Oregon Ducks Need Love

Currently living in Spokane, WA, I was pleasantly surprised recently when I heard a friend of mine relating a story about running rapids in Southern Oregon on the Rogue River.  This wild and scenic part of the Rogue River remains my favorite white water rafting river that I've had the privilege to manipulate in my youth.  When Mat spoke about a very well known rapid, Blossom Bar, I knew exactly where he was referring to.  This particular place along the river wasn't always available as a river running possibility.  In the days when there was much mining and wood cutting in the area, the workers needed a pathway for the logs to flow down and not get hung up there.  Dynamite was necessary to create a small crease for logs, and later, rafters to flow through this scattering of large, house-sized rocks.  I recalled all the times we climbed the shear cliffs to scout the rapid before we plunged into unknown outcomes - whether we live another day or tip and drown or smash into one of the jagged rocks that infest this garden of boulders to puncture our raft and be left stranded.  The cliff that represented the bank of the river at this point was the final destiny of peace and calm before the terror and anxiety of this maneuvering challenge.  One last breath is always taken in the eddy on the left hand side of the river that leads the waters through the safest route of the first drop, then all chaos blurs the vision and intensity soars when you hope you remember the discussed oar strokes and shifting to point the front of the raft directly toward the next obstacle so you can use your power reverse stroke to pull you and your passengers away from the eminent danger of flipping - oh, and there's the next obstacle.  The adrenaline rushes just thinking about it!  My friend, Mat, probably had a different experience than all my trips because he wasn't in a cushy raft, but a small, vulnerable kayak.  At the time, his white water skills weren't equivalent to this real life test.  After a couple flips and a small delay, he was able to make it through to the end and have a story to tell about for years to come.  He wasn't sure whether he was wanting to continue this crazy trip or not, at one point or another.  He had a moment when he could have chose to get in the guide raft and just float the rest of Blossom Bar with the skilled guide, or get back in the water and brave the rest of the obstacle-laden rapid.  As the man that I've become to know, he chose the tougher decision and went for it.  Now, though he did not mention it, I know that he must have stopped at the lodge that rests a few kilometers down the river from Blossom Bar rapids called Paradise Lodge.  After surviving Blossom Bar, anything would be paradise.  Paradise Lodge is a nature feast with large fish swimming near the bank before climbing the trail to the building, and possibly seeing the black bear that they feed in the fenced area, and wandering deer passing through the property.  It's a thing of beauty - especially if you made it with all your gear intact and passengers in one piece and a raft that's not destroyed.  The Rogue River in Oregon is definitely my future destination spot some day where I would love to bring my kids along to show them, as I was shown, how wonderful it is.  Now, I don't want to take away any greatness from the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho, because that is truly an amazing trip and quite overwhelming and intimidating, but the many little things in Oregon on the Rogue makes that place more special.

White water rafting is not the only special and meaningful thing in Oregon for me because I really enjoy college football from the small town of Eugene.  The Oregon Ducks have had quite a solid run, themselves.  Coach Mike Bellotti really got things started from an inconsistent program and worked many years into something more steady and dependable.  Then the four years with Chip Kelly saw all that potential really come together to find success in the Bowl Championship Series era.  Unfortunately, Oregon hasn't become the home of many elite athletes nationwide and missed out on big wins against significant teams.  Oregon's potential still looms and the football program has yet to peak.  Sure, the Ducks get the occasional star athlete that comes in and makes an impact, like Haloti Ngata and Dennis Dixon and Jonathan Stewart and T.J. Ward and Patrick Chung and Jairus Byrd and even back several years when Dan Fouts was the starting QB for Oregon.  Now we are seeing more and more Ducks being successful at the next level.  This shows that Oregon is really coaching up the talent they get from high schools.  Not so much now because the Ducks are able to recruit more highly skilled talent recently.

I have been studying the recruiting process more and more and have found many interesting trends that have happened in the past and what we find in today's recruiting practices.  The sure thing I found is that the Southeastern Conference definitely has the strong hold of elite talent every year.  I've said it once and I'll say it again, "The SEC should dominate every non-conference team they play every year and leave no doubts on the field who the better team is."  The non-conference games shouldn't ever be close, unless it's against USC or Ohio State or Florida State.  Based on recruiting and the pay that the coaches receive and the capacity of each stadium, the SEC schools are expected to dominate every facet of the game - in my eyes.  Luckily, they don't and I can find fault in their inadequacies and make claim that the conference is not as deep and powerful as advertised.  I can look at the previous decade of recruiting on scout.com and rivals.com and see exactly why the SEC has won the national championship game seven years running.  Anyone with a brain can figure this out and it can't be denied, but how can there be any team out there that can be competitive with an elite SEC squad?  Yet, a few years back when the undefeated Auburn Tigers played an inferior Oregon Duck team in the national title game and Auburn needed a last minute field goal to break the tie and win the game by three points.  How could that game have been so close?  Very improbable, was the thought prior to the game.  Interesting to note, that since that year, the head coach of Oregon has been promoted to be an NFL coach the same year that Auburn's head coach was fired.  It reminds me of that song from that 80's group C+C Music Factory, "Things That Make You Go, Hmmm."

So, why is it that according to rivals.com, that of the last 11 years, an SEC school was ranked #1 or #2 or both in 10 years?  To me, it's obvious, but it may have something to do with the schools' locations are considered to be in the best parts of the country and the coeds are prettier there than anywhere on earth.  I suppose I was just born in the wrong part of the country.  That's too bad!  There is talent galore in so many states in the south like Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi.  Plus they can dip into Texas and the Carolinas for additional talent, but sometimes California kids are swept away to the East coast.  Who wouldn't want to?  They win championships over there, right?

The other research that I've been doing is trying to determine which schools are recruiting hot-beds and get athletes to flock there for football and determine why.  I wanted to know whether a winning tradition is a huge part, or whether it is the coaches that work so diligently for elite recruits, or if it is consistency and an upward trend to improve that has these kids picking one university over the others.  I looked up on stassen.com for some statistics that might enlighten me with a brilliant discovery, but found more confusion than anything else.  I also found that stassen.com is very up to date on its information because when I searched to find the highest winning percentages over the last 16 years, schools that were penalized with sanctions and had to vacate wins in the past, like USC, Alabama, Ohio State, North Carolina, and Penn State (hit the hardest) were already calculated in the percentages.  The 16 years represents the BCS era and seemed like a good starting point to search for consistency in a program.  Now, with Boise State at #1, TCU at #10 and Utah at #17, the rest were huge schools with a great winning tradition in the top 20.  I saw some surprises due to the current trend of winning or losing in recent years, for instance, Alabama was not found in the top 20, but probably would have been without the vacated wins that would have put them just above Utah.  Another example was Tennessee at #20.  With it's current state of winning, or rather, not winning, they didn't seem to be someone that would be found so high up in the rankings, but I reminded myself that there were a few years early on in the BCS era when they won a national title and came close a couple other years.  Another surprise was seeing Oregon all the way up at #8.  Even without the vacated wins, USC would still show more losses than Oregon during that span.  Interesting.

With this discovery of information that I have searched, pondered, and p... wait, that might be heading somewhere else.  Anyway, I find it very interesting that Oregon has fewer losses than USC during the BCS era; even fewer losses than Alabama and Michigan and FSU and LSU.  All those aforementioned schools, with exception to Michigan, have won the national title at least once during this span.  This is crazy!  So why is it that Oregon has only been able to break the top 20 in recruiting classes since 2003 only six times and the top ten only once according to rivals?  Over that span of recruiting for Oregon, the Ducks have never topped the conference in elite athletes.  The Ducks have had the second best recruiting efforts in the Pac-12 three times behind USC each time.  On average, Oregon places at fourth or fifth in conference in recruiting each year.  The recruiting dilemma is why so many SEC schools repeatedly have several schools out-recruiting Oregon every year - even, Tennessee, Ol' Miss, and Vanderbilt recruited better than the Ducks this year in 2012.  Vanderbilt?!?  Really?  Is Oregon that bad?  Maybe it's the thought of Chip Kelly leaving for the NFL that has gotten recruits nervous about the program, or the potential sanctions that may be coming to Eugene soon.  Maybe these high school athletes are feeling a little like Mat's kayak, vulnerable and not in a cushy place and afraid to tip over a couple times.  Or maybe they don't think they can work as hard in practice as the Ducks do when they get dozens of repetitions every practice.  Maybe they are just afraid to win lots of games in college and choose Mississippi (remember how good Jeremiah Masoli was at Oregon, then his stupid off-the-field acts got him kicked off the team and he transferred to Ol' Miss where he wasn't effective at all and appeared like he lacked quarterbacking skills).  These recruits shouldn't have any reservations about Oregon and the potential Paradise Lodge that draws near after the hard fought battle of Blossom Bar's rocky sanctions.  Maybe the athletes are up on that high cliff and looking down on Oregon and analyzing the future and what's in store.  When in reality, even if there are a couple of flips in the early rapids, all one needs to do is what Mat did, that is, get back in the water and finish the ride and set your sights on that Paradise Lodge to celebrate the victory.  Mike Bellotti blasted that place with dynamite many years ago and now the Ducks are in easier flowing waters now with Chip Kelly departing and now Mark Helfrich finds himself in the same position Coach Kelly was in four years ago - Chip had never been a head coach and merely an offensive coordinator.  The last 16 years should prove that Oregon is here to stay with its longevity and consistency.

The last couple years of recruiting for Oregon have been solid and saw a couple shining stars changing from one great university to decide on signing with the Ducks on National Letter of Intent day.  I feel that Oregon has been on the brink of recruiting greatness but hasn't found that last springboard to get to that level of recruiting that is found in the SEC.  Oregon has needs at certain positions that can get them to win those big games, especially defensive tackle.  Haloti Ngata was the last dominant DT Oregon has had that is big enough to plug the holes in the middle and strong enough to push the offensive line back to cause a large disruption in the backfield.  With the 3-4 scheme the Ducks use, it would be ideal to get that beast-like athlete in the center of the trenches because there is so much speed flying around everywhere else.  I feel that Oregon needs to go after more tackles similar to Ngata and get depth.

Currently, Oregon has not offered scholarships to very many of the kids of the 2014 recruiting class that I feel they should be going after.  Coach Helfrich has decided to stay closer to home with most of the recruits and find the future starters in Washington and California.  California is an ocean of talent waiting to be discovered and Oregon has had much success with the players they pick up there.  The state of Oregon is not very helpful when it comes to elite high school talent that can demonstrate their skills at the next level from day one.  Arizona is another state that Oregon can tap into for many blue-chippers; however, I have noticed on scout.com that most Arizona kids who look at the schools in Oregon, seem to favor Oregon State and not even have the Ducks listed in their schools of interest.  I find that really strange.  I don't want to question Coach Helfrich and his tactics on recruiting ideas, but knowing that Oregon is #8 in average wins over the last 16 years tells me that it is time to expect the blue-chippers from all over the country to want to attend the University of Oregon and play football.  Don't undersell yourself, Coach!  It's a great university and it's in the Conference of Champions where football is gradually improving to be a consistent shareholder in the most anticipated BCS bowl games.  The facilities are in place to attract the best of the best.  It's time to be confident that Oregon will manipulate the obstacles and maneuver around the large boulders and get to Paradise Lodge, or that national title that has been elusive to the Ducks' consideration of being a powerhouse football program.

I can't compliment the perks of floating the Rogue River enough with mention of the Blossom Bar rapids and there's also a stop at Zane Grey's cabin, and touring the Rogue River Ranch is a must-see when you ascend to the lush, green field that you cross to reach the main house; however, I don't hear much about this river from river runners from most parts of the country and yet it remains this solid, technical river that should be ran by the best rafters.  Now, the same can go for Oregon Ducks and the nationwide blue-chip football players coming out of high school in 2014, where Oregon is solid and technical and should be getting those most elite players from anywhere.  Players like Da'Shawn Hand (DE from Virginia), Cameron Robinson (OT from Louisiana), Lorenzo Carter (DE from Georgia), Tony Brown (CB from Texas), Braden Smith (OT from Kansas), Leonard Fournette (RB from Louisiana), Jabrill Peppers (CB from New Jersey), Kain Daub (MLB from Florida), Khairi Clark (DT from Florida), Jamal Adams (S from Texas), Malik McDowell (DE from Michigan), Sam Mustipher (OG from Maryland), Elisha Shaw (DT from Georgia), and Deshaun Watson (QB from Georgia) should be giving Oregon a serious look because a combination of a few of them might make the difference between playing in a BCS bowl and playing in the BCS National Title game and winning it.  Oregon is now one of those programs that impact high school youth when they receive an offer in the mail.  The choices are difficult and the pressure is great for these young athletes to make such an enormous decision, but it seems that you can't go wrong with a solid, consistent program that has set the dynamite into the obstacles and blown the path to Paradise and will allow anyone a chance to start and play at any time, like Oregon has become.

So, to my friend, Mat, I thank you for your story of your experience on the Blossom Bar Rapids because of the fond memories that I have of that same place.  I am glad that your experience was similar to mine even though your trip was years after my most recent trip.  Like Oregon's football team over the years, the Rogue River has remained constant and solid.  As I am sure that Paradise Lodge was a welcomed sight for you and me both, Oregon is now ready to welcome those elite blue-chippers to get that elusive crystal ball that the BCS title games offer the winning team each year.

Bashing the Polls - Again

You know exactly why I love this time of year, and it's not because of the beautiful oranges and yellows that appear on the leaves of trees that drop onto the green lawns with the cool, brisk air whipping through your hair as you stake out the high profile homes that will be bombarded by trick-or-treaters. Even though those are wonderful things, nothing can compare to college football and the tradition, competition, and opposition; however, there is something that always spoils football every other year - the campaigning of political figures that pollute the airways, highways, and mail. I don't know what makes me more disgusted, the filth I learn about a person on a commercial or knowing that the opponent has paid to say those things about someone else. The attack-ads have become the norm and I find it a complete turn off - as in, turn off the TV. They are horrible! You can always tell, without the volume on, if the commercial is favorable of the person who has their picture on the television or not by how heinous the photos are. If the ad is an attack-ad, the person it is attacking has pictures that look like they were caught at the grocery store checking out labels on the back of a soup can. You know that look. Don't say you've never seen that look before! Of course, the favorable ads have professionally taken photos and nice props and little children being loved and stuff. It's repulsive! Why can't they just state their opinions and their stand on the topics and hope that the American people can be smart enough to vote for who they think is best suited for that particular position? I guess it's because we can't trust the majority of Americans to do the proper investigation into their own beliefs and the beliefs of the candidates and weigh out each one with full knowledge of the topics that are important to the individual and exercise their right to vote. We are just too busy! Too busy with college football, right? So, what do you believe? The attack-ads? The people who make them? How do you sort out the garbage from people that try to make someone else look bad? Both candidates attack each other, so who is the least trashy? Frankly, I don't really know. I need to do a better job, as an American, to exercise my right to dig into the stands for all of the candidates for each political position and vote my conscious. I love people and I always try to find the good in each one I encounter and I wish that the political candidates would show me the good they have in themselves to help me know. I don't want to know the bad - I have enough bad things about myself that I need to worry about, let alone each political figure. Politicians need to help things make sense for people to understand so we don't go to the polls and vote as a confused American with no reason for our decisions on the ballots.

Speaking of voting and being an informed voter, not only Americans who determine the leadership of this state or nation should perform their American duties, but the voters who participate in the leadership of rankings in college football should vote as an informed pollster with all the information available by digging into the subject matter to help make sense for the fans who scour the polls for justice of their successful team. As many "fanatics" of college football, debates break out all the time to legitimize certain rankings and try to justify, with their own particular biases, why certain teams are located conveniently where they are. Sometimes, like myself, "fanatics" are very critical and skeptical of who is ranked where and start to formulate theories of why the order of the top 25 teams is such as it is. So, much like an earlier topic, "Harris Poll Bias", I have found the current poll to be unchanging from its erroneous course since its inception.

I still don't understand how a poll can start near mid-season and determine a top 25 list that is always near-identical to the AP and Coaches' polls when the Harris poll confidently states that there is not a bias in its voting. Well, if there is not a bias, then they should be trying to explain their votes each week so the fans can understand the rankings and not start the week confused over and over again. Now the BCS is just another animal and nobody will ever be able to understand the computer aspect of that, but the two-thirds of the overall outcome of the BCS is human and should try much harder to get their votes correct and accurate.

Let me explain a little of my frustration by giving one example: my particular belief, when two teams have the same record and they played each other, the team that wins the head-to-head should be the team ranked higher - with Arizona at 4-1 and Iowa at 4-1 in the Harris poll's first week of votes, the voters put Iowa at #15 and Arizona at #21 while Iowa's only loss was to Arizona. I am trying to figure out the logic to an "unbiased" voting panel that proves to me that certain laws of nature aren't really laws... or... nature? So, the team that lost the head-to-head match-up is actually the better team - is what I get from the "unbiased" voting panel. It makes total sense, right? This explains why the Harris poll voters had Texas (3-2) receiving 30 points after losing two straight games to unranked UCLA and top 10 Oklahoma (5-0); however, that UCLA team that beat Texas in Austin that had the same 3-2 record did not receive a single point from the Harris poll voters. Please inform me of the logic in this one. I don't know how to twist this one. Shouldn't Texas' loss to UCLA at home look worse than a UCLA home loss to a ranked, undefeated team? Who knows?

So far, after eight weeks, we have seen some changes at the top, starting with the #1 ranked Alabama losing to South Carolina. The very next week, the #1 ranked Ohio State lost to Wisconsin. The very next week, the BCS #1 ranked Oklahoma lost to Missouri. Now, the new BCS #1 ranked team is Auburn who doesn't play anybody in the next two games (Ole Miss and Chattanooga), so I predict that there won't be any more changes of #1 until Auburn actually plays a real opponent with a home game against Georgia November 13th and then the Iron Bowl at Alabama on November 26th. Can I just mention something? Of course I can - it's my flippin' blog! When Alabama was #1 before losing, Oregon and Boise State were #'s 3 and 4, respectively. So, Ohio State moves in from #2 after 'Bama loses and Oregon and BSU bump up as well; however, the BCS starts up after Ohio State loses and there's not glimpse of Oregon or Boise State at the top. Hmmm. That's okay because Oklahoma loses to start another bump toward the top, right? Wrong! Oregon and Boise stay in place and an SEC team sneaks right in there. Have we seen this before? Either a Big XII or SEC school rises out of nowhere and grabs a #1 spot when the voters don't even have them at #1 OR #2 in the AP, Coaches, or Harris polls. Now if you are following my blog, you know that I'm not a fan of the Harris poll due to its obscure ranking techniques by making sure half of the SEC and Big XII are represented each week, no matter who they've lost to or who they have actually beaten on the field. That one (flawed) poll gives 1/3 of the information needed in the BCS formula in determining who plays for the coveted national title. One-third! These people who cannot vote as an individual with only one week in mind of who the teams have just played and their record of the previous games and who those opponents were and where they were played at. The failure of the BCS begins right there - without a playoff! A playoff is the only solution to resolve the mistake-prone BCS formula.

There is only one group that trumps the worthlessness of the Harris poll voters - the PEOPLE who plug in the decisive information into the computers that helps calculate another 1/3 of the BCS formula. Most of these calculations, I would presume, come from a strength of schedule and how many ranked teams are played and what the record of their opponents are, etc. Opponents' records are important, especially with non-conference competition; however, there should be other factors to take into consideration with conference competition - for example, the Apple Cup between Washington and Washington State and all the awful years of the Cougars football program and how they base their success of the entire season on that one game (whether a coach should stay or go), even if it's their only win; to beat a good Husky squad is great for the Washington State program, but terrible for the good Washington program - the point being, this has happened over and over again and is very common for rivals who loath one another to go back and forth with the underdog winning most match-ups. Another factor is what I keep saying and I'll continue saying it until my last breath on this beautiful planet, that there are a couple conferences, as a whole, that get so much love from the voters and the media to assure those particular conferences great rankings throughout the entire conferences which bolsters up the "appearance" of their "difficult" strength of schedule. This is a serious issue that is NEVER addressed which spins the world around the axis of the Southeastern part of the country. It is ridiculous! Now, if I'm a Southeasterner and a huge fan of... say... the Gators, I would not understand anything I just said because the media and voters have given my team and my conference so much love and I've partaken of this super-conference "Kool-Ade" that it has left my thirst more-than quenched. I've gotten my pockets stuffed and overflowing with the fact that the SEC can't be touched by any other conference when it comes to talent, quickness, speed, strength, and down-right dominance; and anything spoken of or even thought of that might mysteriously reach the lips (or fingers) of another soul are out-right profanities, blasphemous, and against all Holy writ of God, Himself. How is it that every year the SEC is the top conference in "everyone's" eye? Even on a down year, they still reign supreme without any doubt - meaning, top to bottom, the most complete and perfect of any conference existing or imaginable. It is absurd! They have their heads so far up their... well, I have to be careful here... way up in the clouds so far, that they actually think that eight conference games in the SEC are so difficult that each school HAS TO schedule much easier competition for the non-conference portion of the season. Really?!? So, cupcake city has to exist amongst the nation's elite? Shouldn't the elite be out there trying to exploit their dominance and overwhelming power over all the nation? Or, is the Strawberry Shortcake University scheduling a secret way of telling the nation that they fear taking on real challenges from real, legitimate teams from other automatic qualifying conferences? My personal feeling is the latter - they are afraid to come to terms with reality because reality is hard to deal with when you're a teenager and young adult with tender feelings. It's better to believe you are much better than anybody at any cost. Let's take a look at some of competition that boosts the strength of schedule for these powerhouses. Might as well start at the top of the BCS with Auburn because I'm sure they are proud to display their non-conference foes with pride and a feeling of accomplishment. The mighty Auburn Tigers have to take on four non-conference teams this year (like all years - except when there were only 11 games allowed to play each year). Those teams are: Arkansas State 3-5 (who, arguably played better than the then #12-ranked Arkansas when ASU gave up only 52 points to the Tigers while the Razorbacks gave up 65 to Auburn - sad, because Arkansas was ranked so high? or because Arkansas State is not?), Clemson 4-3 (who hasn't beat a ranked team out of two tries), Louisiana-Monroe 3-4 (who still gets to play LSU in November - plus, another team to give up less points than Arkansas with 52), and coming up, Chattanooga 5-2 (who will be 6-2 when they come to Jordan-Hare Stadium as a team that's not even Division I - FCS school that has a 0-20 record against Auburn). Good thing the computers will recognize the 6-2 record of Chattanooga or maybe that home game for Auburn might not look so good, otherwise. (sarcasm) Let's look at Florida: Miami, OH 4-4, South Florida 4-3 (who hails from the conference that nobody gives any credit to and finally won their first conference game on 10/23), Appalachian State 7-0 (again, we see another FCS school with a great record that will boost the strength of schedule for the SEC, but Appy State is NOT a Division I - there's a HUGE gap in talent and amount of scholarships), and then Florida State 6-1 (which will finally be a competitive game for the first time in 5-6 years, but FSU is in the "down" conference of the ACC, so may be misleading competition). Let's look at South Carolina: Southern Miss 5-2 (Conference USA that has one real win over Kansas 2-5), Furman 4-3 (yet, another FCS school - crazy!), Troy 4-2 (Sun Belt powerhouse (sarcasm)), and ending the season with a huge rivalry game against Clemson 4-3 (Pac-10 would call this game a "conference" game - but the Gamecocks have the luxury, like Florida/Florida State, to have an in-state rival in a different conference and call it a "non-conference" opponent). Finally, the one-loss team that the media is itching to put in the national title game two years straight, Alabama and their amazing non-conference slate: San Jose State 1-7 (that home game must have taken the Tide 4 hours minimum to prepare for this massive battle (sarcasm)), Penn State 4-3 (ranked #18 at the time of play, but since hasn't faired too well with a loss to Illinois and only one win so far in conference to Minnesota 1-7 and finds itself way outside the top 25 - not much of an Alabama win now), Duke 1-6 (they even lost to Army - and it wasn't even close), and finally Georgia State 5-3 (another FCS school that doesn't have a chance). This non-conference schedule has a win total of 11 games between the four team. Isn't Alabama the defending national champion? These games were not scheduled after the fact it won the title, right? If you are a team that recruits better than anyone else in the nation and plays in a conference better than anyone else in the nation and has a head coach getting paid more than anyone else in the nation and has assistant coaches getting paid more than anyone else in the nation and touts the Heisman trophy winner from last year and probably a couple more in the near future, this schedule is the best you can do? Really? Penn State is the only respectable opponent on the list and that turned out to be a dud in the end. Duke? That's the best you can shoot for in the ACC? The bottom feeder of the conference over the last 2-3 DECADES? Really? Do you really have to play an FCS school? Can't you stand up to the plate like a big boy and prove your worth by now? Can't you play legitimate teams from legitimate conferences by now? Can't you prove your #1 status GIVEN to you by playing competition that helps measure what kind of team you have on the field? Or are you afraid? Are you one of those politicians that sits in a corner and points out the flaws and make fun of the mistakes of the other teams in the nation while you make yourself look really good smearing the guts of unworthy competition all over the turf like a professional photo shoot with deliberate props? Anyway, these are the teams that are getting the kudos from the PEOPLE who plug in information into computers to tell the computers to adjust the calculations in such a way to make these teams look extraordinary in terms of greatness and athleticism and dominance in NCAA Division I football.

The PEOPLE who vote in the polls and the PEOPLE who insert information into computers have not seen what Boise State fans see, or what Pac-10 fans see, or what Mountain West fans see, or even what the Big East fans see in terms of individual accomplishment and a season as a whole and not just key wins at convenient places at convenient times. Too many times has the Pac-10 taken a back seat to inferior competition so a "more popular" team can take the crown. Now Boise State is feeling it way too much with the longest win streak in the nation, currently at 21 after the win against Louisiana Tech, and is already getting slighted by voters and computers and the #3 ranking will likely be as close as they get to playing for the national title because they will probably get passed over by a one-loss Alabama team who beat Duke, Georgia State, and San Jose State (by less than Boise State, by the way).

Boise State Versus the Nation

This is the title of a post that I was thinking about back in May of this year and forgot that I had wanted to start it - and now I find it in the "draft" phase of my list of posts.

An adventure I recommend all should take, is one that my wife and I took with a good friend in search of hidden treasures and trinkets, which is world-wide known as "geocaching". If you've never heard of the term, it is where you need a GPS (Global Positioning System) to help you find the exact latitude and longitude coordinates of where a small container has been hidden that may contain many little obscure things or just a piece of paper to write down your geocaching "code" name. Once discovered, you check the contents of the container and may "swap" an item for something left behind and write your name on the log, and then place the container back to its exact location in the same manner as you found it. There are people who actually maintain these containers that could be located anywhere in the world in cities, parks, rural sites, and many public areas of towns that are common place where most non-geocaching people would not even know of the existence of such things. All the information can be found online at geocaching.com for a free membership, so it is available as you travel for work or vacation or for sporting events.

A few things I learned from my friend while geocaching that may help you in your first time at going: 1) you never know what kind of container you will find and how it will be hidden, 2) you can never assume the type of booty that will be left behind in larger containers, 3) you have to have actual positional sense when finding your location and shifting positions, 4) an accurate GPS is the most valuable tool you could have with you for accuracy, and 5) nothing appears as it seems until you look closely to the details of the overall picture. I hope that you either have fun continuing in your cache hunting, or finally go out and try it with these helpful hints, or have learned something new to try and plan an outing. It's fun!

Something I speculated back in May, months before the 2010 season began, regarding Boise State and their uphill climb for perfection and a BCS (Bowl Championship Series) National Championship bowl game bid was confirmed by a recent article written by the well known, ex-Sports Illustrated writer, Rick Reilly titled, "Broncos Can't Buck This Trend". It all started at the end of the '08 season when Boise State lost a tight game to TCU (Texas Christian University) in the Poinsettia Bowl by 1 point. This would be, as of today and for a few more days (at least), the last time that the Broncos would lose. They began their '09 campaign beating an Oregon Ducks team that would end up winning the Pacific-10 (Pac-10) Conference and earning a berth to the Rose Bowl. Boise State would go on the rest of the season undefeated and deserving a shot for the national title, but was left out because two automatic qualifying teams went undefeated, as well (Alabama and Texas). So as a consolation prize and getting to play in a BCS bowl, they were paired up with TCU, again. To me, that was a huge slap in the face - not to downplay the strength of a very good TCU squad (who got the slap too), but in reference to these two non-automatic qualifying teams that went undefeated to earn a BCS bowl bid never got the shot at playing one of the "big boys" in the nation. It's like the BCS didn't want any problems, so they simply "swept" these two teams under the rug by pinning them together for the second time in one year. Lame! The BCS is lame! So, Boise beats TCU by seven to end a perfect season.

Before the start of the 2010 season, media writers gave Boise State a lot of love and had them ranked in the top 10, all the way up to #3 by some. Given huge expectations and the SI curse by being on the cover and tons of national attention and scrutiny, the Broncos have done nothing but prove to the country who they are and where they want to be - they are undefeated and want to play for the national title. Boise is #2 in all the polls except the BCS - which, unfortunately, is the one that counts at the end of the season - where they find themselves at #3, currently. In order to get to #1 or #2, they need some help from other teams while they dominate and win out the rest of the year. Currently, it is Auburn and Oregon at #1 and #2, respectively, and there is no guarantee that either of those two will win out (especially Oregon with the toughest stretch of their schedule ahead of them starting with their visit to USC). Auburn is favored by the computers while being #3 in all the other polls. The good thing about the computers for Boise State is that they love the Broncos more than Oregon. Unless the computers begin to like Oregon some time soon, Boise may maintain this particular lead and hope that Oregon and Auburn lose a game or two apiece, along with Missouri, TCU, and Michigan State in order to keep them from sneaking up from behind on BSU. If those teams lose and Boise State wins out, that might bring them up to the #2 ranking in the BCS, which is good enough to play for the title in Glendale, AZ, on January 10th.

So, Rick Reilly brings up some really good points on the legitimacy of the Boise State program and the consistency it plays with week in and week out with its 21 game win streak (longest in the nation). Mr. Reilly mentions that the head coach, Chris Peterson, is 56-4 at Boise. His program, under his direction, has lost only FOUR games! Are you kidding me? However, we have this wonderful system called the BCS that tells Boise that they are at the zenith of their BCS progression and can't go any further and will not play for the national championship until they join the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and go undefeated there - then, and only then, will Boise get their day in the sun to prove to the whole country that they belong. Well, Boise should never try to join the Pac-10 because they never get the respect they deserve and wouldn't change Boise's predicament, so they may consider making a run to the Big XII Conference and continue beating Oklahoma each year... then maybe... Anyway, some comparisons with opponents of Boise State this year that Mr. Reilly states in his article were: 1) the Broncos smashed San Jose State 48-0, and the Spartans have lost a lot of games, but one was to Wisconsin, in Madison, where the Badgers beat them by only 13 points - the same Wisconsin that beat #1 Ohio State and #15 Iowa; 2) the Broncos pounded Wyoming 51-6, and Wyoming nearly beat Air Force who nearly beat Oklahoma who we know Boise State CAN beat; and 3) the Broncos beat Virginia Tech on the road, who is currently undefeated in the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), so why wouldn't Boise State perform just as well in that conference? Interesting, no? Rick Reilly, who writes for ESPN.com now, says that "the BCS computers TKO Boise State. Why keep punching when it's not a fair fight?"

Notre Dame: Is it just a name?

There is a good time and a bad time to leave your job. The beginning of December would arguably be the worst time for anyone to leave a current job, especially if you didn't have another one to replace it. Some employers give out Christmas or holiday bonuses for the end of the year and quarter. Some employers give out a profit sharing bonus and deposit it into the employees' retirement accounts in January. Some actually do both. So, with the end of the year bonus near Christmas and/or the profit sharing deposit in January or February, a December leave of employment would make the least amount of sense, right? Plus, your replacement won't be able to get those perks while witnessing everyone around them talking about how much they got that year. If you have to leave your job, try to do it in the middle of January or a little later to avoid the hassles of losing out on some good things. With that said, some people will ignore the advice and get too hasty because the next job is just too good to pass up right now.

Knowing the title, and reading the first paragraph, most college football fans and lovers of the wildly popular Notre Dame Fighting Irish will know exactly who and what I'm talking about. Brian Kelly is the newest head coach of the Notre Dame football program. He is the next in line to restore the amazing glory days and history of this tradition-rich program. Great players from so long ago to the legends of the late 20th century to the most current superstar athletes that have fought the battles on the grid iron in South Bend, Indiana. To follow the likes of Knute Rockne, Frank Leahy, Ara Parseghian, and Lou Holtz, is a thrill and an honor that Brian Kelly probably hasn't quite grasped yet with the overwhelming expectations that immediately fall upon you in that position. Many have not had or maintained the desired success to find themselves outside wondering what else they could have done to make the football program great again. The Notre Dame Fighting Irish have not had a championship since 1988 under Lou Holtz, and Brian Kelly and the Notre Dame alumni and entire Notre Dame family hope that he is the next to bring a championship to the university.

Brian Kelly didn't come out of nowhere to Notre Dame overnight. He started small, like most head coaches. His first head coaching job was at Grand Valley State where he coached from 1991-2003. In 2003 is when he took over for Central Michigan until 2006. He then took over at Cincinnati in 2006 to lead them to new heights of success winning 10 games, in his first full season, for the second time in school history and first since 1949. The following year they won 11 games in 2008. Then in 2009, starting the season unranked, Coach Kelly led the Bearcats to an undefeated season and nearly a shot for the national title. However, Brian Kelly agreed to take over for Notre Dame in late November and announced it on December 10th, 2009. He was heard saying that he was concerned about recruiting and needed to get started at Notre Dame right away and left the undefeated Bearcats to fend for themselves against a dangerous Florida Gators team in the Sugar Bowl. Cincinnati lost that game and it makes me wonder whether it was because they felt betrayed and lost - emotionally. Did they not have the heart or confidence to do it without their coach? Or there is the possibility that Florida would have beaten them no matter where Coach Kelly was. Did Brian Kelly leave his job too soon? Speaking of Florida, was Urban Meyer trying to even the playing field by announcing his retirement from football, then restating it as a temporary departure? Was he trying to avoid the Bearcats' excuse of "we were emotionally off because of our coach" because he "caused" his players to be emotionally off, too? Anyway....

The coaching confusion brings me to the main point I want to get at, should universities interrupt other schools during the post season before all the bowl games have been played? I understand schools wanting to discard their ineffective coaches as soon as possible to save money and wondering how long it will take for them to find an adequate replacement. It is a legitimate concern. However, the part that bothers me, is the interruption of a successful program and the current infrastructure of coaches and plays and players and trust and momentum and psyche of a whole team and sticking together until the season has ended. There should be an NCAA mandated rule that states that the universities should not attempt to "shop" for a new coach until that coach's team is completely done with its season and post season (bowl game). These coaches should not be approached or feel like they might get approached by any other university and its representatives until after the final whistle is blown in their bowl game, then they are free game.

I hated the whole Rich Rodriguez thing and this Brian Kelly thing. They left before Christmas and didn't stick through the good stuff of the end of season bonuses. Something else that bothers me is Brian Kelly using the recruiting concern as an excuse to depart so early. There are some schools that need that extra month or so to solidify a good recruiting class as the new head coach, but with Notre Dame? C'mon! Really? It's Notre Dame! The name does the recruiting for you. If you're a new coach? It's still Notre Dame! Notre Dame will not, I repeat, will not even interview a potential head coach unless they have had recent success in their current job. There is way too much pressure to succeed in football to think otherwise. As the first year head coach, you and your name are insignificant to the recruiting process. The high school athletes pay attention and know that the old coach is gone. They find out who the new coach is. They do their own research of where they were previously and how well they did. If they don't do those things then they are not good enough of a player to be recruited in the first place. The athletes are informed. If the kids are at a football proud high school, the coaches may be the ones informing the athletes of changes. It won't matter if you leave in early January, which is the better time to leave a job, right?

If anything, I believe that Brian Kelly made a mistake by leaving Cincinnati before the season was up. He bolted to concentrate on Notre Dame, but he may have affected the decision of a few top athletes that may look at Coach Kelly and saw a lack of dedication to his team, a lack of devotion and loyalty to his players that worked so hard for him all season long, just to leave them at their most important part of their year. These are your year-end bonuses and profit sharing bonuses because the kids will see you stick with your team until the end and they will want to do that for you, when the time comes. I'm not saying that the high caliber athletes will change their mind with those thoughts, but it may sway them a bit if someone more reliable and stable at another university is pursuing them. Coach Kelly may leave Notre Dame high and dry some day to seek more riches in the NFL. Coach Kelly should have stayed to finish the season at Cincinnati because HE is not the recruiter this year, Notre Dame is the recruiter this year. Most of all, schools should leave coaches alone while they are still performing their duties to prepare for a game. This should be addressed and changed. Coach Kelly, next time, stay until the profit sharing is in your retirement account; and, Notre Dame? is it just a name?

What Makes the BCS Function?

There is a particular location that I work at occasionally, where there seems to be one common bathroom for many of the employees in that building that is located very close to the break room. This specific bathroom has had an upgrade of the light switch to conserve energy. Large companies try to do what they can to save pennies here and there to see the large sums accumulate in their pockets at year's end. This upgrade has been installed for about 2 years now giving us a glimpse of advanced technology in the form of a motion detector. So, when you walk into the dark room, the sensor recognizes the change to the room and the light automatically turns on. Wow! This is amazing! The lights don't immediately shut off as soon as you leave, but there is about a five minute delay if there is no motion detected before the lights go out. Cool! Now, there is still a button just below the detector where you can manually turn the light on or off by pressing this button, but why would you do that? The automatic thing is really great! This is technology that can save time and electricity and it's nice to not have to touch one more button in the medical field with potential of spreading unnecessary germs. Therefore, I feel it should never be touched by anyone, unless they have sterile gloves on, or something. So, it won't surprise you that it bothers me when I walk into this dark bathroom and the light doesn't automatically turn on so I can continue to my original plan of destination without any further interruptions. It drives me crazy when I have to actually, physically, push a button to turn the light on. Doesn't it seem quite superfluous with the technology we have? Why do I have to push something? It's automatic! Why wouldn't you prefer this? It drives me crazy to have to turn it on! Or is there someone out there that hasn't figured out the automatic thing during the two years? We have the idea and capability of it working like it is intended; however, some of us are just flabbergasted that some people out there screw it up so that it won't function properly.

The invention of the motion-detecting, automatic light is a great idea if everybody used it the correct way; which is much like the BCS invention of the number one and number two teams playing for a national championship with the capability of it working like it is intended, but there are some people and teams out there that screw it up so that it won't function properly. It drives me crazy just as much, if not much more, than the automatic light being turned off manually by some knucklehead.

So, the dream of having a number one and number two team playing every year in the biggest game of the season is so wonderful and heart-warming that it sends chills down my backside just thinking about it. This is the cause and purpose of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). The BCS has devised a complicated mathematical equation with computer rankings, strength of schedule calculations, and human-based polls, to acquire the most amazing list of the top 25 college programs in the country. This list of the 25 most successful universities will send the first and second names on the list to a championship bowl game to determine which one, single team deserves the national recognition to be hailed the best team in the country. -Hold on while I wipe the tears from my cheeks- A long time ago (about 13 years or so) there used to be some major bowl games throughout the country that housed the top teams nationwide. Once in a while (nearly always), there would be a couple teams that would be at the top of the polls (AP and Coaches' polls) and not get to play each other in those bowls and those two or three teams would win their final games and the national champion would be determined by vote, not by beating any of the other top teams. This would leave at least one team wondering, "What if we played that #1 team? I know we could beat that team." They never got the chance. It's sad. That's the way it was... until... the BCS came along. Now, everything is better and perfect! (Whoa! Way too much sarcasm there - sorry.)

The BCS is far from perfect (check out my other blog entries - especially "Pac-10 Gets the Shaft"); however, it does seem slightly better than what there used to be. At least there is an attempt and means of getting the two top teams to play in the final bowl game of the season to determine the national champion. The BCS takes five or six computer ranking systems to show an "unbiased" means of accumulating important data for the final calculations. I do wonder about the computer rankings because some of them seem heavy on strength of schedule, and who plugs in the information for the computer to manipulate? Then the BCS had to develop a human-based poll called the Harris Poll due to the AP Poll not wanting to have anything to do with the BCS after a horrible fiasco with bowl match ups (I'm sure it wasn't a year that effected the Pac-10 at all - right!). In my opinion, the BCS lost some credibility again that year. However, the Harris Poll was brought about to bring in human voters into the equation to establish the teams to play in the most lucrative and popular game, after the Super Bowl for the NFL. The Harris Poll was set up to improve the BCS and current standings because the BCS standings would not start until well into the college football season. As well as the Harris Poll trying to ignore all the preseason hype about most teams by not voting until a good month into the season to show that the voters are unbiased. I have found biased flaws in the Harris Poll since its inception (see my other blog, "Harris Poll Bias") as recently as this last season of 2009 when Oklahoma was a mere 2-2 and voted in the top 20 in the poll. I'm sorry, but if you are voting to avoid preseason hype, which Oklahoma gets every year since Bob Stoops' second year at the helm, then a 2 and 2 team is NOT a top 20 team, but merely a mediocre .500 ball club. Two losses for anyone after only four games is clearly not living up to expectations and does not deserve to be recognized until they win their last 8 games - then yes.

The BCS has erred so badly a few years that it's calculations were so off that it ignored the number 1 team in the nation to send the 2 and 3 numbered teams to the championship game, sent a team to the national championship game after failing to appear at its conference championship game, sent a team to the national championship game after that team lost its conference championship game, neglected to send the number two team to the title game, etc., etc. It's like the light is on and instead of waiting for the five minute delay, someone manually turns it off. It's not natural. It should be predictable and less complicated. It was developed to clear all doubts about the teams and how well they match up. It's like we've gone back to the old days of random bowl games that don't play the two top teams together. It feels like having a motion detector to turn your light on and off, but you insist on using the button each time, instead. Plus, I haven't even mentioned the money factor yet.

The bowl games are going to make a ton of money, no matter what, but the BCS is sucking it out of the whole history and tradition of college football. Since the BCS has stuck in that extra fifth BCS bowl game after the 2006 season, the TV ratings have seen at least two games each year at 8.4 or lower when the prior BCS years before had only one game (ever) with a TV rating of 8.4 (as the very lowest rating). The large amount of bowl games are watering down the excitement and reward of a successful season. There are too many. A team with a record of 6 and 6 does not qualify for a successful season. Six losses shows more failure than success, no matter who you play. Teams being rewarded should have at least seven or eight wins on the season which would reduce the bowl amount significantly to allow the fans to rejoice in their team. So, how I see it, as long as the BCS is still in charge and hasn't succumbed to a playoff system, it will continue to water down the boring bowl games and any sense of achievement in a successful season playing 6-6 teams. As the automatic light system being a great idea and should theoretically work, the BCS, too, has fallen short due to the human factor that always messes things up. It drives me crazy!

National Recruiting

Here I am. I am back from the damp, mirky cave of shame after the Pac-10 did so horribly in the bowl games. I was encouraged by a couple friends that I needed to let people know I'm still alive and to update my blog. There has been plenty to write about recently, but my confidence in my outlook of the sport of college football has been tweaked slightly. That's okay. It happens every year for me. Just when I think I know where a season is headed and I feel like I can give a good estimate on how the post season will pan out, it gets all blurry and I begin feeling dizzy and nausia starts to settle in and then it all goes black. It drives me crazy! Where was the team that I kept track of all year? Why did they play like THAT against THIS team? All these questions run through my mind and it takes several weeks for my head to function properly again. I'm still trying to figure out how Colt McCoy was injured so early in the title game and yet, it wasn't a total blowout - maybe Coach Saban was being really nice - naw, that doesn't sound like him.

It was the National Letter of Intent Day that helped clear some perspective from my post-BCS eyes. According to Scout.com, the Pac-10 finished with two teams in the top 10 and four in the top 13. I never expect the Pac-10 to do any better than the SEC, especially when each school from the SEC recruits 8-12 commitments more than USC, consistently, to compete with the Trojans' annual rankings. USC picked up the top overall pick, according to Scout.com, Seantrell Henderson. This would be the fourth time that USC picks up the top recruit from Scout.com since 2004. Only the 2006, 2008, and 2009 years were there someone else picking up the top prize recruit. Ohio State took the first two with Beanie Wells and Terrelle Pryor, respectively, and Tennessee landed Bryce Brown in 2009, who may end up going to USC afterall to follow his freshman year's coach, Lane Kiffin (that would give USC the top two athletes from 2009 as Matt Barkley was #2).

While talking about recruiting and amount of commitments, I'd like to take note that USC rarely holds that maximium 85 scholarship players on its roster any given year. In fact, the last four years they have recruited 75 commitments. I don't believe USC keeps all its players for over 4 years. Then there are some teams that can somehow get good athletes to come to their school without a scholarship or maybe a partial scholarship, like the SEC schools. For example, not checking into all the SEC schools and looking at many of the biggest programs nation-wide, Auburn has recruited 117 players in the last four years! Not five years, because that would be an additional 25 kids, but four years. In case you are not wondering the same thing I am, I will tell you that there are a maximum of 85 scholarships allowed for each Division I (D-I) university. Most players stay an average of 4 years at the university for football and studies. So, how does Auburn keep 117 kids when only 85 of them are on scholarship? Are there some donated from the women's volleyball team or something? That is 32 kids playing on a team and paying for their own education when they could go somewhere else and get real playing time AND a scholarship. Auburn is not the only SEC school putting up triple digits in the last four years of recruiting: Ol' Miss with 115, Mississippi State with 112, Alabama with 112, South Carolina with 106, and LSU with 103. Florida and Tennessee are in the 90's from the last four years. Hmmm... USC is at 75!?! How could USC ever compete on the field with the likes of those recruiting numbers? I guess it all boils down to quality. You know that Alabama's 112 recruits are full of quality; and Florida and LSU, too. Does this tie in directly with why the SEC has been "chosen" to play for the national title the last four years (and doesn't appear to let up any decade soon)? Just a pondering point, I suppose. I noticed that quality is something USC strives for each year having 6 of the last 7 years at the top of the average star rating of recruits on Scouts.com. The year they weren't first, was a third highest average in the nation in 2008. Plus, having a top 10 overall finish the last 8 years helps the quality issue.

With all the gaudy numbers of recruits from the SEC, my mind wanders back to the light breeze of thought about the question that I ask every year after the National Letter of Intent day has come and gone and put a sledgehammer in the back of my head: "Why don't the teams in the SEC dominate everyone outside their conference from start to finish every quarter, every game, and every season?" The super talents are all gathered in one conference each year with all the best coaches in the business coaching the skilled athletes to play hard and win. So why do they occasionally lose? Why? WHY? There is literally no reason, that the major media and Southeastern Conference homers have given, that would point out why any of the 12 blessed schools should ever lose a non-conference football game. Do the Vanderbilt players go all-star academic and take up more classes instead? Does Kentucky play all their basketball stars in place of the football players? Why did Georgia lose to Oklahoma State? Why did LSU lose to Penn State? Why did South Carolina lose to Connecticut? Why did Tennesse lose to UCLA? I don't know the answers, but if I am to believe what I'm told every day by the major media, and Scouts.com, and SEC homers, those losses should never have happened. There shouldn't be any parity at this level of the sport as long as nobody messes with the structure of the Southeastern Conference, which continues to dominate the BCS title game every year.

Everyone: I am back. I will have more to give once spring camps come to a close. I await the pre-season magazines that I purchase every summer. I look forward to another season of college football! I will continue to strive to be unbiased and use the statistics and facts that are added after each Saturday of autumn.

What Does the BCS Poll Really Mean?

I'm not any expert at love, by any means, and I never claim to think that I have any pertinent advice to give anyone who is searching for love; however, there are certain things about finding a potential significant other that clearly needs to be defined. Each person has their own rating system or way to determine if someone is "hot or not" to find that immediate attraction that everyone desires in a relationship. The rating system I use, or suggest others to use, is the 5-D test. It used to be 3-D, but I've gotten wiser with years. Heck, maybe some of you would have a 9-D or more. Let me explain the 5-D's: each "D" represents something that would interfere with your judgement of beauty and the more "D's" you have in your situation, the more confident I am that you should stop what you are doing before you get morning regrets (unless you are out to have a "no pride night" but that's an entirely different article). So, obviously, the first "D" represents Drunkeness. When alcohol is consumed, impairment of judgement is increased and inhabitions are lost. The second "D" represents Darkness. The dimmer the lighting, the less features you see clearly on someone's face, which may hide a thing or two. The third "D" is Distance. The further away someone is from you, you lose proportions and clarity of features in their face (and body). The fourth "D" is Driving. Someone in a car can always look better because you can't see everything they are wearing (including the not-so-obvious pear-shape they may be sporting), they may have a tinted sun roof to make them look tan, and sunglasses hides whether their eyes are worth gazing into or not. The fifth "D" represents Desperation. If you are desperate to go out and gotta have someone tonight, then you tend to "settle" on whoever gives you a second glance and shows a little interest (this may lead into the saying where she is a "2 at 10 and a 10 at 2" - meaning, at 10pm you see her as a 2 on a scale of 1-10, but Desperation comes into full effect when it is 2am and still girl-less and you find that 2 again, but looking like a 10 now). These 5 "D's" are the premiere "D's" to look out for. As you mold your own system, you may want to add others like; Dating (if you are currently dating someone, others suddenly find you attractive), or Distractions (if you are at a carnival or huge gathering of people around you, the distractions may confuse you and make you lose focus on your ideals of beauty), or Disabilities (hopefully these come much later in life for you, but this does not mean you need to "settle"), or Drugs (depending on the drug, this could seriously impair judgement for beauty - and everything else for that matters), or for those more focused on things like hair - Dryness (sometimes you gotta get the hair wet to see how nice it really is without all the gels, sprays, and mousses). So, remember, the more "D's" you have in your situation, you really need to think about what you really want because most likely you will not find anything meaningful in a relationship when it is in 5-D. You must eliminate as many of those "D's" as possible to assure yourself better odds at making a love connection worth while.

I realize that this is a weird way to start out a college football blog, but in thought of what the BCS poll is trying to say to the nation makes me think of what is defined by the BCS poll and what we're suppose to get out of it - like love, how do you judge it and how do you define it. Like love, the BCS has different meanings to different people; so I'll quit talking about that crap and get into some football rants. This is the light I see in the BCS eyes: Pac-10 conference is clearly the best conference from top to bottom in the country and the BCS Poll put out before the bowl games begin December 19, 2009, is there to prove it in black and white. Now you have to realize that I see polls as lovers of the SEC, ACC, and the Big XII because they have lots of great teams, they each have 12 schools, and they have a championship game each season. The polls love them so much that the voters are willing to place as many of the schools represented by each of those 3 conferences in the preseason top 25 as possible. For example, in the preseason AP poll this year there were 5 SEC schools in the top 25 - I'm a little disappointed because I usually will see 6 SEC teams there. Same with the Big XII - at least 5 for good measure. The Big East, Big Ten, and Pac-10, on the other hand, will find much fewer schools amongst those elite powerhouses of the SEC and Big XII conferences (some slight sarcasm).

Now, I'm not going to get on my Pac-10 high horse just yet because there are other conferences out there that can complain as much and have legitimate arguements. I would like to speak to those Big East lovers. I feel for you. Looking at the preseason AP poll of 2009, I don't see a single Big East team in the top 25! In fact, the highest ranked team was Pitt at 28. Does the media want to hate the Big East or what?! Now let's look at the pre-bowl BCS top 25 standings. I see an undefeated Cincinnati playing in a BCS bowl playing against arguably the #2 team in the nation, Florida Gators. I also see two more teams from the Big East. There are only 8 teams in the Big East. (Time to get out your calculators.) I calculate that as about 37% of the conference. That's pretty dang good, if you ask me - especially, considering the top 3 power conferences with 12 teams each. The ACC, Big XII, and the SEC each have 3 teams finding their way in the BCS top 25 at the end of the regular season. Just as many as the Big East, but (calculators please) only a mere 25% of their conferences. Does that say that the SEC is the strongest from top to bottom? I don't see it that way. Another conference that has 3 teams in the BCS top 25 on December 6th is the Mountain West Conference. Wow! Shocker, I know! Just because not everyone in the nation is versed with MWC statistics, there is one that I DO know - it is a conference made up of 9 teams. That's 3 less than the SEC. My calculator tells me that 33% of the MWC is in the BCS top 25. Last I checked, 33% is better than 25%, right? So, if a conference is going to go on and boldly claim its superiority to the nation, then why doesn't it show up in the polls that generally favor them to begin with? Does this mean that the MWC is equal to or better than the SEC? No, of course not. That's not what I'm saying at all. However, the MWC has at least 3 really good teams this year - the same amount as the SEC and Big XII who are representing this year's national title game in the BCS National Championship game in Pasadena - and yet, the MWC remains to be a conference without an automatic bid into a BCS bowl game. Essentially, to get the big bucks from the big bowls, the MWC teams need to go undefeated the whole year (which they've had a team do 3 of the last 6 years). Now, you know I have to do this; the Pac-10, obviously with 10 teams that make up the conference, have a whopping 5 teams ranked in the BCS top 25! Can you believe that!? Hopefully you're smart enough to know what percentage 5 of 10 is and I don't have to spell it out to you. I will anyway - 50% of the Pac-10 is in the top 25 of the BCS poll before going into the 2009 bowl season? Are you kidding me? This is the same conference that had only 3 teams in the AP preseason poll top 25 in August! Incredible! Are they all over rated or does the conference just have a lot of depth? Just to feed the fire a little, the two Pac-10 teams that played and lost close ones to SEC teams are not even bowl eligible; and the team that traveled to the east and beat an SEC team is merely 6-6 (which should not be bowl eligible in my eyes - .500 record does not mean a successful season that needs to be rewarded with post season play). All those SEC schools that played the Pac-10? They are all eligible for bowl games. How could the SEC use this same information as a bragging point? They can't because it would just mean that they do, in fact, play some of the weakest schedules in the country - especially their 4 non-conference match-ups. In fact, all but two teams (Vanderbilt and Mississippi State) are not bowl eligible. Does this say something about their scheduling? If you say you are the best, then it wouldn't be asking much to go out seeking the best of other parts of the country to play them, right?

Enough of that. I want to rant a little more about the bowls and their affiliations. I can't stand having the second best team from the Pac-10 conference playing on December 30th each year! Is that really an award? I think there are too many bowls these days, to begin with. I feel, also, that the best bowls that mean the most should be played on January 1st and after. Everything else before that is just an appetizer. Of the six major conferences, only one is treated as well as the C-USA and MAC conferences by allowing only one team to play in the month of January: that's the Pac-10. Lucky for them, they get an automatic BCS bowl bid, or else... who knows? The ACC gets two of their 3 BCS ranked teams in the new year, but the Pac-10 gets only 1 of their 5 BCS ranked teams playing in the first month of 2010. Wow! Now the SEC takes its 25% and plays that and then some into January to play in a bowl game. Actually, the tally is 7 teams from the SEC will play after the beginning of the year this season. Well, the Big Ten gets 5 teams into January! Now this is where the Big East gets its love back by having 4, or half their conference, into the lights of January bowls. Crazy! Where is the new Pac-10 commissioner on this? This is an outrage and must change immediately! Why do all the January bowls affiliate with the SEC? Why can't one or two of them go to the Pac-10? They've won a championship or two in the last decade, right? Who makes these decisions? So, the conference that puts in 50% of its teams into the top 25 BCS poll will reward only one team?! Where is the logic in that? Am I the only one who seriously thinks this is an issue with regretable terms of why the Pacific 10 conference is looked upon with eyes of inferiority? I think the Pac-10 needs to shed some of these "5-D's" so it can be seen for what it really is - the conference of champions.

Harris Poll Bias

When I was a young lad in high school, there were few words that really stood out as I studied English to increase my vocabulary; however, one of those words sticks with me still to this day - "superfluous", meaning: extra, not needed or necessary. There are some things in life that can be described by this word - yes, even in college football, which I would have thought to be impossible until I ponder on the following thoughts on the subject of polls. I thought the whole idea of a poll, starting after the college football season has began to pan out with most non-conference play in the past and some conference games under way, were to reduce any pre-season hype/expectations and other poll influences that are not involved in the BCS. Looking at this week's Harris Poll has achieved nothing more than an additional look of the AP and Coaches' polls. There are so few differences between the Harris Poll and the AP, Coaches', and even the Legends' polls that it makes me wonder if the AP and Coaches' polls are so influential and dictate the state and direction of college football rankings, that the voters for the Harris and Legends polls are too scared to vote completely different from the grand-daddies of polls.

Now, I love the idea of the Legends Poll and think that they would have a better grasp of who should be ranked or not; however, they have no say in the ultimate outcome of the development of all the BCS bowl games like the Harris Poll does. The Harris Poll has all this power over the schools' football programs and I feel like they are not taking it seriously enough to show the proper respect that some schools deserve and freely giving respect to certain squads that don't necessarily deserve the respect that they are getting right now. In the BCS, it is all about the "right now" in performance of all the teams across the nation. What's your record right now? Did you win right now, or did you lose? How tough is your schedule right now? How tight did you play your most difficult games so far, or did you struggle against the weakest opponents? The Harris Poll was set up, in my kindergarten understanding of the poll, to help even out who has demonstrated quality football and to reward the teams that have done so and point out those teams who may seem over-rated in the other polls that have not demonstrated a justifiable higher ranking.

There are a couple "red flags" that make me question the integrity and validity of the Harris Poll, and we are a mere five weeks into the season. The first one I see is a 2-2 team at #20. Does it really matter what team it is? I don't think so. If you are a .500 team, do you really feel like you should be ranked in the top 25? This is so absurd! There are teams that are in the six major conferences that are 5-0 and 4-0 that are ranked lower that the 2-2 team. Is this for real? Does this really demonstrate an un-biased look at the top teams in the nation? Anyone who knows what a statistic is when they see it, knows that a 2-2 team has NOT demonstrated themselves better than a 5-0 team. Obviously, the voters in the Harris Poll have yet to see a statistic, which is very frightening for those teams that had to go 5-0 to get a glimpse into the top 25's elite status because it is apparent that it's not what you've done on the field, but who you are and what you've done in the past and what is expected from you by your alumni. Now, if this particular 2-2 team went on to win the rest of their games to finish 11-2, then I can see a top 20 showcase, but this early on, I have to suspect some foul play going on. Either that, or the voters for this very powerful Harris Poll are just not paying attention to college football and the games that were played the week prior because it just doesn't make sense.

Another "red flag" of inadequacy of voters who supposedly are not biased, is the fact that Florida is #1 with the schedule they have played so far. Really?!? Two conference games, yes, but against unranked teams (one had just lost to a Pac-10 team the week before (gasp!)). The other two wins were against Troy (no, not the USC Trojans - just Troy Trojans) and the well-known (sarcasm) Charleston Southern! Is that so impressive to put a team at #1? I'm confused. Why wouldn't an Alabama team be #1 instead? They have actually played teams that are significant this year, and won those games. Even the undefeated Iowa squad has played a more difficult schedule than the Gators, but they find themselves at #11. Is it really so hard to look at things at an unbiased view to get it correct "right now"? Of course the rankings will change as the teams' records change with some ranked teams losing and some teams improving throughout the year. I can't stress the "right now" enough. My Harris Poll would look completely weird compared to the AP and Coaches' polls, especially knowing that I had all that power over the outcome of the fate of so many teams in the nation. I would take it totally serious and think things through and take everything into account before I followed the previous week's AP Poll standings. Until the Harris Poll voters get it right to correct the BCS just a little bit of the flawd system, then the Harris Poll will be nothing but superfluous!

Pac-10 Gets the Shaft

I was contemplating, as I do so often, about how the Pac-10 football teams get the shaft since the beginning of the BCS. I have been doing some studying and researching the facts that help prove my opinion of "shaftness". So, since the inception of the BCS in 1998, there have been only three years where there was a clear #1 and #2 teams that were undefeated and earned their poll rankings; and after the national title game, there wasn't any doubt who the number one team in the nation was. Those were the years 1999, 2002, and 2005. In 2005, USC was one of those teams and USC played for the championship in one other year. Those are the only two years that a Pac-10 team was represented in the BCS national championship game. The other eight years of BCS have put more confusion and conflict into the order of finish of college football. There seems to be arguements derived from this flawed system. At the end of regular seasons of those three "good" years mentioned earlier, even I could have chose the two teams who should play for it all and get it right. Beyond that, it's just speculation, and I claim bias into the system (I will address the bias in other posts).

I have many statistics at my fingertips after the purchase of the wonderful "ESPN College Football Encyclopedia". In it, I have the AP Poll progression throughout each season for every year starting in 1936 all the way to 2004. In 1950, the United Press (UP) poll began and lasted until the end of 1992. In 1993, the UP became better known as the USA Today/CNN (coaches) poll until ESPN replaced the CNN title in 1995. ESPN began to include their own rankings at that time and have included all these polls in this wonderful library of college football information. I have gone through some of those progressions in the BCS years and was struck with horror all over again when I saw how some teams have gotten the shaft. Let's just kick it off with 1998 (why not?). The shaft could have gone to many teams that year because the 11-1 Florida State team was #2 in the polls at the end of the season but left out other 1-loss teams that had legitimate arguements to take FSU's place in playing the undefeated Tennessee team for the national title. Ohio State had lost by 4 to an unranked Michigan State team in week 10. Kansas State's only loss came by way of the Big XII championship game to lose by 3 against the #10 Texas A&M squad. Wisconsin never played Ohio State that year but lost to #15 Michigan in week 11. Tulane went undefeated and ended the year ranked #7. Air Force lost to unranked TCU in week 4. Then, UCLA lost it's last game against Miami, who kept them from going undefeated; however, UCLA was ranked #3 in week 6 when they gave Arizona their only loss. So, because UCLA won the Pac-10 and lost their final regular season game, Arizona wasn't ranked high enough to get the nod to play for the national title. At the time, this made some sense, but later on you'll see why this is lame and the BCS shafted Arizona (not that anybody would have beaten Tennessee, but it would be nice to have had Pac-10 representation in the championship game).

The 1999 season was pretty clear cut and straight forward lending Marshall the only argumental rights ending the year 13-0. Now the 2000 season proved to be a very good one for the Pac-10 regarding the top teams. Of course, Oklahoma's undefeated season left them at #1 - uncontested. The 2nd place finisher in the polls may have been accurate, but still had some serious questions to who it may have been in place of Miami. There were seven 1-loss teams to choose from: Toledo at #25 and TCU at #13 weren't even in consideration when the other 5 teams had much stronger strengths of schedule and in BCS conferences. Let's just say that the #3 Florida State was chosen over the other 4 teams and this is where it gets jumbled up. Why was the #3 team chosen over the team that was the only team to beat them and stood at #2? Miami not only beat FSU, but was #6 Virginia Tech's only loss as well. Miami had a legitimate arguement and I remember Coach Butch Davis making a huge fuss over it (I don't blame him); however, when Coach Davis was asked about the team with the same record as his who beat the Hurricanes, he replied something to the effect that it was an early game in the season, and that team doesn't matter because it plays in the Pac-10. Well, by season's end, the Pac-10 had three teams in the top eight in the AP poll. Sounds like a tough conference to me; although, when it comes to playing for the national title, a Florida State team that played in the two previous national championship games seemed to "fit" better. Plus, Miami wasn't in the ACC then, but was part of making the Big East look good (along with Virginia Tech). So, the Bowden, I mean Bowl Championship Series continued without looking at a Pac-10 team; even with Washington being the only team to beat both #2 Miami, and #5 Oregon State. The only team to beat Washington was the #8 Oregon team that ended the season 10-2 beating #12 Texas in their bowl game. So, I want to recognize Miami getting the shaft by being #2 and getting skipped over by the #3 team. With that said, if Miami was shafted, so was Washington by not getting ranked properly by being the only team to have beaten the #2 team with the same record - plus, having a better win over #5 Oregon State versus the #6 Virginia Tech that Miami beat. In reality, Washington should have been the #2 team in the polls and therefore getting the biggest shaft.

After the 2000 season, the BCS went back to the drawing board to revamp how the teams should be chosen. In my opinion, they did a horrible job. Now, I should say that a true championship team should meet certain criteria: 1) the team should be the champ of their conference, 2) the team should never have more than 1 loss, and 3) the team should never be chosen based on fan-base ideas or because they travel well. This leads me up to the 2001 season that urks me to this day, which becomes one of the Big XII fiascos that gives cause to the stretch of 6 title games that include a Big XII team 5 of the 6 times where I heard referenced as the Big XII Championship Series. The BCS transforms from Bowden to Big XII. So, the 2001 season would prove to be the first time that bias may come into play without much argument, unless you happen to be a Big XII fan. Here is how it laid out at the end of the season. Miami was the clear, undefeated #1 team, but who they were going to play was the question. The options were two possibly under-rated teams of Illinois who lost to Michigan (8-3) and Maryland who lost to Florida State (7-4). Well, to be honest, I'd have to say that if Michigan or Florida State happened to be 10-1 like Illinois and Maryland were, then those respective conferences would probably look much better, but Illinois was not Michigan and Maryland was not Florida State. Other options included the winner of the Pac-10, #2 Oregon (10-1); the winner of the SEC, #12 LSU (8-3); the winner of the BigXII, #3 Colorado (10-2) - arguably the hottest team in the nation after beating #2 Nebraska and #3 Texas to ends its season; and #4 Nebraska (11-1). So, just to rewind a bit to my criteria for a qualified national title contender, 1) the team should be the champ of its conference, which would leave Nebraska out, and 2) the team should not have more than 1 loss, which would leave out Colorado and LSU. That leaves the #2 team, Oregon to play Miami for the national title game, right? Wrong! Way wrong, in fact. The #4 Nebraska squad was chosen over the #2 and #3 teams to play for the national championship when they didn't even qualify to play for their conference championship. How the heck did that work? Of course, Miami won and Oregon ended up playing the hottest team in the nation and demoralized Colorado 38-16. The Oregon QB, Joey Harrington, played inspired ball that day and it left me and possibly thousands wondering how Miami's defense would have stopped Harrington that day. We will never know because the BCS messed it up and didn't play the #1 and #2 teams together on the same field. Oregon got the shaft like no other, thus far.

The 2002 season was beautiful and I could have chosen the top two teams without voters or computers. It was clear that the only two undefeated teams of Miami and Ohio State were going to play. The only question was who was #1 going into it - well, Miami started the season at #1 and never lost a game along the way, so, should remain so at the end. Now, the 2003 season began after some more tweaking of the BCS - like they do every off season. Did it help much? Nope. It made things worse, and who got the shaft at year's end? Yep, you guessed it, a Pac-10 team. 2001 was bad enough, but this season topped it. I didn't think it possible, but here is how it played out. Oklahoma was #1 from week 1 until they lost in the BigXII championship game, which allowed a 1-loss USC to sneak to the #1 spot. So, #1 USC (11-1) won its conference and #2 LSU (12-1) beat Georgia in the SEC championship game to win its conference. Then, #4 Michigan (10-2) and #8 Kansas State (11-3) each won their respective conferences, while FSU and Miami stood at (10-2) at #9 and #10 respectively. Going back to my criteria, USC and LSU were #1 and #2 and each had 1-loss and both won their conferences; however, #3 Oklahoma, who didn't even win its conference was considered for the national title game instead of #1 USC. So, not only did #2 LSU surpass the #1 Trojans, but the #3 Sooners that couldn't win its conference surpassed the astonished men of Troy to play for the national title. This was a horrible mockery of the Pac-10! How could you not play the #1 team against the #2 team based on my criteria that should be required to be worthy to step to the national title spotlight? The honor came when USC was still voted #1 by the AP poll, while the coaches were "obligated" by their contracts with the BCS to vote for the winner of the LSU/Oklahoma game. Clearly, Oklahoma was NOT the worthy opponent for LSU and I'm certain that LSU fans seemed robbed of the unanimous championship crown. USC got shafted!

Another off season for the BCS and more tweaks in the system to try to get it right. Well, 2004 was not the season to help the BCS seem like it was getting things right. College football went from all 1-loss teams in 2003 to undefeated teams in 2004. There were five undefeated teams, to be exact. The top two started as the top two and remained so because they never dropped a game along the way. After #1 USC and #2 Oklahoma, there was #3 Auburn, #5 Utah, and #10 Boise State. The latter two were out of contention due to playing in non BCS conferences. It was the top 3 that made all the SEC fans throw huge fits over what happened. Auburn happened to draw the short end of the stick when week 1 they were ranked a mere #17. They flew in under the radar. I don't think anyone was going to beat USC that year in January, so the BCS finally got that right. The argument lies with which team was USC going to beat. Oklahoma was ranked #2 all season and never lost, so it never made sense to dethrone them for Auburn - besides, USC had just shutout that same offensive group the year before so it was just a wash and I'll accept the 55-19 pounding of the Sooners. The huge BCS mistake came with the remaining BCS games. With 5 undefeated teams, it was necessary to get that number down to at least 3 by playing the undefeated teams against each other. USC and Oklahoma solved half of that puzzle, but when the BCS didn't match #3 Auburn up against #5 Utah, there was a huge loss there. Those two teams had a chance to really prove something (especially Utah). I think Utah had a legitimate chance at beating Auburn base on how they outclassed Pittsburgh that year. I know that SEC fans are screaming that Auburn got shafted that year, but based on the previous years, are they really sure? Shafted because they didn't get to play Utah, win, and then play a plus one, yes; but to expect to be ranked over the two teams that remained #1 and #2 all year long would be a huge mistake.

The 2005 season was amazing! Everyone wanted to see USC play the winner of the Texas/Ohio State game from before the season started. Texas beat Ohio State and the anticipation grew immensely from week to week until they were finally the only two standing as the undefeated giants ready to play in the Rose Bowl. What a great game! Yes, my beloved Trojans lost that day, but any true fan of college football recognized this game as an instant legend. The superstars that clashed together on the field in Pasadena marveled games of yesteryear.

I will do some more reading and research to cover the remaining years, but I'm certain there is more "shaft" going on that the BCS needs to recognize and correct as necessary.

Current BCS System

Why is it that every year after all the bowl games are done, college football and the BCS become a topic of debate and distinguished controversy? Why can't the BCS ever accomplish what it was created to do by getting the top two teams in the nation to play for one national title? Why is there seem to be at least one team left out and wondering whether they could have beaten the winner of the national championship game? I know that people who love SEC football don't have many recent complaints, but can recite how horrible it was for Auburn to go undefeated in the regular season and win the conference title and not get invited to play for the national title. That is the only time that SEC fans can fall back on because the media and voters and computers love the SEC and have given it everything else since its inception in 1998. It's the Pac-10 that gets left out over and over again. The Big East may have some complaints, but it is the Pac-10 that has fallen out of the voters' heads and missed the chance to play for all the marbles more often than any other BCS conference in the nation. The BCS changes, as it seems, yearly to make it "more fair". For whom, I ask. It seems to make it easier and easier for an SEC team to get in there, even if you have two losses to your name. The BCS needs to make changes for sure. Maybe it could become extinct or maybe acquire some kind of playoff-type system to get the best teams to play their way to the championship game to actually achieve exactly what the BCS claims it is there for. The fans would love it and yes, it would produce a little revenue for those certain lovers of money.