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!

Does Conference Comparisons Equal Individual Performance?

I was in the middle of those Saturday "Honey-Do's" when I came across an old article from my local paper's sports page from over a year ago. Don't ask me how putting away food in the hallway got me into my shop, cleaning up a few things there. So, I read this article again, and it makes just as little sense this time around as it did last time. I don't know who wrote it because it doesn't say; however, it is short enough that I can just type the whole thing here so you understand what I'm talking about:

It just doesn't add up
"College bowl game results suggest the Big Ten has inferior talent. NFL teams say differently.
"A Chicago Tribune study revealed the talent in the Big Ten, in NFL terms, is superior to the talent in the Pac-10 and Big 12. The only conferences with advantages over the Big Ten are the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference.
"In the last five drafts, 166 Big Ten players were chosen, third highest among conferences. The SEC led the way with 192 players, followed by the ACC with 176. The Pac-10 had 157 while the Big 12 had 143.
"If you break it down to first rounders, the Big Ten also fared well. The conference has had 28 such players in the last five drafts.
"That makes it difficult to explain a 1-6 Big Ten record in bowl games this year (losses to three teams from the Big 12, and one each from the SEC, Pac-10 and ACC), and a 9-20 mark over the last five years."

That was in the Spokesman Review on January 11, 2009 when I cut it out of my paper in Spokane, WA. I'm wondering where the real connection between how awful the Big Ten did in bowl games after the 2008 season involving 7 teams versus the amount of individuals selected in the NFL draft. Sounds like a stretch that I would attempt, if I haven't already. However, I had to pick out the flaw in the Chicago Tribune's "study" by recognizing the different amount of teams that are in each of the aforementioned conferences in football. According to the numbers (straight up), they are absolutely accurate; however, with the author of this article neglecting other factual points that should be made, I will oblige by tweaking it myself.

So, if we are to base the strength of conferences on the amount of players selected in the last five years (when the article was written 1/09), the only consistency I found was that the SEC was still the top (barely), the Big Ten was still in the middle, and the Big 12 was still the bottom (by a lot). Instead of using only the amount of individuals being drafted, to be accurate on accounts of "as a conference", one must use and average system to find the true order of how strong or good a conference as a whole looks. With that said, I have the SEC with 192 players drafted and divided by the 12 teams within the conference, you get an average of 16 players per team over the five year span that the author is referencing. According to the article, the ACC had 176 players with 12 teams in its conference, meaning an average of 14.67 players per team over five years. Now, the Big Ten was mistakenly proclaimed that it was inferior to the ACC, but with my statistics it is not. The Big Ten had 166 players but only 11 teams, beating the ACC with an average of 15.09 players per team over the five years. Of course, those who know me will know exactly what I'm going to say because of my love of the Pac-10. So, the article says that the Pac-10 had drafted 157 players over that same five year span, however, the Pac-10 has only a mere 10 teams, meaning that the average is just under the super powers of the SEC (sorry about the sarcasm) with an average score of 15.7 players per team. Oh, and the Big 12 ended up with the lowly average of 11.92 players per team.

I think it a little sad that the Chicago Tribune can't even make their conference look better than that if they are going to actually call it a "study" and actually publish the results and can't even say that it is better than the ACC when it should. So, is it just me, or is the article a little bazaar? I like the article a bit because it shows me that people all over try to make the Pac-10 out to be an inferior conference in whatever way they can, but if someone looks through all the mumbo-jumbo, they actually see that the Pac-10 is, indeed, at least, second best in the nation. I can take that - if the facts prove so - which they obviously did.