I'm glad Wes Bynum nailed a FG, as time expired, for Auburn to beat Florida. I'm just a little disappointed in how the scenario played out. With the game tied at 17, Auburn drove to the Florida 26 and called time out with 3 seconds left to set up a game-winning FG.
Stealing a page from Mike Shanahan (and Lane Kiffin), Urban Meyer convinced an official to let him call a time out just as Auburn was preparing to snap the ball for the FG attempt. The official granted the TO, but didn't get the players on the field to not run the play. Bynum's kick eeked through just inside the right upright for the apparent game-winner. Not so fast.
The announcers had predicted Meyer's actions and praised him for doing everything possible to help his team. As the kick sailed towards the goal, I was hoping it would continue to drift to the right - wide right - knowing full-well that it wouldn't count anyway.
Why hope for a miss? In the NFL, the tactic has worked twice. The first time, the Raiders missed the second try (against the Broncos). The Raiders won a game the next week by blocking the second attempt by the Browns. In the Auburn v. Florida game, the tactic didn't work, but it wasn't detrimental either. Auburn won the game, but they would have won if Meyer had not called time out, too. If Bynum had missed the first one, Meyer would have deprived his team of a chance at winning in OT by calling the TO and giving Bynum a second chance (assuming he nailed it on his second attempt). The only thing that would have been better is if Meyer's TO had nullified a blocked kick return for a TD by his Gators. Can you imagine the uproar in Gainesville if the head coached had turned a win into a loss by calling an unnecessary TO?
Unnecessary time outs are just a waste of time, in my opinion. Does the kicker really need more time to think about it? Bynum was probably thinking about it from the time Auburn got the ball for their last drive ... I was. What else does the kicker have to do? That's why he was over on the sidelines staying loose! College football made a big stink a while back about the lengths of games. Here is one way to cut a little bit of time, and it won't adversely affect the game. And, even if they don't make a rule against the unsportsmanlike practice, I'd like to see coaches take the initiative to rule against it themselves by NOT calling TO. It's the right thing to do ... maybe not the trendy thing to do ... but the right thing.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
O No
A funny thing happened on the way to the Red River Shootout ... OU got derailed at Colorado. And, it looks like Texas is going to have a loss as well, thanks to Kansas State. I said USF beating WVU was bad for the Big East. Well, today's events are even worse for the Big 12.
Who's the beneficiary preliminarily? Ohio State. With a win, they'll jump WVU, OU, and Texas into 5th place in the polls. Also, the SEC. Every loss by a highly-ranked team increases the likelihood that a one-loss SEC team will play in the national title game ... which seems reasonable anyway.
A couple thoughts on OU: (1) Why doesn't Sam Bradford throw the ball to Malcolm Kelly? He seems to be in love with Juaquin Iglesias. Iglesias is a decent player, but if there's an OU receiver that you are going to try to force the ball to, it's Kelly, not Iglesias. (2) Why does OU continue to rush 3 and 4 and drop into zone? OU is without starting DE John Williams and the defense was on the field for most of the 2nd half. That makes for a tired front four, and they aren't going to get the requisite pressure. Rather than overload or bring unaccounted for players off the corner, they continued to sit in zone, even with and experienced secondary. Reggie Smith and Marcus Walker should be able to lock down CU's receivers on the outside. OU got badly outcoached by CU ... and it's not the first time the defensive staff has been overmatched in recent years.
Who's the beneficiary preliminarily? Ohio State. With a win, they'll jump WVU, OU, and Texas into 5th place in the polls. Also, the SEC. Every loss by a highly-ranked team increases the likelihood that a one-loss SEC team will play in the national title game ... which seems reasonable anyway.
A couple thoughts on OU: (1) Why doesn't Sam Bradford throw the ball to Malcolm Kelly? He seems to be in love with Juaquin Iglesias. Iglesias is a decent player, but if there's an OU receiver that you are going to try to force the ball to, it's Kelly, not Iglesias. (2) Why does OU continue to rush 3 and 4 and drop into zone? OU is without starting DE John Williams and the defense was on the field for most of the 2nd half. That makes for a tired front four, and they aren't going to get the requisite pressure. Rather than overload or bring unaccounted for players off the corner, they continued to sit in zone, even with and experienced secondary. Reggie Smith and Marcus Walker should be able to lock down CU's receivers on the outside. OU got badly outcoached by CU ... and it's not the first time the defensive staff has been overmatched in recent years.
Where are the Big Wins?
In my last post, I argued that the Big East was hurt by the WVU loss because it took some of the luster off the Big East's most highly regarded team. Basically, it seems that the Big East is a deep conference lacking any major title contenders. I pointed to the lack of big non-conference wins ... but I also realize that other conferences (I pointed out the Big 12) have that problem as well.
So, I got to wondering, what conference boasts the most impressive non-conference wins thus far?
Virginia Tech is the highest ranked team in the polls with a non-conference loss (at LSU). The only other team in the polls with a non-conference loss is Nebraska (in Lincoln to USC).
I realize this is somewhat skewed because losses hurt your status in the polls. Louisville was highly regarded when they lost to Kentucky, but plummeted after a subsequent loss to Syracuse. Auburn was #17 before a loss to USF and the loss to Miss. St. didn't help their ranking. However, it's important not to look at where a team is ranked when they lost because the polls, especially early in the season, are highly speculative and aren't always a good indicator of the strength of a team.
Because Jeff Sagarin's ratings rank all the teams, I'll switch over to them as my ranking of choice for now:
Nebraska (#17) lost to USC.
UCLA (#20) lost to Utah.
Boise State (#28) lost to Washington.
Va. Tech (#29) lost to LSU.
Miami (#30) lost to Oklahoma.
Tennessee (#32) lost to Cal.
BYU (#35) lost to UCLA.
Washington (#36) lost to Ohio State.
Auburn (#38) lost to USF.
Oregon State (#39) lost to Cincinnati.
Washington State (#40) lost to Wisconsin.
Wake Forest (#41) lost to Nebraska.
Illinois (#42) lost to Missouri.
Iowa (#43) lost to Iowa State.
Michigan (#44) lost to Oregon.
Texas A&M (#46) lost to Miami.
TCU (#48) lost to Texas.
Tulsa (#50) lost to Oklahoma.
The Pac-10 is 5-4. The Big 12 is 6-2. The mighty SEC is just 1-2, although they start conference play early and still have some upcoming non-conference match-ups. The Big East is 2-0 while the ACC is 1-3 and the Big 10 is 2-3.
What does it tell you? Obviously, the Big 12 is the best conference in college football. Actually, it doesn't tell me a whole lot. But, it doesn't do anything for the Big East. The Pac-10 (which has 3), Mountain West, SEC, Big 12 and Big 10 all have wins over higher ranked non-conference foes than does the Big East. The top teams in the Pac-10 (USC, Cal, Oregon) handily beat their top 50 foes. Oklahoma and LSU dominated in their match-ups (v. Miami and Va. Tech). Ohio State looked shaky early against Washington. But, the USF win came in OT against an Auburn team that turned the ball over 5 times (to 0 for the Bulls). Yes, I know Alvarado missed 4 FG's for USF, but Auburn held them to FG attempts. In Cincy's win over OSU, they too were +5 in turnovers (7 vs. 2) to blow open a contest that was 10-3 at halftime. The big wins are few and far between because everyone refuses to schedule the games the fans really want to see. If Rutgers doesn't run away with the Big East (and Ohio State with the Big 10), it's going to be hard to take the conference winner too seriously.
So, I got to wondering, what conference boasts the most impressive non-conference wins thus far?
Virginia Tech is the highest ranked team in the polls with a non-conference loss (at LSU). The only other team in the polls with a non-conference loss is Nebraska (in Lincoln to USC).
I realize this is somewhat skewed because losses hurt your status in the polls. Louisville was highly regarded when they lost to Kentucky, but plummeted after a subsequent loss to Syracuse. Auburn was #17 before a loss to USF and the loss to Miss. St. didn't help their ranking. However, it's important not to look at where a team is ranked when they lost because the polls, especially early in the season, are highly speculative and aren't always a good indicator of the strength of a team.
Because Jeff Sagarin's ratings rank all the teams, I'll switch over to them as my ranking of choice for now:
Nebraska (#17) lost to USC.
UCLA (#20) lost to Utah.
Boise State (#28) lost to Washington.
Va. Tech (#29) lost to LSU.
Miami (#30) lost to Oklahoma.
Tennessee (#32) lost to Cal.
BYU (#35) lost to UCLA.
Washington (#36) lost to Ohio State.
Auburn (#38) lost to USF.
Oregon State (#39) lost to Cincinnati.
Washington State (#40) lost to Wisconsin.
Wake Forest (#41) lost to Nebraska.
Illinois (#42) lost to Missouri.
Iowa (#43) lost to Iowa State.
Michigan (#44) lost to Oregon.
Texas A&M (#46) lost to Miami.
TCU (#48) lost to Texas.
Tulsa (#50) lost to Oklahoma.
The Pac-10 is 5-4. The Big 12 is 6-2. The mighty SEC is just 1-2, although they start conference play early and still have some upcoming non-conference match-ups. The Big East is 2-0 while the ACC is 1-3 and the Big 10 is 2-3.
What does it tell you? Obviously, the Big 12 is the best conference in college football. Actually, it doesn't tell me a whole lot. But, it doesn't do anything for the Big East. The Pac-10 (which has 3), Mountain West, SEC, Big 12 and Big 10 all have wins over higher ranked non-conference foes than does the Big East. The top teams in the Pac-10 (USC, Cal, Oregon) handily beat their top 50 foes. Oklahoma and LSU dominated in their match-ups (v. Miami and Va. Tech). Ohio State looked shaky early against Washington. But, the USF win came in OT against an Auburn team that turned the ball over 5 times (to 0 for the Bulls). Yes, I know Alvarado missed 4 FG's for USF, but Auburn held them to FG attempts. In Cincy's win over OSU, they too were +5 in turnovers (7 vs. 2) to blow open a contest that was 10-3 at halftime. The big wins are few and far between because everyone refuses to schedule the games the fans really want to see. If Rutgers doesn't run away with the Big East (and Ohio State with the Big 10), it's going to be hard to take the conference winner too seriously.
The Big Least
Last year, the Big East was the media darling of college football. Experts routinely hailed the league as a potential power in spite of the defections by Boston College, Miami and Virginia Tech, three of the conference's marquee teams previously.
I got thinking about this again as South Florida was holding down the West Virginia offense as the Bulls pulled out a 21-13 victory. Congratulations to South Florida for their victory (making them 4-0 on the season) AND the Big East for picking South Florida up before they were knocking off top 10 teams (WVU the last two years and Louisville the year before).
The problem, as I see it, was that WVU didn't dismantle the Bulls. No, I'm not a Mountaineer. But, looking back at the pre-season polls, West Virginia was solidly in the top 10 (3rd in AP, 6th in USA Today) and Louisville was right on the edge (10th in AP, 11th in USA Today). Rutgers was ranked 16th in both polls. USF was 35th in the AP. Not to place too much emphasis on pre-season polls, but people expected West Virginia and Louisville to run people over with their offenses (and Heisman Trophy candidate QB's Pat White and Brian Brohm). USF exposed WVU. Kentucky and SYRACUSE (which lost bad to Washington, Iowa and Illinois) both knocked off the Cardinals. Rutgers remains unbeaten, which isn't surprising considering the schedule (Buffalo, Navy, Norfolk State) and Cincy has cracked the top 25 with impressive wins against fairly lackluster competition, although they knocked off Pac-10 member Oregon State.
I respect USF for going to Auburn. They won, but Auburn is hideous by their standards. They easily could have lost to Kansas State (not exactly a Big 12 power) and did lose at home to Mississippi State (not exactly an SEC power).
Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida and Rutgers are all undefeated. West Virginia has just the South Florida loss. Getting back to that loss, it's a problem because it doesn't show that South Florida is a great, top 10 worthy team. It shows that WVU doesn't deserve to be that highly regarded, and that's a big blow for the conference on the heels of Louisville's collapse. There isn't a marquee win to prop the conference up.
Let's take a look at the Big East's non-conference results against BCS conference schools:
Connecticut beat Duke (ACC) in a match-up I'd rather see on the hardwood.
South Florida beat Auburn (SEC) and North Carolina (ACC).
Syracuse lost to Washington (Pac-10), Iowa (Big 10) and Illinois (Big 10).
Cincinnati flogged Oregon State (Pac-10).
Rutgers plays Maryland (ACC) tomorrow.
West Virginia beat Maryland (ACC) ... again, a match I'd rather see on the hardwood.
Pittsburgh lost to Michigan State (Big 10), although it was close.
Louisville lost at Kentucky (SEC) and has an upcoming game against NC State (ACC).
Funny enough, I'm watching PTI on DVR and they're talking about whether or not a USF win is bad for the Big East. Bob Ryan said it's bad if USF wins, while Michael Wilbon thought it would be good.
We'll have to see how the rest of the season plays out. And, while it looks like the race for the Big East title will be quite interesting this year (especially if Louisville gets it together), it doesn't appear that the conference will play a role in the national title race because there isn't a dominant team (or two or three) like exists in the SEC, Pac-10 and Big 12 (I hope there is one in the Big 12). The depth is great (especially considering it's an 8-team conference), but the next step has to be getting big wins over top teams in other major conferences ... and I don't see a single one this year (although the same can be said of the Big 12, which features wins over Miami (by OU), Iowa (by Iowa State) and Illinois (by Missouri) ... but the difference is that OU and Texas will probably show they are the cream of the crop in the conference).
P.S. It would be great to see a series of games between the ACC and Big East (match-ups based on the Sagarin ratings after from earlier this week).
West Virginia v. Boston College
Cincinnati v. Clemson
Rutgers v. Florida State
South Florida v. Virginia Tech
Connecticut v. Miami
Pittsburgh v. Wake Forest
Louisville v. Georgia Tech
Syracuse v. Virginia
I got thinking about this again as South Florida was holding down the West Virginia offense as the Bulls pulled out a 21-13 victory. Congratulations to South Florida for their victory (making them 4-0 on the season) AND the Big East for picking South Florida up before they were knocking off top 10 teams (WVU the last two years and Louisville the year before).
The problem, as I see it, was that WVU didn't dismantle the Bulls. No, I'm not a Mountaineer. But, looking back at the pre-season polls, West Virginia was solidly in the top 10 (3rd in AP, 6th in USA Today) and Louisville was right on the edge (10th in AP, 11th in USA Today). Rutgers was ranked 16th in both polls. USF was 35th in the AP. Not to place too much emphasis on pre-season polls, but people expected West Virginia and Louisville to run people over with their offenses (and Heisman Trophy candidate QB's Pat White and Brian Brohm). USF exposed WVU. Kentucky and SYRACUSE (which lost bad to Washington, Iowa and Illinois) both knocked off the Cardinals. Rutgers remains unbeaten, which isn't surprising considering the schedule (Buffalo, Navy, Norfolk State) and Cincy has cracked the top 25 with impressive wins against fairly lackluster competition, although they knocked off Pac-10 member Oregon State.
I respect USF for going to Auburn. They won, but Auburn is hideous by their standards. They easily could have lost to Kansas State (not exactly a Big 12 power) and did lose at home to Mississippi State (not exactly an SEC power).
Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida and Rutgers are all undefeated. West Virginia has just the South Florida loss. Getting back to that loss, it's a problem because it doesn't show that South Florida is a great, top 10 worthy team. It shows that WVU doesn't deserve to be that highly regarded, and that's a big blow for the conference on the heels of Louisville's collapse. There isn't a marquee win to prop the conference up.
Let's take a look at the Big East's non-conference results against BCS conference schools:
Connecticut beat Duke (ACC) in a match-up I'd rather see on the hardwood.
South Florida beat Auburn (SEC) and North Carolina (ACC).
Syracuse lost to Washington (Pac-10), Iowa (Big 10) and Illinois (Big 10).
Cincinnati flogged Oregon State (Pac-10).
Rutgers plays Maryland (ACC) tomorrow.
West Virginia beat Maryland (ACC) ... again, a match I'd rather see on the hardwood.
Pittsburgh lost to Michigan State (Big 10), although it was close.
Louisville lost at Kentucky (SEC) and has an upcoming game against NC State (ACC).
Funny enough, I'm watching PTI on DVR and they're talking about whether or not a USF win is bad for the Big East. Bob Ryan said it's bad if USF wins, while Michael Wilbon thought it would be good.
We'll have to see how the rest of the season plays out. And, while it looks like the race for the Big East title will be quite interesting this year (especially if Louisville gets it together), it doesn't appear that the conference will play a role in the national title race because there isn't a dominant team (or two or three) like exists in the SEC, Pac-10 and Big 12 (I hope there is one in the Big 12). The depth is great (especially considering it's an 8-team conference), but the next step has to be getting big wins over top teams in other major conferences ... and I don't see a single one this year (although the same can be said of the Big 12, which features wins over Miami (by OU), Iowa (by Iowa State) and Illinois (by Missouri) ... but the difference is that OU and Texas will probably show they are the cream of the crop in the conference).
P.S. It would be great to see a series of games between the ACC and Big East (match-ups based on the Sagarin ratings after from earlier this week).
West Virginia v. Boston College
Cincinnati v. Clemson
Rutgers v. Florida State
South Florida v. Virginia Tech
Connecticut v. Miami
Pittsburgh v. Wake Forest
Louisville v. Georgia Tech
Syracuse v. Virginia
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Offensive TD?
ND just scored a rushing TD. The 1 yard Travis Thomas run capped a 9 yard drive. Does this count as an offensive TD? I'm skeptical, and I'm still waiting for the first solid ND TD drive of the season.
Dear Les and Urban,
You may have the two best teams in the country. Maybe you have two of the top 5. But, it's not unlikely that you will both be watching at least one inferior team in the national title game. Why? I think it has something to do with your non-conference schedule. Urban, come on ... Western Kentucky, Troy, Florida Atlantic and Florida State. And Les, seriously ... Virginia Tech, Middle Tennessee State, Tulane and Louisiana Tech. The regional games are ok, but you need to bolster the non-conference schedule!
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that the SEC is the best (and deepest) conference in the nation. I don't disagree. Urban, you'll spit out that along with a solid FSU team, you play Tennessee, Auburn, LSU, Kentucky, Georgia and South Carolina in conference play (along with Ole Miss and Vandy). Miles can point to tough conference games against South Carolina, Florida, Kentucky, Auburn, Alabama and Arkansas (to go along with easier ones against Mississippi State and Ole Miss). I understand the argument. However, if both of you end up with one loss (let's say you split the regular season match-up and the conference championship game), you won't be in the national title game if two teams from BCS conferences go undefeated (USC, WVU, OU, UT, Penn State, Ohio State, BC, Clemson, etc.).
It probably is not fair, but you are culpable. You need to convince yourselves, as well as the other coaches in the premier conference in the nation (for college football), that you need to prove every year that your conference is the best and the winner of your conference deserves to be in the national title game.
LSU smashed Virginia Tech. So, this gives the SEC an edge over the ACC if Va Tech challenges for the ACC title. A similar result in the Florida vs. FSU game would bolster the SEC's position. Unfortunately, the other 6 non-conference games are against non-BCS conference schools.
South Carolina plays UNC and Clemson, regional match-ups against ACC schools. Alabama's only BCS non-conference match-up is against Florida State.
Kentucky squeaked one out against Louisville (Big East), but if the Cardinals turn out to be the third (or 4th) best team in the Big East behind WVU, Rutgers and South Florida, it won't be that important in the grand scheme of things. Georgia flogged Big 12 South bottom feeder Oklahoma State and has a match-up against ACC rival GA Tech. Tennessee got beat soundly at Cal (Pac-10) and Arkansas isn't playing anyone.
So, at the end of the year, the SEC will probably have proven it's superiority over the ACC. That's just about it. Urban, you can point to your win over Ohio State last year as proof that you're better than the Big 10, but you have to prove it every year. With no wins (or games) against top teams from the Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10 and, possibly, the Big East (if Louisville turns out to be a pretender in that conference), you can't demand a position in the national title game if your conference doesn't produce an undefeated team.
What's the solution? I'm glad you asked. You need to stop scheduling the cupcakes and seek out games with the big boys from other conferences. It's hard to imagine less than 6 solid teams from your conference: LSU, Florida, USC (w/Spurrier), Bama (w/Saban) and at least two from Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee and Arkansas. Solid teams from MSU, Mississippi, Kentucky or Vandy are icing on the cake. Keep your regional rivalries (with ACC teams Florida State, Clemson, GA Tech, etc.), which are important for college football. But, instead of taking easy games against MTSU, get games with Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Oregon, Cal, Nebraska, etc., even if you have to give up 2 for 1. There are four BCS conferences neglected by the SEC. If the top 6 SEC teams each schedule 2 games a year against power teams from those conferences, it will give everyone a better idea of which conference is the best. If you aren't able to get games against those guys, call them out in the media and put some pressure on the system to get things changed. College football needs more loses for the top teams in order to figure out who is actually the best team, and you two need to lead the charge to make it happen.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that the SEC is the best (and deepest) conference in the nation. I don't disagree. Urban, you'll spit out that along with a solid FSU team, you play Tennessee, Auburn, LSU, Kentucky, Georgia and South Carolina in conference play (along with Ole Miss and Vandy). Miles can point to tough conference games against South Carolina, Florida, Kentucky, Auburn, Alabama and Arkansas (to go along with easier ones against Mississippi State and Ole Miss). I understand the argument. However, if both of you end up with one loss (let's say you split the regular season match-up and the conference championship game), you won't be in the national title game if two teams from BCS conferences go undefeated (USC, WVU, OU, UT, Penn State, Ohio State, BC, Clemson, etc.).
It probably is not fair, but you are culpable. You need to convince yourselves, as well as the other coaches in the premier conference in the nation (for college football), that you need to prove every year that your conference is the best and the winner of your conference deserves to be in the national title game.
LSU smashed Virginia Tech. So, this gives the SEC an edge over the ACC if Va Tech challenges for the ACC title. A similar result in the Florida vs. FSU game would bolster the SEC's position. Unfortunately, the other 6 non-conference games are against non-BCS conference schools.
South Carolina plays UNC and Clemson, regional match-ups against ACC schools. Alabama's only BCS non-conference match-up is against Florida State.
Kentucky squeaked one out against Louisville (Big East), but if the Cardinals turn out to be the third (or 4th) best team in the Big East behind WVU, Rutgers and South Florida, it won't be that important in the grand scheme of things. Georgia flogged Big 12 South bottom feeder Oklahoma State and has a match-up against ACC rival GA Tech. Tennessee got beat soundly at Cal (Pac-10) and Arkansas isn't playing anyone.
So, at the end of the year, the SEC will probably have proven it's superiority over the ACC. That's just about it. Urban, you can point to your win over Ohio State last year as proof that you're better than the Big 10, but you have to prove it every year. With no wins (or games) against top teams from the Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10 and, possibly, the Big East (if Louisville turns out to be a pretender in that conference), you can't demand a position in the national title game if your conference doesn't produce an undefeated team.
What's the solution? I'm glad you asked. You need to stop scheduling the cupcakes and seek out games with the big boys from other conferences. It's hard to imagine less than 6 solid teams from your conference: LSU, Florida, USC (w/Spurrier), Bama (w/Saban) and at least two from Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee and Arkansas. Solid teams from MSU, Mississippi, Kentucky or Vandy are icing on the cake. Keep your regional rivalries (with ACC teams Florida State, Clemson, GA Tech, etc.), which are important for college football. But, instead of taking easy games against MTSU, get games with Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Oregon, Cal, Nebraska, etc., even if you have to give up 2 for 1. There are four BCS conferences neglected by the SEC. If the top 6 SEC teams each schedule 2 games a year against power teams from those conferences, it will give everyone a better idea of which conference is the best. If you aren't able to get games against those guys, call them out in the media and put some pressure on the system to get things changed. College football needs more loses for the top teams in order to figure out who is actually the best team, and you two need to lead the charge to make it happen.
Hot Topic
In their "The Hot Topic" segment on College Football Countdown (on ABC), Craig James and Doug Flutie were bemoaning the early season polls, especially the current ranking of Louisville ahead of Kentucky.
I'll tackle the Kentucky v. Louisville issue first. It was a close game at Kentucky. I'm not sure how many points the home team usually receives for a home-field advantage, but I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that if the game had been played at Louisville, the Cardinals would have prevailed. Obviously, if Louisville can't pull out a home victory over winless Syracuse, it won't much matter ... Louisville won't be in the top 25 come Monday.
The one that really struck me was Arkansas (ranked #16) dropping out of the polls after losing on the road in the last seconds to unranked Alabama. Alabama moved up to #16. Arkansas almost won on the road against the #16 team ... don't they deserve to be in the top 25? Again, by the numbers, you would probably predict that Arkansas would have won if it had been in Fayetteville instead of in Tuscaloosa. Right?
Flutie and James want the team that wins to be on top. Oh, great ... that's going to be real effective in the long run. Last year, Oklahoma beat A&M (at A&M), A&M took down Texas (at Texas) and OU lost to UT (in Dallas). Ok, OU should be ranked ahead of A&M which should be ranked ahead of UT. But wait, Texas has to be ranked ahead of OU because they beat them on a neutral site. It's only fair. Hopefully, you can see this strategy breaking down fairly quickly. The same thing happened in the Big East with Louisville, WVU and Rutgers last year as well.
I don't disagree with people ranking Kentucky ahead of Louisville, but I also don't have a major problem with the way it is. It's important to react to how the season plays out and not be locked to your pre-season ballot, but it's also important to look not just at the latest result but the way the game played out and the team's previous games as well. For example, anyone who thought Oregon should be ranked ahead of Oklahoma after the Sooners got ducked by the refs in Eugene last year because of that particular result id delusional.
I'll tackle the Kentucky v. Louisville issue first. It was a close game at Kentucky. I'm not sure how many points the home team usually receives for a home-field advantage, but I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that if the game had been played at Louisville, the Cardinals would have prevailed. Obviously, if Louisville can't pull out a home victory over winless Syracuse, it won't much matter ... Louisville won't be in the top 25 come Monday.
The one that really struck me was Arkansas (ranked #16) dropping out of the polls after losing on the road in the last seconds to unranked Alabama. Alabama moved up to #16. Arkansas almost won on the road against the #16 team ... don't they deserve to be in the top 25? Again, by the numbers, you would probably predict that Arkansas would have won if it had been in Fayetteville instead of in Tuscaloosa. Right?
Flutie and James want the team that wins to be on top. Oh, great ... that's going to be real effective in the long run. Last year, Oklahoma beat A&M (at A&M), A&M took down Texas (at Texas) and OU lost to UT (in Dallas). Ok, OU should be ranked ahead of A&M which should be ranked ahead of UT. But wait, Texas has to be ranked ahead of OU because they beat them on a neutral site. It's only fair. Hopefully, you can see this strategy breaking down fairly quickly. The same thing happened in the Big East with Louisville, WVU and Rutgers last year as well.
I don't disagree with people ranking Kentucky ahead of Louisville, but I also don't have a major problem with the way it is. It's important to react to how the season plays out and not be locked to your pre-season ballot, but it's also important to look not just at the latest result but the way the game played out and the team's previous games as well. For example, anyone who thought Oregon should be ranked ahead of Oklahoma after the Sooners got ducked by the refs in Eugene last year because of that particular result id delusional.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Yet another problem with OT in college
Previously, I've posted that the OT structure in college football is, inherently, unfair. It also leads to misleading statistics. Texas A&M RB (or bulldozer) Jorvorskie Lane has 7 TD's this season. Four of those TD's came in a 47-45 victory over Fresno State at Kyle Field.
If you look at the scoreboard, you assume the Aggies won a shootout. If you look at Jorvorskie's line, you think he had a huge game: 121 yds and 4 TD's. If you watched the game, or look a little deeper, you will realize that a huge portion of the scoring came in extra time. It was 29-29 at the end of regulation. Thirty-four out of ninety-two is 37%! Two of Lane's TD's came in OT. The numbers from OT can dramatically skew numbers. Lane would have 5 TD's instead of 7 if Fresno State hadn't tied the game late. Also, adding the points to the team numbers artificially skew points per game numbers for the teams.
Overtime stats should not count towards season totals, especially TD numbers, which are artificially inflated by the ease of scoring in OT. Remember the Kentucky v. Arkansas game a few years ago? That was ridiculous. The OT system should be tweaked. But, for now, just add one point to the winner's score. The Aggies would have been Fresno State 30-29. If you want, put the OT score next to the final score like tennis does for tie breaks, making it 30-29 (18-16). This allows fans to distinguish between the regulation and OT portions of the game.
For those of you who don't remember the Kentucky v. Arkansas game from 2003, it pitted QB's Matt Jones and Jared Lorenzen. It set the NCAA record for most points in a game (after 1950) ... which is absolutely absurd (as college football didn't have OT for most of that time!) considering the 4th quarter came to an end with the game knotted at 24 all. Yes, 24-24. The game ended 71-63 (Arkansas won in the 7th OT frame). So, of the 134 total points, 86 came in OT. Yes, almost 2/3rds (64.2%) of the points in the highest scoring game since 1950 came after most games are over ... 25-24 (47-39) would be a much less misleading way to represent the way the game unraveled.
If you look at the scoreboard, you assume the Aggies won a shootout. If you look at Jorvorskie's line, you think he had a huge game: 121 yds and 4 TD's. If you watched the game, or look a little deeper, you will realize that a huge portion of the scoring came in extra time. It was 29-29 at the end of regulation. Thirty-four out of ninety-two is 37%! Two of Lane's TD's came in OT. The numbers from OT can dramatically skew numbers. Lane would have 5 TD's instead of 7 if Fresno State hadn't tied the game late. Also, adding the points to the team numbers artificially skew points per game numbers for the teams.
Overtime stats should not count towards season totals, especially TD numbers, which are artificially inflated by the ease of scoring in OT. Remember the Kentucky v. Arkansas game a few years ago? That was ridiculous. The OT system should be tweaked. But, for now, just add one point to the winner's score. The Aggies would have been Fresno State 30-29. If you want, put the OT score next to the final score like tennis does for tie breaks, making it 30-29 (18-16). This allows fans to distinguish between the regulation and OT portions of the game.
For those of you who don't remember the Kentucky v. Arkansas game from 2003, it pitted QB's Matt Jones and Jared Lorenzen. It set the NCAA record for most points in a game (after 1950) ... which is absolutely absurd (as college football didn't have OT for most of that time!) considering the 4th quarter came to an end with the game knotted at 24 all. Yes, 24-24. The game ended 71-63 (Arkansas won in the 7th OT frame). So, of the 134 total points, 86 came in OT. Yes, almost 2/3rds (64.2%) of the points in the highest scoring game since 1950 came after most games are over ... 25-24 (47-39) would be a much less misleading way to represent the way the game unraveled.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Punt Returners
I don't understand why punt returners are allowed to block. They block to keep the opposing team from downing the ball, usually close to the end zone, so their team can start from the 20 instead of deep in their own zone. I don't think the punt returner should be allowed to block until after the ball hits the ground. Why? Because the players on the punting team are not allowed to hit the punt returner until he touches the ball. So, if the ball is in the air, the gunner can't knock over the punt returner to get him out of the way so he can down the ball. It's only logical ... which I guess explains why it's not a rule.
Time Out
Let me start by saying that Janikowski hitting the top of the upright from 52 yards was pretty impressive. Now that I got that out of the way, I'll get on topic.
There was nothing wrong with the way the Denver Broncos handled the OT TO situation. It was within their rights by the rules. That's the problem. Mike Shanahan should not have been allowed to call a TO. The defensive team should NEVER be allowed to call time out when the offense is attempting a field goal to win a game (a go-ahead FG with less than 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter or at any point in OT). I'm not pro-Raiders or anti-Broncos ... quite the contrary, the Broncos are one of my favorite NFL teams (I was a big Elway fan growing up and my wife grew up in Colorado Springs). I'm also not pro-kickers. I am, however, against "icing the kicker". I don't know if it works ... frankly, I don't really care. If you make a rule against it, it saves everyone a few minutes because they don't have to sit through ANOTHER time out.
Why should it only be on a game-winner? The defense should retain the right to use their time outs earlier in the games because they may be caught out of position on a potential fake FG. Maybe, just before the snap, a defensive player will see that one of the offensive players is lined up just in-bounds along the sideline without a defender quarding him. They could call a TO to prevent an easy first down. You don't see coaches using TO's to "ice" kickers early in games. Why? Apparently, the TO is more valuable than the potential advantage gained by letting the kicker think about his shot a little while longer.
There was nothing wrong with the way the Denver Broncos handled the OT TO situation. It was within their rights by the rules. That's the problem. Mike Shanahan should not have been allowed to call a TO. The defensive team should NEVER be allowed to call time out when the offense is attempting a field goal to win a game (a go-ahead FG with less than 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter or at any point in OT). I'm not pro-Raiders or anti-Broncos ... quite the contrary, the Broncos are one of my favorite NFL teams (I was a big Elway fan growing up and my wife grew up in Colorado Springs). I'm also not pro-kickers. I am, however, against "icing the kicker". I don't know if it works ... frankly, I don't really care. If you make a rule against it, it saves everyone a few minutes because they don't have to sit through ANOTHER time out.
Why should it only be on a game-winner? The defense should retain the right to use their time outs earlier in the games because they may be caught out of position on a potential fake FG. Maybe, just before the snap, a defensive player will see that one of the offensive players is lined up just in-bounds along the sideline without a defender quarding him. They could call a TO to prevent an easy first down. You don't see coaches using TO's to "ice" kickers early in games. Why? Apparently, the TO is more valuable than the potential advantage gained by letting the kicker think about his shot a little while longer.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Bench Bill
I hate to return to the blog with another Roger Goodell related post, but here goes. What is even more loathsome are some of the arguments against punishing the Patriots and Bill Belichick.
Some people are defending the Pats by arguing that everyone tries to steal signals. They point out that sign stealing is an accepted, maybe even celebrated, part of our national pastime - baseball. The difference between trying to steal signs and using illegal methods to steal signs is that the Patriots broke the rules. That's it. If the Pats want to steal signs legally, go ahead. When preparing for exams, students often try to figure out what questions will be on the tests. I was never very good at it, but I had one friend that was fairly proficient (no, I'm not saying he cheated). What's the best way to figure out what's on the test? Well, go steal one! I knew a different kid in high school who went in to talk to a teacher, and when the teacher left, he snooped around and found a copy of the test. He still had to be able to answer the test questions, but that wasn't nearly as difficult because he knew the exact questions he had to answer ... so he could prepare more efficiently.
Roger Goodell punted an excellent opportunity to send a message to the NFL. Not only did he not go for the jugular, he shanked the damn thing out of bounds. In his punishment of the Pats, he essentially said that the integrity of the league is less important than the image of the players. The legal system is in place to help Goodell keep tabs on players. Goodell is THE authority on NFL related matters and he needed to make people understand that cheating (which directly impacts the league and it's credibility) is not acceptable. His punishment reeks of apathy towards the issue. Apparently, coaches taking HGH is a bigger deal than creating after being warned that such actions would not be tolerated.
Perfect.
Some people are defending the Pats by arguing that everyone tries to steal signals. They point out that sign stealing is an accepted, maybe even celebrated, part of our national pastime - baseball. The difference between trying to steal signs and using illegal methods to steal signs is that the Patriots broke the rules. That's it. If the Pats want to steal signs legally, go ahead. When preparing for exams, students often try to figure out what questions will be on the tests. I was never very good at it, but I had one friend that was fairly proficient (no, I'm not saying he cheated). What's the best way to figure out what's on the test? Well, go steal one! I knew a different kid in high school who went in to talk to a teacher, and when the teacher left, he snooped around and found a copy of the test. He still had to be able to answer the test questions, but that wasn't nearly as difficult because he knew the exact questions he had to answer ... so he could prepare more efficiently.
Roger Goodell punted an excellent opportunity to send a message to the NFL. Not only did he not go for the jugular, he shanked the damn thing out of bounds. In his punishment of the Pats, he essentially said that the integrity of the league is less important than the image of the players. The legal system is in place to help Goodell keep tabs on players. Goodell is THE authority on NFL related matters and he needed to make people understand that cheating (which directly impacts the league and it's credibility) is not acceptable. His punishment reeks of apathy towards the issue. Apparently, coaches taking HGH is a bigger deal than creating after being warned that such actions would not be tolerated.
Perfect.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
