In tonight's Broncos v. Texans game (which I saw because I get the NFL Network), Broncos CB Dre Bly intercepted a tipped Sage Rosenfels pass in the 3rd quarter that led to a Denver TD that cut the Texans' lead to 17-13.
On the play, an official threw a flag for pass interference, which would have nullified the interception. However, on the play, a Denver defender underneath the Houston receiver tipped the ball, causing it to go over the receiver and the defender who was interfering with the receiver into Dre Bly's arms. The officials decided to pick up the flag because they said the tip occurred before the defender made contact with the receiver.
Replays clearly showed that the defender made contact with the receiver before the ball was tipped. So, in time, it was pass interference. (Note: I know replay isn't allowed on pass interference ... I'm just saying I saw replays and they clearly showed this.)
On the other hand, the ball was tipped before it got to the receiver. In fact, the ball was tipped in such a manner that the ball wasn't catchable for the receiver. So, in the space world, it wasn't pass interference because of the tip and the uncatchable nature of the ball.
By rule, I think the officials got it wrong. I think that because the PI occurred (in time) before the ball was tipped, the guy who threw the flag was right on. However, I think the officials got it right if you are not going by the letter of the law, but rather by the spirit of the rule. The pass interference had no impact on the play. If there hadn't been a guy interfering with the receiver, Bly still would have had the opportunity to make the interception. I'm just wondering what grade the officials will get when they are reviewed. Maybe the officials involved will fill us in.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Hollinger's Ratings
John Hollinger uses a true shooting percentage (TS%) in his player ratings. He claims "True Shooting Percentage calculates what a player's shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throw and 3-pointers." He uses the following formula:
TS% = (Total points x 50) / (FGA + 0.44*FTA)
For the mathematically challenged out there (JB, I'm talking to you), I'll break this down a bit. The multiplication of the total points by 50 is, essentially, a multiplication by 100 to get a percentage and not a decimal value and a division by 2 because there are 2 points per regular FG made. That's as far as I'm going to explain it.
While I appreciate the attempt by Hollinger to adjust for 3-pointers and free throws, I don't think Hollinger does it correctly. I'll illustrate my concerns using a few easy examples.
1. A made 2-pointer: this is the baseline and an excruciatingly easy problem. If you make a 2-pointer, your shooting percentage on the shot and your TS% are both 100%. This makes sense.
TS% = (2 x 50) / (1 + 0.44*0)
TS% = 100 / 1
TS% = 100
2. Shooting 2 of 3 on 3-pointers: this also works out well ... the correction for 3-pointers is fine. If you make 2/3rds of your 3-point attempts, you score 6 points, which is like making 3 of 3 2-pointers ... so going 2 of 3 from 3 should nets a TS% of 100 as well. Check it out.
TS% = (6 x 50) / (3 + 0.44*0)
TS% = 300 / 3
TS% = 100
3. A 2-shot foul: here, we find a problem. If you get fouled on a shot and make both FT's, that's like making the shot (if you get 2 FT's, you've obviously missed the shot you were fouled on). So, your TS% should be 100. Let's see what we get. Remember, if you are fouled on the shot and don't make it, it doesn't count as a FGA.
TS% = (2 x 50) / (0 + 0.44*2)
TS% = 100 / 0.88
TS% = 114 (I rounded to the nearest whole number)
So, based on Hollinger's formula, you are a better player if you get fouled on all your shots and then just make your FT's, rather than just making shots. Weird.
4. An "And 1": this is another problem scenario. An "And 1" (an old-fashioned 3-point play) should result in the same TS% as a regular 3-pointer because you are getting 3 points on one possession. Both of them should yield a TS% of 150. Let's see if they do.
Regular 3-pointer
TS% = (3 x 50) / (1 + 0.44*0)
TS% = 150
"And 1" (you get one FGA and one FTA)
TS% = (3 x 50) / (1 + 0.44*1)
TS% = 150 / 1.44
TS% = 104
When you convert an "And 1", not only is your TS% not as good as if you'd scored the same number of points in the same number of possessions just nailing 3-pointers, your TS% (104) isn't even as good as your TS% if you miss the shot and make the two resulting FT's (114). This is, obviously, flawed. The formula says the better player is the one who makes two FT's when he's fouled on a shot, not the guy who makes the shot and his one additional FT. Yep, 2 points is definitely better than 3. Wait a second, no it's not.
I haven't read Hollinger's document on where his formulas come from. I think I know how he came up with the TS% formula. But, I think it's an oversimplification of a problem that really isn't that difficult. Information should be available on "And 1's" and "1-and-1's" which would allow Hollinger to accurately calculate the TS%.
Anyone out there want to tell me I'm wrong?
TS% = (Total points x 50) / (FGA + 0.44*FTA)
For the mathematically challenged out there (JB, I'm talking to you), I'll break this down a bit. The multiplication of the total points by 50 is, essentially, a multiplication by 100 to get a percentage and not a decimal value and a division by 2 because there are 2 points per regular FG made. That's as far as I'm going to explain it.
While I appreciate the attempt by Hollinger to adjust for 3-pointers and free throws, I don't think Hollinger does it correctly. I'll illustrate my concerns using a few easy examples.
1. A made 2-pointer: this is the baseline and an excruciatingly easy problem. If you make a 2-pointer, your shooting percentage on the shot and your TS% are both 100%. This makes sense.
TS% = (2 x 50) / (1 + 0.44*0)
TS% = 100 / 1
TS% = 100
2. Shooting 2 of 3 on 3-pointers: this also works out well ... the correction for 3-pointers is fine. If you make 2/3rds of your 3-point attempts, you score 6 points, which is like making 3 of 3 2-pointers ... so going 2 of 3 from 3 should nets a TS% of 100 as well. Check it out.
TS% = (6 x 50) / (3 + 0.44*0)
TS% = 300 / 3
TS% = 100
3. A 2-shot foul: here, we find a problem. If you get fouled on a shot and make both FT's, that's like making the shot (if you get 2 FT's, you've obviously missed the shot you were fouled on). So, your TS% should be 100. Let's see what we get. Remember, if you are fouled on the shot and don't make it, it doesn't count as a FGA.
TS% = (2 x 50) / (0 + 0.44*2)
TS% = 100 / 0.88
TS% = 114 (I rounded to the nearest whole number)
So, based on Hollinger's formula, you are a better player if you get fouled on all your shots and then just make your FT's, rather than just making shots. Weird.
4. An "And 1": this is another problem scenario. An "And 1" (an old-fashioned 3-point play) should result in the same TS% as a regular 3-pointer because you are getting 3 points on one possession. Both of them should yield a TS% of 150. Let's see if they do.
Regular 3-pointer
TS% = (3 x 50) / (1 + 0.44*0)
TS% = 150
"And 1" (you get one FGA and one FTA)
TS% = (3 x 50) / (1 + 0.44*1)
TS% = 150 / 1.44
TS% = 104
When you convert an "And 1", not only is your TS% not as good as if you'd scored the same number of points in the same number of possessions just nailing 3-pointers, your TS% (104) isn't even as good as your TS% if you miss the shot and make the two resulting FT's (114). This is, obviously, flawed. The formula says the better player is the one who makes two FT's when he's fouled on a shot, not the guy who makes the shot and his one additional FT. Yep, 2 points is definitely better than 3. Wait a second, no it's not.
I haven't read Hollinger's document on where his formulas come from. I think I know how he came up with the TS% formula. But, I think it's an oversimplification of a problem that really isn't that difficult. Information should be available on "And 1's" and "1-and-1's" which would allow Hollinger to accurately calculate the TS%.
Anyone out there want to tell me I'm wrong?
Joakim Noah
I'm not bullish on Chicago Bulls rookie Joakim Noah ... and I don't see what all the excitement is about. First, if the refs called his OBVIOUS offensive fouls on all his screens, he'd never be able to stay in a game (well, he might adapt). Second, he's a serviceable bench player now and I don't know that his ceiling is all that high. He's a PF shooting less than 40% from the floor. And, while he's shooting 80% from the line, he doesn't have a good enough post up game to get himself to the line on a consistent basis. And, while I haven't seen many Bulls games, when I've seen him he hasn't looked all that active for an "energy guy."
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Where next?
Bobby Petrino left the Atlanta Falcons to take the Arkansas job. Things didn't seem to be working out in Atlanta, so the move to Arkansas isn't all that alarming. Leaving the Falcons with three games left ... that's a little alarming. I'm not going to rag on Petrino for his obvious lack of commitment to jobs ... his track record speaks for itself. My question is: where will Petrino go from here?
Is it possible that Petrino will be stuck at Arkansas long enough to regain some credibility before his next job? Arkansas leaned heavily on Darren McFadden this year, and McFadden is almost certainly not going to be suiting up for the Razorbacks next year. Peyton Hillis, Robert Johnson and Marcus Monk were seniors last year. Felix Jones may be back next year, but will he be as effective without McFadden carrying the bulk of the load. Casey Dick almost certainly will be back, but he threw for less than 1500 yards this year and no one returning had even 150 yards receiving this year. I'm not an Arkansas football expert, but this doesn't seem to be a great job immediately.
Coupled with the lack of talent (which was hurt by the defection of Mitch Mustain) is the fact that Arkansas is in the SEC, in the same division (SEC West) as Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Ole Miss and Mississippi State. While the two Mississippi schools aren't exactly juggernauts, MSU seems to be getting things straightened out. Even if Arkansas can beat out the Mississippi schools, it's hard to imagine the Razorbacks consistently beating LSU, Alabama and Auburn as long as Miles, Saban and Tuberville are at those institutions. Now, when you throw in Florida (Meyer), Georgia (Richt), South Carolina (Spurrier) and Tennessee (Fulmer), Arkansas will have trouble making it in the top half of the SEC year in and year out. While they might still be competitive nationally, they won't be in the national title picture because the conference is too tough. Thus, the record won't be as gaudy as the 41-9 mark he accumulated in four years at Louisville.
It seems like Petrino would have to turn Arkansas into a consistent SEC and national power to be attractive to schools that would be attractive to Petrino. But, at that point, Arkansas would be a top job ... so why would Petrino leave? If he builds a perennial power in the best conference in college football, where would you want to go from there? While Petrino's track record points to him not staying at Arkansas for the long haul, I'm wondering if he isn't stuck there.
Is it possible that Petrino will be stuck at Arkansas long enough to regain some credibility before his next job? Arkansas leaned heavily on Darren McFadden this year, and McFadden is almost certainly not going to be suiting up for the Razorbacks next year. Peyton Hillis, Robert Johnson and Marcus Monk were seniors last year. Felix Jones may be back next year, but will he be as effective without McFadden carrying the bulk of the load. Casey Dick almost certainly will be back, but he threw for less than 1500 yards this year and no one returning had even 150 yards receiving this year. I'm not an Arkansas football expert, but this doesn't seem to be a great job immediately.
Coupled with the lack of talent (which was hurt by the defection of Mitch Mustain) is the fact that Arkansas is in the SEC, in the same division (SEC West) as Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Ole Miss and Mississippi State. While the two Mississippi schools aren't exactly juggernauts, MSU seems to be getting things straightened out. Even if Arkansas can beat out the Mississippi schools, it's hard to imagine the Razorbacks consistently beating LSU, Alabama and Auburn as long as Miles, Saban and Tuberville are at those institutions. Now, when you throw in Florida (Meyer), Georgia (Richt), South Carolina (Spurrier) and Tennessee (Fulmer), Arkansas will have trouble making it in the top half of the SEC year in and year out. While they might still be competitive nationally, they won't be in the national title picture because the conference is too tough. Thus, the record won't be as gaudy as the 41-9 mark he accumulated in four years at Louisville.
It seems like Petrino would have to turn Arkansas into a consistent SEC and national power to be attractive to schools that would be attractive to Petrino. But, at that point, Arkansas would be a top job ... so why would Petrino leave? If he builds a perennial power in the best conference in college football, where would you want to go from there? While Petrino's track record points to him not staying at Arkansas for the long haul, I'm wondering if he isn't stuck there.
Al Horford: Dirty Player?
In a game against the Toronto Raptors, Atlanta Hawks rookie PF Al Horford fouled Raptors PG TJ Ford as Ford went up for a reverse lay-up. By going for the reverse lay-up, Ford took the blocked shot by the taller Horford out of the equation, putting himself between the ball and the defender. For whatever reason, Horford didn't accept defeat. Instead, he brought his arm down right on Ford's head, knocking him to the ground in an awkward fashion. The result was that Ford ended up in the hospital.
After the game, Horford and Atlanta Coach Mike Woodson were defending Horford, saying that he isn't a "dirty player". Hmmm ... it sure looked like a dirty play to me. The league tends to frown on hitting other players in the head, which is probably why Horford was called for a flagrant foul (I'll admit some of the fouls they call fragrant aren't that bad, but this wasn't one of those).
I find it hard to believe that Horford didn't realize that he wasn't going to be able to make a play on the ball. If so, maybe he needs his eyes checked. Or, maybe he's not professional athlete material. But, I think it is more likely that he wanted Ford to earn his points at the FT line, even if he couldn't make a play on the ball ... which is the wrong thing to do and one of the things that plagues basketball. Not only do fouls like Horford's stop play and break up the flow of games, they also give the other team 2 FT's and the ball. Don't commit unnecessary, flagrant fouls! Personally, I think more fouls need to be called intentional. Fouls are supposed to be a punishment to the team committing them. I doubt the original intent was for fouls to be a tool to "make them earn" points. It's time for the enforcement of the rules to match the rules.
Now, moving on the the question of whether or not Horford is a dirty player. Al Horford might not admit it, but his foul on TJ Ford was a dirty play. Does that make him a dirty player? If someone steals something, are they a thief? If someone commits a murder, are they a murderer? I'm not saying Horford's play was criminal (like the Todd Bertuzzi v. Steve Moore play in hockey), but it was dirty ... and, thus, at least for tonight, Al Horford was a dirty player. Not living in the SE, I'm not privy to many Hawks games (I don't think I've seen them yet this year), so I don't know if this is an isolated incident or not. But, I'd have more respect for Horford if he owned up to his actions, rather than trying to dance around them and hide behind his pronouncement that he's not a dirty player. Just say you took a cheap shot on the guy because you didn't want to give him a lay-up and leave it at that ... I'm pretty sure people don't think Horford was trying to send Ford to the hospital.
After the game, Horford and Atlanta Coach Mike Woodson were defending Horford, saying that he isn't a "dirty player". Hmmm ... it sure looked like a dirty play to me. The league tends to frown on hitting other players in the head, which is probably why Horford was called for a flagrant foul (I'll admit some of the fouls they call fragrant aren't that bad, but this wasn't one of those).
I find it hard to believe that Horford didn't realize that he wasn't going to be able to make a play on the ball. If so, maybe he needs his eyes checked. Or, maybe he's not professional athlete material. But, I think it is more likely that he wanted Ford to earn his points at the FT line, even if he couldn't make a play on the ball ... which is the wrong thing to do and one of the things that plagues basketball. Not only do fouls like Horford's stop play and break up the flow of games, they also give the other team 2 FT's and the ball. Don't commit unnecessary, flagrant fouls! Personally, I think more fouls need to be called intentional. Fouls are supposed to be a punishment to the team committing them. I doubt the original intent was for fouls to be a tool to "make them earn" points. It's time for the enforcement of the rules to match the rules.
Now, moving on the the question of whether or not Horford is a dirty player. Al Horford might not admit it, but his foul on TJ Ford was a dirty play. Does that make him a dirty player? If someone steals something, are they a thief? If someone commits a murder, are they a murderer? I'm not saying Horford's play was criminal (like the Todd Bertuzzi v. Steve Moore play in hockey), but it was dirty ... and, thus, at least for tonight, Al Horford was a dirty player. Not living in the SE, I'm not privy to many Hawks games (I don't think I've seen them yet this year), so I don't know if this is an isolated incident or not. But, I'd have more respect for Horford if he owned up to his actions, rather than trying to dance around them and hide behind his pronouncement that he's not a dirty player. Just say you took a cheap shot on the guy because you didn't want to give him a lay-up and leave it at that ... I'm pretty sure people don't think Horford was trying to send Ford to the hospital.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Tim Tebow for Heisman
At this point, it seems like a forgone conclusion that Florida QB Tim Tebow will win the Heisman tomorrow night. I'm glad, for a couple reasons. First, he should win it. Tebow's Gators lost three games. But, what would the Gators have done without Tebow? He played QB and put up good passing numbers. Plus, he was the most consistent running threat for Florida. And, despite taking a beating in the best conference in college football, he stayed in the games.
Tebow's backup threw a total of 10 passes all year. That's 5 less than the 3rd string QB for Hawaii! Colt Brennan's backup tossed 118 passes because Brennan missed considerable time (including a victory at Nevada - a decent WAC team) because of injuries. Tebow had more than 200 yards more than the Gators' 2nd leading rusher, WR Percy Harvin. And, Tebow's 194 carries were almost twice as many as Kestahn Moore got. I don't care about Tebow running and passing for more than 20 TD's. Just because something has never been done does not make it Heisman worthy. But, Tebow should win the award because he was the best player in college football this season. With Tebow, it really wasn't about numbers, it was about impact on the game ... it just so happened that his numbers were pretty spectacular as well.
The other reason I'd like to see Tebow win the award is because it is time for a sophomore to win the award. I thought Adrian Peterson could have won it as a freshman at Oklahoma. With Peterson, people expected him to put up staggering numbers his sophomore and junior years as well. Unfortunately, a high ankle sprain limited his carries his second year and a freak collarbone break stole time his junior season. I also thought Marshall Faulk should have won the award as a sophomore at San Diego State, although I was pretty young at the time (and only had access to ESPN at my g'parents house) and might be off base. Tebow winning as a sophomore would set a precedent for an underclassman winning the award. You shouldn't be elevated because you are a great freshman or sophomore. But, you shouldn't discriminate against them either. As far as I know, the Heisman is not a lifetime achievement award.
Tebow's backup threw a total of 10 passes all year. That's 5 less than the 3rd string QB for Hawaii! Colt Brennan's backup tossed 118 passes because Brennan missed considerable time (including a victory at Nevada - a decent WAC team) because of injuries. Tebow had more than 200 yards more than the Gators' 2nd leading rusher, WR Percy Harvin. And, Tebow's 194 carries were almost twice as many as Kestahn Moore got. I don't care about Tebow running and passing for more than 20 TD's. Just because something has never been done does not make it Heisman worthy. But, Tebow should win the award because he was the best player in college football this season. With Tebow, it really wasn't about numbers, it was about impact on the game ... it just so happened that his numbers were pretty spectacular as well.
The other reason I'd like to see Tebow win the award is because it is time for a sophomore to win the award. I thought Adrian Peterson could have won it as a freshman at Oklahoma. With Peterson, people expected him to put up staggering numbers his sophomore and junior years as well. Unfortunately, a high ankle sprain limited his carries his second year and a freak collarbone break stole time his junior season. I also thought Marshall Faulk should have won the award as a sophomore at San Diego State, although I was pretty young at the time (and only had access to ESPN at my g'parents house) and might be off base. Tebow winning as a sophomore would set a precedent for an underclassman winning the award. You shouldn't be elevated because you are a great freshman or sophomore. But, you shouldn't discriminate against them either. As far as I know, the Heisman is not a lifetime achievement award.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Comeback Tom
According to ESPN, Tom Brady has the most game-winning drives in the 4th quarter and OT since 2001, when he took over the helm from Drew Bledsoe. With 21 such drives (including 3 this season), he's 3 ahead of his nearest competitors, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre and Jake Plummer.
What jumps out at me first is that Jake Plummer is just 3 back and he hasn't played all year and didn't play late last year as the Broncos were transitioning to rookie Jay Cutler. Eighteen games over 6 years is an average of 3 per year. So, if Jake Plummer hadn't been benched, it's fair to assume he'd be neck and neck with the Golden Boy. That wouldn't be good for ESPN ... then Brady wouldn't be the single most clutch QB in the game.
Brady seems to be pretty good in late-game situations. Heck, Brady plays pretty well a lot of the time. But, that "stat" is misleading. What if a QB puts his team ahead late with a great drive, only to see the kickoff returned for a TD? It's no longer a game-winning drive. What if a team is never trailing late in games? That decreases the number of opportunities for "game-winning" drives late.
This isn't worth more of my time, or yours, so that's all I've got.
What jumps out at me first is that Jake Plummer is just 3 back and he hasn't played all year and didn't play late last year as the Broncos were transitioning to rookie Jay Cutler. Eighteen games over 6 years is an average of 3 per year. So, if Jake Plummer hadn't been benched, it's fair to assume he'd be neck and neck with the Golden Boy. That wouldn't be good for ESPN ... then Brady wouldn't be the single most clutch QB in the game.
Brady seems to be pretty good in late-game situations. Heck, Brady plays pretty well a lot of the time. But, that "stat" is misleading. What if a QB puts his team ahead late with a great drive, only to see the kickoff returned for a TD? It's no longer a game-winning drive. What if a team is never trailing late in games? That decreases the number of opportunities for "game-winning" drives late.
This isn't worth more of my time, or yours, so that's all I've got.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Shift the Focus
In my opinion, people around college football are too negative ... they dwell too much on losses and almost totally neglect wins. Let's run down the nominees, going from 1-10 in the BCS rankings (Sagarin rankings):
Ohio State:
at Michigan (27), Wisconsin (30), at Penn State (31), Michigan State (40)
LSU:
Florida (4), Virginia Tech (5), neutral Tennessee (17), Auburn (18), South Carolina (36), at Alabama (41)
Virginia Tech:
at Clemson (14), neutral BC (19), at Virginia (32), Florida State (34), at Georgia Tech (47)
Oklahoma:
neutral Missouri (9), Missouri (9), neutral Texas (25), Texas A&M (38), Oklahoma State (43)
Georgia:
neutral Florida (4), Auburn (18), Kentucky (23), at Alabama (41), Oklahoma State (43), at Georgia Tech (47)
Missouri:
neutral Kansas (3), neutral Illinois (21), Texas Tech (29), Texas A&M (38), at Colorado (50)
USC:
at Arizona State (11), Oregon State (20), at Cal (37), UCLA (39), Arizona (48)
Kansas:
at Texas A&M (38), at Oklahoma State (43), at Colorado (50)
West Virginia:
at Cincinnati (15), Connecticut (26), at Rutgers (42), Louisville (44), at Maryland (49)
Hawaii:
Boise State (28)
Despite an undefeated season, Hawaii is out because they didn't do enough out of conference. I don't need to see wins over Michigan and USC, but wins over some good C-USA and Mountain West teams like UCF, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, Tulsa, etc. would bolster the resume. They didn't do enough in their game against #53 Washington (who beat Boise State) to get them in my title game.
Kansas didn't win their half of the Big 12 and didn't have a really good win on their schedule, although they did play the toughest part of their schedule on the road. Similarly, Ohio State needed to run the table because not beating Illinois (21) makes Michigan (27) their best win. Note to Tressel and Mangino, if you schedule a weak non-conference slate and the teams on your conference schedule aren't as good as you expect, you might run into some trouble. That's the case this year ... OSU and KU are out.
We're left with LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Georgia, Missouri, USC and WVU. Oklahoma's two head-to-head wins over Missouri do the trick in that match-up, eliminating the Tigers from national title contention. A win by Mizzou in the Big 12 Championship would have vaulted the Tigers into the final two, with a tough loss at Norman and wins over OU, KU and Illinois. But, they fell short in San Antonio and they are falling short here.
Comparing WVU to OU, we have to eliminate the Mountaineers. The numbers don't lie: 9-9-25-38-43 beat 15-26-42-44-49. The losses and injuries to Pat White and Sam Bradford in those games detract equally from the resumes, so the Sooners are still in it. For similar reasons, the USC Trojans are eliminated: 11-20-37-39-48 isn't quite enough ... and the loss to the lowest rated team in the Pac-10 doesn't do anything to help.
So, we're down to the final 4, Va Tech, OU, LSU and Georgia. LSU's wins are tough to beat, and it's hard to find too much fault in OT losses to Kentucky (23) and Arkansas (24). But, Georgia has some good wins and decent losses to South Carolina (36) and Tennessee (17). Oklahoma's wins are similar but the losses are a bit worse. But, if you give a little leeway for Bradford's concussion against Texas Tech, things are pretty dang close. Va Tech's wins don't quite match OU's, and the 48-7 loss to LSU is a major detractor.
I'd love to see the system tweaked so that we have more good wins (and losses) to look at to evaluate the teams. But, going off what we have, I'll have to lean toward a Georgia or Oklahoma v. LSU match-up. If you're fine with not even winning your half of your conference and still playing for the national title, then go with Georgia v. LSU. Personally, I think you should have to win your half and at least play in your conference title game (if your conference has one, which all the conferences that are divided in half do), so I'm going to go with LSU and Oklahoma in my national title match-up.
And, while we're on the subject of national championship games, any chance we can get the game moved if it is going to be a home game for one of the teams. LSU shouldn't play for the national title in the Sugar Bowl. USC and UCLA shouldn't host the national title game at the Rose Bowl. Miami shouldn't participate in a national championship Orange Bowl game. And, ASU shouldn't play for all the marbles in the Fiesta Bowl ... not that I see ASU playing for all the marbles any time soon.
Ohio State:
at Michigan (27), Wisconsin (30), at Penn State (31), Michigan State (40)
LSU:
Florida (4), Virginia Tech (5), neutral Tennessee (17), Auburn (18), South Carolina (36), at Alabama (41)
Virginia Tech:
at Clemson (14), neutral BC (19), at Virginia (32), Florida State (34), at Georgia Tech (47)
Oklahoma:
neutral Missouri (9), Missouri (9), neutral Texas (25), Texas A&M (38), Oklahoma State (43)
Georgia:
neutral Florida (4), Auburn (18), Kentucky (23), at Alabama (41), Oklahoma State (43), at Georgia Tech (47)
Missouri:
neutral Kansas (3), neutral Illinois (21), Texas Tech (29), Texas A&M (38), at Colorado (50)
USC:
at Arizona State (11), Oregon State (20), at Cal (37), UCLA (39), Arizona (48)
Kansas:
at Texas A&M (38), at Oklahoma State (43), at Colorado (50)
West Virginia:
at Cincinnati (15), Connecticut (26), at Rutgers (42), Louisville (44), at Maryland (49)
Hawaii:
Boise State (28)
Despite an undefeated season, Hawaii is out because they didn't do enough out of conference. I don't need to see wins over Michigan and USC, but wins over some good C-USA and Mountain West teams like UCF, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, Tulsa, etc. would bolster the resume. They didn't do enough in their game against #53 Washington (who beat Boise State) to get them in my title game.
Kansas didn't win their half of the Big 12 and didn't have a really good win on their schedule, although they did play the toughest part of their schedule on the road. Similarly, Ohio State needed to run the table because not beating Illinois (21) makes Michigan (27) their best win. Note to Tressel and Mangino, if you schedule a weak non-conference slate and the teams on your conference schedule aren't as good as you expect, you might run into some trouble. That's the case this year ... OSU and KU are out.
We're left with LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Georgia, Missouri, USC and WVU. Oklahoma's two head-to-head wins over Missouri do the trick in that match-up, eliminating the Tigers from national title contention. A win by Mizzou in the Big 12 Championship would have vaulted the Tigers into the final two, with a tough loss at Norman and wins over OU, KU and Illinois. But, they fell short in San Antonio and they are falling short here.
Comparing WVU to OU, we have to eliminate the Mountaineers. The numbers don't lie: 9-9-25-38-43 beat 15-26-42-44-49. The losses and injuries to Pat White and Sam Bradford in those games detract equally from the resumes, so the Sooners are still in it. For similar reasons, the USC Trojans are eliminated: 11-20-37-39-48 isn't quite enough ... and the loss to the lowest rated team in the Pac-10 doesn't do anything to help.
So, we're down to the final 4, Va Tech, OU, LSU and Georgia. LSU's wins are tough to beat, and it's hard to find too much fault in OT losses to Kentucky (23) and Arkansas (24). But, Georgia has some good wins and decent losses to South Carolina (36) and Tennessee (17). Oklahoma's wins are similar but the losses are a bit worse. But, if you give a little leeway for Bradford's concussion against Texas Tech, things are pretty dang close. Va Tech's wins don't quite match OU's, and the 48-7 loss to LSU is a major detractor.
I'd love to see the system tweaked so that we have more good wins (and losses) to look at to evaluate the teams. But, going off what we have, I'll have to lean toward a Georgia or Oklahoma v. LSU match-up. If you're fine with not even winning your half of your conference and still playing for the national title, then go with Georgia v. LSU. Personally, I think you should have to win your half and at least play in your conference title game (if your conference has one, which all the conferences that are divided in half do), so I'm going to go with LSU and Oklahoma in my national title match-up.
And, while we're on the subject of national championship games, any chance we can get the game moved if it is going to be a home game for one of the teams. LSU shouldn't play for the national title in the Sugar Bowl. USC and UCLA shouldn't host the national title game at the Rose Bowl. Miami shouldn't participate in a national championship Orange Bowl game. And, ASU shouldn't play for all the marbles in the Fiesta Bowl ... not that I see ASU playing for all the marbles any time soon.
Joe Gibbs
Gibbs didn't lose the game for Washington, at least not for the reason people are pointing to. On the first kick, Ryan Lindell hit the 51-yard FG that was nullified by the first timeout Gibbs called. The 15-yard penalty decreased the difficulty of the subsequent FG attempt and never should have happened, but it was probably meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
BCS Mess
Can someone please explain to me how you can go through an entire season without any real good wins (yes, I'm talking about Ohio State) and still make it to the national title game? Anyone?
Don't give me the standard "they beat the teams on their schedule" junk, Hawaii beat EVERYONE on their schedule and they aren't in the national title game. No, I'm not advocating for the Warriors, I'm merely using them to combat the silly argument Buckeye supporters make. And, I don't want to hear about the Big 10 being a top conference. It's the 6th best conference according to the Sagarin ratings, one ahead of the Mountain West and two spots in front of the WAC (which Hawaii won).
You don't have to win your conference to play in the national title game (OU lost to K-State in the Big 12 Championship Game in 2003 and played LSU for the national title). Kansas, like Ohio State, has just one loss. KU lost at a neutral site to Missouri. Ohio State lost at home to Illinois. Last time I checked, didn't Missouri beat Illinois on a neutral site earlier this season? Yep, that still happened. Now, do I think Kansas should play for the national title, not really ... but they have a resume quite similar to the one posted by Ohio State. KU won at Texas A&M, at K-State, at Colorado and at Oklahoma State. The Big 12 teams they got at home were the worst ones they played: Baylor, Nebraska and Iowa State. Ohio State won at Michigan and at Penn State, but they got the overrated Wisconsin Badgers at home.
I could go on all day ... but I'd like someone to come up with a bulletproof pro-Ohio State argument that I won't be able to undermine.
Don't give me the standard "they beat the teams on their schedule" junk, Hawaii beat EVERYONE on their schedule and they aren't in the national title game. No, I'm not advocating for the Warriors, I'm merely using them to combat the silly argument Buckeye supporters make. And, I don't want to hear about the Big 10 being a top conference. It's the 6th best conference according to the Sagarin ratings, one ahead of the Mountain West and two spots in front of the WAC (which Hawaii won).
You don't have to win your conference to play in the national title game (OU lost to K-State in the Big 12 Championship Game in 2003 and played LSU for the national title). Kansas, like Ohio State, has just one loss. KU lost at a neutral site to Missouri. Ohio State lost at home to Illinois. Last time I checked, didn't Missouri beat Illinois on a neutral site earlier this season? Yep, that still happened. Now, do I think Kansas should play for the national title, not really ... but they have a resume quite similar to the one posted by Ohio State. KU won at Texas A&M, at K-State, at Colorado and at Oklahoma State. The Big 12 teams they got at home were the worst ones they played: Baylor, Nebraska and Iowa State. Ohio State won at Michigan and at Penn State, but they got the overrated Wisconsin Badgers at home.
I could go on all day ... but I'd like someone to come up with a bulletproof pro-Ohio State argument that I won't be able to undermine.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
