Analyzing the AP Poll

I remember way back in the eighties when the "parachute pants" were such a cool thing to wear.  Later, they were often referred to as "M.C. Hammer pants" (or just "Hammer" pants), for those are the type of pants he wore in his music videos that flooded MTV for about a year, solid.  They were made of a light material (parachute-like) that fit in the butt and then loosened up in the thighs with a zipper that revealed additional material (commonly a different color than the outside pant color) and slowly tapered down to hug the ankles.

As a youth, my single mom could not afford new clothing for the four of us children, so most of the time, my brother and I had to scrounge up odd jobs or paper routes to earn money to buy "special" clothing for ourselves.  I had done so the summer before seventh grade and purchased the sweetest pair of parachute pants.  They were a royal blue and instead of zippers, I had snaps on the sides that exposed a black material.  I just knew the chicks would flock to me the first day of school, which ultimately turned out to be the only day of school I wore my Hammer pants.  Middle school-aged kids are very cruel to begin with, but when you are a newer kid in town (one year) and not very popular and in a small town where Wranglers and Levi's are the norm (for decades), it was inevitable to get the non-parachute-donned, popular boys to tease in all ways imaginable to humiliate me in front of those potentially swarming girls that now wouldn't even look in my direction.  At the time, it was an awesome idea and I thought I could predict how people would react to wearing such sweet attire, but I was quickly put into reality when the test finally came.  I'm sure that there were some parts of the country that these Hammer pants were more accepted by peers in middle school, but in the rustic cowboy town in Central Oregon, it was not meant to be.

My optimistic view of parachute pants and the reality check I experienced in the seventh grade remind me of the grossly inconsistent adjustments made from week to week by the AP poll voters.  I feel like they are voting for teams like how I felt when purchasing those royal blue beauties.  It seems like a good idea at the time, but the real test hasn't occurred yet and reality hasn't hit.

First of all, those voters have a stewardship over their pre-season votes and have to stick with them, or do they?  They are responsible to provide accurate accounts of all the FBS schools in the nation.  All the teams must be monitored closely and fairly represented in the weekly top 25 with respect to the teams' success (or failure).  So, as I glance through the first couple weeks of the AP top 25, I see some accurate representation of some schools and others where they may seem to be way off due to how things have unfolded thus far.  It's like a work in progress for the voters.  They need to make necessary adjustments each week and fess-up when they don't make the wisest decision one week and change it immediately for the following week.

An obvious example that we witnessed already this season, is the pre-season #10 team, Arkansas.  Of course this is a pre-season #10 team!  The Hogs are in the SEC!  'Nuff said, right?  Well, for me, that's not good enough.  They just lost their offensive guru and head coach in the off season.  Arkansas was starting a new season with a new coach that hasn't really glistened with success, but with the talent that flows to the SEC, anybody would be successful, right?  Well, that #10 team jumped two spots by beating that hard-nosed, bruising team from Jacksonville State (yes, sarcasm was intended) with a score of 49-24, who put up 322 yards on an SEC defense.  Yikes!  The good thing was that Tyler Wilson, arguably the best QB in the conference, needed to play only two and a half quarters and Arkansas still put up 564 yards.  Jacksonville State had garbage points and yards in the second half while the starters were resting and letting the second and third stringers get some reps.  The following week is when the tragedy happened.  Louisiana-Monroe came to town and put up a real fight.  They hung in long enough to be able to get a last minute score to force overtime with 21 unanswered points.  Arkansas made a field goal in overtime.  Then the shocking thing happened when the Warhawks QB seemed to have muffed up a play but found himself with a huge amount of green in front of him to sprint into the endzone.  Ouch!  This is when Coach Smith should have put in his bankruptcy papers.  He'll be lucky to have a job by season's end.  Now, Arkansas may have started off ranked too high with a new coach, but the voters were seeing stars or unicorns chasing rainbows or something to advance Arkansas more than one spot to fill in the Michigan loss after the Razorbacks' initial win.  However, the voters got it right when they tucked in their pride and took Arkansas completely out of the top 25.  That's got to be hard for the voters to put a team at #8 one week and the next, leave that same team unranked.  Like my mom never told me, doing the right thing is not always easy.  So, Arkansas was definitely a pair of those parachute pants that made it to the second day of school and now is a nice, classic pair of Wranglers like everyone else that doesn't find themselves in the top 25.  Now if only that second game of the season would have been Alabama and the Tide would have slapped them around a few hours and humiliated them, that would have been expected and the Hogs would have dropped a few spots, but not completely out of the top 25.  Unfortunately, it happened to be a much, much lesser team.  This will not look good when conference play begins unless Coach Smith can make a total one-eighty and utilize the talent he has on this squad.

There are many questions I have for the voters besides, "How can I get your job?"  Some of the placements of rankings each week draw my finger to the temple of my head and make me say, "Hmmm."  Let me mention a few of those now.  The obvious one, is why would anybody vote USC at number one?  A great team? Yes!  (My favorite.)  However, with the NCAA sanctions, USC lacks the depth to make it a whole season without injuries in key areas that could potentially find them struggling to win games - especially with the increasingly competitive conference of the Pac-12 and the nine conference games that the conference schedules every year (of course, Colorado is developing into the Duke and Vanderbilt of the Pac-12 - a.k.a. "bye week").  A top ten ranking would suffice, but #1 is really pushing it.  Same with my second favorite Pac-12 team, Oregon - ranked too high.  Hello!  They lost the starting QB and have to start either a sophomore or a freshman, and they lost arguably the best running back the Ducks have ever had with Heisman finalist, LaMichael James.  Again, near the top ten is feasible, but top five?  C'mon!  Let the teams who lose personnel and star players prove themselves a few times first.  Another team is Florida.  Why are they ranked at all?  This is the same team that had Urban Meyer at the helm two seasons ago as one of the best recruiters, ever.  The cupboards were left full of talent, with some stored in the pantry, as well.  You just need to be a decent coach to win 10 games with all that talent.  Well, Will Muschamp's 7-6 record was a huge disappointment, and he does NOT recruit better than Coach Meyer, so I have no idea how Coach Muschamp will improve from the 7-6 record in his first year as a head coach and who he paid off to find the Gators in the top 25.  I hope they prove me wrong, but this trend doesn't bode well for the Florida faithful.

After week two of the 2012 season, I learned a few things in regards to how things are perceived by the voters in the AP poll.  First thing I learned was, I'm not the only person in the world that regrettably purchased a pair of parachute pants in middle school.  I saw four top 20 teams lose to unranked teams and found themselves on the outside looking in.  I mentioned Arkansas falling like the net worth of its coach, but then there was the offensively anemic Wisconsin team with the best returning running back in the nation ranked at #13, who couldn't score against a questionable Oregon State team until less than two minutes left in THE GAME.  Now the media wants to make a big stink about the call on the on-side kick?  Really?  Do you think the Badgers suddenly had super momentum to score a "quick one" in just over a minute left from the 50-yard line?  Please!!  Maybe the Beavers really played defense or Wisconsin needs to get rid of the offensive line coach (oh, wait!  The latter did occur), or maybe it was actually a combination of both.  With the game against Nichols State being postponed, Oregon State essentially had more than one week to prepare for the Badgers.  Is it really that far fetched?  The third team that lost was the #16 Nebraska squad that played in the Rose bowl against UCLA.  The Huskers left LA as losers by six, even with the huge 92-yard run by Martinez.  The Red Shirts defense didn't corral Johnathan Franklin and let him go on a 217 yard day.  The Husker defense kept Franklin out of the endzone until the short pass in the fourth quarter.  The fourth team that left their high-profile offense home was the Oklahoma State Cowboys when they traveled to the deserts of Arizona.  The Wildcats tried their best to give the Pokes a taste of their own medicine when Oklahoma State put up 84 points the week prior on the lowly Savannah State.  The Cowboys went from shutting out one team the first week to getting 59 pasted on them the next.  As a Pac-12 fan, the second week of the 2012 season went like a dream - of the four unranked Pac-12 teams playing ranked, non-conference foes, three came out winners (the only loss was Washington losing - badly - to the #3 ranked LSU Tigers).  So, besides Washington not showing up and Colorado looking like a community college and Utah losing their starting QB and a rare game to Utah State, the conference was well represented with wins against mostly BCS conference opponents.  So, keeping up with the annual standards of the AP poll, an SEC school loses its way out of the top 25 (although, replaced by Tennessee) while Pac-12 teams have to win their way in with the additions of UCLA at #22 and Arizona at #24.  It's weird not to see the other team, Oregon State, who had the biggest upset of the three to not break into the top 25.

In conclusion, the AP poll is very inconsistent with how they vote the weekly top 25.  Each time I look at a new week of the poll, I feel like I'm a Wrangler-wearing cool kid watching a parachute pants-wearing kid walking onto the playground at middle school and saying to myself, "What was that kid thinking when he bought those?"  I'm sure at the time the vote seemed like it made sense and would be popular with the ladies, but ultimately that will be the last time the vote will be like that again.  As long as the correct adjustments are made throughout the season, everything should all work out in the end, right?

There's A Lot of Good Out There

  A few days ago my family and I went for a bike ride to go get some ice cream.  We got ourselves all prepared and ready for a safe and fun ride.  We had two $2 gift cards to help with the cost of that yummy goodness that we were looking forward to on a warm summer day.  We all had our helmets on and my son even had elbow and knee pads donned.  The trip to Baskin Robbins is not quite two miles one way, so the kids would work up just enough sweat to earn their ice cream and be able to work it off with the ride back home.  When we arrived at the ice cream parlor there were only a few people inside getting their orders, including two attractive women with a cute, older teenager (maybe in her early 20's) tasting flavors and browsing a bit.  So, the young gal behind the counter finished with the departing couple to help me and my family.  Of course, my children either decide on something plain and boring or take forever deciding what special flavor they want to try.  My kids get their ice creams first and head outside so we don't leave a drippy mess on the floor of the shop.  My wife gets the ice cream that we will share and follows the children.  Then I'm left to pay the bill and open my wallet to get out my debit card when the young thing behind the counter tells me that they don't take any cards, only cash and check.  What?  Are you kidding me?  Are we living in the 80's?  I'm sure my face was priceless.  My head went wild thinking of alternatives of how to pay for this expensive treat.  I knew we didn't have the check book because my wife didn't want to bring her purse or wallet on a bike ride.  I knew that I hardly ever have cash in my wallet and if I did, it was for my pre-season college football magazines that I buy this time of year.  What the heck was I suppose to do?  So, with my best attempt of getting the retarded look off my face to try to save it, I hand over those two $2 gift cards and hope that the $4 will cover most of it.  The total now comes to $7.11.  As I slowly open my wallet, I offer a silent prayer that I had some cash in it.  I open to reveal a $5 bill and with a big sigh of relief, I draw the bills out to count the rest.  I count, five, six, seven....  Let me count again, five, six, seven....  Really?  I have $7 and knew that I don't have an ash tray on my bike where I keep loose change for parking meters, etc.  Crap!  To stall while I think of another solution to come up with $0.11, I check all 23 pockets of my khaki cargo shorts one at a time wishing I could gesture to my wife to come and help me out so I don't have to go through this humiliation alone.  I think my pathetic glance toward the window was too much to bare on one of those women, who was now finishing up their business, who said, "I think I have $0.11."  Oh, you wonderful woman!  I think I love you!  "Really?" I reply.  Then the girl behind the counter says that she has eleven cents too.  Now I'm rolling in it!  The lady next to me gets her wallet and shuffles through a bit and scares me for an instant when she says, "Nope."  Then quickly says, "Oh, here's some."  Phew!  I mention the extreme embarrassment of the situation and graciously thank this stranger.  She kindly shrugs it off as no big deal.  Well, yes, $0.11 doesn't seem like a big deal, but I went from thinking I had to march outside and take away my wife's ice cream and return it, to getting the whole bill paid for, it is a big deal (my wife would have killed me).  My gratitude for this kind act of service from a stranger made me wonder if I'm doing enough to help out people in need.  I questioned whether I'm being an example of good for those to see (and there were plenty of people to see this woman's kindness because the place was packed by the time I paid for the order).  Her small, simple act is what we are all capable of if we can stop long enough being self-consumed with our own daily problems and challenges and not being concerned whether someone is trying to take advantage of us or not.  I doubt this stranger will ever read this blog posted under the college football theme, but I will still say thank you, again, for showing me your kindness.  Even in a world of so much evil and extreme hatred that fills some people, I was reminded that there is a lot of good out there.

     I know you are wondering what this has got to do with college football, yet again.  The kind woman in Baskin Robbins showed me that there is good left in people, while observing a possible trend in college football recruiting shows me that there is good left in the Pacific 12 conference.  Well, as I browse through Scout.com (nearly) daily and seeing the latest on the college football recruiting scene, it has helped confirm what I feel is coming in the near future to change the outlook of NCAA football as we know it now. All the years that I've been following the recruiting process, the Southeastern conference has dominated like no other.  It is very clear that they have a strangle-hold on getting the top blue-chips in the country year after year.  Sure, occasionally there will be a Florida State, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Oklahoma, or Notre Dame finding themselves at the top of the heap after the national letter of intent signing day in February; however, it is always the SEC schools jamming their football programs with excessive talent that carry two full teams of starters apiece that compete with elite teams across the nation.  When tallying the 4 and 5-star athletes each year, it is that conference that picks up roughly twice the number of elite athletes than the next best recruiting conference.  Double!  That is amazing!  The SEC is reaping the recruiting rewards by winning the championship annually for the past several years straight.  I don't believe anyone who claims that recruiting high school kids is not a big deal.  Just ask the SEC schools how they feel about the importance of recruiting.

Admittedly, I was disappointed by the elite talent that did not show interest in Oregon after they lost by three points to Auburn for the national title a couple years ago.  There was only a slight increase of 4 and 5-star players that had Oregon on their short list of schools they were interested in.  Only a small number of these great players ended up finally choosing Oregon to play for.  DeAnthony Thomas was a huge pick-up that year and was evident on the field where he demonstrated his electrifying speed and all-around talent with the ball.  USC has had to deal with players leaving and post season bans and now scholarship limitations due to some violations USC committed several years ago.  This has had an impact on how well USC has been able to draw in high-talented players to keep the program strong.  But it's still USC and some kids just want to go there.  There was a slight drop in quantity of talent with the fear of all the sanctions surrounding the program, but now the bowl ban is raised and USC will have a chance of increasing the amount of talent coming in, once again (except the limitations of 75 scholarships allowed in each of the next three years when it will then return to 85 again).  During the Jim Harbough days at Stanford, the recruiting efforts grew tremendously and saw the level of competitiveness jump up immensely.  There was fear of a drop-off in recruiting after Coach Harbough went off to the NFL, but David Shaw didn't miss a beat.  Stanford is still solid in the recruiting efforts.  Under Rick Neuheisel, the recruiting for UCLA was decent, but I think the high school kids noticed that those superstar athletes weren't getting on the field to play there in the Rose Bowl each Saturday.  I'm still asking myself where all those elite players went.  Now UCLA has Jim Mora who has come in with a winning attitude and will bring a "Harbough effect" on the program with better recruiting and ability to utilize the great talent to become great again.  The rest of the Pac 12 conference with respect to recruiting is just good to okay.

I predict that overall recruiting for the Pac 12 conference will improve dramatically over the next few years.  Not many people want to rush into programs that have new head coaches like Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, and Washington State have all inherited this last off season.  These new coaches will have to prove themselves first before they can bring in some additional elite talent.  I feel that the offensively-minded athletes may lean a little toward Arizona and Washington State where Rich Rodriguez and Mike Leach have both excelled at with past coaching stops.  Rich Rodriguez will not have to chase off a Ryan Mallett-type talent at Arizona because the Wildcats will be better suited for his offensive needs.  Mike Leach has a great foundation, thanks to Paul Wolff and his recruiting efforts after he inherited a bare talent pool in Pullman (thanks to Bill Doba).  Mike Leach will be able to work around the talents of Jeff Tuel and Connor Halliday behind center and the superstar Marquess Wilson catching the majority of the passes thrown.  I've already mentioned UCLA and its immediate impact on recruiting, so that leaves Arizona State as the wild card and the unknown future of that program.  Todd Graham at ASU will have to earn his stripes in this conference with only a few significant coaching years in the Big East conference.

There are five schools I have not mentioned yet in regards to recruiting because you have the four universities that are holding their own with USC, Stanford, UCLA, and Oregon, while Arizona, Arizona State, and Washington State had question marks even before they brought in first-year head coaches, so that leaves California, Colorado, Oregon State, Utah, and Washington.  Jeff Tedford of Cal, Mike Riley of OSU, and Kyle Whittingham of Utah are each starting their eighth year or more at their designated universities (Tedford is the most senior in the conference with 2012 being his 12th year).  These three coaches are all settled and steady and consistent with what they bring to the table.  The Golden Bears have had some very successful years of recruiting under Tedford with some big names now in the NFL and having success at the toughest level.  Oregon State is a difficult place to recruit to.  Corvallis is not a big city with overwhelming social outlets for these young kids to flock to, but Portland is a couple hours' drive away from campus; however, Riley really knows how to get the best out of his athletes and makes me wonder what he could do if he ever did get a top ten recruiting class.  Now with UofO having a ton of success recently, most elite athletes in Oregon will go to Eugene instead of Corvallis.  This makes the hard for Oregon State even harder to recruit great prospects.  As far as the Utes are concerned, the move from the Mountain West conference to the Pac12 may have given them a recruiting advantage.  The automatic qualifying conference will lead some of the fence riders in Utah to choose red over the independent blue of BYU.

Just recently, USC picked up their final commitment that will be allotted them in 2013.  It is because they committed only 13 players in 2012, that they were able to get 18 commits for the following year and it seemed like almost a race at the end who would be the last athlete to pledge himself to the Trojans.  This is very cool and exciting!  According to Scout.com, USC has an oral commitment from only one single 3-star athlete; although, that player is rated #2 at his position.  The rest are 4 and 5-star athletes leaving the Trojans with an astounding 4.28-star average with its 18 commits.  If the top recruiting university is based on the star average, then Southern California would win 2013 with ease.  However, the lack of quantity will not allow USC to tackle the number one position in February (if all commitments stay firm).  This point system gives quantity a way of topping those who have better quality recruits overall.  The best part about the 18 athletes that have pledged to USC is that the Trojans didn't just pick up these young men from California.  Coach Kiffin was able to stretch out to Texas, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Maryland.  These are top athletes that are NOT choosing the SEC and being closer to home; but they want to be Trojans and play in the Pac 12 conference.

Last year's recruiting class from Stanford was an initial sign of what the Pac 12 has potential of doing, or taking away from other conferences.  Stanford pulled in top talent from places like Oklahoma, Minnesota, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida.  Even Oregon pulled guys from Colorado, Texas, and Ohio.  New Jersey and Pennsylvania were a couple other states that had top talent that chose the Pac-12 as well.  This is not a fluke!  I say that there is a trend that has begun and the Pac 12 conference will be able to reap the rewards of future talent that will flock from all over the country and be able to keep most of the local talent in the process.  Sure, the SEC will be keeping a lot of the talent in the Southeastern part of the US, but will see more and more of their targets heading West.  Now, with USC unable to pick up any more recruits, the benefactors should be the Pac 12 teams that are at or nearing the top of the conference, including Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, and Washington.  I would love to see more of the conference schools getting the blue-chip talent too, but these four programs will most likely be the top choices of the high school football players everywhere.

I can hear it now.  "The SEC rules and will never let go."  "The Pac 12 is the 5th best conference, at best."  "The SEC is so dominant that no other conference will come close to its worst teams."  Blah, blah, blah.  Uh huh!  Anyway, back to reality.  College football, like most things in life, is cyclical - meaning, there is a cycle that it will follow.  Even the BCS era has proven to be cyclical starting with the Bowden bowl (or Bowden Championship Series) each of the first three years, then it was the Big XII that couldn't be denied for a few years (or the Big XII Championship Series), then the USC era, and since it's been the SEC.  It's not to last forever (sorry SEC lovers).  It is a tremendous run (and I'm not sure if it's over yet) and will always be compared to from now on, but change is eminent.  I'm telling you now that there are signs on the wall - if you look hard enough.  I'm not saying that USC having six pledges from the top 19 athletes is the only sign, though a really big one, but that it is still early for the 2013 graduates to select their university of choice.  A game for the 2012 season hasn't been played yet and there is still over six months left before national letter of intent signing day and a lot of things can change in that time, but I am predicting more very highly touted athletes will make the choice to play in the Pac 12 conference when they also have offers from some SEC schools in the other hand.  I can see that there is a lot of good out there, like my experience at Baskin Robbins.

Tailgating Is So....

Week 1 in NCAA college football is behind us with so many questions still unanswered regarding the 120 teams in Division 1. Now, if you've read any of my prior posts, you know that I can't always get straight into football talk. Something on my mind lately is how old I'm getting. To some, I'm still a young pup; however, to most, I'll be entering mid-life crisis shortly. The other day, I went to the eye doctor (very young, attractive woman without glasses) and she mentioned something like, "you're getting to the age..." and that's all I heard. It was a blow to the ego (that was never there to begin with) after noticing a cute smirk on her face with hopes of her thinking I looked young for my age. That's okay because I took my astigmatism in my right eye straight to the outdoor gear store to get some shoe strings for my boots that I haven't been able to wear for about a year to prove to myself that a guy "getting to the age" can still be active - even though I don't look it. Well, the young thing that helped me there is lucky to be legal to drink, but was very willing to help me find the proper laces for my boots. She actually suggested to get small, round climbing rope for better strength, better knots, and better price. She was a genius! So, I decided to take advantage of the opportunity and put her to the test on purchasing the proper backpacking pack. Again, she impressed and wasn't too proud to get close enough to measure my back for frame size - even someone "getting to the age" with a astigmatism. I might have to go back in there to show her my new look with her laces to show my appreciation (I'd like to get that pack, too).

Then, a few days ago, I went to the library to see if they had this fairly popular book. I looked for a bit and realized that I didn't know the title nor the name of the author. Instead of leaving immediately, I stayed and looked around thinking that something I saw would jar my memory and remember the name of the book. Well, I'm still puzzled to this day and can't figure out how I'm going to get the name of that blasted book. I wasted an hour, I think. So, I'm getting astigmatisms AND I'm losing my mind. I guess my steel trap mind is no longer letting things back in or something. Am I really getting that old?

This age thing has gotten me thinking of tailgating of all things. Strange, huh? Maybe that's an age thing, too. So, my best friend from high school is having his 40th birthday this fall. Each year he goes to Corvallis to tailgate before the Oregon State game at Reeser Stadium. Fortunately for him, there have been three years straight that the Beavers have had a home game the weekend of his birthday. I have tailgated only a time or two with other non-drinkers, so I don't know what to expect when I get to Corvallis to surprise my buddy at the game around lots of people drinking. Am I too old and boring to feel like I might not enjoy it? I'm sure it all depends on where you are tailgating, so the atmosphere may be more pleasant than imagined. I have all these thoughts of tailgating and what it must be like for someone much younger than myself and how it may be a different experience entirely. I'm sure that tailgating in the Southeast would be spectacular with tons of fans to chat football and the co-eds everywhere, like; LSU, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, or Ol' Miss. Plus, I would love to experience the game atmosphere at places like those in the Southeast, or storied programs like Michigan, Texas, Ohio State, Miami, Notre Dame, Nebraska, or USC.

So, when I head to Corvallis this fall, I will have to go with an open mind and minimal expectations of "how to" tailgate. I will be positive because there will be the love of the game all around me which will drown any concerns. Maybe I will need to be careful not to get carried away by enjoying myself too much. I suppose that could happen. I mean, it is an OSU game, so any school that is a State University would provide fun for any young guy trying to hang out with some pretty girls. It would be easy to approach a said pretty girl and say, "I need U!" Obviously, there would be a puzzled look on the young girl's face, "You need me?!?" Judging by how she says the word "YOU", the quick fix would be, "Yes! I have the 'O' on my chest, my buddy over there has the 'S' on his, so we're looking for someone to put on the 'U'." Innocent enough, right? Why not? Then if things seem to progress some, you could play a bit and say something like, "Ya know, I think your 'S' is better than my buddy's - he should be the 'U'." I'm sure you would need to be careful saying "S" to keep it "innocent", still. I guess if I were younger, I would want to tailgate every week. Whoever invented it is amazing! The keys seem to be bringing your spirit and don't be a jerk to the fans of the opponent. That's another cool thing about tailgating - mingling with the "enemy". When I went to a Huskies game in Seattle a couple years ago, they were playing Ohio State and the majority of the fans were really great and cordial. I loved that! I don't think anybody should make a butt of themselves at a cool place like a football game.

Pending that I'm not getting too old to tailgate, I am really looking forward to the game in Corvallis (even though Oregon State is not the preferred team to travel to). Time seems to be at a stand-still, but now that the games have actually begun, it will pass a little more rapidly. So, if anyone has any advice for me regarding tailgating or how to act in enemy territories or how to age more gracefully, please, I invite you to respond and I would welcome your advice.

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.

The Battle Between the SEC and the Pac-10: Part 2

Here's the update on this article 3 months later to show some post season statistical information for those who like to base their opinions and knowledge on cold hard facts, like myself. So, with the Heisman Trophy handed out now in the closest race for the huge statue ever. It went to a sophomore running back named Mark Ingram from Alabama. This makes the 3rd consecutive sophomore to receive the award and the very first Heisman to go to an Alabama player. Toby Gerhart was a very close runner-up from Stanford as a senior. First, I want to congratulate Mr. Ingram for his outstanding year. Just keeping his starting spot was amazing because the true freshman, Trent Richardson, is a superstar in the making, but Mark was able to prove each week that he deserved to be on the field (with exception to the Auburn game). Mark rushed for an SEC high 1542 yards in 13 games. Wow! I also want to give serious props to Toby Gerhart for his amazing achievements. Toby rushed for 1736 yards in just 12 games. Honestly, in terms of the Heisman, I picked him to win it because first, he's a senior (and Mark has at least two more years to prove himself), and second, he rushed for almost 200 more yards with one less game than Mark Ingram. Plus, I felt that the SEC had a down year and the Pac-10 had an above par year with a very solid conference with exception to only Washington State.

Next, the head-to-head match-ups between the two conferences will end at 1-2 with the Pac-10's only win being UCLA beating Tennessee. There will be no "redemption" or "prove it" games in the post season due to the SEC/Pac-10 not playing each other at all. So, this will give the Pac-10 an 11-9 lead since 1998 over the SEC. I must mention, however, that this season is skewed significantly in the favor of the SEC. Let me explain: The three SEC schools to play Pac-10 teams ended up being #2 in their particular divisions (LSU 2nd to #1 Alabama and Tennessee and Georgia tied for 2nd under Florida), meaning that they are all bowl eligible. Now their 3 opponents from the Pac-10 had much different outcomes throughout their seasons and made those two wins look pretty miserable for the SEC "powerhouses". Those three Pac-10 schools are all 6-6 or worse. UCLA who got the win over Tennessee is the only team bowl eligible of the 3 teams. Funny how UCLA was able to beat an SEC team and then struggled so much against opponents within their own conference. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Maybe. Let me elaborate, in case you're lost right now. UCLA is #6 or #7 in the Pac-10 and yet played an away game in a very loud and hostile environment in the SEC and brought back a win. The team they beat is from "the best conference in the nation" (according to many major media writers and SEC homers) who ended up being #2 in their division, or #4 overall in the "mighty" conference of "dominating defenses" (like the LSU defense that couldn't keep a win less Washington team under 450 total yards by the #3 team in the SEC). Mathematically, this doesn't add up to "the SEC is a better conference" this year. This is why the numbers are skewed. Now if the #3, #4, or #5 team of the SEC would actually play the #3, #4, or #5 team of the Pac-10, this would give the 11-9 Pac-10 record against the SEC more accuracy and meaning - but it doesn't and it helps all those major media writers and SEC homers dreaming of their mansions in the sky next to Alabama, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, Auburn, Ole Miss, etc.

Ivan Maisel and his buddy, Mark, from ESPN posted their rankings of the conferences after the season ended. They both, shockingly, agreed that the best conferences were the Pac-10 and SEC, respectively. They actually put the Pac-10 at the top! What?! Have they been reading this blog or something? Very cool! Even though the whole SEC is bowl-bound (except Vandy and Miss State), doesn't equate to a more solid and competitive conference. I think Ivan and Mark both looked at the whole picture, including strength of schedule, the final BCS top 25, and overall competitiveness in the Pac-10 vs. the SEC, to determine who had the better conference. They went out on a limb (to many writers) and I believe they got it right!

So, maybe in the coming years, the most dominating teams in the SEC will actually play the upper half of the Pac-10 teams. Will the coaches read and accept my challenges to prove themselves on the field and not just on paper? We'll see.

Top Conference: The SEC?

I recall my rugby days at Southern Oregon University (formerly known as Southern Oregon State College, when I attended), when I felt that our little club of about 20 men could take on or compete with anybody. The games we played at home were dominated by us with our massive Samoans in the scrum and our head-strong white guys flanking out as the backs who could run north/south pretty well. My first game, our coaches words echoing in my head "follow the ball", helped me communicate to a co-captain who was ahead of everyone but the three defenders who he was dragging with him to toss the ball to the outside, so when he turned to back his way into the defenders, I was right there for relief and snagging the perfect toss, I ran the remaining 15 yards or so to score my first "try". Yes, I "Zulued" that day. What an awesome feeling! One game, I actually scored twice, the first was on a 70 yard bolt down the sideline - and I was the rookie. We traveled to Eugene, Oregon to play their 'A' squad, for they had three separate squads at the University of Oregon. The 'B' and 'C' squads were equivalent to JV and freshman squads, I suppose. We barely lost to the Ducks by 3 points. We were just a little club, they were a huge program with 3 squads! We nearly took them with a limited traveling team that had to fork over money from their own pockets for the trip. We had the best team around. We beat Bend and OIT, Reed College and many others. As rugby goes, there is always the celebrations afterward that last late into the night that includes both teams. The sportsmanship between the two teams was like it is when I see two men bow at and hug each other after a brutal MMA match. There is respect and love of the sport that binds the two teams or individuals together. I love rugby! The Southern Oregon Fighting Cocks were the toughest team to beat with the reputation to prove it.

My feelings about my old rugby team in the early '90's reminds me of a recent article written in the October 19, 2009, issue of Sports Illustrated, by John Ed Bradley, speaking of his team that he played for in the late '70's and the conference that it participates in now. Mr. Bradley celebrates the recent accomplishments of his alma mater, LSU, and looks back at his playing days with tender fondness. He is definitely proud to be a Bengal Tiger who currently resides in Louisiana to this day. He's still tucked into the heart of the SEC, who Mr. Bradley boldly claims to be the best conference top to bottom with depth all over. That's great and gives me some warm fuzzies and all; however, I don't see any respect of other teams portrayed in this article that would show any sportsmanship and admit to the love of the game; even as the SI cover suggests, "SEC Football: Nobody Does It Better, The Nation's Toughest Conference". So, when my buddy, Shannon, handed me this Tim Tebow clad SI, he knew from his Florida State devotion that this would cause a rise in my Pac-10-minded ideals. He was absolutely correct in his assumptions and caused me to write this blog the very next day.

I think the mentality of the SEC and its players and its fans is all summed up by the words of Roy Kramer, who was the SEC commissioner for 12 years before retiring in 2002, when he was quoted in this article, "... SEC schools have had an 'us against the nation' attitude since 1926". This shows a huge flaw in the SEC who claims to love football more than anything else in life, growing up knowing the head coaches of the universities better than the political leaders of their particular states. They seem to be saying that it is the SEC way or no way at all. The fans and media have a tendency to slip into that skid and can't find their way out of the irrational thinking of pure dominance of the "best" conference in the nation. I think that true fans of the game would show respect toward other programs that may settle in different parts of the country, including teams on the west side of the Mississippi River. Yes, there is life existing and going on in these parts of the woods. To show true sportsmanship you must be able to see the big picture and not have your face in the magnifying lens all year long.

I would agree that there are a lot of athletes that come out of the state of Florida, when Mississippi head coach speaks of the 335 average amount of young men signing on to Division I schools. I also think there are a lot of talented young men coming from the state of Texas, as well. I have heard from one of the coaches at UTEP when he went on the recruiting trail that there was so much talent in particular areas of Texas that it was difficult to focus in on just individual players. He told me that the speed on the East side of the state; however, really had top notch speed in comparison to the West side of the state. With all the talent in Texas, it would seem easy to get a decent team built up, but for teams like UTEP, it is actually very difficult with so many other bigger schools vying for the same kids. Texas is the hot bed of talent snatchers that gets more early commitments than any other program out there. Then you have other schools like Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Houston, Rice, and then UTEP. This doesn't include the talons that swoop in from Oklahoma and Louisiana State. Another state that has a decent talent pool is California. There are only 4 major colleges in the state to choose from with all that talent, so many of them are swept away to distant schools.

A couple years ago, I calculated the amount of all the 3, 4, and 5-star athletes, according to Scouts.com, and put them with their perspective conferences. It showed that the SEC, as a whole, dominates the recruiting of prep super stars every year. The next best conference was around half of the amount of highly touted talent that fed into the SEC. That is incredible! The SEC does an amazing job at recruiting, as a conference whole. With that said, I would like to see the SEC schools prove their talent level with other teams than just their own. How selfish to play 4 games that you know don't have a chance at scoring against your first team defense, let alone winning the game (with few exceptions a year)! I would love to see Houston Nutt do exactly what he was quoted in this article by saying, "I watch the other conferences all the time and I think, Boy, I'd like to play them." Perfect! Schedule a game with Oklahoma or Texas or Texas Tech. Travel up north, for once, and play in the cold against Penn State or Michigan or Ohio State. Visit the Pacific Ocean side of the country, for once, and play Oregon or Oregon State or USC or California or even a Boise State or Utah. I challenge you, Coach Nutt, to make it happen. Show off your coaching skills and trickery skills and huge talent-laden team that draws from the "best" conference in the nation. Prove it to America! Put your money where your mouth is! I guarantee, that if you feel a little frightened of flying such a distance, that ANY Pac-10 team would be delighted to travel to Oxford to play the Rebels there first - even the basement-ridden Washington State - that should be an easy win for you. Wait! Don't let me limit my challenge to Coach Nutt, but to the rest of the coaches in the SEC. I tip my hat to Georgia for taking on a Pac-10 foe. I tip my hat to Tennessee, too. Even though those two games were at home for the SEC, the Pac-10 did come off with one win, and nearly a second. I even tip my hat, slightly, to LSU for actually making the trip to the Pacific Northwest to play the Pac-10 team with the longest losing streak of 14 games. I'm sure that when the game was actually scheduled, Washington was still winning 3-5 games a season, so good job LSU (slight sarcasm there). Les Miles seems to avoid the better teams of the other conferences for some reason. I'm confused how that consistently happens. Weird! With all the talent that LSU and Florida and Alabama and Auburn and Tennessee and Georgia bring in each year, there should be no fear whatsoever playing elite teams of other conferences. Those teams should be so bold to the nation and deliberately play tough games each and every week. Why not? They have the talent. They have the depth. They have the money. They have the stadium capacity. They have everything. Do it! Or are there underlying issues to suggest that maybe the "best" conference is just hype to justify the over-rated rankings each week. Which is it? Don't just make claims without actually backing it up on the field. When the naive tight end for LSU, Richard Dickson, says, "Your USCs, your Ohio States, sure, they're all great teams, but as far as a league, I don't think you can compete with the guys we have to go against each week." Really? Does he know anything about USC? What is said from LSU Belles? "The Pac-10? Isn't that a convenience store out on Highland Road?" When was the last time you, Mr. Dickson, have played "your USCs? Or an actual legitimate team from another conference since your win over Ohio State? Hmm. You may be thinking hard for a long time, buddy. It just doesn't happen. Play USC someday! I know Pete Carroll would love it! USC doesn't back down from heavy competition. Look at their opponents over the last 10 years. Notre Dame every year is a far cry from the annual Tulane hiccup you have each year. LSU doesn't even play the whole conference every year like USC does. Sure, USC gets its conference "bye" week by playing WSU, but LSU gets theirs with Vanderbilt who went to their first bowl game last year since 1982. At least WSU had 3 consecutive 10 win seasons within the last decade or so. When has Vandy ever done that? Or Kentucky? Or Mississippi State? Or Ole Miss? Don't just talk about it! I want to see it on the field! You can make all the claims in the world you want, but until I see you SEC coaches going after the big teams of other conferences and dominating them, I'm not going to be a believer - especially when the Pac-10 has a winning record over the SEC since the year 2000. These games are NOT against the easy shoe-ins for a win against opponents like Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Mississippi State, etc. The most recent wins are against Arkansas, Tennessee, and Auburn. I understand that maybe a hand full of people will actually read this, but I stand by my challenge to all the SEC coaches to step up and show off all their talent pool of young, strong, fast football players. Oregon would be a great team to go up against now with their very average 3-star athletes that have no speed like that of any SEC school, who took it to USC recently (sorry, some more sarcasm - I can't help it).

There is one thing I'm trying to figure out this season. There is this game in Knoxville that was played earlier in the season against UCLA. Well, UCLA started off with a easy opponent in San Diego State and then traveled to Knoxville to beat Tennessee two years straight and then played Kansas State (who is now atop the Big XII North). Since those three (actually two) impressive wins, UCLA has yet to win a Pac-10 game and hasn't even played USC yet. What's that say about the Pac-10? Well, let's look at the other side. Tennessee started off with a scrimmage against Western Kentucky and then lost to UCLA by 4, then a week later, lost by 10 to the #1 team in the nation, Florida. Beat an Ohio team, then lost to Auburn (shouldn't have) by 4. Then the Vols beat up Georgia by a whole bunch and lost by 2 to the #2 team in the nation, Alabama (only because the last minute field goal attempt was blocked by Alabama). Their Halloween showdown proved a dominant performance over the #22 ranked South Carolina. What's that say about the SEC? Let me think aloud for a moment when I say that UCLA was starting a freshman QB for his second game as a starter in Knoxville, who seats over 100,000 people and came off a win over an SEC school that started a veteran senior QB... hmmm... now I'm thinking to myself - maybe you might put the same 2+2 together. The answer I get is maybe John Ed Bradley of the LSU squad of several years ago may be off a bit in his assumption that the SEC is the "nation's toughest conference" by seeing how the season is getting played out. So, the question remains, which conference has more quality teams from top to bottom? Of the six major conferences, there are points to make with each conference; however, the major media will always say that the SEC is the best, but I think the facts and head-to-head statistics should have a lot more to say about it - especially when the SEC has a winning record against all the major conferences since 2000 except for the Pac-10. I feel that this is the most impressive fact that people like, Mr. Bradley will not fess up to and show good sportsmanship to recongnize all the facts before stating how inferior all other conferences are.

So, I enjoyed the article in Sports Illustrated by Mr. Bradley, but I don't think he loves the game outside of Louisiana. True fans follow more than one team or one conference because they respect the other programs and they just love the game. This is what I want to hear from someone devoted to the Southeast.

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!

Ole Miss Pulls a So Cal

I just have one question: "Was Ole Miss really a #4 team?" I can't believe they started out at #10! Really?! I suspect that it's because they are a part of the SEC and the media wants so badly to have all twelve teams "appear" to be so great, that they can finally determine that the SEC is finally the clear top conference in the world... oops, I mean, nation. Well, from my standpoint, there will always be an arguement with that.

The Rebels played a good bowl game to end their season last year under first-year coach Houston Nutt; however, does that really warrant a #10 pre-season ranking? Hmmm. That's also like my question whether a top 5 pre-season ranking was way too high for a USC team that brought back only 3 starters on defense and a brand new quarterback. Top 20? Yes. Top 5? What are you talking about? Even the hard core Trojans fan that I am, I knew that it was way too generous; as well as the Rebels squad. At least USC was able to knock out another ranked opponent in Columbus, OH, before they lost a conference matchup against nearly a third of their old coaches up in Seattle, WA. Ole Miss, on the other hand, handed Memphis a whoopin' to move up a bit, then a bye week to hang tight for a week, and then an onslaught of points against the super power (sarcasm intended here) of Southeastern Louisiana. Back to my initial question, whether that is enough to warrant a #4 ranking in the entire United States of America. I have to be concerned about the welfare of division I football with the current voters that I have to suffer with. In the last couple years, the media has tried so hard to find the next great SEC team to raise them up high in the air and show the country how awesome they are (until they actually play a real team or two or six). First it was Vanderbilt getting all the way to #13 or something. They weren't even bowl eligible yet and a team that hasn't gone anywhere in the post season since 1982, had a ranking in the top 15. Really? Who are they playing in their first five games? Well, we know that they are desperate for wins (you would be too with the accrual of losses they get each year), so they are definitely going to use those four non-conference matchups as "gimmes". Any smart AD at Vanderbilt would. So, they look sharp against these four "gimmes" and then play inspired ball against another lowly team from the SEC and actually start 5-0. With a #13 pinned on their shoulder pads, they must have been put on the cover of SI or something because they lost to the other bottom feeder of the SEC, Mississippi State, the very next week (which I predicted, by the way). Anyone with any history of college football in their back pocket would have seen that a mile away. Just like the loss that Ole Miss suffered tonight in the hands of South Carolina, who played horribly on offense in the 4th quarter.

So, the Rebels lost the first conference game they played as a #4 team. Now, I'm sure the South Eastern fans will look at this like the conference is so packed with nutty goodness that the loss proves how deep of a conference it is, because Ole Miss will dominate all of their non-conference opponents. A warning right now to those two other football powers, UAB and Northern Arizona; the Rebels will treat you like a red-headed step-child (oh, sarcasm about the "football powers" was again intended). How far will Ole Miss fall? Will they fall like USC did with a drop of nine spots, or will they go the BYU route and drop closer to twelve? No one can be certain. A little will be determined by how many other top 20 teams lose over the weekend, but I suspect that there were high hopes from the beginning and they are in the SEC and lost to another SEC opponent that they will drop only 7 or 8 spots. Who knows? I guess we'll see in a few days when the voters have filled out their ballots Sunday night. I hope they actually watch some football this weekend and get some accurate information before they vote this weekend. I'm getting really concerned with things look based on these votes getting through each week. I would really like to see the proper teams in the top 15 spots in the AP poll.

ESPN Writer Is Right On

I was sent an article recently from a good friend who knows how much I love the Pac-10 and knew how much of a kick I would get out of it. It was and article written by Ted Miller, a Pac-10 representative for ESPN. He dug up some stats (that I love) and applied them accurately to how the 2009 conference predictions should appear. http://myespn.go.com/blogs/pac10/0-10-113/Pac-10-----Maybe-it-s-No--1-.html

I know that if the SEC had information that was this good, it would be smeared throughout any media guide, preseason annual, and given out freely among all college football analysts of every sports network. Most of the information is stuff I check each year to figure out why the SEC continues to "dominate" the strength of schedule each year, so I check the schedules of most teams in the SEC, Big XII, ACC, Big Ten, and Big East, while checking ALL of the Pac-10 teams to make sure they are not selling out. I understand some of the struggling schools in any conference may tend to invite "patsies" to come and play and get paid; although, when I see the "powerhouses" of the conferences schedule weak opponents, it becomes frustrating to me. I will continue to mention the fact that the Pac-10 has only 3 nonconference games a year with the "big boys" of the conference may have only one non-BCS team to play shows a much tougher strength of schedule than, say, an SEC power with their 4 nonconference games a year and you'd be pressed to find more than 1 BCS team of those 4 they have to play (if there is one at all). Sure, I hear it now - "the SEC has the championship game..." blah, blah, blah. Yes it does, and that IS a fact. It is also a fact that of the 12 teams in that conference, only two will play in that match-up. So, c'mon.

Mr. Miller has also provided me with information regarding the new Pac-10 commissioner, Larry Scott, who originally came from the SEC area and knew how good the SEC is. Mr. Scott, then learned the "real" statistics that prove which conference should be considered the best and realized that the information is not getting out there and the Pac-10 conference hasn't been aggressive enough to push it out to the media and the fans. I am enjoying Mr. Scott already after the Pac-10 media days. Clearly, Mr. Scott has met with all the coaches and "coached" them into saying how tough the conference is from each coach. Even Coach Carroll mentioned how many more losses they've had compared to the nonconference losses in recent years. It's true! Wasn't the Vince Young-led Longhorns the only non-Pac-10 team to beat USC since the 3rd game of Coach Carroll's second year with the Trojans; a game at Kansas State (11-2) in 2002 and lost by 7 points. So, yes, I'm telling you that there has been only one team to beat Pete Carroll's team since that K-State loss in 2002 that was not in the Pac-10. If Washington State (2002) can beat USC, or California (2003) can beat USC, or Oregon State (2006, 2008) can beat the Trojans, or UCLA (2006) can take them, or Stanford (2007) can squeak by them, or even Oregon (2007) can top them; what is wrong with the rest of the nation? Only the national championship team can come from behind and win a game against USC? I'm sure USC would like to fill it's scheduling holes by other teams besides the occasional San Jose State, San Diego State, Idaho, or Fresno State; but USC gets to travel a bit since Coach Carroll took over with the likes of Kansas State, Colorado, Auburn, BYU, Hawaii, Virginia Tech, Colorado State, Arkansas, Nebraska, Virginia, Ohio State, and a date with Notre Dame every year (like Florida's annual party with Florida State - which may as well be a conference game with them being such rivals and all). The bowl games have gone against Utah, Iowa, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, and Penn State - with losses to only Utah and Texas. This is just merely an example. I used USC because they are most recognized nationally, but I could reference several Pac-10 teams and who they've played year in and year out; like Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona State, and even Stanford and Washington State get some better games occasionally.

So, Ted Miller has become the Pac-10 voice in the media; and the new commissioner, Larry Scott, has become the new face and marketing component to the new and improved Pac-10 who won't need to base their talent merely on the field, but will receive help off the field now to show the other conferences why they weren't called "the conference of champions".

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.