-1)
8. Pittsburgh (9-1)
9. Oregon (9-2)
10. Ohio State (10-2)
11. Houston (9-2)
12. Iowa (10-2)
13. Penn State (10-2)
14. Central Michigan (9-2)
15. Oklahoma State (9-2)
16. Utah (9-2)
17. Temple (9-2)
18. Clemson (8-3)
19. North Carolina (8-3)
20. Wisconsin (8-3)
21. Navy (8-3)
22. Nevada (8-3)
23. Nebraska (8-3)
24. Oregon State (8-3)
25. Ole Miss (8-3)
Sunday, November 22, 2009
GAME RECAP: BYU vs. Air Force
You can view the game recap for the BYU vs. Air Force game at: http://isportsweb.com/sport/college-football/mountain-west/byu-football/ Be sure to visit www.isportsweb.com regularly next week as I will make a special post each day in honor of the BYU vs. Utah rivalry with flashbacks for some of the rivalries greatest games.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
GAME DAY TALK
It is Rivalry Week, part 1. Michigan vs. Ohio State highlights this week's rivalries. We also have games that will decide or clear up the races for conference titles. Oregon vs. Arizona and Stanford vs. Cal can go a long ways to decide who represents the Pac-10 in the Rose Bowl. Nebraska vs. Kansas State is for the Big 12 North Division title. What other games do you have your eye on?
Friday, November 20, 2009
GAME PREVIEW: BYU vs. Air Force
The game preview for BYU vs. Air Force has been posted on www.isportsweb.com. Check it out and leave some additional things to watch for in this game.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
HEISMAN HOPEFULS, WEEK 11
I think it is time to let go of Jimmy Clausen. He made great improvements this year and is a fine quarterback, but he is not on the Heisman Trophy level. Case Keenum was my front runner going into the weekend, but he was less than outstanding in the loss to Central Florida. Toby Gerhart has surged to the front now. He has amassed 401 yards and 6 touchdowns the last two weeks against Oregon and USC. Ryan Matthews suffered a concussion and missed most of his game this week against Nevada. He expects to play this week. If he can't bounce back with huge games the last two weeks, he may be dropped, despite leading the nation in rushing.
Jimmy Clausen, Notre Dame, 27 completions, 42 attempts, 283 yards, 1TD, 1 INT, 1 rush TD (236-350, 3053, 21 TD, 4 INT, 2 rush TD)-WILL NOT CONTINUE TO TRACK
Case Keenum, Houston, 33-56, 377, 3 TD, 1 INT (358-514, 4194, 31 TD, 6 INT, 3 rush TD)
Toby Gerhart, Stanford, 29-178, 3 TD (262-1395, 19 TD)
Mark Ingram, Alabama, 19-149, 2 TD (175-1297, 10 TD, 3 rec TD)
Dion Lewis, Pittsburgh, 21-152, 1 TD (203-1291, 13 TD, 1 rec TD)
Ryan Matthews, Fresno State, 8-32 (213-1491, 14 TD)
Monday, November 16, 2009
POLL RESULTS
The second poll has closed, and Oregon was voted as the best 2 loss team, with 50 percent of the vote. Thanks to all who participated. Don't forget to vote in this week's poll question: Which ranked team is most likely to lose this weekend?
REACTION TO THE RANKINGS
Don't forget to go to www.isportsweb.com to read my latest post on the new rankings and where BYU is at and how the Cougars were treated compared to other teams that won/lost.
TOP 25, WEEK 11
And the upsets keep rolling in. For the second straight week, seven teams on my list lost. To their credit, however, Iowa, USC, South Florida, and Utah all played other ranked teams, but Utah was the only one to lose to a higher ranked team. Let's stop to reflect on the top 6. Number 1, TCU, has won every game by more than 15 points except for two. Those were both road games. One was against a very talented Clemson squad that is one win away from playing in the ACC title game. The other was a conference game in a snow storm against a traditionally strong Air Force club that has 7 wins and has not lost by more than 7 points (two losses were in overtime). Furthermore, TCU has played the 16th ranked team (by the major polls) twice this year and has won both games by a score of 93-35. No team in the country, let alone the other 5 undefeated teams has dominated its top ranked opponents like TCU has. The Horned Frogs have a potent offense to match their traditionally elite defense. Cincinnati is number 2 because they continue to exceed expectations. They opened the season with a 47-15 win at Rutgers who is now 7-2 (the only other loss was a 7 point decision against #8 Pittsburgh) and coming of a 31-0 beat down of South Florida (who was ranked at the time). Starting quarterback Tony Pike was injured a month ago, but the offense has not skipped a beat. Cincinnati might not have the name recognition that some of the other schools in the rankings, but with their performance on the field they have proven they are legit. Brian Kelly has to be one of the top 5 coaches in college football, and I like his team's chances against anyone. Alabama, like TCU and everyone else, had a conference foe give them a scare (Tennessee, 12-10), but three other games were solid, not dominant, wins. Although the Crimson Tide has a stout defense, I think they lack the offensive firepower necessary to beat the two teams ahead of it. I have moved Texas into a tie with Alabama at number 3. (Yes, I know they shut down the Arkansas offense, but the Razorbacks are really at least a year away from being the high octane Bobby Petrino offensive attacks that we saw at Louisville.) After struggling at times, the Longhorns offense appears to be hitting on all cylinders, while the defense has not allowed more than 14 points since week 3. I cannot justify ranking Texas higher because the rankings intend to represent the season long performance of a team, and the top two have played more consistently all year. Florida has lost a lot of offensive fireworks from last year, but their defense and the it factor that Tim Tebow has is getting it done. However, after Louisiana Tech played LSU so close, I like Boise State's chances against the Gators. Boise State is inching closer to that number 5 spot, and I think a Boise State vs. Florida match up in a bowl game would be intriguing. Would the Bronco defense shut down Florida's offense like it did Oregon, and would the high execution of Boise State on offense be enough to put points up against Florida's suffocating defense? I like Boise State, but the close games against Louisiana Tech and Tulsa, as well as the unimpressive win against UC Davis make me unable to rank the Broncos higher than any of the others. As for the rest of the field, LSU continued to be unimpressive. They are the most overrated two loss team in the country. Oregon edged out Ohio State as the top two loss team by virtue of its win over USC, whereas Ohio State lost to USC. Rutgers made a big jump from 23 to 15, for the reasons cited above. Stanford made the biggest jump--nine spots from 25 to 16. Stanford is an exception to the rule. If you go back and read my initial Top 25 rankings, I explained that my philosophy was that teams with a better overall win-loss record would be ranked higher than teams with a worse record, and only on very rare occasions would this philosophy not be followed. Stanford has been so impressive the last two weeks beating Oregon and USC that the Cardinals merit being ranked above some two loss teams. Anyone care to argue? Although Iowa lost its second straight, the Hawkeyes only fell two spots, since they have head-to-head wins over Wisconsin and Penn State.
OTHERS TO WATCH: Troy, West Virginia, Oregon State, Virginia Tech, Miami (FL), USC, Boston College, Nebraska, Mississippi1. TCU (10-0)
2. Cincinnati (10-0)
3. Alabama (10-0)
3. Texas (10-0)
5. Florida (10-0)
6. Boise State (10-0)
7. Georgia Tech (10-1)
8. Pittsburgh (9-1)
9. Oregon (8-2)
10. Ohio State (9-2)
11. Houston (8-2)
12. Iowa (9-2)
13. Wisconsin (8-2)
14. Penn State (9-2)
15. Rutgers (7-2)
16. Stanford (7-3)
17. Oklahoma State (8-2)
18. Utah (8-2)
19. LSU (8-2)
20. Temple (8-2)
21. Central Michigan (8-2)
22. Clemson (7-3)
23. North Carolina (7-3)
24. Navy (8-3)
25. Nevada (7-3)
Saturday, November 14, 2009
GAME DAY TALK
Saturday is upon us once more. Again, the weekend has gotten off to a great start with the early games. Rutgers ambushed South Florida 31-0 on Thursday, and Cincinnati held on to beat West Virginia 24-21 yesterday. Today features Utah vs. TCU, Notre Dame vs. Pittsburgh, Ohio State vs. Iowa, and Stanford vs. USC. Florida vs. South Carolina is always worth keeping an eye on with Steve Spurrier on the SC sideline. Idaho and Boise State in the WAC will give us a true measuring stick of how good Idaho really is. The upset alert is on Penn State vs. Indiana. Indiana has played almost everyone close this year, and Penn State could suffer a let down after their disappointing game against Ohio State last week. Don't be shy. Fill the comments section with your thoughts and reactions to today's games.
BYU GAME PREVIEW
Don't forget to checkout www.isportsweb.com for my game preview of BYU vs. New Mexico. Following the game, a game recap will be posted.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
PERSPECTIVE: BIG WINS HINGE ON LITTLE PLAYS
This quote from a great world leader and friend of college football goes a long way to explaining a lot of the surprising game scores that we see almost weekly in college football. How many times have we sat down to watch a highly anticipated match up between two evenly matched teams only to have the outcome determined long before the final whistle blew? The 2005 Orange Bowl comes to mind (USC 55 Oklahoma 19). Although the scoreboard reflects a significant difference between the two teams, reality is that the two teams are evenly matched. The big win is the outcome of a few little plays going in favor of one team. Two, three, or four plays in a game made up of 150 plays can seem like the "very little movement at the hinge"; however, when the game ends it is clear that those couple of plays caused a "great movement at the perimeter." Let's look at the two BYU losses this year to better understand this sports phenomena. September 19, 2009, BYU was favored to beat Florida State. The game ended in a 54-28 victory for Florida State. Although BYU lost by almost 4 touchdowns, it was essentially 2 plays that caused this drastic outcome. Play one was O'Neill Chamber's first quarter fumble. BYU had driven from its own 20 yard line to the FSU 18. Max Hall dropped back and connected with Chambers on a short pass when he fumbled at the 13. FSU recovered ending BYU's scoring threat. This was not just a fumble. It was a turnover that ended a scoring threat that we have no reason to doubt would have ended in a touchdown to tie the game at 7. Instead, FSU took over and scored another touchdown to push the lead to 14 Play two was another O'Neill Chambers fumble, this time in the second quarter. FSU scored with 23 seconds before halftime to go up 28-14. On the ensuing kickoff, Chambers fumbled at the BYU 30 yard line. This put FSU in position to tack on three more points with a successful field goal. What could have been a 28-21 game at the half, with BYU receiving the ball to start the second half, was a 30-14 FSU lead instead. Those two fumbles resulted in a 10 point difference, and completely changed BYU's play calling in the second half and the way FSU could defend the BYU offense. I am not saying that BYU would have won, but the game would have been much more competitive. October 24, 2009, BYU had a conference showdown with the TCU Horned Frogs. BYU started the second half trailing 21-7. On the Cougars' first possession, however, they were moving the ball effectively and poised to score a touchdown and make the score 21-14. That would have been BYU's second consecutive scoring drive, and the game still up for grabs. However, a Max Hall pass was tipped by the intended receiver and intercepted by TCU. TCU subsequently kicked a field goal to push the lead to 24-7, another 10 point swing that was the real difference in the game. Three plays in two games have given the nation the perception that BYU's 7-2 record is the result of BYU beating 6 bad teams, losing 2 ugly games, and getting a lucky injury against Oklahoma. The reality is that those three plays were the hinge that was magnified over the course of those two games and leaving an impression of BYU that overshadows its other accomplishments this year. In sports we have another word for hinge: momentum. Momentum is the 12th man in football. Sometimes Mo switches his jersey throughout the game. Other times, he jumps on the swinging fence and rides it until the hinge opens fully.Have you ever noticed a large gate in a farm fence? As you open it or close it there appears to be very little movement at the hinge. But there is great movement at the perimeter (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Small Acts Lead to Great Consequences,” Ensign, May 1984, 81).
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?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
HEISMAN HOPEFULS, WEEK 10
With three weeks left, we see some candidates trying to separate themselves. Case Keenum has passed for 1,000 yards the last two weeks. Toby Gerhart and Mark Ingram came up big in big games to stand out a little from the pack of running backs. However, with three games to go, and looking at their total rushing yards, I am wondering if either of them will surpass 1,500. How comfortable are we with a Heisman Trophy being awarded to a running back with less than 1,500 yards rushing. That has not happened in over 25 years. Maybe if one of them had a 9 yard per carry average and over 20 touchdowns, but with the 12 game schedule (13 for Ingram), 1,500 yards is the minimum for "outstanding" running back play. As I said for quarterbacks, a game manager is not an outstanding quarterback. A running back with less than 1,500 rushing yards is nothing more than a game manager. Dropping from the list after this week will be Noel Devine and Jaquizz Rodgers. Devine has had less than 100 total yards rushing the last two weeks. Rodgers was a tough call. I know he is capable of exploding in the last few weeks of the year, and he has all those touchdowns, but in the end I think he is just too far behind to catch up. Jimmy Clausen is hanging on by a thread. He put up respectable numbers in a loss to a respectable Navy team, but he let himself get sacked for a safety late in the fourth quarter that proved to be the winning score. Notre Dame, though, finishes the year with two pretty big games (Pittsburgh and Stanford) and he has chances to redeem himself.
Jimmy Clausen, Notre Dame, 37 completions, 51 attempts, 452 yards, 2TD, 1 INT (209-308, 2770, 20 TD, 3 INT, 1 rush TD)
Case Keenum, Houston, 40-60, 522, 3 TD (325-458, 3815, 28 TD, 5 INT, 3 rush TD)
Noel Devine, West Virginia, 13 carries, 56 yards (167-1010, 10 TD)-WILL NOT CONTINUE TO TRACK
Toby Gerhart, Stanford, 38-223, 3 TD (233-1217, 16 TD)
Mark Ingram, Alabama, 22-144, (175-1148, 8 TD, 3 rec TD)
Dion Lewis, Pittsburgh, 18-110, 1 TD (203-1139, 12 TD, 1 rec TD)
Jaquizz Rodgers, Oregon State, 25-67, 1 TD (197-989, 15 TD, 1 rec TD, 1 TD pass)-WILL NOT CONTINUE TO TRACK
Ryan Matthews, Fresno State, 26-143, 3 TD (205-1459, 14 TD)
Monday, November 9, 2009
Reaction to Rankings
Don't forget that Mondays I post an in depth analysis of the rankings from a BYU perspective on www.isportsweb.com. Go there and join the discussion. I make some bold assertions and would like to get your feedback on them.
Poll Results: TCU vs. Boise State
The poll for TCU or Boise State in the BCS has closed, and TCU ran away with 88 percent of the vote. Thank you to all who participated. Don't forget to vote this week: Who is the best two-loss team?
TOP 25, WEEK 10
All those upsets in the Top 25 is a sure sign that it is November. Seven teams on my list lost. TCU solidified its position at number 1 by putting up 55 points in 3 quarters, while Cincinnati squeaked out a win against UConn. Cincinnati will prove its self in the couple of games with West Virginia and Pitt coming up. I feel more and more confident in the order of numbers 3 through 6, too. I did not penalize Iowa too much for its close loss to Northwestern. The injury bug bit the team's top offensive player, plus Iowa started the game by jumping out to a 10-0 lead. The loss has to be attributed to this injury, not to Iowa digging itself an insurmountable hole. The two-loss teams took some time to sort out. Oregon just crushed USC, so the Ducks had to stay above the Trojans, and USC beat Ohio State back in September, who just beat Penn State last weekend. LSU also joined the two-loss club, and, despite those losses being to the number three and five ranked teams, I took this opportunity to significantly drop the Tigers. The have failed to impress me all year long, so I am not going to give them an inflated ranking; however, I did keep them above some other two-loss teams. Stanford is the only three-loss team, by virtue of their upset of Oregon. For those keeping track, I have stuck to my resolve to boycott BYU from the rankings, even though they played the textbook definition of a complete game in its 52-0 win against Wyoming.
OTHERS TO WATCH: Troy, West Virginia, Navy, Notre Dame, Nevada, Auburn, Texas Tech, Oregon State, Virginia Tech, Clemson1. TCU (9-0)
2. Cincinnati (9-0)
3. Alabama (9-0)
4. Texas (9-0)
5. Florida (9-0)
6. Boise State (8-0)
7. Georgia Tech (9-1)
8. Pittsburgh (8-1)
9. Houston (8-1)
10. Iowa (9-1)
11. Utah (8-1)
12. Oregon (7-2)
13. Wisconsin (7-2)
14. USC (7-2)
15. Ohio State (8-2)
16. Penn State (8-2)
17. Oklahoma State (7-2)
18. LSU (7-2)
19. South Florida (6-2)
20. Miami (FL) (7-2)
21. Temple (7-2)
22. Arizona (6-2)
23. Rutgers (6-2)
24. Central Michigan (7-2)
25. Stanford (6-3)
Saturday, November 7, 2009
GAME DAY TALK
Let's hear it. Sorry this is coming a little late, and we already have so much to talk about. Undefeated Iowa has gone down. The injury bug bit starting QB Ricky Stanzi. BYU is off to a phenomenal start--offense and defense--to essentially put the game out of reach minutes into the third quarter. What are you watching? What has impressed you?
Friday, November 6, 2009
UP AND RUNNING
I am up and running as the BYU team correspondent for isportsweb. Go to www.isportsweb.com and check out my first posts and some of the other great material on that site.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
HEISMAN HOPEFULS, WEEK 9
Case Keenum's performance impressed me. I think his 80+ percent completion percentage and over 550 yards of passing has given him a slight lead in this race. Last week I had Jaquizz Rodgers on the list only because of his 15 total touchdowns. This week he added a touchdown pass to his resume. Noel Devine had a bad outing against South Florida, but I can't justify taking him off the list yet, since he has more rushing yards than Jaquizz Rodgers and more rushing touchdowns than Mark Ingram. No Tim Tebow is not reappearing on my list. It is going to take more than one 4 TD performance to get back on the list, even if he did set the SEC career rushing touchdown record.
Jimmy Clausen, Notre Dame, 22 completions, 27 attempts, 268 yards, 2TD (172-257, 2318, 18 TD, 2 INT, 1 rush TD)
Case Keenum, Houston, 44-54, 559, 5 TD, 1 INT (285-398, 3293, 25 TD, 5 INT, 3 rush TD)
Noel Devine, West Virginia, 17 carries, 42 yards (154-954, 10 TD)
Toby Gerhart, Stanford, DID NOT PLAY (195-994, 13 TD)
Mark Ingram, Alabama, DID NOT PLAY (153-1004, 8 TD, 3 rec TD)
Dion Lewis, Pittsburgh, DID NOT PLAY (158-1029, 11 TD, 1 rec TD)
Jaquizz Rodgers, Oregon State, 24-112, 1 TD pass (172-922, 14 TD, 1 rec TD, 1 TD pass)
Ryan Matthews, Fresno State, 23-185, 2 TD (179-1316, 11 TD)
Monday, November 2, 2009
NEWSFLASH: I HAVE A NEW POSITION
Over the weekend, I assumed a new position as the BYU Team Correspondent for isportsweb.com.
This will be the new source for my BYU related work. I will make a minimum of three posts per week on this site. So what are you waiting for? Go check it out. Now!
"isportsweb.com is a cutting edge variation of sports information on the web. We will provide fresh, in-depth coverage from a local perspective on as many sports teams nationwide, college or professional, as possible."
This will be the new source for my BYU related work. I will make a minimum of three posts per week on this site. So what are you waiting for? Go check it out. Now!
TOP 25, WEEK 9
Notwithstanding my gut feeling about Georgia upseting Florida being wrong, I will not put Florida back on top for beating a team that I did not even rank in my preseason top 25. What I will do is take comfort in knowing that I accurately assessed how Georgia would perform this year while most other people had Georgia somewhere in the top 15, or close to it. I would lkie to move Boise State up after Oregon threw USC back down to earth. However, no one in the top 5 did anything to hurt their positions (Iowa was already behind Boise State). Only one spot in the bottom 11 stayed the same (Miami at 21). I hesitated last week to show some love to teams like Temple and Idaho, but they showed me that they could win on a weekend when other two-loss teams and one-loss teams could not win against foes with worse records. As I said last week, I love this time of year: November is crunch time. Most of these teams will prove they are top material or they will fall as every team is playing its best ball.
OTHERS TO WATCH: Troy, West Virginia, Rutgers1. TCU (8-0)
2. Cincinnati (8-0)
3. Alabama (8-0)
4. Texas (8-0)
5. Florida (8-0)
6. Boise State (7-0)
7. Iowa (9-0)
8. Oregon (7-1)
9. Penn State (8-1)
10. Georgia Tech (8-1)
11. LSU (7-1)
12. Houston (7-1)
13. Pittsburg (7-1)
14. Utah (7-1)
15. USC (6-2)
16. Ohio State (7-2)
17. Notre Dame (6-2)
18. Wisconsin (6-2)
19. South Florida (5-2)
20. Oklahoma State (6-2)
21. Miami (FL) (6-2)
22. Cal (6-2)
23. Idaho (7-2)
24. Temple (6-2)
25. Central Michigan (7-2)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)