Due to popular demand (and by "popular demand" I mean someone asked me to do it), I have decided to eschew my normal sports commentary and introduce a new feature called "Dealin' With Doherty."
Doherty is my roommate and one of my closest and dearest friends. I've known him since college and have been living with him since this past summer. He's a great guy, but he has some quirks that when combined with my own odd personality and quirks produces some hilarious results.
Now before I go any further, I must pass along something that I've noticed men and women do differently: how they treat their friends. With men, the worse they insult and treat each other, the closer they are. I'll give you an example: my buddy Lee is one of my best friends. I've known him since middle school. We played baseball together in high school and were roommates all throughout college. I was the best man in his wedding, and if I ever get married, he'll be in mine. Naturally, I insult him as much as possible. It's a guy thing.
The same applies to Doherty. We don't usually walk into a room and go, "Hey, what's up?" like normal, civilized people. Oh no, our standard greeting goes something like this:
"Well, well, well... LOOK who it is!"
"What do you want?"
"I hate you."
"Good."
If you know Doherty, you know he likes to argue a lot. Doherty and I argue all the time, usually about critically important social issues such as sports, tv shows, and women (For the record: Sara is WAY hotter than Kate in White Collar. Just sayin')
At least 3-5 times a day, our conversations/arguments inevitably devolve into the following exchange:
"You're an idiot."
"YOU'RE an idiot."
"That doesn't even make sense."
"YOU don't make sense."
"Oh my gaw--"
"Oh my gawd."
We're sophisticated like that.
Anyway, one of our latest "disagreements" involves the show White Collar, one of my favorite shows. For those of you have never seen it, it revolves around a con man named Neil Caffrey (Matt Bomer) who was captured by FBI agent Peter Burke (Tim DeKay). Caffrey offers to help Burke and FBI solve White Collar crimes after being released into the custody of the FBI. It's pretty funny and has some great characters. Plus, all the cons they run to catch criminals and the history of the art and artifacts they are chasing is really interesting to me.
Doherty and I have a history of ribbing each other over our respective shows. It started back in college when he used to harass me about watching 24. Of course, he had no room to talk because his favorites at the time were Grey's Anatomy and One Tree Hill. I'm pretty sure the people at Miller Lite would side with me.
He's finally starting to come around and realize that I have better taste in tv shows. I don't know how many times he's walked in and said, "Man, (insert show name here) that's a good show!" He said it about NCIS, then Psych, and finally White Collar.
The other day, we were sitting around our apartment watching White Collar, and Doherty wondered aloud which character we all would be. The only thing we agreed was that our buddy Andrew was Mozzie. We both claimed that we'd be Neil. I argued that Doherty was Peter and I was Neil because: A. Neil is single, as am I; and B. Peter was married, and Doherty is practically married.
He didn't like that reasoning.
Doherty countered that Neil is a fashionable guy (it's true, he's always looking suave) and that of the two us, Doherty is clearly the fashion expert.
Normally, that would be true. Doherty has spent years working at the Gap (so much so that he once recognized the exact Gap shirt worn in a tv show. It was frightening) and owns more sweater vests than Jim Tressel. His girlfriend attests that he has more clothes than she does.
I, on the other hand, have a fondness for World War II-themed Hawaiian shirts, own Halo shirts-- plural, as in more than one-- and wouldn't hesitate to wear socks with sandals. (Hey, I like to wear socks and sometimes don't feel like tying shoes. Don't judge me)
Of course, when Doherty said, "And let's face it, I'm the fashion expert here!" and gestured to his body, he was barefoot and wearing Duke gym shorts and a white t-shirt that said, "Colorado: Here for the Beer."
I think I won that one.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Saturday, December 17, 2011
On-Campus Stadium & Other CSU Football Thoughts
Colorado State recently hired Jack Graham, former CSU quarterback, to be its next athletic director. Graham then fired football coach Steve Fairchild after yet another disappointing 3-9 season and lured Alabama offensive coordinator Jim McElwain to Fort Collins to be the Rams' next coach. McElwain's salary is over $1 million a year, which is no small amount for CSU. As if that didn't create enough buzz, Graham has also declared that he wants to build an on-campus stadium at CSU.
I like the boldness and energy that Graham has brought to the table so far. While I admired the old AD, Paul Kowalczyk and thought he was doing a decent job, I do like how Graham isn't afraid to dream big. Arguably my biggest frustration with CSU is that it can be complacent and accept the status quo sometimes. Yes, money is tight in these tough economic times, but if a school like Boise State can rise to prominence, why can't we be better? Sometimes I think there's this feeling of "oh, we can't be great because our team has struggled" or something like that. It feels like people have accepted mediocrity. I refuse to accept that CSU can't be a successful athletic entity; our volleyball team is among the best in the country, men's basketball is on the first, and the football team was a powerhouse under Sonny Lubick. If we did it once, we can do it again. I like the attitude that Graham has brought and how he has invigorated the university in just a couple of weeks.
At first, I wasn't that thrilled with the McElwain hire, but I must admit, it's grown on me of late. I'm more enthusiastic about CSU football than I have been in awhile. My initial fears were that this might turn out to be like the Josh McDaniels hire for the Broncos. Sure, New England (where McDaniels was the offensive coordinator) had a record-setting offense and has been the most successful team of the past decade, but in retrospect, that success was due to having Tom Brady and quarterback and Bill Belichick as head coach. Is Alabama's success mainly do to Nick Saban and his stifling defense?
Plus, Alabama's offense isn't really that great. Name one amazing Alabama quarterback of the past few years. Can't do it, can you? They generally ask their quarterbacks to be game managers and not turn the ball over. The Crimson Tide relies upon a strong running game (Heisman Trophy-winner Mark Ingram and Heisman Finalist Trent Richardson). There's nothing wrong with that, as I do love me a strong power running attack, but I wonder if a large part of Alabama's success is that they get the top recruits in the country. It's easy to win when you have better players than pretty much every team you play. Will McElwain be successful when he doesn't have a significant talent advantage? He was the offensive coordinator at Fresno State during the Bulldogs' heyday, so that bodes well. The more I think about it, the more optimistic I am. CSU football should be a lot better, as long as he doesn't get screen-happy like Fairchild. Some quick passes over the middle would be nice, too.
As for the on-campus stadium, I'm not sure what to think about it. For those of you who don't know, CSU's current stadium, Sonny Lubick Field at Hughes Stadium, is located a couple miles away on the west side of Fort Collins. It's in the middle of a large grass field, which is very conducive to parking and tailgating. I've always liked the off-campus location. One, it's not that far away. It's about a five-minute drive from campus. Fort Collins is on the grid system, so it's very easy to get around. The police do a great job of directing traffic, so it's easy to get to the stadium and get funneled into the parking lots. You're directed where to park, and the whole process is simple and efficient. Plus, not much goes on in that area, so you don't have an empty building taking up valuable space in the middle of campus or the city.
I've been to a few on-campus stadiums, and parking is always an issue. It's inconvenient for everyone: students and campus personnel don't like the limited parking available being taken up by football fans (and lack of parking is a gripe at CSU already). Plus, where would people tailgate? Those students who aren't football fans won't like the noise and influx of people. On the other hand, a campus stadium does offer a greater connection to the school itself; opposing fans would get to walk through the campus, and it's a chance for CSU to show off its great campus and what it has to offer. The first time I walked around CSU, I was sold. I knew that's where I wanted to go. Gamedays would be more of an event with an on-campus stadium, too, I would imagine.
I just don't know where a new stadium would go, though. The only open space on campus is the intramural fields, and that's not an option. One, it's not big enough. Two, it's right in the middle of campus and would be a logistical nightmare. There'd be no parking. Three, where would the intramural sports play? I've heard people mention north of campus, but there's nothing there but commercial buildings and neighborhoods. It's not feasible. Another location I've heard mentioned is just south of campus by the Hilton. That might work, but I don't know how much land there is. I know there's some open ground in the area, so I suppose it might be feasible. Plus, there's not much in the area, so if it could fit, a stadium there wouldn't have a large negative impact on the area. I'd be in favor of that.
Regardless of location, we do need a new stadium. Hughes is a dump. It's basically two sets of giant concrete bleachers with a large sidewalk ringing them. It's just not a pretty structure. They've made some great improvements with the landscaping outside, but it's a pretty dull building. The sound system is a joke. It's hard to hear anything, and I swear there is just one speaker. It's like they took a computer monitor speaker, upscaled it about 1,000 times, and stuck it on the jumbotron. I think Hughes was built in the 1960s, too, so it's fairly old. A new stadium would create buzz and energy with the program and get people excited about CSU football again. It's going to cost a lot, but Graham has already shown he can raise money and get people involved.
For once, I'm excited about the future of CSU football.
I like the boldness and energy that Graham has brought to the table so far. While I admired the old AD, Paul Kowalczyk and thought he was doing a decent job, I do like how Graham isn't afraid to dream big. Arguably my biggest frustration with CSU is that it can be complacent and accept the status quo sometimes. Yes, money is tight in these tough economic times, but if a school like Boise State can rise to prominence, why can't we be better? Sometimes I think there's this feeling of "oh, we can't be great because our team has struggled" or something like that. It feels like people have accepted mediocrity. I refuse to accept that CSU can't be a successful athletic entity; our volleyball team is among the best in the country, men's basketball is on the first, and the football team was a powerhouse under Sonny Lubick. If we did it once, we can do it again. I like the attitude that Graham has brought and how he has invigorated the university in just a couple of weeks.
At first, I wasn't that thrilled with the McElwain hire, but I must admit, it's grown on me of late. I'm more enthusiastic about CSU football than I have been in awhile. My initial fears were that this might turn out to be like the Josh McDaniels hire for the Broncos. Sure, New England (where McDaniels was the offensive coordinator) had a record-setting offense and has been the most successful team of the past decade, but in retrospect, that success was due to having Tom Brady and quarterback and Bill Belichick as head coach. Is Alabama's success mainly do to Nick Saban and his stifling defense?
Plus, Alabama's offense isn't really that great. Name one amazing Alabama quarterback of the past few years. Can't do it, can you? They generally ask their quarterbacks to be game managers and not turn the ball over. The Crimson Tide relies upon a strong running game (Heisman Trophy-winner Mark Ingram and Heisman Finalist Trent Richardson). There's nothing wrong with that, as I do love me a strong power running attack, but I wonder if a large part of Alabama's success is that they get the top recruits in the country. It's easy to win when you have better players than pretty much every team you play. Will McElwain be successful when he doesn't have a significant talent advantage? He was the offensive coordinator at Fresno State during the Bulldogs' heyday, so that bodes well. The more I think about it, the more optimistic I am. CSU football should be a lot better, as long as he doesn't get screen-happy like Fairchild. Some quick passes over the middle would be nice, too.
As for the on-campus stadium, I'm not sure what to think about it. For those of you who don't know, CSU's current stadium, Sonny Lubick Field at Hughes Stadium, is located a couple miles away on the west side of Fort Collins. It's in the middle of a large grass field, which is very conducive to parking and tailgating. I've always liked the off-campus location. One, it's not that far away. It's about a five-minute drive from campus. Fort Collins is on the grid system, so it's very easy to get around. The police do a great job of directing traffic, so it's easy to get to the stadium and get funneled into the parking lots. You're directed where to park, and the whole process is simple and efficient. Plus, not much goes on in that area, so you don't have an empty building taking up valuable space in the middle of campus or the city.
I've been to a few on-campus stadiums, and parking is always an issue. It's inconvenient for everyone: students and campus personnel don't like the limited parking available being taken up by football fans (and lack of parking is a gripe at CSU already). Plus, where would people tailgate? Those students who aren't football fans won't like the noise and influx of people. On the other hand, a campus stadium does offer a greater connection to the school itself; opposing fans would get to walk through the campus, and it's a chance for CSU to show off its great campus and what it has to offer. The first time I walked around CSU, I was sold. I knew that's where I wanted to go. Gamedays would be more of an event with an on-campus stadium, too, I would imagine.
I just don't know where a new stadium would go, though. The only open space on campus is the intramural fields, and that's not an option. One, it's not big enough. Two, it's right in the middle of campus and would be a logistical nightmare. There'd be no parking. Three, where would the intramural sports play? I've heard people mention north of campus, but there's nothing there but commercial buildings and neighborhoods. It's not feasible. Another location I've heard mentioned is just south of campus by the Hilton. That might work, but I don't know how much land there is. I know there's some open ground in the area, so I suppose it might be feasible. Plus, there's not much in the area, so if it could fit, a stadium there wouldn't have a large negative impact on the area. I'd be in favor of that.
Regardless of location, we do need a new stadium. Hughes is a dump. It's basically two sets of giant concrete bleachers with a large sidewalk ringing them. It's just not a pretty structure. They've made some great improvements with the landscaping outside, but it's a pretty dull building. The sound system is a joke. It's hard to hear anything, and I swear there is just one speaker. It's like they took a computer monitor speaker, upscaled it about 1,000 times, and stuck it on the jumbotron. I think Hughes was built in the 1960s, too, so it's fairly old. A new stadium would create buzz and energy with the program and get people excited about CSU football again. It's going to cost a lot, but Graham has already shown he can raise money and get people involved.
For once, I'm excited about the future of CSU football.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
NCAA Coaching Scorecard
The Holiday Season means a lot of things: shopping, Christmas trees, music, lights, long lines at stores, and the firing and hiring of college football coaches. There’s been a whirlwind of change so far at schools across the country as 23 teams have decided to make a coaching change, and the first bowl game hasn’t even been played yet.
Akron – Rob Ianello was fired after posting a record of 2-22 and generally being non-competitive in the MAC during his two seasons at the helm of the Zips. Only one of those wins came against a Division I school, and one of the 22 losses came at the hands of a Division I-AA school (Gardner-Webb in 2010). The school has yet to name a replacement.
Here’s a rundown of the coaching carousel to this point:
ACC
North Carolina – Plagued by scandal, North Carolina fired coach Butch Davis prior to the start of the season and named defensive coordinator Everett Withers interim head coach. The Tar Heels started the year strong under Withers, going 5-1, but collapsed down the stretch and finished 7-5. The school has announced that it will hire Southern Miss coach Larry Fedora, pending approval by the board of trustees.
Fedora had an overall record of 33-19 at Southern Miss and led the Golden Eagles to an 11-2 record and first Conference USA title since 2003. Southern Miss upset previously undefeated Houston in the conference title game.
Big 12
Kansas – The Jayhawks were one of the worst, if not the worst, football teams in the country in 2011, and coach Turner Gill was fired as a result. In only two seasons in charge, Gill posted records of 3-9 and 2-10. This year, the Jayhawks finished dead-last in points against, giving up an average of 43.8 points per game. The school announced that it has hired Florida offensive coordinator and former Notre Dame head coach Charlie Weis to replace Gill.
Weis made his mark in the NFL as a member of Bill Belichick’s staff with the New England Patriots. He helped the Patriots win three Super Bowls and was then named the head coach at Notre Dame, his alma mater. His inaugural season was a great success, but he never managed to live up to lofty expectations afterwards. He was fired with six years remaining on a ten-year extension. Weis regularly boasted some of the top recruiting classes in the country but failed to translate that into on-field success.
Texas A&M – After a disappointing 6-6 season that began with the Aggies ranked in the top ten and harboring national championship hopes, Texas A&M fired head coach Mike Sherman. In his four years leading the Aggies, Sherman went 25-25. His beat year was 2010 when the Aggies went 9-4. That led to high expectations for 2011, but the Aggies blew big second-half leads in several of their losses and were a huge disappointment. Kevin Sumlin is rumored to be the leading candidate, and it was reported that Air Force coach Troy Calhoun interviewed for the job, but as of yet, Texas A&M has not named a new head coach.
Big Ten
Illinois – Ron Zook was fired, ending an up-and-down tenure with the Illini. He took Illinois to the Rose Bowl in his third season but followed it up with back-to-back losing seasons. He was widely thought to be on the hot seat, but a 7-6 campaign and bowl win over Baylor in 2010 saved his job. The Illini started the year 6-0 but lost their final 6 games, becoming the first team in history to do so. Overall, Zook was just 34-51 in 7 years at Illinois. No replacement has been announced, although it is expected that the school will name Toledo head coach Tim Beckman as its new coach.
Ohio State – Another school rocked by scandal, Ohio State fired coach Jim Tressel after it was discovered he lied about knowing some of players had received improper benefits. Defensive coordinator Luke Fickell took over the reins for 2011 and guided the Buckeyes to a 6-6 record. The school hired a little-known coach named Urban Meyer to take over the program.
Urban Meyer has a career record of 104-23 with stops at Bowling Green (17-6), Utah (22-2), and Florida (65-15). While he was at Utah, the Utes became the first school from outside the BCS conferences to play in a BCS bowl. He won two national championships at Florida before retiring after the 2010 season because of health issues, stress, and a stated desire to spend more time with his family.
Penn State – Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past several weeks, you know what happened at Penn State. Coach Joe Paterno was forced out amidst a sordid child sex abuse scandal involving former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, who allegedly raped at least one child on school grounds. Several administrators, including the university president and athletic director, have been suspended or fired for their part in the affair. Current defensive coordinator Tom Bradley has taken over as interim head coach. No head coach has been announced, but Mississippi State head coach Dan Mullen is the subject of many rumors.
Conference USA
Memphis – The Tigers ousted head coach Larry Porter after just two years. During that time, he compiled a measly 3-21 record. Memphis was 115th in the nation in points for, averaging just 16.3 per game, and was an equally dreadful 106th in points against, giving up 35.1 per game. Only 2,500 people turned out for the final home game of the season this year.
The school hired TCU co-offensive coordinator Justin Fuente to replace Porter. TCU is known for its vaunted defense, but its offense has become a highly-capable unit under Fuente. Former quarterback Andy Dalton set school records under Fuente’s tutelage and is now an NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year candidate with the Cincinnati Bengals. The Horned Frogs currently boast the ninth-best scoring offense in the country, putting up 41.7 points a game.
Southern Miss – Head coach Larry Fedora has left to take the vacant Ole Miss coaching job, and the Golden Eagles have yet to name a successor. Southern Miss went 11-2 and defeated undefeated Houston in the Conference USA championship game to win its first conference title in eight years.
Tulane – Head coach Bob Toledo resigned in mid-October after a 2-5 start, and offensive line coach Mark Hutson was named interim coach. Toledo was just 15-40 in over four years with the Green Wave. New Orleans Saints wide receivers coach and New Orleans native Curtis Johnson was tapped by Tulane to be its next football coach. Despite lacking marquee receivers, the Saints have one of the most explosive and prolific passing attacks in the NFL.
UAB – The University of Alabama-Birmingham fired Neil Callaway after he went 18-42 in five seasons. The Blazers haven’t had a winning season since going 7-5 in 2004 and ended 2011 by losing to previously winless FAU. UAB hired Arkansas offensive coordinator Garrick McGee as its new coach. Arkansas boasts one of the top offenses in the SEC, ranking 13th in the country in passing yards and 15th overall in points per game.
MAC
Akron – Rob Ianello was fired after posting a record of 2-22 and generally being non-competitive in the MAC during his two seasons at the helm of the Zips. Only one of those wins came against a Division I school, and one of the 22 losses came at the hands of a Division I-AA school (Gardner-Webb in 2010). The school has yet to name a replacement.
Massachusetts – The Minutemen are making the jump from Division I-AA to Division I and have hired Notre Dame offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach Charley Molnar to replace the fired Kevin Morris. UMass joins the MAC next year but will not be eligible for a bowl game conference championship until 2013.
Mountain West
Colorado State – The past few years have not been kind to Colorado State, my alma mater. In 2007, legendary Rams coach Sonny Lubick was forced out. Fairchild, a former CSU quarterback and offensive coordinator under Lubick prior to coaching in the NFL, was hired to replace the legend and experienced immediate success. Fairchild took the team from 3-9 to 7-6 and capped the season off with a win in the New Mexico Bowl over Fresno State, a game in which running back Gartrell Johnson III set an NCAA record for yards from scrimmage with 375. His 285 rushing yards were the second-most in a bowl game in NCAA history.
It was all downhill from there, though, as the Rams suffered three straight 3-9 seasons. Fairchild could never translate recruiting success to the field, going just 16-33 with a 7-24 record in the Mountain West. Colorado State has not hired a new coach as of yet.
Fresno State* – Longtime coach Pat Hill was fired after Fresno State finished the year 4-9, its worst season in 15 years under Hill. The Bulldogs were largely successful under Hill, adopting his “anybody, anytime, anywhere” mantra and regularly pulling off upsets of BCS conference teams. He led Fresno to a 112-80 record and went 78-40 in WAC play. However, the Bulldogs were only able to win the WAC once, in 1999, and could never get past conference foe Boise State. Fresno State had begun to slip in the past few seasons. No replacement has been named.
New Mexico – The surprise wasn’t that Mike Locksley was fired but that it took this long. In just over two seasons, the Lobos were an abysmal 2-26 under Locksley. His first two seasons culminated in identical 1-11 records, and he was fired this year after starting the season 0-4 and losing to Division I-AA Sam Houston State. If that weren’t enough, Locksley was at the center of several scandals. He was suspended for a game for punching an assistant coach, sued for sexual harassment by a former employee, and a 19-year-old teen was arrested for a DWI after almost hitting a pedestrian while driving a car registered to Locksley’s wife and son. Defensive coordinator George Barlow was named interim head coach for the rest of the season.
New Mexico has hired Bob Davie, ESPN analyst and former head coach at Notre Dame, to replace Locksley. Davie was named coach of the Fighting Irish after Lou Holtz retired and went 35-25 in South Bend.
*Fresno State will be joining the Mountain West in 2012 along with Nevada. Hawai’i will join in 2013 for football only.
Pac-12
Arizona – The Wildcats fired Mike Stoops on October 10, naming defensive coordinator Tim Kish as interim head coach. Stoops led Arizona to bowl games each of the past three years and were ranked in the top ten at one point last year, but the Wildcats could never get over the hump. Stoops was 41-50 overall but only 27-38 within the Pac-10/12 conference. The Wildcats stumbled out of the gate to a 1-5 start, with the only win over Division I-AA Northern Arizona. Of course, having to play Oklahoma State, Stanford, Oregon, and USC in consecutive weeks didn’t help.
Arizona has hired former West Virginia and Michigan head coach Rich Rodriguez to replace Stoops. Rodriguez was wildly successful at West Virginia, leading the Mountaineers to several BCS bowls. He had them on the cusp of playing for a national title before being upset by Pittsburgh in 2007. However, Rodriguez was less-than-successful at Michigan, winning less than half his games. His tenure was also marred by NCAA rules violations.
Arizona State – Not to be outdone by their rivals to the south, the Arizona State Sun Devils also are in need of a new coach for the 2012 season. Dennis Erickson will no not be retained as the school’s head coach. His first year was a great success, as the Sun Devils were in the top five at one point, but he was not able to sustain it. In his five years at the helm, Erickson could never get ASU, long considered a sleeping giant, into the upper echelon of the Pac-10/12. His teams were plagued by poor discipline and untimely penalties went a mediocre 31-30 under Erickson with one bowl game remaining. The Sun Devils started the season 6-2, giving Oregon a scare, and appeared to be a lock for the Pac-12 South title, but they collapsed down the stretch and lost 4 straight games.
Erickson will coach ASU in its bowl game against #7 Boise State, and the team has yet to hire a replacement. There are reports that June Jones was close to reaching an agreement with the school before negotiations broke down. ASU is a high-profile job with a lot to offer: great location and facilities, close to fertile recruiting grounds, and a lot of talent returning for next year in quarterback Brock Osweiler and linebacker Vontaze Burfict.
UCLA – The Bruins fired Rick Neuheisel prior to the inaugural Pac-12 championship game. He went 21-28 in four years at his alma mater and failed to show improvement. Worse, the gap between UCLA and crosstown rival USC appeared to widen despite NCAA sanctions leveled on the Trojans. UCLA managed to go 6-6 and capture the Pac-12 South title (due to USC being ineligible), but after suffering a 50-0 drubbing at the hands of the Trojans, UCLA decided it had seen enough. The vacancy is still open, and the Bruins have reportedly been turned down by Boise State’s Chris Petersen and Miami’s Al Golden.
Washington State – Like their brethren in Los Angeles, the Cougars dismissed a coach who was an alumnus and former player. Paul Wulff went a dismal 9-40 in Pullman with a record of 4-34 in conference games. In four years with Washington State, his best season was 2011 when the Cougars finished only 4-8.
Washington State made perhaps the biggest coaching splash this year when it hired former Texas Tech head coach Mike Leach to turn around its football program. Leach was controversially fired by Texas Tech after it was alleged he had mistreated receiver Adam James, son of ESPN analyst Craig James, who had suffered a concussion. Leach claims the allegations are false and that he was fired as part of a power play by administrators who disliked his candor and wanted to avoid paying him. He has lawsuits pending against both Texas Tech and ESPN.
Leach went 84-43 at Texas Tech and took the Red Raiders to ten straight bowl games. He received national coach of the year honors in 2008 when the Red Raiders knocked off Texas and were undefeated and #2 in the BCS standings before losing to Oklahoma.
SEC
Mississippi – Head coach Houston Nutt was forced to resign, effective at the end of the year, after Ole Miss struggled to a 2-10 finish this season. Nutt’s tenure started great: the Rebels went 9-4 in 2008, upsetting a Tim Tebow-led Florida team that would go on to win the national championship and pummeling #7 Texas Tech in the Cotton Bowl. The 2009 campaign resulted in another 9-4 finish, but things went downhill after that. In 2010, the Rebels opened the year by losing in double overtime to Division I-AA Jacksonville State and ended up going 4-8. Ole Miss went winless in SEC play this season and has lost 14 straight SEC games. Arkansas State head coach Hugh Freeze has been hired to take over for Nutt.
Sun Belt
Arkansas State – For the second year in a row, the Red Wolves will be searching for a new head coach. Hugh Freeze guided the Red Wolves their first outright Sun Belt title and first 10-win season since 1986. Arkansas State went from 4-8 to 10-2 under Freeze’s watch. Freeze left Arkansas State to accept the head coaching vacancy at Mississippi. Arkansas State has yet to hire a replacement.
Florida Atlantic – Legendary coach Howard Schnellenberger, who led Miami to the 1983 national title and has coached the FAU program since its inception back in 2001, announced back in August that he would retire at the end of this season. He was 58-74 at FAU and went 2-0 in bowl games with the Owls. Florida Atlantic went 1-11 this year and has hired Nebraska defensive coordinator Carl Pellini to succeed Schnellenberger.
WAC
Hawai’i – On December 5, head coach Greg McMackin announced his retirement. McMackin was promoted to head coach from defensive coordinator after June Jones left the program to take over head coaching duties at SMU after leading the Warriors to the 2007 Sugar Bowl. McMackin went just 29-25, including 18-13 in the WAC, but led the Warriors to a share of the WAC championship last year with a 10-4 record (7-1 WAC). Hopes were high this year, especially with Nevada rebuilding and Boise State off to the Mountain West, but Hawai’i stumbled to a 5-8 mark. The school has not hired a new coach.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Ode to Oreo
Oreo ~ January 3, 1996 - December 5, 2011
My Beloved Puppy
"Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened." - Anatole France
Prior to leaving for my freshman year of college, my mom made an awesome scrapbook out of pictures of my dog, Oreo. That quote appears on one of the pages and truly sums up how I feel about Oreo and the impact she had on me.
A few hours ago, Oreo was put down. It's been tough to take. I can't believe that she's gone, that I won't be able to hold her anymore or feel her soft, lustrous fur against my skin. No more kisses. No more hearing the jingle of her collar against her food dish or hearing the "clack" of her claws as she strolled across the kitchen. I'll never again walk through the garage door and see her lounging on the couch or spy her through the window traipsing about the backyard. I will never again witness her doing her "cute" pose where she sat back on her haunches. It was absolutely adorable.
I know it was the right decision. She had been in decline for awhile now, but things really took a turn for the worse a few days ago. She was down to about half her normal weight and was pretty much just skin and bones. She couldn't really stand and support herself and had to be hand-fed. It was sad to see.
Knowing that, however, doesn't make it any easier.
Oreo was a birthday present for my 10th birthday. A friend of the family was getting a new puppy from someone who bred Shih Tzus and Westies, and my mom went along. At the breeders', my mom saw the cutest little puppy. She was a Shih Tzu-Westie mix that looked nothing like either but had the cutest little nose. My mom was taken and came home with the 2.5-month-old puppy.
I had been skiing with my dad, and when we got home that night, I noticed a dog kennel in the family room. I'm sometimes slow on the uptake, so when I was told that it was for our rabbit, I didn't think anything of it. After being prodded to go to the basement, and not catching on, I opened the basement door and saw my brother holding our new puppy. She was wearing the cutest little birthday hat. We spent the next couple of days trying to decide a name, and eventually we picked Oreo, a name my dad had suggested because of her black coat with white chin, chest, and paws.
Oreo was an independent, stubborn little thing full of spunk, and that's what I loved most about her. She got out once when she was little and ended up crashing a graduation party up the street. She walked right in the front door and hung out for awhile. Little party animal. My parents got this spray that was supposed to keep her from chewing on the furniture and stuff. Yeah, it didn't work. We had these little pads that were supposed to help house-break her. She tore them up. We even bought one of those collars that was supposed to stop dogs from barking. She chewed it up... literally. That's my girl. :)
She also had the biggest, strongest heart I've ever encountered. She had an iron will and was a tough little dog. She tore her ACL, but you would never know from watching her. She had a liver defect yet lived nearly 16 years. Even when the rest of her was failing, her heartbeat remained strong. She was never one to give up, and even to the end, she gutted it out. She was so full of life, and the saddest feeling I've ever had was when I felt that heart beat in her warm, furry body for the final time.
Her heart will beat on, though. It will beat on in me for she will always have a piece of my heart. I love that little dog so so much, and it hurts knowing that I will never be greeted by her cute, comforting face anymore. She had the sweetest disposition and would always put a smile on my face.
"There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face." -Bern Williams
That is perhaps my favorite dog quote because it is so true. The last few years haven't been easy for me; I've battled some depression. No matter how low or upset I've felt, though, Oreo could always lift my spirits. She could tell. If I was upset, she'd walk over and show me some love. Hell, even I'd get angry while playing Halo or NCAA, she'd wander over and demand I pet her. It never failed.
There was no situation that couldn't be remedied by holding her on my lap and petting her. She always brightened my day. Even now, when she's gone, just remembering her puts a smile on my face. I remember how she used to sit on the top of the couch and gaze out the window. She loved to sit on the rug by the front door and just observe the goings-on of the neighborhood. She'd go berserk and bark up a storm if a squirrel dared step foot in our yard. After chasing the offender away, she'd come back inside, head held high. Whenever there was snow outside, she'd come back to the door looking like Santa Claus. She'd have this white beard and looked absolutely adorable. You couldn't help but laugh. I remember the first time it snowed after we got her, and she had a ball outside chasing the snow. Whenver she'd jump, she'd kick up some powder upon landing. She'd jump after it, kick up more snow, and jump after that.
I used to love sitting on the basement steps with my head at floor level. She'd always wander by, lick my face, and then go about her business. We used to love playing tug-of-war with her toys. She had "Das Boot" (a rubber army boot chewtoy), Tough Guy (a cigar-chomping bear that said "How you doin'?!" when you squeezed it), and her "Minky" (a little stuffed monkey). She had this stuffed lobster toy that had three little baby lobsters. She used to carry all three in her mouth. She also would use random objects as toys: she particularly enjoyed tossing her bed about.
Oreo also loved her pigs' ears. She was funny with those. She'd get all excited and want to show it off, so she'd wander around to display her prize to everyone. If you ignored her, she'd growl at you as if to say, "Hey! Look at what I've got!" Then, if you gazed too long, she'd growl again like, "Hey! This is mine! Get your own!" Of course, her tail'd be wagging the whole time.
Christmases were especially fun. She'd wade through the sea of wrapping paper, clutching a pig's ear. We'd always give her one as a Christmas present and to keep her calm during the unwrapping of presents. She'd always bury it under all the wrapping paper.
Oreo was an intelligent dog, too. We used to play a game with her involving treats. It was sort of like the shell game; we'd take a treat and hide it in one of our hands and make her pick. She'd sniff one hand and then the other and then paw whichever hand she thought had the treat. More often than not, she got it right.
Perhaps my favorite memory of her is how she used to pretend that she didn't get on the couch. We got new couches one year and tried to keep her from getting up on them. She'd been allowed on the old couch and didn't see why she shouldn't be allowed the new one, too. Whenever we'd leave, she'd hop up on the couch and lay down. She had her little spot; she even formed her own groove. Well, whenever we'd return home, she'd either be waiting at the door or sitting in her bed like a good girl. Of course, you could see the little indentation and still feel the warmth from where she'd been sitting.
Another favorite memory is how such a little dog could take up so much space. We have these Love Sacs (basically giant bean bag chairs) in our basement, and naturally, Oreo preferred to lay down smack dab in the middle of the biggest one. Whenever I let her sleep on my bed, she'd always lay right in the middle. I'd have little room, but I didn't care. After all, my little ball of warmth
I have countless memories of Oreo, too many to list here. I will cherish them always, though. Oreo was special to me. We grew up together. I realized today that I've spent about two-thirds of my life with her. When I'd come home from school, she'd be sitting at the front door and see me pull up. By the time I got to the garage door to go inside, she'd already be waiting there for me. Whenever I'd wake up in the morning and my parents were gone, she'd be right there at the side of my bed. I loved to read with her on my lap.
Oreo was the best dog a boy could ask for. She was so gentle and taught me so much. I learned how to be compassionate and feel empathy from her. She showed me what it was to love unconditionally and with every fiber of your being. No matter how poorly I viewed myself, she loved me. She didn't care what flaws I had. It didn't matter to her. She just loved me, and I loved her. My mom often joked that I'd spend more time saying goodbye to the dog than her, but I wanted Oreo to know how much she meant to me. Honestly, she was my rock. Whenever there was a storm in my life, she was my safe harbor. It's amazing how all your troubles drift away when a dog's licking your face or when you're stroking her face or scratching behind her ears.
I've always been one to conceal my emotions. I'm generally pretty even-keeled, but the downside is that it's hard for me to convey my feelings, even to those I'm close to. Oreo helped me greatly in that regard. She showed me what was possible if I got in touch with my feelings.
Oreo was the walking embodiment of Life and Love. She just had a vitality around her. I've already mentioned her spunk, but there was just something about her. Feeling her warmth and heartbeat just reminded me what life is. Forget about all the other stuff, just enjoy life. Live it. Life is a precious thing, and Oreo's presence constantly reminded me of that. She was so small, but she had so much life in her. She was just so full of life, and she made the most of it.
She didn't just have an impact on me, either. One of the most touching experiences of my life involved her and my dad. My dad wasn't in favor of getting her in the first place and didn't want to have the responsibilities that came with owning a dog. I was always afraid that he resented getting Oreo, yet her passing hit him hard. When I told him that I'd made the decision to put her down, he said, "I'm not ready to let her go yet. I need more time." My heart just about broke right there. Her rapid decline these past couple of days forced our hand, but he still insisted on giving her one last bath. That was tough, but he wanted her to look her best. "Look so pretty smell so nice!" as we used to tell her.
Carrying Oreo into the vet's office today, I could feel her heart beating away even through the bundle of blankets we had her in. As I held her while the vet put in the needle that would end her suffering, I could still feel her heart beat. It was slow and steady, until it beat no more. As I felt it beat for the last time, I couldn't even speak. Her heart was so big and so strong, and it was full of so much love and tenderness. I petedt her limp body for quite awhile after she'd gone, and the image of her laying there on the vet's table with stick with me forever.
Oreo, wherever you are, I just want you to know how much you mean to me. I'll always remember you and cherish all the good times we have. You showed me so much and had such an impact on my life. You were the best thing that ever happened to me, and I am eternally grateful for the time we shared. I will probably have other dogs, but they will never be you. You will always be my Pup, my Little One.
I love you Oreo, so very much, and I miss you terribly. I'll miss your sweet disposition and your gentle kisses. I'll miss your inquisitive nature and your funny little "wwwwrrrruuff." I'll miss seeing your shaggy face perched upon the couch.
Most of all I'll miss holding you and feeling your warmth and love.
I love you Oreo.
.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The Hypocrisy of the BCS
I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving and was able to spend time with the important people in their life.
Thanksgiving is a time to reflect and appreciate what we have. It’s a time to give thanks, hence the name of the holiday. People generally list the many things for which they are thankful.
One thing for which I am NOT thankful is the BCS.
The BCS is a sham and full of hypocrisy. Year after year, it leaves countless football fans disgruntled and unhappy. There is almost always controversy. BCS apologists, led by BCS executive director Bill Hancock, trot out a number of tired arguments that, frankly, just don’t hold water.
The BCS constantly touts “every game counts.”
Except when it doesn’t. Some games matter more than others. Some don’t even matter at all.
Every Game Counts*
One of the most common arguments you will hear from BCS supporters is that “every game counts.” The theory is that teams can’t afford to make a mistake and lose because it will knock them out of the title chase. Teams need to go undefeated to have a chance, so there is pressure to win every game. All that pressure creates tension and drama, which is why college football is often described as having the best regular season in sports.
At first glance, that makes sense. Stanford, Boise State, and Oklahoma State all suffered defeats that knocked them out of the hunt, lending credence to the theory. But how do you explain Alabama and Oklahoma (pre-Baylor)?
Alabama lost in overtime at home to LSU. Since every game counts, they should have been eliminated from title contention… yet in all likelihood, this year’s BCS Championship Game will feature a rematch between #1 LSU and #2 Alabama, a matchup that only about 2-9 states in the country really want to see.
Now, if the other contenders had taken care of business, this wouldn’t have happened. If Boise State doesn’t miss a field goal against TCU, they’d be playing LSU. If Oklahoma State doesn’t fall in overtime to Iowa State or Stanford doesn’t get trampled by Oregon, they’d be in the title game.
All those teams have one loss, so why are they less worthy than Alabama? What makes the Crimson Tide special?
Oklahoma State, for instance, has a stronger resume than Alabama. The Cowboys have beaten five teams in the current BCS Top 25 compared to just two for the Crimson Tide. Oklahoma State has seven wins over teams in the top 50 whilst Alabama only has five, and the Cowboys’ six wins over Division I teams with winning records is twice as many as Alabama has. Oklahoma State has also won its conference where Alabama didn’t even win the SEC West.
Yes, Alabama’s one loss was to the #1 team in the country. However, they lost at home and missed four field goals. How is that better than losing in overtime on the road a day after tragedy struck the Oklahoma State athletic community for the second time in eleven years? A plane crash took the lives of Oklahoma State women’s basketball coach Kurt Budke, assistant coach Miranda Serna, former state senator Olin Branstetter, and Branstetter’s wife Paula. It had to have affected the Oklahoma State players and staff. Their heads and hearts couldn’t have been completely there.
The inclusion of Oklahoma in the title discussion was even more galling. While a case can be made for Alabama, there was no excuse for Oklahoma. Prior to its loss to Baylor, Oklahoma was often cited as the team that would jump ahead of Alabama. All of that was contingent upon winning out and beating then-#2 Oklahoma State on the road.
Losing to Baylor eliminates the Sooners from the discussion, but they never should have been involved in the first place. They lost at home to four-touchdown underdog Texas Tech, snapping a 39-game home winning streak. The Red Raiders proceeded to drop their next five games by scores of 41-7, 52-20, 66-6, 31-27, and 66-42, finishing the year 5-7 and thus ineligible for a bowl game. It is by far the worst loss of any title contender.
Wins don’t count for some teams, either. The Houston Cougars, for example, are undefeated yet won’t get a whiff of the national championship game. In years past, TCU, Boise State, Utah, and Auburn have all gone undefeated yet not made the national championship game. In 2008, Boise State went undefeated and was ranked in the top ten, yet the Broncos were relegated to the Poinsettia Bowl.
It’s not just undefeated teams from automatic qualifying (AQ) conferences who are affected. There are 120 Division I football teams, and for the vast majority, none of their games matter. They have no hope of making it to a BCS bowl, let alone competing for a national championship. If you are from a non-AQ conference and are not ranked high enough to start the season, then you have no shot. The season is irrelevant before it starts. Why should fans at Louisiana Tech, Northern Illinois, or Colorado State care? It doesn’t matter how well their teams do, they’ll still be left on the outside looking in.
Obviously, not every game counts.
The Regular Season is Like a Playoff
Another common argument trumpeted by BCS supporters is that the regular season is like a playoff. “College football has the best regular season in sports!” they’ll say and then explain that this is because of the lack of an actual playoff. Since “every game counts” teams need to run the table or they’ll be eliminated.
The problem here is that in an actual playoff, once you lose, you’re out. When the Green Bay Packers defeated the top-seeded Atlanta Falcons in the NFL playoffs, the Falcons were done. They didn’t get a chance to come back and play in the Super Bowl.
If college football’s regular season truly were like a playoff, then Alabama would not be going to the BCS title game. Oklahoma and Oregon wouldn’t have had second-chances. Virginia Tech would not be creeping back into the picture.
BCS apologists try to counter that argument by bringing up the end of the NFL season. In the last couple weeks of the NFL season, the top seeds that have already clinched a playoff berth will either sit their starters or only play them for a handful of series. The games are meaningless because the teams have already sewn up a playoff spot. Instead of seeing Peyton Manning, for instance, fans get to see the immortal Curtis Painter. The results aren’t often pretty. The BCS prevents this, or so the argument goes.
Unfortunately for the BCS, that’s simply not the case. By all accounts, LSU can lose the SEC Championship game this weekend and still make the title game because, you know, every game counts. It’s a meaningless game. Many schools already have their bowl berths locked up, rendering their last games irrelevant. Bowls pick based on school attractiveness and how well the fanbase travels. It didn’t matter whether or not Nebraska beat Iowa in its last game, for example. The Capital One Bowl is still going to pick them over the Big 10 runner-up because they travel well. The record doesn’t matter all that much.
Further, how is an NFL team sitting its starters to rest up for the playoffs any different than a BCS school scheduling a creampuff in its non-conference schedule? Is watching Brian Hoyer lead the Patriots in the regular-season finale worse than Alabama run up the score on Kent State, North Texas, or Georgia Southern?
Plus, the NFL’s regular season doesn’t seem to be hurting its popularity much. The NFL is the most popular league in America, and the Super Bowl is the most-watched event in television history. People are still going to watch college football.
Tradition
About the only time you will hear “pageantry” is when someone waxes poetically about bowl games. BCS apologists will bemoan the fate of bowl games in a playoff system and claim that a playoff would eliminate the bowls.
There are several problems with this. One, why would the bowl games have to be eliminated? Why not have bowl games for those teams that failed to qualify for the playoffs? Have the playoff games on Friday night and Saturday, and stage bowl games during the week between the playoff rounds. College football is already on about five nights a week, so it would be like a continuation of the regular season. Teams like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, San Diego State, and South Carolina are rewarded for good seasons despite missing the playoffs, the bowls are retained, and everybody wins.
The tradition argument is another example of hypocrisy when it comes to the BCS. There are 35 bowl games. Heaven forbid we get rid of the rich tradition of the TicketCity Bowl, which debuted last year. Several bowls are actually owned and run by ESPN solely to be aired on television. There’s no tradition or ceremony involved. Fewer bowl games would actually improve the tradition and pageantry of the bowl games because they would have more meaning. There are so many games now that the bowls are no longer special.
BCS supporters talk big when it comes to tradition, but their actions speak louder. The unequal revenue distribution from the BCS has caused conferences to fracture and traditional rivalries to end. The Backyard Brawl between Pitt and West Virginia, long a heated rivalry, may come to an end because both Pitt and West Virginia are leaving the Big East. When the Big 12 was on the verge of collapse, the smaller schools in the conference basically had to sell their souls to Texas to keep it together so they wouldn’t lose their BCS AQ status. That discord caused both Texas A&M and Missouri to bolt for the SEC, leading to the possible end of the annual rivalry game between A&M and Texas as well as the Border War between Kansas and Missouri, a rivalry that dates back to the Civil War. It’s not just the football rivalries, either. Rivalries in other sports will be affected, too.
The BCS has had an even greater impact among the non-AQ conferences. Tired of receiving less for performing better, Utah and TCU have left the Mountain West to join the Pac-12 and Big 12, respectively. The Utes were a founding member of the Mountain West and had a long history in the WAC. They have gone undefeated twice and won both their BCS bowls, yet they never received a chance to play for the national title.
TCU has reached a BCS bowl twice, going 1-1. Last year, they ran the table but were left out of the national championship game.
Boise State has an impressive resume, several undefeated seasons, and has gone 2-0 in BCS games yet has never made the national title game. In 2007, they were the only undefeated team in the country, yet they finished the year ranked #5. The Broncos are currently contemplating joining the Big East, even though it makes no sense geographically or for the Broncos’ other sports programs. The Big East is the least stable conference in the country, yet several teams are eager to join this sinking ship. Why?
The answer is simple: the BCS.
The Big East currently has an automatic bid to the BCS even though it has done little on the field lately to deserve it. Last year, an unranked 8-4 UConn team earned the Big East’s BCS bid and was trounced by Oklahoma. Meanwhile, a top-ten Boise State team, whose sole loss was on the road to a top-15 Nevada team that finished 13-1, was left out.
This year, only one Big East team is currently ranked in the BCS Top 25. Conference USA and the Mountain West both have two teams in the rankings, yet the Big East will receive millions more dollars from the BCS.
It’s easy to understand the frustration from non-AQ schools. Why should schools like Iowa State and Duke receive all this extra BCS revenue when they have done nothing on the field? Boise State, and TCU and Utah before them, has consistently excelled and been ranked in the top ten, yet receives far less.
As a result, these teams leave their conferences and rivals behind in pursuit of the all-mighty dollar. The rivalry games in the non-AQ conferences don’t garner the same kind of national attention as their AQ brethren, but they mean just as much to the fans involved. Air Force and Colorado State, for example, have a long and storied rivalry, but that history will mean nothing if Air Force joins the Big East. The rivalry will likely end if that comes to fruition. TCU and Boise State have played several thrilling games over the past few years, and that burgeoning rivalry looked like it would become one of the greats. Now, it has ceased to exist.
Student-Athletes and Playoffs
People in favor of the BCS will denounce a playoff as not being fair to the student-athletes. They argue that a playoff will extend the season and cause intrude upon final exams and study time.
If that were the case, then how come every other level of college football has a playoff? The FCS playoffs began this past weekend. There was an 11-game regular season, and were it not for a three-week break between the semi-finals and finals, the playoffs could have been done by Christmas.
How come athletes in lower divisions aren’t held in the same high regard academically? Academics are arguably more important to those players because only a handful will play professionally. Studying and exams are much more important to their future, yet the NCAA says it’s okay for them to play during finals.
Back in 2006, Ohio State played Florida for the BCS title. The Buckeyes had 51 days between the last game of the regular season and the national championship game. How is that helpful to study habits? Ohio State players had to spend two months practicing and dealing with the hoopla surrounding the game when they could have been concentrating on their studies. Plus, all that time off leads to rust and affects timing. In a playoff, the teams would be sharp because they would have spent the past couple of weeks playing.
The bowl games start during finals week for a lot of schools. The bowls take arguably a greater toll on study time and exam prep than a playoff would. Also, people often point out final exams but what about the start of the semester? Schools on the quarter or trimester system typically start a quarter right after New Years. A team playing in the championship game would miss the first week of class. Players would start the quarter off behind and have to catch up. They’d miss out on going over the syllabus and getting a feel for the class.
Money
Money is the root of all evil, and it certainly is at the heart of many of the issues in college football today. All of the realignment drama was caused by money. Athletic departments are bleeding cash, and the disparity between the haves and have-nots is only growing wider.
A playoff could change all that.
Even Jim Delaney, Big Ten commissioner and staunch playoff foe, admitted in 2005 that a playoff would generate three or four times more revenue than the BCS. College basketball’s tournament is a huge success, and a football tournament would be even more massive.
Indeed, football should look at basketball for inspiration. College basketball revels in competition. Teams actually schedule tough non-conference opponents because it will help them come selection time. The big boys like Duke aren’t afraid to play tough mid-majors like Butler and Gonzaga because there is no harm if they lose. Fans love seeing huge non-conference matchups like Michigan State-North Carolina or this Saturday’s Kentucky-North Carolina game, but it’s also a benefit to the teams themselves. Tough non-conference schedules make a team battle-hardened and mentally tough for conference play. The players have confidence in themselves after navigating such a stretch. Teams are rewarded for it.
The BCS forces teams to limit risk. If an AQ school goes undefeated, chances are they will be in the national title hunt. Why risk playing a school like Boise State or Houston and risk a season-ruining upset? It’s not just mid-majors, either. A few years ago, Auburn was ranked in the preseason top ten and considered a threat to win it all. They opened with USC and got blasted. Oregon started the year in the top-five and opened with a loss to fellow top-five team LSU. There is no reward for a team like Alabama to schedule a tough non-conference game because if they lose, they are out of the running. Oklahoma was ranked #3 and played BYU a couple years ago to start the season, but the Cougars pulled off the upset and ended the Sooners’ title hopes.
Just look at Virginia Tech. The Hokies played Appalachian State, East Carolina, Marshall, and Arkansas State in their non-conference schedule. Arkansas State, at 9-2, had the best record of the bunch. Virginia Tech’s one tough game was against Clemson, and they lost 23-3. Naturally, the Hokies are #5 in the BCS and an inexplicable #3 in the coaches’ poll.
(On a side note: Credit schools like LSU and Oregon for having the guts to play tough competition)
Sports fans are a strange bunch. Practically every other sport has some sort of playoff. Baseball had one of its best postseasons in years, and the drama that unfolded down the stretch as teams battled for the wild card spots was incredible. The Grand Slam tournaments in tennis are basically playoffs. The most popular sporting event in the world, soccer’s World Cup, is a playoff. March Madness is celebrated every year.
Many of these same fans, though, decry the idea of a playoff in college football. It’s mind-boggling. Why is it okay in every other sport but not top-flight college football?
Another strange aspect of this phenomenon is underdogs. We love our underdogs, yet we try to prevent them in college football. Undefeated Houston won’t get a shot to win a title. One-loss Boise State likely won’t make a BCS game. Exceptional non-AQ teams have been denied a chance at a championship in most of the past few years. Their schedule is always ridiculed for being too soft.
Where was the uproar when Butler made it to back-to-back finals in basketball? Nobody said they didn’t belong or that their schedule was too soft. People criticized the inclusion of VCU, but the Rams then went on one of the greatest Final Four runs of all time. George Mason’s run to the Final Four a few years back was gripping. Even non-fans were tuning in to follow these teams.
Those were some of the greatest sports moments in basketball’s storied history, and none of them would have happened if NCAA basketball utilized the BCS. Instead of Connecticut and Butler, we would have had Ohio State and Kansas, neither of which made the Final Four. All the drama from March Madness would not exist.
If the BCS were used in other sports, the Giants don’t upset the 18-0 Patriots in the Super Bowl. San Francisco doesn’t win the World Series last year, and instead of St. Louis’ magical run this year, the Phillies and Yankees duke it out.
And arguably the greatest upset of all time never happens:
The 1980 US Men’s Hockey Team doesn’t defeat the heavily-favored Soviets en route to a gold medal.
Thanksgiving is a time to reflect and appreciate what we have. It’s a time to give thanks, hence the name of the holiday. People generally list the many things for which they are thankful.
One thing for which I am NOT thankful is the BCS.
The BCS is a sham and full of hypocrisy. Year after year, it leaves countless football fans disgruntled and unhappy. There is almost always controversy. BCS apologists, led by BCS executive director Bill Hancock, trot out a number of tired arguments that, frankly, just don’t hold water.
The BCS constantly touts “every game counts.”
Except when it doesn’t. Some games matter more than others. Some don’t even matter at all.
Every Game Counts*
One of the most common arguments you will hear from BCS supporters is that “every game counts.” The theory is that teams can’t afford to make a mistake and lose because it will knock them out of the title chase. Teams need to go undefeated to have a chance, so there is pressure to win every game. All that pressure creates tension and drama, which is why college football is often described as having the best regular season in sports.
At first glance, that makes sense. Stanford, Boise State, and Oklahoma State all suffered defeats that knocked them out of the hunt, lending credence to the theory. But how do you explain Alabama and Oklahoma (pre-Baylor)?
An Alabama lineman realizes that since every game counts, the Tide are done after losing to LSU
Alabama lost in overtime at home to LSU. Since every game counts, they should have been eliminated from title contention… yet in all likelihood, this year’s BCS Championship Game will feature a rematch between #1 LSU and #2 Alabama, a matchup that only about 2-9 states in the country really want to see.
Now, if the other contenders had taken care of business, this wouldn’t have happened. If Boise State doesn’t miss a field goal against TCU, they’d be playing LSU. If Oklahoma State doesn’t fall in overtime to Iowa State or Stanford doesn’t get trampled by Oregon, they’d be in the title game.
All those teams have one loss, so why are they less worthy than Alabama? What makes the Crimson Tide special?
Oklahoma State, for instance, has a stronger resume than Alabama. The Cowboys have beaten five teams in the current BCS Top 25 compared to just two for the Crimson Tide. Oklahoma State has seven wins over teams in the top 50 whilst Alabama only has five, and the Cowboys’ six wins over Division I teams with winning records is twice as many as Alabama has. Oklahoma State has also won its conference where Alabama didn’t even win the SEC West.
Yes, Alabama’s one loss was to the #1 team in the country. However, they lost at home and missed four field goals. How is that better than losing in overtime on the road a day after tragedy struck the Oklahoma State athletic community for the second time in eleven years? A plane crash took the lives of Oklahoma State women’s basketball coach Kurt Budke, assistant coach Miranda Serna, former state senator Olin Branstetter, and Branstetter’s wife Paula. It had to have affected the Oklahoma State players and staff. Their heads and hearts couldn’t have been completely there.
The inclusion of Oklahoma in the title discussion was even more galling. While a case can be made for Alabama, there was no excuse for Oklahoma. Prior to its loss to Baylor, Oklahoma was often cited as the team that would jump ahead of Alabama. All of that was contingent upon winning out and beating then-#2 Oklahoma State on the road.
Losing to Baylor eliminates the Sooners from the discussion, but they never should have been involved in the first place. They lost at home to four-touchdown underdog Texas Tech, snapping a 39-game home winning streak. The Red Raiders proceeded to drop their next five games by scores of 41-7, 52-20, 66-6, 31-27, and 66-42, finishing the year 5-7 and thus ineligible for a bowl game. It is by far the worst loss of any title contender.
Wins don’t count for some teams, either. The Houston Cougars, for example, are undefeated yet won’t get a whiff of the national championship game. In years past, TCU, Boise State, Utah, and Auburn have all gone undefeated yet not made the national championship game. In 2008, Boise State went undefeated and was ranked in the top ten, yet the Broncos were relegated to the Poinsettia Bowl.
It’s not just undefeated teams from automatic qualifying (AQ) conferences who are affected. There are 120 Division I football teams, and for the vast majority, none of their games matter. They have no hope of making it to a BCS bowl, let alone competing for a national championship. If you are from a non-AQ conference and are not ranked high enough to start the season, then you have no shot. The season is irrelevant before it starts. Why should fans at Louisiana Tech, Northern Illinois, or Colorado State care? It doesn’t matter how well their teams do, they’ll still be left on the outside looking in.
Obviously, not every game counts.
The Regular Season is Like a Playoff
Another common argument trumpeted by BCS supporters is that the regular season is like a playoff. “College football has the best regular season in sports!” they’ll say and then explain that this is because of the lack of an actual playoff. Since “every game counts” teams need to run the table or they’ll be eliminated.
The problem here is that in an actual playoff, once you lose, you’re out. When the Green Bay Packers defeated the top-seeded Atlanta Falcons in the NFL playoffs, the Falcons were done. They didn’t get a chance to come back and play in the Super Bowl.
Like Alabama, the Atlanta Falcons rebounded from this playoff loss to play in the Super Bowl
If college football’s regular season truly were like a playoff, then Alabama would not be going to the BCS title game. Oklahoma and Oregon wouldn’t have had second-chances. Virginia Tech would not be creeping back into the picture.
BCS apologists try to counter that argument by bringing up the end of the NFL season. In the last couple weeks of the NFL season, the top seeds that have already clinched a playoff berth will either sit their starters or only play them for a handful of series. The games are meaningless because the teams have already sewn up a playoff spot. Instead of seeing Peyton Manning, for instance, fans get to see the immortal Curtis Painter. The results aren’t often pretty. The BCS prevents this, or so the argument goes.
Unfortunately for the BCS, that’s simply not the case. By all accounts, LSU can lose the SEC Championship game this weekend and still make the title game because, you know, every game counts. It’s a meaningless game. Many schools already have their bowl berths locked up, rendering their last games irrelevant. Bowls pick based on school attractiveness and how well the fanbase travels. It didn’t matter whether or not Nebraska beat Iowa in its last game, for example. The Capital One Bowl is still going to pick them over the Big 10 runner-up because they travel well. The record doesn’t matter all that much.
Further, how is an NFL team sitting its starters to rest up for the playoffs any different than a BCS school scheduling a creampuff in its non-conference schedule? Is watching Brian Hoyer lead the Patriots in the regular-season finale worse than Alabama run up the score on Kent State, North Texas, or Georgia Southern?
Plus, the NFL’s regular season doesn’t seem to be hurting its popularity much. The NFL is the most popular league in America, and the Super Bowl is the most-watched event in television history. People are still going to watch college football.
Tradition
About the only time you will hear “pageantry” is when someone waxes poetically about bowl games. BCS apologists will bemoan the fate of bowl games in a playoff system and claim that a playoff would eliminate the bowls.
There are several problems with this. One, why would the bowl games have to be eliminated? Why not have bowl games for those teams that failed to qualify for the playoffs? Have the playoff games on Friday night and Saturday, and stage bowl games during the week between the playoff rounds. College football is already on about five nights a week, so it would be like a continuation of the regular season. Teams like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, San Diego State, and South Carolina are rewarded for good seasons despite missing the playoffs, the bowls are retained, and everybody wins.
The tradition argument is another example of hypocrisy when it comes to the BCS. There are 35 bowl games. Heaven forbid we get rid of the rich tradition of the TicketCity Bowl, which debuted last year. Several bowls are actually owned and run by ESPN solely to be aired on television. There’s no tradition or ceremony involved. Fewer bowl games would actually improve the tradition and pageantry of the bowl games because they would have more meaning. There are so many games now that the bowls are no longer special.
Just look at all that tradition! What pageantry!
BCS supporters talk big when it comes to tradition, but their actions speak louder. The unequal revenue distribution from the BCS has caused conferences to fracture and traditional rivalries to end. The Backyard Brawl between Pitt and West Virginia, long a heated rivalry, may come to an end because both Pitt and West Virginia are leaving the Big East. When the Big 12 was on the verge of collapse, the smaller schools in the conference basically had to sell their souls to Texas to keep it together so they wouldn’t lose their BCS AQ status. That discord caused both Texas A&M and Missouri to bolt for the SEC, leading to the possible end of the annual rivalry game between A&M and Texas as well as the Border War between Kansas and Missouri, a rivalry that dates back to the Civil War. It’s not just the football rivalries, either. Rivalries in other sports will be affected, too.
The BCS has had an even greater impact among the non-AQ conferences. Tired of receiving less for performing better, Utah and TCU have left the Mountain West to join the Pac-12 and Big 12, respectively. The Utes were a founding member of the Mountain West and had a long history in the WAC. They have gone undefeated twice and won both their BCS bowls, yet they never received a chance to play for the national title.
TCU has reached a BCS bowl twice, going 1-1. Last year, they ran the table but were left out of the national championship game.
Boise State has an impressive resume, several undefeated seasons, and has gone 2-0 in BCS games yet has never made the national title game. In 2007, they were the only undefeated team in the country, yet they finished the year ranked #5. The Broncos are currently contemplating joining the Big East, even though it makes no sense geographically or for the Broncos’ other sports programs. The Big East is the least stable conference in the country, yet several teams are eager to join this sinking ship. Why?
The answer is simple: the BCS.
The Big East currently has an automatic bid to the BCS even though it has done little on the field lately to deserve it. Last year, an unranked 8-4 UConn team earned the Big East’s BCS bid and was trounced by Oklahoma. Meanwhile, a top-ten Boise State team, whose sole loss was on the road to a top-15 Nevada team that finished 13-1, was left out.
This year, only one Big East team is currently ranked in the BCS Top 25. Conference USA and the Mountain West both have two teams in the rankings, yet the Big East will receive millions more dollars from the BCS.
It’s easy to understand the frustration from non-AQ schools. Why should schools like Iowa State and Duke receive all this extra BCS revenue when they have done nothing on the field? Boise State, and TCU and Utah before them, has consistently excelled and been ranked in the top ten, yet receives far less.
As a result, these teams leave their conferences and rivals behind in pursuit of the all-mighty dollar. The rivalry games in the non-AQ conferences don’t garner the same kind of national attention as their AQ brethren, but they mean just as much to the fans involved. Air Force and Colorado State, for example, have a long and storied rivalry, but that history will mean nothing if Air Force joins the Big East. The rivalry will likely end if that comes to fruition. TCU and Boise State have played several thrilling games over the past few years, and that burgeoning rivalry looked like it would become one of the greats. Now, it has ceased to exist.
Student-Athletes and Playoffs
People in favor of the BCS will denounce a playoff as not being fair to the student-athletes. They argue that a playoff will extend the season and cause intrude upon final exams and study time.
If that were the case, then how come every other level of college football has a playoff? The FCS playoffs began this past weekend. There was an 11-game regular season, and were it not for a three-week break between the semi-finals and finals, the playoffs could have been done by Christmas.
How come athletes in lower divisions aren’t held in the same high regard academically? Academics are arguably more important to those players because only a handful will play professionally. Studying and exams are much more important to their future, yet the NCAA says it’s okay for them to play during finals.
Back in 2006, Ohio State played Florida for the BCS title. The Buckeyes had 51 days between the last game of the regular season and the national championship game. How is that helpful to study habits? Ohio State players had to spend two months practicing and dealing with the hoopla surrounding the game when they could have been concentrating on their studies. Plus, all that time off leads to rust and affects timing. In a playoff, the teams would be sharp because they would have spent the past couple of weeks playing.
The bowl games start during finals week for a lot of schools. The bowls take arguably a greater toll on study time and exam prep than a playoff would. Also, people often point out final exams but what about the start of the semester? Schools on the quarter or trimester system typically start a quarter right after New Years. A team playing in the championship game would miss the first week of class. Players would start the quarter off behind and have to catch up. They’d miss out on going over the syllabus and getting a feel for the class.
Money
Money is the root of all evil, and it certainly is at the heart of many of the issues in college football today. All of the realignment drama was caused by money. Athletic departments are bleeding cash, and the disparity between the haves and have-nots is only growing wider.
A playoff could change all that.
Even Jim Delaney, Big Ten commissioner and staunch playoff foe, admitted in 2005 that a playoff would generate three or four times more revenue than the BCS. College basketball’s tournament is a huge success, and a football tournament would be even more massive.
Indeed, football should look at basketball for inspiration. College basketball revels in competition. Teams actually schedule tough non-conference opponents because it will help them come selection time. The big boys like Duke aren’t afraid to play tough mid-majors like Butler and Gonzaga because there is no harm if they lose. Fans love seeing huge non-conference matchups like Michigan State-North Carolina or this Saturday’s Kentucky-North Carolina game, but it’s also a benefit to the teams themselves. Tough non-conference schedules make a team battle-hardened and mentally tough for conference play. The players have confidence in themselves after navigating such a stretch. Teams are rewarded for it.
The BCS forces teams to limit risk. If an AQ school goes undefeated, chances are they will be in the national title hunt. Why risk playing a school like Boise State or Houston and risk a season-ruining upset? It’s not just mid-majors, either. A few years ago, Auburn was ranked in the preseason top ten and considered a threat to win it all. They opened with USC and got blasted. Oregon started the year in the top-five and opened with a loss to fellow top-five team LSU. There is no reward for a team like Alabama to schedule a tough non-conference game because if they lose, they are out of the running. Oklahoma was ranked #3 and played BYU a couple years ago to start the season, but the Cougars pulled off the upset and ended the Sooners’ title hopes.
Just look at Virginia Tech. The Hokies played Appalachian State, East Carolina, Marshall, and Arkansas State in their non-conference schedule. Arkansas State, at 9-2, had the best record of the bunch. Virginia Tech’s one tough game was against Clemson, and they lost 23-3. Naturally, the Hokies are #5 in the BCS and an inexplicable #3 in the coaches’ poll.
(On a side note: Credit schools like LSU and Oregon for having the guts to play tough competition)
Sports fans are a strange bunch. Practically every other sport has some sort of playoff. Baseball had one of its best postseasons in years, and the drama that unfolded down the stretch as teams battled for the wild card spots was incredible. The Grand Slam tournaments in tennis are basically playoffs. The most popular sporting event in the world, soccer’s World Cup, is a playoff. March Madness is celebrated every year.
Many of these same fans, though, decry the idea of a playoff in college football. It’s mind-boggling. Why is it okay in every other sport but not top-flight college football?
Another strange aspect of this phenomenon is underdogs. We love our underdogs, yet we try to prevent them in college football. Undefeated Houston won’t get a shot to win a title. One-loss Boise State likely won’t make a BCS game. Exceptional non-AQ teams have been denied a chance at a championship in most of the past few years. Their schedule is always ridiculed for being too soft.
Where was the uproar when Butler made it to back-to-back finals in basketball? Nobody said they didn’t belong or that their schedule was too soft. People criticized the inclusion of VCU, but the Rams then went on one of the greatest Final Four runs of all time. George Mason’s run to the Final Four a few years back was gripping. Even non-fans were tuning in to follow these teams.
Those were some of the greatest sports moments in basketball’s storied history, and none of them would have happened if NCAA basketball utilized the BCS. Instead of Connecticut and Butler, we would have had Ohio State and Kansas, neither of which made the Final Four. All the drama from March Madness would not exist.
If the BCS were used in other sports, the Giants don’t upset the 18-0 Patriots in the Super Bowl. San Francisco doesn’t win the World Series last year, and instead of St. Louis’ magical run this year, the Phillies and Yankees duke it out.
And arguably the greatest upset of all time never happens:
The 1980 US Men’s Hockey Team doesn’t defeat the heavily-favored Soviets en route to a gold medal.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Love/Hate Relationship Between Sports and the "Win"
Stats are a funny thing.
I had this revelation the other day after witnessing the hilarity that was the Broncos-Jets game last Thursday night. My dad and I went to the game, and in case you missed it, the Broncos managed to go 95 yards with around 6 minutes remaining in the fourth quarter and score the game-winning touchdown in a 17-13 victory.
I can safely say it was the first time I've ever witnessed a go-ahead score late in a game and reacted by just busting out laughing. I turned to my dad, and he had the same grin on his face and was just shaking his head and chuckling. We couldn't believe what had happened because for the previous two-and-a-half quarters, the Broncos' offense was dreadful. I'm talkin' absolutely horrid.
I previously wrote about the Broncos' new option offense, but they didn't even seem to run that. It was just handoff after handoff up the middle for a yard or two. There was no creativity at all. When Offensive Coordinator Mike McCoy dialed up some passes, Tim Tebow couldn't hit his receivers. It was boring and brutal to watch.
Yet Tebow shined when it counted most. He engineered that final drive and capped it off with a 20-yard touchdown run. Sports Authority Field went nuts; Timmy had done it again!
As I'm sure you're all aware, Tebow is a polarizing figure. There seems to be no middle ground with him; you're either a Tebow Fan or a Tebow Hater. Both sides argue endlessly about his abilities and whether or not he'll make it as a quarterback.
Which brings us back to stats.
In the realm of sports debates, statistics are the ammuntion. Critics will point to his 44.8 completion percentage this year to back up their claims about how he can't throw. Supporters will counter with his 4-1 record as a starter. You'll often hear, "All he does in win," or "Tebow's a winner."
Wins are paramount in the NFL. Vince Lombardi once said, "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." Bill Williamson, AFC West blogger for ESPN.com wrote, "That part though [Tebow's struggles to move the ball] is starting not to matter. There's one thing I can't do -- and that's argue against winning."
Wins are all that matters. It may not be pretty, but if it gets the job done, then so be it. Personal stats are irrelevant. If a quarterback wins, then he's doing his job.
Compare that to baseball.
Pitchers are the baseball equivalent of quarterbacks. Every play starts with them handling the ball. They both throw the ball. Accuracy is a must, and scouts drool over the 6'5" 230 lb. rocket-armed guys.
However, wins are not nearly as important in baseball as they are in football. It's almost the exact opposite attitude.
In baseball, the peripheral stats are more important than wins when evaluating a pitcher. Just take a look at the Cy Young trophy.
In 2010, Felix Hernandez of the Seattle Mariners won the AL Cy Young with a mediocre 13-12 record. Cliff Corcoran of Sports Illustrated wrote, "It seems safe to declare an end to the era when the voting for the award was based largely, at times seemingly exclusively, on pitching wins and losses." He goes on to add that Hernandez's award, combined with low win totals for 2009 winners Tim Lincecum and Zack Greinke, are "the continuation of a trend that suggests pitchers are being evaluated more completely than ever before."
This view is widespread. Joe Posnanski, another writer for SI, said :
"It amazes and entertains me to no end the logical maze that people will negotiate to argue that pictuers can win games more-or-less singlehandedly. The Mighty Win people certainly understand that pitchers don't strike out the majority of hitters they face. They obviously know that different ballparks have different configurations. They can't help but realize that pitchers cannot win games unless the offense scores at least one run, usually four or five or more."
Keith Law of ESPN.com wrote this when comparing Jason Marquis to Ubaldo Jimenez for the 2009 All Star Game. Right below it, he criticizes the selection of Tim Wakefield, saying, "Wakefield is here because of the idiotic fascination that people have with win totals."
In baseball, the prevailing view seems to be that wins are not indicative of a pitcher's ability and performance because so many other factors come into play. Felix Hernandez is a great pitcher, but his win totals were so low (and conversely his loss total was so high) because his offense sucked. The Mariners have turned offensive ineptitude into an art form the past two years. There were a number of games were Hernandez was lights-out, either shutting out the other team or only giving up a run or two. Unfortunately for him, his teammates failed to score, so he was credited with losses or no decisions instead of wins.
So why do the two sports have such different views of the "win"? It's still the same stat. How can it be the be-all/end-all in the one but such a trashy, low-brow stat in the other?
Tebow die-hards might consider this blasphemy, but he never wins games single-handedly. Against the Jets, the defense made New York's offense look just as inept as Denver's for much of the game. Andre' Goodman returned an interception for a touchdown that tied the game at 10 in the third quarter. The lineman gave Tebow time to throw and opened up holes for him to run. Receivers and tight ends caught his passes. Without his teammates chipping in, the Broncos lose that game.
Quarterbacks don't make tackles, force fumbles, or catch touchdown passes, so why do they get all the credit when a team wins? Football is a team sport, just like baseball. In fact, football is often referred to as the "ultimate team sport." Coaches always mention how critical it is to have 11 guys playing together. There are offensive and defensive "units." You never hear about that in baseball. Yet in the ultimate team sport, credit goes to the quarterback.
In baseball, Tim Tebow would be judged a fraud. His win total would be irrelevant. He'd be the equivalent of a pitcher who had a high ERA but benefited from a ton of run support. Pitchers like that can rack up the wins despite giving up 4-5 runs in 5 innings because their offense puts up 7-8 runs in their starts.
This isn't to say that baseball's views are correct and/or better than football's. Baseball would view someone like Kyle Orton favorably. For awhile, he was on pace to set the single-season passing yardage record. He was completing a good number of his passes and throwing for a ton of yards a game. However, the Broncos were losing. They went 4-12 last year, 3-10 under Orton. That's the football equivalent of Zack Greinke or Felix Hernandez: gaudy stats on poor teams.
Both spors are team sports, so one player is never solely responsible for the outcome. Receivers catch passes, and infielders field ground balls. A pitcher can throw seven shutout innings, but if the offense doesn't score any runs, he won't get the win. A quarterback can throw for 300 yards and three touchdowns, but if the defense gives up five touchdowns, he won't win.
So which is the better approach?
Honestly, neither. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Football should place less prevalence on wins when evaluating quarterbacks because there are so many other factors and players involved in deciding a game.
On the other hand, baseball does need to take wins into account because they are important. The goal of every team is to come away with a victory. Maybe a pitcher has fantastic stuff and pitches great but makes one or two mistakes that come back to bite them. Sure, Felix Hernandez had outstanding stats and a great season, but maybe in those 1-0 or 2-1 defeats, he hung a slider for a homerun or walked a guy that came around to score. In tight games, it's the little things that can be most costly. Wins are important. I'd rather have a guy with decent stats who wins than a guy with amazing stats who doesn't.
I had this revelation the other day after witnessing the hilarity that was the Broncos-Jets game last Thursday night. My dad and I went to the game, and in case you missed it, the Broncos managed to go 95 yards with around 6 minutes remaining in the fourth quarter and score the game-winning touchdown in a 17-13 victory.
I can safely say it was the first time I've ever witnessed a go-ahead score late in a game and reacted by just busting out laughing. I turned to my dad, and he had the same grin on his face and was just shaking his head and chuckling. We couldn't believe what had happened because for the previous two-and-a-half quarters, the Broncos' offense was dreadful. I'm talkin' absolutely horrid.
I previously wrote about the Broncos' new option offense, but they didn't even seem to run that. It was just handoff after handoff up the middle for a yard or two. There was no creativity at all. When Offensive Coordinator Mike McCoy dialed up some passes, Tim Tebow couldn't hit his receivers. It was boring and brutal to watch.
Yet Tebow shined when it counted most. He engineered that final drive and capped it off with a 20-yard touchdown run. Sports Authority Field went nuts; Timmy had done it again!
As I'm sure you're all aware, Tebow is a polarizing figure. There seems to be no middle ground with him; you're either a Tebow Fan or a Tebow Hater. Both sides argue endlessly about his abilities and whether or not he'll make it as a quarterback.
Which brings us back to stats.
In the realm of sports debates, statistics are the ammuntion. Critics will point to his 44.8 completion percentage this year to back up their claims about how he can't throw. Supporters will counter with his 4-1 record as a starter. You'll often hear, "All he does in win," or "Tebow's a winner."
Wins are paramount in the NFL. Vince Lombardi once said, "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." Bill Williamson, AFC West blogger for ESPN.com wrote, "That part though [Tebow's struggles to move the ball] is starting not to matter. There's one thing I can't do -- and that's argue against winning."
Wins are all that matters. It may not be pretty, but if it gets the job done, then so be it. Personal stats are irrelevant. If a quarterback wins, then he's doing his job.
Compare that to baseball.
Pitchers are the baseball equivalent of quarterbacks. Every play starts with them handling the ball. They both throw the ball. Accuracy is a must, and scouts drool over the 6'5" 230 lb. rocket-armed guys.
However, wins are not nearly as important in baseball as they are in football. It's almost the exact opposite attitude.
In baseball, the peripheral stats are more important than wins when evaluating a pitcher. Just take a look at the Cy Young trophy.
In 2010, Felix Hernandez of the Seattle Mariners won the AL Cy Young with a mediocre 13-12 record. Cliff Corcoran of Sports Illustrated wrote, "It seems safe to declare an end to the era when the voting for the award was based largely, at times seemingly exclusively, on pitching wins and losses." He goes on to add that Hernandez's award, combined with low win totals for 2009 winners Tim Lincecum and Zack Greinke, are "the continuation of a trend that suggests pitchers are being evaluated more completely than ever before."
This view is widespread. Joe Posnanski, another writer for SI, said :
"It amazes and entertains me to no end the logical maze that people will negotiate to argue that pictuers can win games more-or-less singlehandedly. The Mighty Win people certainly understand that pitchers don't strike out the majority of hitters they face. They obviously know that different ballparks have different configurations. They can't help but realize that pitchers cannot win games unless the offense scores at least one run, usually four or five or more."
Keith Law of ESPN.com wrote this when comparing Jason Marquis to Ubaldo Jimenez for the 2009 All Star Game. Right below it, he criticizes the selection of Tim Wakefield, saying, "Wakefield is here because of the idiotic fascination that people have with win totals."
In baseball, the prevailing view seems to be that wins are not indicative of a pitcher's ability and performance because so many other factors come into play. Felix Hernandez is a great pitcher, but his win totals were so low (and conversely his loss total was so high) because his offense sucked. The Mariners have turned offensive ineptitude into an art form the past two years. There were a number of games were Hernandez was lights-out, either shutting out the other team or only giving up a run or two. Unfortunately for him, his teammates failed to score, so he was credited with losses or no decisions instead of wins.
So why do the two sports have such different views of the "win"? It's still the same stat. How can it be the be-all/end-all in the one but such a trashy, low-brow stat in the other?
Tebow die-hards might consider this blasphemy, but he never wins games single-handedly. Against the Jets, the defense made New York's offense look just as inept as Denver's for much of the game. Andre' Goodman returned an interception for a touchdown that tied the game at 10 in the third quarter. The lineman gave Tebow time to throw and opened up holes for him to run. Receivers and tight ends caught his passes. Without his teammates chipping in, the Broncos lose that game.
Quarterbacks don't make tackles, force fumbles, or catch touchdown passes, so why do they get all the credit when a team wins? Football is a team sport, just like baseball. In fact, football is often referred to as the "ultimate team sport." Coaches always mention how critical it is to have 11 guys playing together. There are offensive and defensive "units." You never hear about that in baseball. Yet in the ultimate team sport, credit goes to the quarterback.
In baseball, Tim Tebow would be judged a fraud. His win total would be irrelevant. He'd be the equivalent of a pitcher who had a high ERA but benefited from a ton of run support. Pitchers like that can rack up the wins despite giving up 4-5 runs in 5 innings because their offense puts up 7-8 runs in their starts.
This isn't to say that baseball's views are correct and/or better than football's. Baseball would view someone like Kyle Orton favorably. For awhile, he was on pace to set the single-season passing yardage record. He was completing a good number of his passes and throwing for a ton of yards a game. However, the Broncos were losing. They went 4-12 last year, 3-10 under Orton. That's the football equivalent of Zack Greinke or Felix Hernandez: gaudy stats on poor teams.
Both spors are team sports, so one player is never solely responsible for the outcome. Receivers catch passes, and infielders field ground balls. A pitcher can throw seven shutout innings, but if the offense doesn't score any runs, he won't get the win. A quarterback can throw for 300 yards and three touchdowns, but if the defense gives up five touchdowns, he won't win.
So which is the better approach?
Honestly, neither. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Football should place less prevalence on wins when evaluating quarterbacks because there are so many other factors and players involved in deciding a game.
On the other hand, baseball does need to take wins into account because they are important. The goal of every team is to come away with a victory. Maybe a pitcher has fantastic stuff and pitches great but makes one or two mistakes that come back to bite them. Sure, Felix Hernandez had outstanding stats and a great season, but maybe in those 1-0 or 2-1 defeats, he hung a slider for a homerun or walked a guy that came around to score. In tight games, it's the little things that can be most costly. Wins are important. I'd rather have a guy with decent stats who wins than a guy with amazing stats who doesn't.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The Doomsday Clock is Approaching Midnight
Week 11 in the college football season was marked by two more teams falling from the ranks of the unbeaten. One was not that surprising while the other was a complete shock. Both were eerily reminiscent of each team’s lone loss a year ago.
Fourth-ranked Stanford had its biggest test of the year against seventh-ranked Oregon, and just like last year, the Ducks ran all over the Cardinal. Oregon hung 50 points on Stanford for the second year in a row, and Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck had his worst game of the year. The loss not only knocks Stanford out of national title contention, it likely cost the Cardinal a chance at the Pac-12 title as well. Only resurgent USC and hapless Oregon State stand in the way of Oregon reaching the inaugural Pac-12 championship game where they would face a less-than-stellar representative from the Pac-12 South division.
The 53-30 win vaulted Oregon back into the national championship discussion. After starting the year off with a 40-27 loss to top-ranked LSU in Texas, Oregon has rebounded nicely and steamrollered the opposition. In the nine games since that season-opening defeat, Oregon’s lowest scoring output was 34 against Washington. They have topped 50 points three times and put up 69 against Nevada. If Oklahoma State falters, Oregon is in good position to make it to the title game.
The most shocking upset was TCU defeating Boise State 36-35 on the blue turf in Boise, where the Broncos never lose. Boise State boasted the longest regular season winning streak since 1978 with 65 straight wins and had the longest conference home winning streak during that time at 47 games. With prolific senior quarterback Kellen Moore, the winningest quarterback in history, and an experienced team, the Broncos were expected to coast through their schedule. TCU is an excellent program, but after losing quarterback Andy Dalton and a slew of talent from last year’s undefeated Rose Bowl-winning team, the Horned Frogs are in the midst of a rebuilding year. TCU’s vaunted defense has struggled this year, giving up 50 points to Baylor and 40 to SMU. This figured to be a mismatch.
It was, just not in the way people expected.
Sophomore quarterback Casey Pachall threw for a career-high 473 yards and five touchdowns and passed at will as TCU strafed Boise State’s injury-riddled secondary. A gutsy two-point conversion call by Coach Gary Patterson put the Horned Frogs up by one with just over a minute to go, and for the second straight year, Boise State was done in by a missed field goal. In the Broncos’ loss to Nevada last year, kicker Kyle Brotzman missed a chip-shot field goal at the end of regulation that would have won the game and another in overtime. This year, kicker Dan Goodale pushed his attempt wide right as time ran down, sealing the win for TCU.
This loss hurts Boise State much more than Stanford’s shellacking at the hands of Oregon. The Cardinal is still in line for a possible BCS bowl bid. Not only does Boise State have no shot at a national championship, they will most likely be shut out of a lucrative BCS bowl. Houston is still undefeated and, provided the Cougars win out, would finish ranked high enough to earn an automatic bid. Furthermore, since the Broncos most likely will not win the Mountain West (TCU is undefeated in conference play and only has to play Colorado State and UNLV), they will not be guaranteed a spot since the guaranteed spot only applies to conference champions. The Broncos would be eligible for an at-large spot, but the chances of them being selected over a team from one of the bigger conference are slim.
So what does this mean for the national title race?
Immovable Object vs. Unstoppable Force
If LSU and Oklahoma State win out, they’re in. They are the lone undefeated teams remaining from BCS conferences. The Tigers’ stalwart defense mauls opponents, ranking second in the nation in points against with an average of 10.7 per game. Oklahoma State explodes scoreboards, averaging a whopping 51.7 points per game.
However, the roads for both teams are not clear. Each still has a significant obstacle in its path. Oklahoma State ends its season at home with a titanic clash against #5 Oklahoma that should at least be the Game of the Month. Oklahoma has owned the series, both historically and in recent years. Despite losing their leading receiver and top running back, the Sooners still boast plenty of firepower. Can the Cowboys get over the hump and dispatch their hated rivals?
A home game against #6 Arkansas looms for LSU. The Razorbacks boast a potent offense and have enjoyed recent success against LSU, winning three of the past four meetings. If LSU gets by Arkansas, they still have to play the SEC Championship Game, most likely against Georgia. On paper, LSU should have the edge, but crazy things have been known to happen in title games.
What happens if one of these teams falters?
Complete and Utter Chaos
If either Oklahoma State or LSU drops a game, the picture becomes quite muddled.
If one of those teams loses, who should replace them? There is no clear-cut answer. The next four teams in the BCS standings are, in order: Alabama, Oregon, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.
If the Cowboys lose, especially to Oklahoma, who should go? Normally, the #3 team would move up, but that is Alabama. The Crimson Tide lost a barnburner, 9-6 in overtime, to LSU just two weeks ago. While Alabama fans are itching for a rematch, voters tend to avoid that. Back in 2006, Michigan lost to Ohio State in the first Game of the Century in the past five years, and voters moved one-loss Florida ahead of the Wolverines to avoid a rematch. It is likely that they will try to avoid doing that this year, especially since LSU beat Alabama on the road.
Okay, so if voters want to avoid a rematch between Alabama and LSU, then naturally they’ll choose the #4 team, right? Unfortunately, that team is Oregon, which already played LSU this year and was blown out. Plus, Oregon was stifled by Auburn last year, and Auburn’s defense is nowhere near the caliber of LSU’s.
If voters want to avoid a rematch in the title game and avoid Alabama, then they can’t choose Oregon, either. How can they justify choosing a team that lost by two touchdowns over a team that lost in overtime by a field goal to the same team? They can’t.
Well, how about the #5 team? Oklahoma hasn’t played LSU, so the rematch issue is avoided. Problem solved, right? “Not so fast, my friend!” as Lee Corso would say. Unlike Oregon and Alabama, Oklahoma didn’t lose to a top-five team. The Sooners didn’t even lose to a ranked team. They lost at home to an unranked Texas Tech team that was a four-touchdown underdog. If that wasn’t bad enough, the Red Raiders proceeded to build off their statement win by going into a complete tailspin and losing their next three games by scores of 41-7, 52-20, and 66-6.
Plus, this is the BCS. Every game matters... well some more than others. The regular season is like a playoff. Lose, and you’re out… except when you’re not.
The situation becomes real interesting in Arkansas manages to knock off LSU. That would force a three-way tie for first in the SEC West between Arkansas, Alabama, and LSU. Arkansas would have beaten LSU but lost handily to Alabama. The Crimson Tide would have beaten Arkansas but lost to the Tigers at home. LSU would have defeated Alabama on the road but lost to the Razorbacks at home. Who deserves to go? According to SEC rules, it would be the highest-ranked team in the BCS standings, which would be Alabama. LSU fans would have a beef because of the Tigers’ victory on November 5. Arkansas fans would be unhappy because they just knocked off the #1 team in the country on the road. Boise fans would be unhappy because it coulda/woulda/shoulda been them.*
Seventh-ranked Clemson can't be an option because how can one justify vaulting them over five other teams?
The most interesting, and admittedly far-fetched, scenario would be one where these teams suffer multiple losses and beat each up other. Say Oklahoma State lays an egg against Iowa State and then knocks off Oklahoma. Ole Miss blows out LSU. Georgia wins the SEC. Utah beats Oregon in the Pac-12 title game.
The voters are disgusted by all this and elevate undefeated Conference USA champion Houston into the BCS championship game. The outpouring of raw fury from the south causes forest fires to break out in the Midwest. They take it out on Big 10 teams. Again. Stanford eloquently raises an objection. Boise State fans go absolutely apoplectic and try to break away from the union. The Big East is still irrelevant.
For those of you who like things clear-cut, root for Oklahoma State and LSU to run the table. The result will be an interesting matchup between high-powered offense and potent defense.
For those of you who despise the BCS and revel in absolute madness, root for these teams to drop a game.
*Why is it that these elite, powerhouse programs can never find a reliable kicker? Boise State loses two years in a row because of missed field goals. Alabama missed four field goals against LSU. Florida State turned missed kicks into an art form.
Fourth-ranked Stanford had its biggest test of the year against seventh-ranked Oregon, and just like last year, the Ducks ran all over the Cardinal. Oregon hung 50 points on Stanford for the second year in a row, and Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck had his worst game of the year. The loss not only knocks Stanford out of national title contention, it likely cost the Cardinal a chance at the Pac-12 title as well. Only resurgent USC and hapless Oregon State stand in the way of Oregon reaching the inaugural Pac-12 championship game where they would face a less-than-stellar representative from the Pac-12 South division.
The 53-30 win vaulted Oregon back into the national championship discussion. After starting the year off with a 40-27 loss to top-ranked LSU in Texas, Oregon has rebounded nicely and steamrollered the opposition. In the nine games since that season-opening defeat, Oregon’s lowest scoring output was 34 against Washington. They have topped 50 points three times and put up 69 against Nevada. If Oklahoma State falters, Oregon is in good position to make it to the title game.
The most shocking upset was TCU defeating Boise State 36-35 on the blue turf in Boise, where the Broncos never lose. Boise State boasted the longest regular season winning streak since 1978 with 65 straight wins and had the longest conference home winning streak during that time at 47 games. With prolific senior quarterback Kellen Moore, the winningest quarterback in history, and an experienced team, the Broncos were expected to coast through their schedule. TCU is an excellent program, but after losing quarterback Andy Dalton and a slew of talent from last year’s undefeated Rose Bowl-winning team, the Horned Frogs are in the midst of a rebuilding year. TCU’s vaunted defense has struggled this year, giving up 50 points to Baylor and 40 to SMU. This figured to be a mismatch.
It was, just not in the way people expected.
Sophomore quarterback Casey Pachall threw for a career-high 473 yards and five touchdowns and passed at will as TCU strafed Boise State’s injury-riddled secondary. A gutsy two-point conversion call by Coach Gary Patterson put the Horned Frogs up by one with just over a minute to go, and for the second straight year, Boise State was done in by a missed field goal. In the Broncos’ loss to Nevada last year, kicker Kyle Brotzman missed a chip-shot field goal at the end of regulation that would have won the game and another in overtime. This year, kicker Dan Goodale pushed his attempt wide right as time ran down, sealing the win for TCU.
This loss hurts Boise State much more than Stanford’s shellacking at the hands of Oregon. The Cardinal is still in line for a possible BCS bowl bid. Not only does Boise State have no shot at a national championship, they will most likely be shut out of a lucrative BCS bowl. Houston is still undefeated and, provided the Cougars win out, would finish ranked high enough to earn an automatic bid. Furthermore, since the Broncos most likely will not win the Mountain West (TCU is undefeated in conference play and only has to play Colorado State and UNLV), they will not be guaranteed a spot since the guaranteed spot only applies to conference champions. The Broncos would be eligible for an at-large spot, but the chances of them being selected over a team from one of the bigger conference are slim.
So what does this mean for the national title race?
Immovable Object vs. Unstoppable Force
If LSU and Oklahoma State win out, they’re in. They are the lone undefeated teams remaining from BCS conferences. The Tigers’ stalwart defense mauls opponents, ranking second in the nation in points against with an average of 10.7 per game. Oklahoma State explodes scoreboards, averaging a whopping 51.7 points per game.
However, the roads for both teams are not clear. Each still has a significant obstacle in its path. Oklahoma State ends its season at home with a titanic clash against #5 Oklahoma that should at least be the Game of the Month. Oklahoma has owned the series, both historically and in recent years. Despite losing their leading receiver and top running back, the Sooners still boast plenty of firepower. Can the Cowboys get over the hump and dispatch their hated rivals?
A home game against #6 Arkansas looms for LSU. The Razorbacks boast a potent offense and have enjoyed recent success against LSU, winning three of the past four meetings. If LSU gets by Arkansas, they still have to play the SEC Championship Game, most likely against Georgia. On paper, LSU should have the edge, but crazy things have been known to happen in title games.
What happens if one of these teams falters?
Complete and Utter Chaos
If either Oklahoma State or LSU drops a game, the picture becomes quite muddled.
If one of those teams loses, who should replace them? There is no clear-cut answer. The next four teams in the BCS standings are, in order: Alabama, Oregon, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.
If the Cowboys lose, especially to Oklahoma, who should go? Normally, the #3 team would move up, but that is Alabama. The Crimson Tide lost a barnburner, 9-6 in overtime, to LSU just two weeks ago. While Alabama fans are itching for a rematch, voters tend to avoid that. Back in 2006, Michigan lost to Ohio State in the first Game of the Century in the past five years, and voters moved one-loss Florida ahead of the Wolverines to avoid a rematch. It is likely that they will try to avoid doing that this year, especially since LSU beat Alabama on the road.
Okay, so if voters want to avoid a rematch between Alabama and LSU, then naturally they’ll choose the #4 team, right? Unfortunately, that team is Oregon, which already played LSU this year and was blown out. Plus, Oregon was stifled by Auburn last year, and Auburn’s defense is nowhere near the caliber of LSU’s.
If voters want to avoid a rematch in the title game and avoid Alabama, then they can’t choose Oregon, either. How can they justify choosing a team that lost by two touchdowns over a team that lost in overtime by a field goal to the same team? They can’t.
Well, how about the #5 team? Oklahoma hasn’t played LSU, so the rematch issue is avoided. Problem solved, right? “Not so fast, my friend!” as Lee Corso would say. Unlike Oregon and Alabama, Oklahoma didn’t lose to a top-five team. The Sooners didn’t even lose to a ranked team. They lost at home to an unranked Texas Tech team that was a four-touchdown underdog. If that wasn’t bad enough, the Red Raiders proceeded to build off their statement win by going into a complete tailspin and losing their next three games by scores of 41-7, 52-20, and 66-6.
Plus, this is the BCS. Every game matters... well some more than others. The regular season is like a playoff. Lose, and you’re out… except when you’re not.
The situation becomes real interesting in Arkansas manages to knock off LSU. That would force a three-way tie for first in the SEC West between Arkansas, Alabama, and LSU. Arkansas would have beaten LSU but lost handily to Alabama. The Crimson Tide would have beaten Arkansas but lost to the Tigers at home. LSU would have defeated Alabama on the road but lost to the Razorbacks at home. Who deserves to go? According to SEC rules, it would be the highest-ranked team in the BCS standings, which would be Alabama. LSU fans would have a beef because of the Tigers’ victory on November 5. Arkansas fans would be unhappy because they just knocked off the #1 team in the country on the road. Boise fans would be unhappy because it coulda/woulda/shoulda been them.*
Seventh-ranked Clemson can't be an option because how can one justify vaulting them over five other teams?
The most interesting, and admittedly far-fetched, scenario would be one where these teams suffer multiple losses and beat each up other. Say Oklahoma State lays an egg against Iowa State and then knocks off Oklahoma. Ole Miss blows out LSU. Georgia wins the SEC. Utah beats Oregon in the Pac-12 title game.
The voters are disgusted by all this and elevate undefeated Conference USA champion Houston into the BCS championship game. The outpouring of raw fury from the south causes forest fires to break out in the Midwest. They take it out on Big 10 teams. Again. Stanford eloquently raises an objection. Boise State fans go absolutely apoplectic and try to break away from the union. The Big East is still irrelevant.
For those of you who like things clear-cut, root for Oklahoma State and LSU to run the table. The result will be an interesting matchup between high-powered offense and potent defense.
For those of you who despise the BCS and revel in absolute madness, root for these teams to drop a game.
*Why is it that these elite, powerhouse programs can never find a reliable kicker? Boise State loses two years in a row because of missed field goals. Alabama missed four field goals against LSU. Florida State turned missed kicks into an art form.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Conventional Wisdom? Screw That!
You hear the phrase "conventional wisdom" tossed around a lot in sports, especially football.
"Conventional wisdom says you must be able to run the ball and play defense to go deep into the playoffs," for example.
"Conventional wisdom says you can't slug your way to a World Series."
"Conventional wisdom says you can't bat your pitcher in the cleanup spot."
Conventional wisdom also believed at one point that the Earth was flat, the Maginot Line was impenetrable, and that a cold-weather team would never win the College World Series (for the record, Oregon State went back-to-back. Go Beavers).
The reason I bring this up is because the Denver Broncos are defying conventional wisdom.
Conventional wisdom says that in order for an offense to be successful in today's NFL, it must have a good passing attack. The quarterback must be able to throw the football and keep defenses honest. Every team wants that prototypical franchise quarterback: a 6'5" 225 lb. right-hander with a cannon for an arm, the accuracy of a sniper, and the experience of playing in a pro-style offense in college.
The Broncos' quarterback, an obscure fella by the name of Tim Tebow, does not fit that mold. He is left-handed, not only played in a "dreaded" spread system in college but a running spread option attack at that, and is somewhat lacking in the passing ability department. While Tebow has a strong arm, he has all the accuracy of an untrained African militia member. In his last game, Tebow only completed 2-of-8 passes for 69 yards. The week before, He was 10-of-21 for 124 yards. On the season, he has completed only 44.8 percent of his passes for 605 yards. That's an average of 151 yards per game. The top quarterbacks in the game can throw for that much in a quarter.
While Tebow is not a great thrower, he is an outstanding runner. He has run for 320 yards on 48 carries this season, averaging 6.7 yards a carry. He ran for 118 yards against Oakland two weeks ago and scored a 7-yard touchdown against Kansas City this past week.
In college at the University of Florida, Tebow ran a spread-option attack under Urban Meyer. It featured a lot of zone-read plays where the quarterback has the option to either hand off to the running back or keep it himself, depending on where the defensive end commits himself. Tebow was a master at it, setting the SEC career record for touchdowns, becoming the first underclassman to win the Heisman Trophy, and winning two BCS titles.
As a result, Denver Coach John Fox and Offensive Coordinator Mike McCoy have scrapped the team's original offense and created one tailored to Tebow's strengths. The Broncos now' new run-heavy offense features elements like the option and zone-read that haven't been seen in the NFL in decades. Denver's new gameplan is to utilize Tebow's strengths as a runner and pummel opposing defenses with a power run game, allowing the team to control time of possession and keep the defense fresh.
Ever since Tebow became the starter, Denver has been the best rushing team in the NFL at a whopping 229 yards per game. Against Kansas City, Tebow attempted only 8 passes, and between the Oakland game the week prior and the game against the Chiefs, Tebow went four quarters without attempting a pass. To open the game against Kansas City, the Broncos did not call a single pass, running the ball down the Chiefs' throats all the way to the end zone.
It harkens back to bygone football ages. Sportswriters have brought up names like Woody Hayes and Bo Schembechler, almost mockingly so. The Broncos have gone old-school, and the general consensus seems to be that they are setting football back decades.
Why? Because it goes against conventional wisdom.
The National Football League is a very risk-averse, tradition-bound league that adheres to many unchallenged laws; "conventional wisdom," if you will. Its followers have been brain-washed into believing these "truths" without question. Things are done because that is how they are supposed to be done. If you ask why, the answer will probably be "well that's how it's always been done." That's why you rarely see a variety of offenses in the NFL. Everyone runs basically the same formations. That's why the Wildcat fad of a couple of years ago was so news-worthy. It was something different, which is a rare sight in the NFL.
NFL coaches are among the most boring, risk-averse people in the world because they are not rewarded for taking risks. If they gamble and lose, they are lambasted for it and often lose their jobs. They have a culture of playing it safe and going by the percentages. If something goes wrong, they don't want to be blamed for it. If they play things by the book and lose, well the onus is on the players, and the coach can't be blamed. Fourth down? Punt the ball. That's why you rarely ever see fake punts or fake field goals. If it doesn't work, the coach will take heat.
Well I think it's about time someone challenged the conventional wisdom.
1.) Running Quarterbacks Can't Succeed in the NFL
Conventional wisdom says that running quarterbacks cannot be successful in the NFL. They can't take the pounding they will receive when they run the football. Over the course of the season, all those jarring hits will take a toll and cause injuries. Quarterback is the most important position in the game, and no team wants to lose their QB to an injury. If a QB does down for any length of time, it almost always spells doom for that team. Just look at the Colts without Peyton Manning.
That is the big concern for Tebow. He is a physical, bruising runner who is more battering ram than sprinter. Numerous pundits have said they are worried that he can't hold up for an entire season due to all the punishment he will absorb. Michael Vick is the poster child for this argument. He has battled injuries his entire career and has only started all 16 games in a season once. In fact, it was reported today that he suffered broken ribs in his last game against Arizona. Football commentators always worry that his body can't take the pounding. They say he has to run less and become more of a pocket passer, and they say the same thing about Tebow.
I'm not buying it.
Usually, the argument makes sense, but not in this case. Most running quarterbacks in college are shifty, speedy guys, like Michigan's Denard Robinson or Pat White at West Virginia a few years back. They are smaller, lighter guys (think 6'1" 190 lbs.) with explosive speed and elusiveness. They are often asked to switch to receiver, safety, or kick returner in the NFL to take advantage of their speed and athleticism. Joshua Cribbs and Brad Smith are perfect examples of this.
Tebow is not like those guys. He is 6'3" 240 lbs. and built more like a fullback rather than a wide receiver. In college, he was basically the short-yardage power back for Florida. The majority of his touchdown runs came in goaline situations. He's not going to have an 87-yard run like Robinson but rather a bunch of 4-8 yard runs.
I believe Tebow can take the pounding. One, he's used to it. He played in the SEC, known for its fast, powerful defenses. He's been hit by these guys before and kept on ticking. Second, even NFL scouts and experts believe he can handle punishment. Prior to the 2010 NFL Draft, many experts suggested he should change positions because they doubted he would become a high-quality NFL quarterback. They advocated he convert to either a tight end or fullback. The fullback blocks on almost every play in which he takes part, and when he does run, it's straight up the gut. Tight ends have to block a lot as well and are often subjected to big hits while going over the middle.
If Tebow can stand up to the rigors of crashing full speed into oncoming linebackers as a fullback or handling defensive lineman as a tight end, then why can't he handle running the ball 10-15 times a game?
2.) The Zone-read/Option Attack Won't Work
Conventional wisdom says that the type of offense the Broncos are using won't succeed in the NFL. "It's a college offense," they say with derision. "The defenders are too fast and are better athletes," they add.
So?
What's wrong with it being a "college" offense? All innovation comes at the college level anyway. The NFL is a copycat league; it doesn't invent anything. The coach who came up with the idea for the Wildcat at Miami was on the University of Arkansas staff with Houston Nutt when they lined up tailback Darren McFadden behind center. Those prolific passing offenses that the Packers and Patriots boast? Yeah, they've incorporated elements of the spread passing attacks so prevalent throughout college football.
Yes, the defenders are faster and more athletic than most college players, but so are the offensive players. Linemen in the NFL are bigger, faster, and stronger, as are the skill players. Wouldn't faster defenders be canceled out by faster offensive players, thus canceling each other out? They're equivalent, which should be an added bonus in favor of the offense.
The option is a great equalizer, that's why Navy, Air Force, and Army all use it. Due to their unique nature, the service academies face challenges different from all other colleges. They are not going to get the best recruits. Their teams are always slower, weaker, and less athletic than their counterparts, yet they have been wildly successful. Why? The triple option.
For one thing, very few teams actually run the triple option. Nebraska runs some option plays, but Georgia Tech is the only BCS school that runs it exclusively. There might be one or two other Division I teams that run it beyond the academies and GT, but you're looking at 5 schools out of 120. Since nobody uses it, the triple option is extremely hard to prepare for, especially in one week during a season. Teams just aren't used to seeing it. Defenders have to think more instead of reacting, thus slowing down the defense.
While I love the triple option (I used it to lead the Guam State Penguins to a plethora of titles in NCAA Football on the Xbox, usually over the pro-style Glacier Falls Ice Puppies), perhaps a better model for what the Bronco offense should look like is the University of Oregon. The Ducks boast one of the most explosive offenses in the country. Oregon uses a high-tempo, run-heavy spread option attack. Now, before you point out that the Ducks were stifled by Boise State, Auburn, and LSU, let me say that in both cases, those teams had months to prepare for Oregon's offense. With just a week to prepare, the Ducks have been unstoppable. They have run roughshod through the Pac-10/12 and annihilated non-conference foes.
I'm not advocating the frenetic pace that the Ducks use, but their offense does make extensive use of the zone read as well as mixing in some safe throws for the quarterback. The Ducks throw a lot of screens and some short passes, and those are safe throws that Tebow should be able to make. Combine those with some deep throws off play-action, and it should provide enough of a passing game to complement a strong running game.
3.) You Must Throw the Ball in Order to Win in Today's NFL
Today's NFL is a pass-happy league. Think about it: when you think of the top NFL players, who first comes to mind? Most likely, you came up with guys like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, or Aaron Rodgers, all prolific quarterbacks.
New England is 61.7 percent pass, 38.3 percent run this season. New Orleans calls passes 61.2 percent of the time. Even the Steelers, long-known for playing tough defense and pounding the rock, have become much more of a passing team with Ben Roethlisberger.
Rule changes over the years have greatly benefited the passing game. Need a first down? Chuck it deep but behind a receiver, have him stop, let the defender run into him, and watch the ref throw a flag for pass interference. Instant offense.
The NFL is a much more pass-friendly league nowadays, so conventional wisdom says that you must have a great passing attack to be successful. The Broncos, with such a lackluster passing offense, can't succeed by hammering away all day with the run game. They racked up 299 yards rushing against Oakland, but they caught the Raiders off guard. They won't enjoy that type of success as the season continues because the cat's out of the bag. Teams won't be caught by surprise, and now that they will be able to practice for the zone-read, the Broncos will not have nearly as much success going forward.
Again, I'm not buying it.
Tebow completed only 2 passes in his 8 attempts against the Chiefs the other day, yet the Broncos still won. Despite losing their top two running backs to injury early in the game, the Broncos piled up 244 yards rushing on 55 carries.
The Chiefs knew what was coming, yet they still couldn't stop it.
As it stands, the Broncos currently have the most unique offense in the NFL. There is nothing else like it, so Denver will enjoy the same advantage as those college teams that run the option. NFL defenses just are not used to facing this type of offense, and trying to prepare for it in just one week will be a nightmare.
Plus, defenses now aren't used to an offense running the ball that often. As I mentioned earlier, the NFL is now a passing-dominated league. Premiums are placed on pass rushers and defensive backs. Look at some of the top offenses in the NFL: New England, New Orleans, and Green Bay. None have standout running backs, and all spread out the field with multiple receivers and pass-catching tight ends. In order to combat such an offense, defenses go to nickel or dime packages with more defensive backs. They go against big passing offenses in practice and emphasize faster, quicker guys in the draft. All of these moves make them more susceptible to a heavy run attack.
Columbine has dominated 5A high school football in Colorado for years doing this. Air Force and Navy have pulled upsets and reached bowl games, and Georgia Tech has won ACC titles and made the Orange Bowl. It can work.
Regardless of whether or not this approach ultimately ends up working, John Fox should be commended for being flexible and trying something new. Too often, coaches get full of themselves and believe it's their system that is responsible for success, not the players. They try and force players to fit their system rather than adapting it to suit the players they have. It is almost unheard of for a team to radically change its offense in the middle of the season, but Denver did just that.
Let's face it; what the Broncos had been doing wasn't working. Using a conventional pro-style offense under pocket passer Kyle Orton, the Broncos had one of the worst records in football. Fans were disillusioned, and the offense was poor. Tebow wasn't ready, but a change had to be made. His first two starts were awful. Yes, Tebow led a stirring comeback against Miami to win his first start of the year, but he was downright dreadful prior to that. Against Detroit, Tebow was abysmal. It was clear that he was ill-suited and not ready to be a conventional quarterback. What choice did Fox have? Stick with an offense that did not suit his quarterback and be subject to horrendous football, or try and switch to something that Tebow is comfortable with and plays to his strengths.
Ironically, John Fox believes in conventional football. Traditionally, you ran the ball to control the clock and played defense to win, and that's the style of football Fox wants to play. By using the most traditional, conventional style of football around, he is now bucking conventional wisdom and an unconventional coach.
Who knows how it will play out, but remember: at one point in time, you couldn't win with the forward pass.
"Conventional wisdom says you must be able to run the ball and play defense to go deep into the playoffs," for example.
"Conventional wisdom says you can't slug your way to a World Series."
"Conventional wisdom says you can't bat your pitcher in the cleanup spot."
Conventional wisdom also believed at one point that the Earth was flat, the Maginot Line was impenetrable, and that a cold-weather team would never win the College World Series (for the record, Oregon State went back-to-back. Go Beavers).
The reason I bring this up is because the Denver Broncos are defying conventional wisdom.
Conventional wisdom says that in order for an offense to be successful in today's NFL, it must have a good passing attack. The quarterback must be able to throw the football and keep defenses honest. Every team wants that prototypical franchise quarterback: a 6'5" 225 lb. right-hander with a cannon for an arm, the accuracy of a sniper, and the experience of playing in a pro-style offense in college.
The Broncos' quarterback, an obscure fella by the name of Tim Tebow, does not fit that mold. He is left-handed, not only played in a "dreaded" spread system in college but a running spread option attack at that, and is somewhat lacking in the passing ability department. While Tebow has a strong arm, he has all the accuracy of an untrained African militia member. In his last game, Tebow only completed 2-of-8 passes for 69 yards. The week before, He was 10-of-21 for 124 yards. On the season, he has completed only 44.8 percent of his passes for 605 yards. That's an average of 151 yards per game. The top quarterbacks in the game can throw for that much in a quarter.
While Tebow is not a great thrower, he is an outstanding runner. He has run for 320 yards on 48 carries this season, averaging 6.7 yards a carry. He ran for 118 yards against Oakland two weeks ago and scored a 7-yard touchdown against Kansas City this past week.
In college at the University of Florida, Tebow ran a spread-option attack under Urban Meyer. It featured a lot of zone-read plays where the quarterback has the option to either hand off to the running back or keep it himself, depending on where the defensive end commits himself. Tebow was a master at it, setting the SEC career record for touchdowns, becoming the first underclassman to win the Heisman Trophy, and winning two BCS titles.
As a result, Denver Coach John Fox and Offensive Coordinator Mike McCoy have scrapped the team's original offense and created one tailored to Tebow's strengths. The Broncos now' new run-heavy offense features elements like the option and zone-read that haven't been seen in the NFL in decades. Denver's new gameplan is to utilize Tebow's strengths as a runner and pummel opposing defenses with a power run game, allowing the team to control time of possession and keep the defense fresh.
Ever since Tebow became the starter, Denver has been the best rushing team in the NFL at a whopping 229 yards per game. Against Kansas City, Tebow attempted only 8 passes, and between the Oakland game the week prior and the game against the Chiefs, Tebow went four quarters without attempting a pass. To open the game against Kansas City, the Broncos did not call a single pass, running the ball down the Chiefs' throats all the way to the end zone.
It harkens back to bygone football ages. Sportswriters have brought up names like Woody Hayes and Bo Schembechler, almost mockingly so. The Broncos have gone old-school, and the general consensus seems to be that they are setting football back decades.
Why? Because it goes against conventional wisdom.
The National Football League is a very risk-averse, tradition-bound league that adheres to many unchallenged laws; "conventional wisdom," if you will. Its followers have been brain-washed into believing these "truths" without question. Things are done because that is how they are supposed to be done. If you ask why, the answer will probably be "well that's how it's always been done." That's why you rarely see a variety of offenses in the NFL. Everyone runs basically the same formations. That's why the Wildcat fad of a couple of years ago was so news-worthy. It was something different, which is a rare sight in the NFL.
NFL coaches are among the most boring, risk-averse people in the world because they are not rewarded for taking risks. If they gamble and lose, they are lambasted for it and often lose their jobs. They have a culture of playing it safe and going by the percentages. If something goes wrong, they don't want to be blamed for it. If they play things by the book and lose, well the onus is on the players, and the coach can't be blamed. Fourth down? Punt the ball. That's why you rarely ever see fake punts or fake field goals. If it doesn't work, the coach will take heat.
Well I think it's about time someone challenged the conventional wisdom.
1.) Running Quarterbacks Can't Succeed in the NFL
Conventional wisdom says that running quarterbacks cannot be successful in the NFL. They can't take the pounding they will receive when they run the football. Over the course of the season, all those jarring hits will take a toll and cause injuries. Quarterback is the most important position in the game, and no team wants to lose their QB to an injury. If a QB does down for any length of time, it almost always spells doom for that team. Just look at the Colts without Peyton Manning.
That is the big concern for Tebow. He is a physical, bruising runner who is more battering ram than sprinter. Numerous pundits have said they are worried that he can't hold up for an entire season due to all the punishment he will absorb. Michael Vick is the poster child for this argument. He has battled injuries his entire career and has only started all 16 games in a season once. In fact, it was reported today that he suffered broken ribs in his last game against Arizona. Football commentators always worry that his body can't take the pounding. They say he has to run less and become more of a pocket passer, and they say the same thing about Tebow.
I'm not buying it.
Usually, the argument makes sense, but not in this case. Most running quarterbacks in college are shifty, speedy guys, like Michigan's Denard Robinson or Pat White at West Virginia a few years back. They are smaller, lighter guys (think 6'1" 190 lbs.) with explosive speed and elusiveness. They are often asked to switch to receiver, safety, or kick returner in the NFL to take advantage of their speed and athleticism. Joshua Cribbs and Brad Smith are perfect examples of this.
Tebow is not like those guys. He is 6'3" 240 lbs. and built more like a fullback rather than a wide receiver. In college, he was basically the short-yardage power back for Florida. The majority of his touchdown runs came in goaline situations. He's not going to have an 87-yard run like Robinson but rather a bunch of 4-8 yard runs.
I believe Tebow can take the pounding. One, he's used to it. He played in the SEC, known for its fast, powerful defenses. He's been hit by these guys before and kept on ticking. Second, even NFL scouts and experts believe he can handle punishment. Prior to the 2010 NFL Draft, many experts suggested he should change positions because they doubted he would become a high-quality NFL quarterback. They advocated he convert to either a tight end or fullback. The fullback blocks on almost every play in which he takes part, and when he does run, it's straight up the gut. Tight ends have to block a lot as well and are often subjected to big hits while going over the middle.
If Tebow can stand up to the rigors of crashing full speed into oncoming linebackers as a fullback or handling defensive lineman as a tight end, then why can't he handle running the ball 10-15 times a game?
2.) The Zone-read/Option Attack Won't Work
Conventional wisdom says that the type of offense the Broncos are using won't succeed in the NFL. "It's a college offense," they say with derision. "The defenders are too fast and are better athletes," they add.
So?
What's wrong with it being a "college" offense? All innovation comes at the college level anyway. The NFL is a copycat league; it doesn't invent anything. The coach who came up with the idea for the Wildcat at Miami was on the University of Arkansas staff with Houston Nutt when they lined up tailback Darren McFadden behind center. Those prolific passing offenses that the Packers and Patriots boast? Yeah, they've incorporated elements of the spread passing attacks so prevalent throughout college football.
Yes, the defenders are faster and more athletic than most college players, but so are the offensive players. Linemen in the NFL are bigger, faster, and stronger, as are the skill players. Wouldn't faster defenders be canceled out by faster offensive players, thus canceling each other out? They're equivalent, which should be an added bonus in favor of the offense.
The option is a great equalizer, that's why Navy, Air Force, and Army all use it. Due to their unique nature, the service academies face challenges different from all other colleges. They are not going to get the best recruits. Their teams are always slower, weaker, and less athletic than their counterparts, yet they have been wildly successful. Why? The triple option.
For one thing, very few teams actually run the triple option. Nebraska runs some option plays, but Georgia Tech is the only BCS school that runs it exclusively. There might be one or two other Division I teams that run it beyond the academies and GT, but you're looking at 5 schools out of 120. Since nobody uses it, the triple option is extremely hard to prepare for, especially in one week during a season. Teams just aren't used to seeing it. Defenders have to think more instead of reacting, thus slowing down the defense.
While I love the triple option (I used it to lead the Guam State Penguins to a plethora of titles in NCAA Football on the Xbox, usually over the pro-style Glacier Falls Ice Puppies), perhaps a better model for what the Bronco offense should look like is the University of Oregon. The Ducks boast one of the most explosive offenses in the country. Oregon uses a high-tempo, run-heavy spread option attack. Now, before you point out that the Ducks were stifled by Boise State, Auburn, and LSU, let me say that in both cases, those teams had months to prepare for Oregon's offense. With just a week to prepare, the Ducks have been unstoppable. They have run roughshod through the Pac-10/12 and annihilated non-conference foes.
I'm not advocating the frenetic pace that the Ducks use, but their offense does make extensive use of the zone read as well as mixing in some safe throws for the quarterback. The Ducks throw a lot of screens and some short passes, and those are safe throws that Tebow should be able to make. Combine those with some deep throws off play-action, and it should provide enough of a passing game to complement a strong running game.
3.) You Must Throw the Ball in Order to Win in Today's NFL
Today's NFL is a pass-happy league. Think about it: when you think of the top NFL players, who first comes to mind? Most likely, you came up with guys like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, or Aaron Rodgers, all prolific quarterbacks.
New England is 61.7 percent pass, 38.3 percent run this season. New Orleans calls passes 61.2 percent of the time. Even the Steelers, long-known for playing tough defense and pounding the rock, have become much more of a passing team with Ben Roethlisberger.
Rule changes over the years have greatly benefited the passing game. Need a first down? Chuck it deep but behind a receiver, have him stop, let the defender run into him, and watch the ref throw a flag for pass interference. Instant offense.
The NFL is a much more pass-friendly league nowadays, so conventional wisdom says that you must have a great passing attack to be successful. The Broncos, with such a lackluster passing offense, can't succeed by hammering away all day with the run game. They racked up 299 yards rushing against Oakland, but they caught the Raiders off guard. They won't enjoy that type of success as the season continues because the cat's out of the bag. Teams won't be caught by surprise, and now that they will be able to practice for the zone-read, the Broncos will not have nearly as much success going forward.
Again, I'm not buying it.
Tebow completed only 2 passes in his 8 attempts against the Chiefs the other day, yet the Broncos still won. Despite losing their top two running backs to injury early in the game, the Broncos piled up 244 yards rushing on 55 carries.
The Chiefs knew what was coming, yet they still couldn't stop it.
As it stands, the Broncos currently have the most unique offense in the NFL. There is nothing else like it, so Denver will enjoy the same advantage as those college teams that run the option. NFL defenses just are not used to facing this type of offense, and trying to prepare for it in just one week will be a nightmare.
Plus, defenses now aren't used to an offense running the ball that often. As I mentioned earlier, the NFL is now a passing-dominated league. Premiums are placed on pass rushers and defensive backs. Look at some of the top offenses in the NFL: New England, New Orleans, and Green Bay. None have standout running backs, and all spread out the field with multiple receivers and pass-catching tight ends. In order to combat such an offense, defenses go to nickel or dime packages with more defensive backs. They go against big passing offenses in practice and emphasize faster, quicker guys in the draft. All of these moves make them more susceptible to a heavy run attack.
Columbine has dominated 5A high school football in Colorado for years doing this. Air Force and Navy have pulled upsets and reached bowl games, and Georgia Tech has won ACC titles and made the Orange Bowl. It can work.
Regardless of whether or not this approach ultimately ends up working, John Fox should be commended for being flexible and trying something new. Too often, coaches get full of themselves and believe it's their system that is responsible for success, not the players. They try and force players to fit their system rather than adapting it to suit the players they have. It is almost unheard of for a team to radically change its offense in the middle of the season, but Denver did just that.
Let's face it; what the Broncos had been doing wasn't working. Using a conventional pro-style offense under pocket passer Kyle Orton, the Broncos had one of the worst records in football. Fans were disillusioned, and the offense was poor. Tebow wasn't ready, but a change had to be made. His first two starts were awful. Yes, Tebow led a stirring comeback against Miami to win his first start of the year, but he was downright dreadful prior to that. Against Detroit, Tebow was abysmal. It was clear that he was ill-suited and not ready to be a conventional quarterback. What choice did Fox have? Stick with an offense that did not suit his quarterback and be subject to horrendous football, or try and switch to something that Tebow is comfortable with and plays to his strengths.
Ironically, John Fox believes in conventional football. Traditionally, you ran the ball to control the clock and played defense to win, and that's the style of football Fox wants to play. By using the most traditional, conventional style of football around, he is now bucking conventional wisdom and an unconventional coach.
Who knows how it will play out, but remember: at one point in time, you couldn't win with the forward pass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)