The biggest movie of the summer has just opened: The Dark Knight, a film that highlights the struggle between order, symbolized by Batman, and chaos, symbolized by the Joker.
The Joker definitely won out during the 2007 college football season. We had top teams like Michigan and Louisville sink in the first half and relative unknowns in Missouri and Kansas rise towards the end. We also had the Curse of Being No. 2 and the first two-loss champion since champions have been named after the bowl season.
Some have wondered if last season was a temporary thing or the start of a new era of parity. Before we can answer that question, we have to figure out why last season felt so chaotic.
No Dominant Team
There was not one single dominant team the whole year. It looked for a while like Oregon might step up and be that team, but when Dennis Dixon went down, so did the Ducks.
College football always feels more orderly when a couple of teams are at the top all year. All kinds of craziness can go on underneath them, but as long as we know a couple titans will blow out their opponents, it seems much more manageable.
That sense of order goes right out the window when USC loses to Stanford and LSU loses to Arkansas and Kentucky, rather than Florida and Auburn.
Scheduling
The schedule worked out perfectly for the much of the insanity to happen too.
That is especially evident with the No. 2 curse. If Boston College plays Florida State earlier in the year, the Eagles never get to No. 2. If USF plays Rutgers earlier in the year, the Bulls never get to No. 2. I think you get the idea.
Another example is with teams and weak schedules. Kansas played only one team that was ranked when bowl invitations went out—No. 6 Missouri—and lost. That was good enough to get into the Orange Bowl.
Hawaii played only one team that was ranked when bowl invitations went out—No. 24 Boise State—and that was good enough to get into the Sugar Bowl.
USC played only one team that was ranked when bowl invitations went out—No. 11 Arizona State—though it did get Oregon with a healthy Dixon. That was good enough to win the Pac-10 and go to the Rose Bowl, despite the epic upset loss to Stanford.
Those are all anomalies that don't normally happen.
Rapidly Changing Expectations
If you look at top of the preseason poll and the final poll
comments (29) write a comment »
write a new comment
4 months ago
Good outlook. I agree that order will be established once again. However, while it won't be a constant, you always have to be aware of the upset in college sports! Great read.
4 months ago
"Introduce a little anarchy... Upset the established order... Well then everyone loses their minds!"
this is a great read and an interesting take!
last year was entertaining, i love upsets. but i think you're right about this year.
4 months ago
BTW - great pic.
4 months ago
Excellent, excellent article. Not only do I completely agree with the article, I enjoyed the Dark Knight reference and (as a Floridian myself) the hurricane example. Nothing else to say but that the article was totally on point.
My pick of the day.
4 months ago
great article, david
4 months ago
As a former band geek myself, thanks for giving the marching band some recognition. Great pic!
4 months ago
OK so now that I actually read the article. Wow! man, excellent!
Certainly my pick of the day and almost makes me wish they had a pick of the month!
Great job.
4 months ago
Good article. I agree, too. I hope the top caliber teams take care of business so that we can get epic match-ups like an undefeated Florida vs. undefeated Georgia, and so on.
4 months ago
I see what you're saying but so much of the BCS is done on Wins. Perhaps wins vs. ranked opponents should be criteria. Then again, a team that's undefeated desrves a shot at a BCS Bowl game if theyre Div I. otherwise, whats the point of even playing Div I.? Why not go to FCS? Atleast you CAN win something. Not to say they won't get their heads handed to them in the BCS Bowl game but if you go undefeated and you're D I that should be part of it.
However, a lot fo this insanity that you speak of is due to more parity in scholarship levels. I think it's just here to stay. The good side about scholarship parity is you'll see more teams made primarily of local players. Imagine how good Hawaii would be on a regular basis if their players weren't always bailing for mainland teams.
I think a shake-up of the power structure is a good thing. Keeps the big boys on their toes and leads to a more exciting season, one in which EVERY game has to be treated like a championship game because in a sense, it is.
from 4 months ago
The 85-person scholarship cap has been in place since 1994. Are you saying that it magically is taking effect now, a decade and a half after it was instituted? There have been 14 years since the change, and who are the annual power teams today? Sure, there are now some nouveau riche teams out there, but the scholarship limit doesn't mean that every season will be like 2008.
from 4 months ago
James nailed it. The same 85-scholarship rule that produced the chaos of 2007 also produced the 2005 clash of titans between Texas and USC.
4 months ago
Good article, but I disagree.
More chaos to ensue this year!
Or perhaps that is just wishful thinking on my part.
from 4 months ago
I agree with you Tim
4 months ago
Why do you think order will be restored and there will be an undefeated team from a BCS league? I'm getting the feeling that you based that on the favorites winning the Bowl Games last season. Please point me in your direction a little more here, it's just not coming to me.
from 4 months ago
As stated in the article, there has been at least one undefeated BCS conference team most years.
Examples:
2006 Ohio State
2005 Texas and USC
2004 Oklahoma, USC, Auburn
2002 Ohio State, Miami
2001 Miami
2000 Oklahoma
1999 Florida State, Virginia Tech
1998 Tennessee
That's just the BCS era, but the trend continues back further. So the question is, why should that trend not continue in 2008? The burden of proof is on those claiming that one season is enough to throw out the status quo. Thus, I ask you to explain why 2008 will buck the trend.
from 4 months ago
Thanks again to James for hitting the nail on the head. That last part was not meant to be the meat of the argument. The main points were:
-That a lot of things had to line up to get 2007 to happen
-Many of the best teams from last year are returning with the same core group, and
-After the 2003 season had no undefeated teams, there were 5 at the end of the 2004 regular season, possibly indicating that we'll see something similar happen this year.
4 months ago
Great analysis, and as a geek, love the Batman references.
Pick of the day.
4 months ago
love this. you didnt feed me as a fan the same info im so tired of hearing in my anxiety attack-induced wait for august 28th to greet me like christmas morning. You provided great support as to why last season happened the way it did and you made a fantastic analogy with the hurricane. Well done, sir. 1000 cocktails to you (and dont drink them all now, save some for when our teams meet up for the brawl in jax)
4 months ago
Just bc u think favorites will win doesnt mean they will.
4 months ago
a new order is slowly emerging in the college football world...the era of dominance by the big college football programs is nearly over and i believe an erosion of the college football feudal class has began. If last seasons upsest were anything to go by expect more chaos this season and thats why i love college football, upsets upsets & more upsets....nothing ever goes acording to plan so why should college football be any different??
from 4 months ago
Good point james
from 4 months ago
What is it that makes you think the big programs' era of dominance is over? One year of underachieving? Why does last season provide a better measuring stick than looking at the past 10 or 15 years together?
And why shouldn't the big programs continue to compete with the smaller ones? They still have better facilities, more name recognition, better coaches, more financial support, and, to top it off, they are the ones in charge of the BCS. They're going to continue to get the best recruits, go to the biggest bowl games, draw the biggest crowds, and make the most money. I understand that there is ample opportunity for some smaller-name programs to move up in the world, but there's absolutely no reason to think that the big boys are going to be deposed.
I'm not saying I like it and I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's the way it is.
from 4 months ago
As I said above, it's all cyclical. LSU and USC were down in the '90s but each has won multiple titles this decade. Miami and FSU have rotated down as Georgia and Louisville (until last year) have risen.
As some powers fall, others will rise to take their place. If no one does, then you end up with situations like the Big 12 North for much of this decade. It now looks like Missouri and Kansas are stepping up, with Colorado perhaps on the rise and Nebraska going back to what makes it Nebraska.
The point wasn't that a particular set of historical teams will dominate next year, just that the best will separate themselves in a way they didn't last season. It just so happens that some that I expect to be in that ruling class, like Oklahoma and Ohio State, are traditional powers; others like Missouri are not.
4 months ago
WVU is going all the way with Pat White leading the way.
4 months ago
this season will be quite interesting to say the least. So many factors come into play...
4 months ago
Great read! The synopsis of last year captured the chaos. Good show.
I don't think college football is cyclical. Much of it is random, as with the stock market. Both regress toward the mean. Stocks will grow over time, but make you spit blood while you wait for it to happen. Similarly, college football seasons as a whole can do just about anything, but over time will gravitate toward USC, the SEC, Ohio State, and possibly Oklahoma (except in bowl season). In the meantime, Appalachian State and Boise State are thrown in there just for giggles.
Tim
4 months ago
Overall, I see your point, one of your specifics is off. You wrote " If Boston College plays Virginia Tech earlier in the year, the Eagles never get to No. 2. " BC beat the Hokies with a dramatic come from behind win. Not sure how that would hurt them.
from 4 months ago
Good catch. I meant FSU.
4 months ago
well im not sure i agree because of a few things 1 the two confs that have ad a team in the nc 2 years runnning are both gonna suck while im not trying to offend anyone i do think that with so many people goin to the pros and uf not really haveing a defense both te big 10 and the sec will have a 1 loss champion at least.now i agree with my cousin colson white and wvu will be amazing this year with noel devine and terrence kerns at rb and a good returing defense it will be a shock if they dont run the season this year. as far as other dominate teams the big 12 seems to have things in order but the 3 teams who should be contenders all play each other or will in the championship game.
write a new comment