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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Outrage and Disbelief in Happy Valley

This past weekend, in the first “Game of the Century” in five years, #1 LSU met #2 Alabama in Tuscaloosa, AL in the most anticipated game of the season. In a thrilling display of defensive prowess/utterly boring and incompetent showing of offense, the Crimson Tide missed four field goals, and the visiting Tigers managed to defeat the Crimson Tide 9-6 in overtime.

Man, it sure seems like a century ago, doesn’t it?

Unfortunately, that big SEC showdown has been overshadowed by an appalling, sordid tale emanating from Pennsylvania.

It all stems from charges that Jerry Sandusky, former defensive coordinator at Penn State, abused eight boys over a 15-year period dating back to 1994. Sandusky had contact with the children through Second Mile, the youth foundation he established in 1977. He faces 40 counts, 21 of them felonies.

Most of the outrage stems from a grand jury report (warning: graphic content) detailing the eyewitness account of a Penn State graduate assistant. According to the report, the then-28-year-old assistant walked into the football locker rooms around 9:30 pm on March 1, 2002 and heard what sounded like sexual activity. He looked into the showers and saw a naked Sandusky sodomizing a 10-year-old boy.

What happened next is what has caused the furor about Penn State.

The graduate assistant was seen by both Sandusky and the victim and left immediately. In the report, he is described as “distraught.” He proceeded to his office and called his father, who told him to immediately leave and come home. They decided that the assistant needed to report what he saw to Coach Joe Paterno.

The assistant testified that he went to Paterno’s home the next day and told the coach what he had witnessed. Paterno testified that the assistant was very upset. Paterno then called Tim Curley, Penn State’s athletic director, to his house the next day (Sunday) and told Curley the “graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”

About a week-and-a-half later, the assistant was called to a meeting with Curly and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz. The assistant told those two that he had seen Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the locker room showers. According to the report, the two administrators “assured the graduate assistant that they would look into it and determine what further action they would take. Paterno was not present for this meeting.”

The report goes on to state that Curley contacted the assistant a couple of weeks later and told him that Sandusky’s keys were taken away and that the incident had been reported to Second Mile.

The assistant was never questioned by University Police, and no other investigation was conducted until December of last year.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” –Edmund Burke

That quote pretty much sums up the crux of this whole controversy, although “good” might be stretching it in this case. Due to their inaction, Sandusky was allowed to continue his nefarious ways for another nine years.

How could they have not notified the police?!

Curley and Schultz are both facing perjury charges. Curley testified that the assistant reported “inappropriate conduct” that made him (the assistant) “uncomfortable.” Curley denied hearing about anal sex or any other kind of sex and said it was just “horsing around.” Schultz testified that Paterno reported “disturbing” and “inappropriate” conduct in the showers between Sandusky and the boy.

There’s quite a discrepancy between “horsing around” and “disturbing and inappropriate” conduct.

Schultz also testified that the allegations were “not that serious” and that they “had no indication that a crime had occurred.”

Um… what part of “disturbing and inappropriate” conduct did you not understand? On what planet is inappropriate sexual conduct between an old man and a young boy, which Schultz admitted was reported to him, not a crime?!

Graham Spanier, recently-fired former President of Penn State, testified that Curley and Schultz described the incident as “Jerry Sandusky in the football building locker area in the shower with a younger child and that they were horsing around in the shower.”

How does that not ring any alarm bells or raise any red flags? You’ve just heard a report that an old man was taking a shower with a young child who is not his own. That’s creepy. Plus, they were “horsing around.” That’s a pretty vague term that has a broad spectrum of meanings. None of them are okay in this situation. Obviously Spanier initiated a thorough investigation, right?

Spanier testified that as of a few months ago, he didn’t even know who had first reported it. He knew something sexual had happened and that Curley and Schultz had made no indication that they were going to report it to any law enforcement or government agency, yet he did nothing.

Sandusky was not banned from Penn State property, and the supposed ban on bringing children was, according to Curley, unenforceable.

The actions of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier are inexcusable and reprehensible. How could they not notify the police or launch an investigation? The report they had indicated something serious had happened. It wasn’t like the assistant said, “Yeah, I thought I heard something last night.” No, he witnessed a young boy being raped. That is a serious crime, yet the three Penn State administrators chose to do nothing.

At best, these three are ignorant, bumbling idiots who clearly have no connection to reality. At worst, they couldn’t be bothered to lift a finger and help bring a pedophile to justice. Their reactions to this incident are galling. Child rape is a heinous crime and not something to be taken lightly. It’s not something someone would make up.

I can’t understand how they would not take this seriously. Inappropriate conduct with minors is a serious offense, yet somehow they just shrugged it off. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that no crime was committed. What’s the worst that would have happened if the police were brought in? They would have investigated, found nothing, and everything continues as normal. There’s simply no reason not to have them look into the allegations.

Those three are not the only ones who deserve blame here. Joe Paterno failed in his duty as well. There is simply no excuse for his inactions.

Now I know he is a beloved icon of college football, but that means nothing here. This has nothing to do with football or how many wins he has. Paterno failed his civic duties and his moral responsibilities. In his defense, he certainly did more than Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, but he did not do enough.

Paterno met his legal obligations by reporting it to Curley, but this incident happened almost ten years ago. During that time, Sandusky was still allowed access to football facilities, with reports even stating that he was present as recent as last week. If you had a report that a man was raping children in your locker room, AT THE VERY LEAST wouldn’t you do all you could to deny him access? Paterno did no such thing. Plus, if a guy you reported raping a child and has been banned from bringing children on campus is still coming around, that’s probably a good sign that someone dropped the ball in the chain of command. Wouldn’t you be somewhat curious as to why this guy is still free and able to use the facilities? Wouldn’t you make some inquiries about what’s going and what happened or didn’t happen?

Ivan Maisel, writer for ESPN.com, tries to use age as a defense, writing, “Paterno, like many in his generation, failed to grasp that society no longer handled such indecencies behind closed doors.”

Gimme a break! Indecencies?! That’s putting it mildly. A boy was raped. If that’s how Paterno’s generation handles things, then I’m glad I’m a member of my generation. Did they not report major crimes back in the day?

Another popular argument used to defend Paterno is that by notifying Schultz, he did notify the police because the University Police were under Schultz’s purview. That just doesn’t hold water.

Schultz was the Vice President for Finance and Business, not the chief of police. On the Penn State police organization chart, Schultz’s position isn’t even listed. Yes, the police are part of the organization that Schultz led, but so are nine other units and their various sub-units. He’s not a police officer. He’s a bureaucrat.

If this were anybody but Paterno, nobody would be making such a ludicrous argument. If you uncovered a plot to attack America, would you tell an FBI agent or Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner?

The fact is, Joe Paterno did not bring the matter to the attention of the police. Schultz isn’t a member of the police force. Paterno never spoke to any detectives or officers. Even if he felt he had reported the matter, after seeing Sandusky free and not wearing an orange jumpsuit, he did not pursue it further. Again, this all happened in 2002. If it was 2003 or 2005, and Sandusky was still coming and going as he pleased, wouldn’t you take it to the police?

I can understand the actions of the graduate assistant, but I can’t condone them. Over time, his inaction becomes inexcusable.

Witnessing a young boy being sodomized must have been a traumatic event, and certainly not something the graduate assistant was expecting when he walked into the locker room that fateful Friday night. Seeing a naked man in his late 60s having anal sex with a young boy is disturbing on so many levels. It’s not something you are prepared for, and the shock can affect one’s ability to think and act clearly and calmly.

That being said, I have two big problems with the assistant. One, the guy was 28-years-old. He’s a man, not some kid. When I first heard that a graduate assistant reported the incident, I figured it was some 22- or 23-year-old kid who was fresh out of college and still relatively new to the world. Seeing such an act would certainly have quite on impact on such a young guy, and it’s natural that he would seek the counsel of something older whom he trusts, his dad in this instance. A 22-year-old would be relieved at reporting what happened to Joe Paterno, a living legend with plenty of clout and a sterling reputation. Surely he would know what to do, and that would be a big burden lifted from the young man’s shoulders. However, the guy was 28. He’s old enough to be able to function despite the shock and do what needs to be done. Yes, he reported the incident to Paterno, but he’s old enough to take responsibility and follow up. He’s experienced enough to know what to do in a situation like that and not to be so in awe of a man like Paterno that he just assumes everything will be taken care of, which leads me to my next point:

How did he not bring it up again over the years? Okay, so he tells Paterno and thinks that he’s done his part and that it would be taken care of. What did he think when Sandusky kept showing up over the next nine-and-a-half years?! Wouldn’t that raise an alarm? Wouldn’t he think, “Wait, this is the guy I saw having sex with a boy in the shower and reported it to Coach Paterno? What’s he doing here? Shouldn’t he be in jail?” I’d certainly ask, and if I felt that nothing had been done or that it had been swept under the rug, I’d go to the police about it.

There is plenty of blame to go around here. Sandusky deserves all that he gets and more for the despicable acts he committed. Spanier, Curley, and Schultz deserve plenty of scorn and must be held accountable for doing absolutely nothing. Paterno and the assistant at least reported the incident up the chain of command, but they failed to press the issue and make sure that their reports were acted upon.

All of this negligence allowed a serial molester to go free for another nine-and-a-half years. Who knows how many instances of abuse he was able to perpetrate that could have been prevented had any of those five men at Penn State simply informed law enforcement.

This is a sad, dark day not only for college football but for America. We must do better.

Does Modern Warfare 3 Answer the Call?

Call of Duty is like the Tim Tebow of the gaming world. It seems like people either love it or hate it, with little middle ground. However, there is no denying its popularity. Quite simply, the Call of Duty franchise is a juggernaut. Modern Warfare 2 is one of the highest-selling games in history and easily one of the most popular and addictive multiplayer games ever made. The latest installment in the franchise, Modern Warfare 3, was released this past Tuesday.

Despite the franchise’s popularity, there was a cloud of concern hanging over Modern Warfare 3. Infinity Ward, creator of the Call of Duty franchise and developer of Call of Duty 2, Modern Warfare, and Modern Warfare 2, suffered a severe shakeup as studio heads Jason West and Vince Zampella were fired by Activision, leading to the resignation of roughly half of the studio’s employees and a barrage of lawsuits.

Between the chinks in Call of Duty’s armor and the arrival of the heralded Battlefield 3, would this be the day when Activision cedes supremacy?

No.

Modern Warfare 3 is an outstanding game that is a blast to play. It is the best Call of Duty game yet and a worthy successor to its predecessors. Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games should be proud of what they have created. It retains the quintessential Call of Duty experience while improving on the previous game’s flaws. It is not a grand departure at all from previous Modern Warfare titles, but considering the success of the series, why mess with a good thing?

Campaign

Modern Warfare 3 is by no means perfect, but it has no significant issues. The single-player campaign takes the player all over the globe to places like New York, London, Germany, Paris, Africa, and Asia. The wide range of environments and settings help keep things fresh, and the developers did a fantastic job with detail. The missions have some variety but nothing quite like the sniper mission in the first Modern Warfare. Like the two games before it, Modern Warfare 3 features its share of over-the-top set-pieces. While they may be unrealistic, they certainly are intense and add to the overall chaotic, mile-a-minute pace of the game.

Whether it’s a war-torn city filled with rubble or a shantytown in an African jungle, the game looks great and runs smoothly. The voice-acting is good, and the controls are pretty much unchanged. Some new weapons have been added as well as new attachments. My personal favorite is the hybrid scope, which allows you to switch between a close-in red dot sight and a longer range ACOG or sniper scope. It definitely gives the player some flexibility in choosing his or her weapons.

The AI also seems to be improved. Your AI teammates do seem to be of more use than they were in the past. Perhaps my biggest gripe with previous Call of Duty games was the never-ending supply of enemies that would continuously appear until you reached some invisible point in the level. It was highly-irritating and quite frustrating at times, especially in the first Modern Warfare, but that problem seems to have been mitigated in Modern Warfare 3. Granted, I have so far only beaten the campaign on Hardened and have yet to try Veteran, but this does not appear to be quite the problem it was in the past. My other big gripe in the past was how enemies always knew exactly where you were. It seemed most prevalent on Veteran, though, so I cannot yet comment on if that remains an issue.

The campaign features 16 missions and probably takes anywhere from 8-10 hours to beat. It is a lot of fun and lets the player experience a multitude of environments, characters, and forces. My only quibbles with it were plot and realism, and they do not detract all that much from the overall enjoyment of the campaign.

*SPOILER ALERT* At one point, you are tasked with infiltrating a Russian submarine and using its missiles against the Russian fleet. You then escape via Zodiac, racing through the exploding chaos of the Russian fleet. That scenario is highly unlikely, but it is fun and pretty damn cool. Another example is that the game starts in New York, where the Russians have attacked. In reality, a surprise attack culminating in Russian forces landing in enough strength to occupy New York and Washington DC (from Modern Warfare 2) is impossible. There is no way a force that size could escape detection crossing the Atlantic. Further, after the level in New York, you go to Paris and then Germany. How could the Russians be fighting in the heart of France before they had conquered Germany? Finally, there is a level that takes place on board a plane against hijackers. It’s a fun level, but realistically, there is no way that many hijackers, carrying that much firepower, could board the plane without being noticed.*END SPOILERS*

Like I said, though, those quibbles are minor and did not take away from my enjoyment of the campaign at all. Out of all the Call of Duty titles, Modern Warfare 3’s campaign was the one I enjoyed the most.

Multiplayer

Modern Warfare 3 has a lot to live up to. Modern Warfare 2 was one of the most popular and successful titles in history, and its multiplayer was a big reason why. Luckily, Modern Warfare 3 is up to the task. It even surpasses the standard set by Modern Warfare 2.

Modern Warfare 3 still has the same frenetic, fast-paced style of play from other Call of Duty games. Anyone familiar with online multiplayer from the previous titles will feel right at home with this one. It is much more similar to Modern Warfare 2 than Black Ops, so no wager matches or buying weapons and upgrades. Players still earn XP to level up and earn new weapons, perks, and killstreaks, but there have been some changes. One of these changes is Weapon Proficiency. Basically, you can now level up your weapons the same way you level up yourself. You can choose from different proficiencies to suit your style of play. For example, you can the Kick Proficiency to your gun to reduce recoil or the Focus Proficiency to reduce how much you flinch when you are hit by enemy fire.

Proficiencies are not attachments. In fact, one proficiency allows you to have two attachments on your weapon. Also, attachments are now unlocked the same way perks and weapons are: when you reach a certain weapon level, you unlock a corresponding attachment. You also unlock weapon camouflage and reticle designs this way.

Another big change, perhaps the biggest, involves killstreaks. They are now called “strike packages,” and there are three forms to choose from. The Assault package is pretty much the same system as in previous titles. The Support package is generally not as offensive; instead of a Predator strike or attack helicopter, you can call in a SAM turret or ballistic vests that your teammates can equip for better protection. Also, Support streaks don’t end when you are killed. Let me explain: if you want to call in Predator missile strike, you need to get five kills in one life without dying. If you don’t reach five before you are killed, your counter resets to zero. If you have chosen to use a Support package, dying doesn’t matter. Your killstreak counter isn’t reset. To call in a SAM turret, you can get three kills, die, and then get two more and still be able to call it in. Specialist packages reward you with perks rather than items. I have not used them yet, but the gist is that if you get say three kills, you are rewarded with the Recon or Assassin perk rather than a UAV, for instance.

The multiplayer seems more balanced, too. I have yet to encounter some yahoo running around with dual shotguns, and the Marathon/Lightweight/Commando annoyance is a thing of the past. Also, it is easier to shoot down aircraft. I have not experienced all of the killstreaks yet, so there may be something that is overpowered, but so far the game seems a lot more balanced.

Prestige mode has been retained, albeit with some minor changes like the Prestige Shop. There are 16 multiplayer maps, and they offer a wide variety of settings and environments that suit any number of different play styles. There are a number of cool maps that can be played in a variety of different ways.

My favorite change has been the addition of Kill Confirmed. It’s Team Deathmatch but with a twist: whenever someone is killed, he or she drops a set of giant, glowing dog tags. In order to score, you must grab the dog tags of fallen opponents to confirm the kill, hence the name. You can also recover your comrades’ dog tags to prevent the other team from scoring, so it really encourages teamwork.

The cooperative Spec Ops challenge mode from Modern Warfare 2 returns and has been beefed up, and a new mode called Survival has been added. It is reminiscent of Gears of War 3’s Horde mode where you defend against waves of attacking enemies, although they are not zombies. You can purchase defenses and weapons

Conclusion

Modern Warfare 3 is a great game that is certain to be one of this year’s big hits. Featuring a fun and intense single-player campaign, cooperative Specs Ops challenges, and the robust online multiplayer experience that Modern Warfare games are known for, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a must-have for first-person shooter aficionados. It doesn’t break any new ground but rather adds on to what was already a solid foundation.

Breaking Down the Contenders

This past weekend saw two more undefeated teams drop from the ranks, with one coming as a surprise and the other not so much.

Kansas State, arguably the most surprising team of the year, was trounced at home by Oklahoma 58-17. Coming off a 7-6 season, the Wildcats were widely picked to finish near the bottom of the Big 12, yet they rattled off seven straights wins and rose to #8 in the nation. However, most people expected them to come back down to Earth against preseason-#1 Oklahoma. Kansas State put up a fight early, taking a 17-14 lead, but the Wildcats simply do not have the firepower to go toe-to-toe with the Sooners.

Clemson was the other surprise undefeated team, having started the year unranked and eventually rising to #5 in the country after going 7-0 and defeating defending-national champion Auburn, preseason-#5 Florida State, and ACC favorite Virginia Tech in successive weeks. Led by Tahj Boyd and Sammy Watkins, the Tigers had lit up opposing defenses and come roaring back from deficits. Unfortunately for them, their penchant for falling behind early came back to bite them as the Tigers were unable to overcome a 24-3 halftime deficit to Georgia Tech.

As a result, there are now only six undefeated teams remaining in college football. After Saturday, at least one of those teams will have a loss, as there is a little scrimmage going on down in Tuscaloosa that you may have heard about.

The top-ranked LSU Tigers take on #2 Alabama Saturday night in at least the second “Game of the Century” in the past five years. Barring a major catastrophe, the winner will make it to the BCS title game. If LSU wins, the toughest team remaining on its schedule is #7 Arkansas, a team that Alabama handily beat 38-14. Ole Miss is in the midst of an 11-game SEC losing streak, and while resurgent Western Kentucky is vying for the Sun Belt crown, it’s still the Sun Belt.

The Crimson Tide has an even easier schedule with Mississippi State, Georgia Southern, and the Iron Bowl against Auburn as its remaining games.

Whichever team wins Saturday will be heavily favored in the SEC championship game, most likely against Georgia or a South Carolina team that kicked its starting quarterback, Stephen Garcia, off the roster and lost its star player, running back Marcus Lattimore, to a season-ending injury.

This leaves two questions: of the remaining undefeated teams, which has the best chance of making it to the BCS title game? Which team poses the biggest threat to the SEC champion in that game?

Oklahoma State

For the Cowboys, it’s simple: win and you’re in. Currently sitting at #3 in the BCS standings, Oklahoma State will reach the title bout if it runs the table. One of the two teams ahead of them in the standings will lose this weekend, ensuring the Cowboys will move up. Plus, wins over Kansas State and Oklahoma will boost Oklahoma State’s strength-of-schedule and prevent the Cowboys from being leapfrogged by another team.

If the Cowboys hold serve and reach the title game, it is likely that they will be the underdog. Stage-fright is a definite concern. They have never been on such a big stage as the BCS championship game, and in past big games against Oklahoma with Big 12 championship and BCS bowl berths on the line, they have come up empty.

Also, the Cowboys simply don’t match up well against LSU or Alabama. They are a spread team with a high-powered offense. Led by quarterback Brandon Weeden and receiver Justin Blackmon, Oklahoma State boasts the nation’s fourth-ranked passing attack and is second in the country in scoring. Running back Joseph Randle provides the ground attack for the Cowboys, averaging 6.2 yards-per-carry for 842 yards and 16 touchdowns.

This type of firepower isn’t new to the behemoths of the SEC. Just ask Troy Smith and Ohio State, Sam Bradford and Oklahoma, Colt McCoy and Texas, and LaMichael James and Oregon how things worked out. Alabama and LSU have a glut of NFL prospects on their defenses. They have the size and speed to counter spread attacks. Spread offenses are predicated on getting players open in space, but Alabama and LSU are too fast to let that happen. Oklahoma State has not seen a defense like the one they would face in the championship game. The best defense in the Big 12 is Oklahoma, and the Sooners were torched by Texas Tech.

Defense has been the weaker side of the ball for Oklahoma State in recent years, and this season is no different. The Cowboys are currently ranked 111th in total defense and gave up 622 yards to Baylor this past weekend. Sports Illustrated writer Stewart Mandel writes that the statistic is not that important. He brings up some good points about how the numbers are misleading and how the Cowboys excel at forcing turnovers.

However, he also says, “Oklahoma State reminds me a lot of last year’s Oregon team… The Cowboys and Ducks both had an electrifying offense that overshadowed an unsung and frankly misunderstood defense.” That same Oregon team gave up 519 total yards, including 254 on the ground, in a loss to Auburn in last year’s title game. A team cannot always rely on turnovers, and against the formidable defenses of LSU and Alabama, it is highly unlikely that the OSU defense will be playing with a huge lead. OSU’s defense will likely have to play a much bigger role, and that is just something it is not used to doing. Like Oregon last year, the Cowboys will eventually get worn down by the power running games of the SEC champion.

Furthermore, the title game is over a month after Oklahoma State’s final regular season game. That long layoff will be an impediment to the Cowboys. Not only will Nick Saban or Les Miles have weeks to prepare for OSU’s attack, the rhythm and timing of that offense will be affected. OSU is going to need its offense to be operating at peak capacity in order to win, but the long layoff will not help in that regard.

Stanford

Stanford breezed through the first seven games of its schedule and has the longest winning streak in the country. At one point, Stanford had won ten straight games by 25 points or more, the first team in 75 years to do so. This past Saturday, the Cardinal faced its first real test of the season and almost failed, pulling out a 56-48 triple-overtime victory over USC.

Stanford moved up to #4 in the latest BCS rankings. A showdown with #8 Oregon looms large on the schedule, along with the annual game against Notre Dame. If the Cardinal can get past the Ducks, a berth in the inaugural Pac 12 championship game awaits. The Cardinal’s opponent will most likely be Arizona State.

That schedule will keep Stanford from being passed by one of the teams behind it, but it will not be enough to jump an undefeated Oklahoma State in the BCS rankings. Stanford needs the Cowboys to lose. Luckily for the Cardinal, that is a very real possibility. Oklahoma State plays Oklahoma to close out the regular season, and Oklahoma has owned that matchup both historically and in recent years. All the pressure will be on the Cowboys, and with Landry Jones and Ryan Broyles, the Sooners have the firepower to keep up with Oklahoma State.

Stanford does have one huge roadblock in its road to the national championship game: Oregon. Last year, the Ducks ran all over the Cardinal in a 52-31 win. Stanford was up 31-24 at half but was outscored 28-0 in the second half. Andrew Luck threw for 341 yards and 2 touchdowns, but it was not enough as LaMichael James rushed for 257 yards and 3 touchdowns.

Oregon’s speed poses significant problems for Stanford. The loss of linebacker Shayne Skov to a season-ending injury earlier this year hurts. While the Cardinal defense held USC in check for the first half on Saturday, it got lit up in the second half for 28 points (not counting overtime). The defense will be hard-pressed to slow down Oregon, especially since the Ducks are known for cranking up their offense in the second half and putting teams away. It will be up to Andrew Luck and the Stanford offense to keep pace with Oregon and win a shootout.

If the Cardinal can remain unscathed and get some help, they will pose a significant threat to either Alabama or LSU. Unlike the SEC’s previous title game opponents, Stanford uses a traditional, pro-style offense. The Cardinal plays tough, physical football and tries to wear the opponent down. Stanford gouged Washington for almost 450 yards rushing and has a quality offensive line. Its tight ends are NFL-caliber, and oh yeah, the quarterback can play a little.

Andrew Luck is the Heisman front-runner and will be the top pick in the next NFL draft. He is considered the best NFL quarterback prospect since Peyton Manning. In leading his team back to victory against USC, he has proven that he does not get rattled. Alabama and LSU have not faced a complete offense like this.

Unlike Colt McCoy and Sam Bradford, Luck has a power run game at his disposal. If Alabama or LSU load up to stuff the run, they risk Luck picking them apart. If they try and stop him, they risk letting the Cardinal running backs run roughshod.

Boise State

Ah yes, the most controversial team in football. Few teams can stir up debate and passion like the Broncos. The idea of Boise State playing for a national title, or even being ranked in the top five, is galling to many. However, one cannot deny the Broncos are a great team.

Chris Petersen is one of, if not the best coach in college football. The Broncos are a well-coached, discipline unit that is not afraid of playing on the big stage. Boise State is known for its high-scoring offense, led by Heisman contender Kellen Moore, but the Broncos’ defense is top-notch as well.

It is almost a foregone conclusion that Boise State will finish with its fourth undefeated season in six years. TCU is the lone obstacle left on the schedule, and the Horned Frogs have already lost twice. Hit hard by graduation and injury, TCU’s renowned defense has struggled this year, at least by TCU standards. The Horned Frogs boast an explosive offense that is 8th in the nation in points for, but with the game being on the blue turf in Boise, where the Broncos are practically unbeatable, it is unlikely that TCU will be able to keep up with the Broncos.

The Broncos will need A LOT of help to make it to the BCS championship, though. They are currently ranked 5th and would need both Oklahoma State and Stanford to lose. That is not an implausible scenario, but the real danger is being passed by a one-loss team. Oregon and Oklahoma are both lurking in the standings, and wins over Stanford and Oklahoma State, respectively, would likely boost them ahead of the Broncos.

If, by some miracle, the Broncos did end up in the title game, it would be a helluva game. Like Stanford, Boise State is a team featuring a powerful run game and a talented quarterback. The Broncos are versatile and mix in some pistol elements to the offense, but at its core, this is a pro-style attack. Senior running back Doug Martin, the “Muscle Hamster,” leads the way on the ground, and quarterback Kellen Moore is one win away from setting the career wins record. He is 45-2 in his career.

Unlike Stanford, Boise State has an elite defense. Boise State is 10th in the nation in points allowed and is the lone team outside of the SEC that has been able to shut down Oregon’s offense. The Broncos’ defensive line wreaked havoc against Georgia, registering six sacks.

Boise State also has off-the-charts intangibles. They have a ton of experience and won’t be intimidated playing on college football’s biggest stage. The current Broncos have gone on the road and beaten Oregon, Virginia Tech, and Georgia. Boise State is 2-0 in BCS bowls. Kellen Moore has ice in his veins and isn’t fazed by anything. He is one of the most accurate passers in history and has led his team back in crunch time. The Broncos are a confident, battle-hardened bunch, and with several weeks to prepare, they would give Alabama or LSU all they could handle.

Houston

Yeah, not gonna happen.

The Cougars are too far down in the rankings and don’t have a marquee win on their schedule. They are basically Oklahoma State Lite: prolific offense and questionable defense. Quarterback Case Keenum continues his assault on the NCAA record books this week, needing only 267 yards passing to set the all-time career passing yardage mark. He already broke the records for most career touchdown passes and total yards this year. The Cougars have an outside shot at a BCS bowl bid, but even that is a longshot.

So who will end up playing for the BCS trophy in January? The Alabama-LSU matchup this Saturday is a toss-up, and my quarter says LSU. Alabama is starting a first-year quarterback whereas LSU’s quarterbacks both have significant experience.

As for the Tigers’ opponent, I’m going with either Boise State or Oklahoma. I don’t fully trust Oklahoma State and think the Sooners will win that matchup. I like Stanford but don’t think they will defeat Oregon. It’s just not a good matchup for the Cardinal.

I would love to see Chris Petersen match wits with Les Miles or Nick Saban and watch Kellen Moore and the Boise offense go up against the vaunted defenses of LSU or Alabama, but the odds are that a one-loss Oklahoma or Oregon would pass the Broncos in the BCS standings. I feel Boise State would be deserving of playing for the national title, especially if both Oklahoma State and Stanford lost, but I know the Broncos’ strength-of-schedule hurts them.

Of the two aforementioned one-loss teams, Oklahoma would get the nod over Oregon. Yes, the Sooners would have a worse loss (unranked 28-point underdog at home versus top-five opponent on the road) than the Ducks, but they would also have better wins against tougher competition. Also, voters may be reluctant to put Oregon back into the title game after last year’s loss to Auburn and this year’s season-opening defeat at the hands of LSU. They may also hesitate to have Oregon jump a Boise State team that has beaten them twice in recent years.

Regardless, it’s shaping up to be quite a stretch run in college football.