Bleacher Report - Articles by Paul

And The $64.00 Question Is..............

Paul — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:33:11 -0400

Is it better to have an open date or a cream puff opponent prior to a BIG game? With the upcoming Alabama vs LSU game looming in 10 days Alabama is going through an open date and LSU plays a team, Tulane, it should beat with minimal difficulty. Yes, I know the game is won on the field and not on paper.

- Open Date

Advantages: The team is able to heal bumps and bruises and refresh themselves mentally. The coaches have an extra week to game plan and recruit.

Disadvantages: The team could lose focus due to the change in routine.

- Cream Puff:

Advantages: The team maintains its in routine. Bench warmers get some playing time. The team can use some of the practice week to prepare for the BIG game while using a vanilla offense and base defense against the weak opponent.

Disadvantage: There is risk of injury to key players. The coaches and players must be careful not to put too much emphasis on the BIG game and completely overlook the cream puff opponent. If they do they risk finding themselves in another Troy (2008) game where they had to score 30 points in the last quarter to win.

We will have to wait until Nov. 7 for an answer.

Mine Is Bigger Than Yours: Quantifying the NCAA Football Conferences Controversy

Paul — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:26:52 -0400

It seems at least two or three times annually we get into contentious discussion about strength of conferences. Most conference supporters cite records of out-of-conference (OOC) games against BCS opponents to support their point.

Since most SEC teams' schedules are loaded with rent-a-wins sprinkled with an occasional BCS opponent or two, their supporters counter with tough conference games as well as having a championship game more than compensate for the shortcoming. Pac-10 fans counter with the fact all conference teams must play each other—thus, no team can duck a tough opponent such as Alabama not playing Florida in the SEC until a possible championship game matchup.

The question is what would be a reasonably fair way to measure relative conference strength at least for the year in question? In what should come as no surprise, bowl game results seem the most logical answer. For the purposes of this discussion, let's use bowls, including BCS, tie-ins, to devise a possible formula. Readers, feel free to offer other and probably better ideas.

Unless I miscounted, the SEC and ACC each have nine bowl tie-ins, the Big XII has eight, the Big 10 has seven, and the Pac-10 and Big East each have six bowl tie-ins. To double-check, feel free to use this link.

The general assumption is teams of comparative strength (at least on paper) are paired in bowl games. One would expect a team from BCS conference A and BCS conference B would be no more than one place higher or lower as a selection from its respective conference. For example, the third-pick PAC 10 team would play a Big XII team that is the second, third, or fourth pick from its conference. The facts show this is the case in most matchups between BCS opponents.

The exceptions are:

Big XII No. 5 plays Pac-10 No. 3 in the Sun Bowl

SEC No. 5 plays ACC No. 2 in the Chic-Fil-A Bowl

SEC No. 9 faces Big East No. 5 in the PapaJohns Bowl

Pac-10 No. 4 or No. 5 plays ACC No. 7 in the Emerald Bowl

ACC No. 6 meets No. 3 Big East in the Meineke Car Care Bowl

Two possible mismatches could occur in the Cotton Bowl—where potentially the SEC No. 4 would be matched against the Big XII No. 2—and the Music City Bowl, where the SEC No. 7 could face the No. 5 from the ACC.

The next group of bowl games match BCS teams against non-BCS opponents. Since the best non-BCS team available will probably be in a BCS bowl, I think any game that doesn't designate the non-BCS conference pick is the No. 1 should be suspect. Of course, this is with the understanding the No. 1 pick could be the second-best team if the conference champion is in a BCS bowl game.

The previous statement is not meant to disparage any of the non-BCS conference. It is meant to illustrate the possibility of a previous mismatch.

There are five such tie-ins:

The Little Ceaser's Bowl matches the Big 10 No. 7 against a Mid-American opponent.

Eagle Bank has ACC No. 8 playing a C-USA team if Army doesn't qualify.

GMAC matches ACC No. 9 against a MAC team.

International puts the Big East No. 4 against an unspecified Mid-American team.

St. Petersburg Bowl matches the Big East No. 6 against a C-USA opponent

As can be seen, not all bowl matchups are created equal. Thus, not all bowl victories are equal. It is obvious to the most casual observer that losing the BCS championship game is decidedly more significant than winning the Poinsettia Bowl.

Hence, in order to balance the bowls and thus give a clearer idea of how the conferences rank for a given year, I suggest a weighted point value be given to each bowl game.

To simplify matters, I divided the bowls into four groups: the BCS Championship, BCS bowls, second-tier bowls (any bowl which has a BCS team no worse than the No. 3 pick from its conference), and all other bowls that include at least one BCS team.

The scoring could go something like this:

BOWL GAME.....................Winning...........Participating

BCS Championship..............50 pts...............25 pts

BCS bowl game..................25 pts...............15 pts

Second-tier bowl................15 pts................8 pts

Other bowls.........................8 pts................5 pts

If a team plays an opponent two or more picks below it, (eg SEC No. 3 plays ACC No. 5) or a non-BCS opponent that finishes worse than second in its conference, one point will be deducted for each differential. In the example above, the SEC team would be penalized one point. If a Big East team played the fourth-place team in the MWC, it would be penalized two points, and so on.

While the SEC team would be penalized one point in the first example, the ACC team would be given one bonus point. There would be no bonus points for playing a non-BCS opponent, regardless of their conference finish.

The total points a conference receives would be divided by the number of bowls in which its teams participate. The result would determine the relative conference strength for that year only.

This is just one idea of how we can quantify data to support or reject various claims to conference superiority, at least for that year. As I stated earlier, readers comments (constructive please) and other ideas are welcome.

Why Don't Some College Football Teams Get More Respect Than They Recieve?

Paul — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:11:26 -0400

We all have our favorite teams. We are most optimistic before the first kickoff. After all...our teams are undefeated.

Many wonder why certain teams seem to always get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to media coverage and votes in the polls. They have to lose their way out of the top 25 instead of win their way in.

Why does Notre Dame or Southern Cal only have to show up and the media wets its collective pants? Yet other teams must prove themselves worthy each season.

The media seems to constantly spin stories in their favor. Fast forward to ESPN following the opening weekend.

Chris—I see where Southern Cal was upset by San Jose St. in their opener. What do you make of it, Kirk?

Kirk—Well Chris, we need to look at more than the score. Remember, USC's QB had a troubling hangnail on his non-throwing hand.

Lee—Yeh, yeh. that's right! Don't forget he broke up with his girlfriend the previous weekend. That must have been devastating,

Chris—It was the first game of the season and.....

Lee—You got that right. Don't worry the Trojans will bounce back and be in it at the end.

Kirk—I agree. It shouldn't hurt USC in the polls too much.

Lee—True. They may drop a few spots, but they will recover quickly. Count on it.

Chris—Speaking of upsets, how about Florida Atlantic's stunner over Nebraska?

Kirk - That was a real surprise. Maybe Coach Pelini underestimated his opponent. Or perhaps Nebraska is a year or two away from returning to the big time.

Lee—Yeh, The Huskers can say bye bye to the top 25 for a while. In fact they had better watch out for Arkansas St next week.

It is obvious that the two upsets were treated quite differently in the fantasy vignette. This kind of coverage is more common than one would think; especially today when it is much easier to verify and challenge such bias.

Anyone who is the least bit familiar with the history of big time college football knows there are a handful of programs, which many consider the elite of the elite. These teams are almost always given the benefit of the doubt and often overrated.

Like it or not, most of the teams have "earned" their privileged position. For the purposes of this discussion I think the following definition of the elite of the elites would be acceptable by most.

---The program must have been a winner during different eras under different coaches and been consistently relevant on the national scene within living memory.---

Among the programs, I'd include in this select group are Notre Dame, Southern Cal, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, and Oklahoma. I'm sure an argument can be made for other schools such as Texas, Nebraska, Tennessee, LSU, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, Florida, Florida State, Penn St, Army, Princeton, Minnesota, Maryland, Stanford etc. Each of these teams fail to meet all the criteria of the definition.

Minnesota, Army, Princeton and Maryland have not been major players since the 1950s.

With the exception of their one national championship in the 80s, Georgia Tech has not been a national contender since Bobby Dodd retired. Tennessee has had a similar though not identical run since General Neyland left the scene.

The Florida three, Florida, Miami, and Florida State, are relative newcomers to the "big" time. Florida and Miami proved they could win under different coaches, but a run of 20 years hardly compares to the records of the likes of Oklahoma and Notre Dame. Florida State has yet to prove it can win under more than one head coach as well as being a winner over decades.

Stanford, Nebraska, Texas, LSU and Georgia, all fall short of the elite largely because they are overshadowed by more famous rivals. Nebraska had its run under Bob Devaney and Tom Osborne. Texas had Darrel Royal, and now Mack Brown.

Both programs pale when compared to the Sooners. Stanford, LSU and Georgia have each had their moments of glory. But compared to Southern Cal and Alabama, they are not even close.

For most of their history the Nittany Lions had to deal with playing the second fiddle independent to Notre Dame. They are now faced with being in the same conference as Ohio State and Michigan. Like Florida State, Penn State has had most of their success under one coach.

I hope this little treatise helps us better understand why Notre Dame's close win over Sister Mary's School for Deaf and Blind Girls is the lead story on ESPN instead of our school's upset of 10th ranked Michigan State.

There is always hope. Over time the select group does change. For example, Oklahoma essentially replaced Army. Perhaps if our school continues to be among the national powers for the next 50 years or so, some other team's fan can whine when our team's victory over the State Academy for the Sick and Lame is Sport Center's lead story.

Coronate The Gators National Champs and Everyone Play For Second Place

Paul — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 08:53:29 -0400

Like most, going into the season it's hard for me to pick against Florida winning the crystal. Considering their schedule, they would almost have to beat themselves not to go into the SEC championship game undefeated. They play only two teams that come anywhere close to matching them in personnel, LSU and UGA. They get UGA on a "neutral" field, Jacksonville, and have an open date before visiting the Tigers. The Gator schedule follows:

Charleston Southern

Troy

Tennessee

@ Kentucky

@ LSU

Arkansas

@ Miss St

Georgia

Vanderbilt

@ USCe

Florida Intl.

Florida St.

Then I ask myself, how often has the preseason No. 1 played for the championship, much less won it. Using the AP poll as a reference, I discovered the following:

Year.....Preseason No. 1.........Played

1998.....Ohio State............Tennessee beat Florida State

1999.....Florida State..........Florida State beat Virginia Tech

2000..... Nebraska..............Oklahoma beat Florida State

2001......Florida..................Miami beat Nebraska

2002......Miami...................Ohio State beat Miami

2003......Oklahoma..............LSU beat Oklahoma

2004......USCw...................USCw beat Oklahoma

2005......USCw...................Texas beat USCw

2006......Ohio State.............Florida beat Ohio State

2007......USCw....................LSU beat Ohio State

2008......UGA......................Florida beat Oklahoma

As one can see, the preseason No. 1 played in the BCS Championship Game six of 11 years and won only three times. If form holds the Gators have a 55 percent chance of making it to the BCS Championship. If they do, they have a 50 percent chance of winning.

In other words, Florida has a 27.2 percent chance of winning the 2009 national championship. Bear in mind, 27.2% is a much higher probability than any other given BCS team.

While I find it hard to bet against Florida being the first BCS champ to repeat, I am not running to my bookie and betting my first born, either.

A Matter of Perception: Why Many See Nick Saban as a Better Coach Than Les Miles

Paul — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 08:38:09 -0400

It is generally accepted that both Saban and Miles are among the best head coaches in the nation. Each in his own way has proven he can recruit, motivate and develop quality young athletes as well as win football games. The question arises why, despite Miles' success, Saban is thought by many to be the superior coach?

First a little background. Both came on to the national scene at LSU. Prior to arriving in Baton Rouge both were reasonably successful at what one might consider the second school in their state; Saban at Michigan State and Miles at Oklahoma State.

Ironically, while at Michigan State, Saban lost the 1995 Independence Bowl 45-26 to the man he was to replace, LSU's Gerry DiNardo.

In 2000 Saban took over a program that had gone through a decade of mediocrity. Each season, except for his last in 2004, the team exceeded pre-season expectations.

In his first season, the Tigers were 9-4/5-3, including a Peach Bowl win over No. 15 Georgia Tech. Bear in mind, the previous year LSU was 3-8/1-7.

He followed this up in 2001 with a 10-3/5-3 record, including a victory over heavily favored No. 2 ranked Tennessee in the SECCG, thus winning LSU’s first SEC championship since 1988. He then led the Tigers to a 47-34 victory over Big 10 champion Illinois in the Sugar Bowl.

Two years later, the Tigers are 13-1/7-1 and beat the team of the century for 2003, Oklahoma, in the BCSCG. There is a general perception that LSU is a program on the rise.

A clear indication of how far the program had progressed is when LSU’s 2004 record 9-3/6-2, is considered by many a disappointment. This is especially true when one considers LSU was only out of one game, a 45-16 loss to Georgia.

The other two losses were against undefeated Auburn because of a controversial call resulting in a extra point rekick at the end of the game and a last-play TD pass by Iowa in the Capital One Bowl.

The Tigers did this well despite not having a reliable everyday QB. Following the 2004 season, Saban left for the NFL, which is considered by everyone a step up.

After two mediocre at best years with the Dolphins Saban took the reins of another struggling program, Alabama.

After two seasons it seems he is on his way to nursing the Tide back to health. To be fair it must be pointed out that his predecessor, Mike Shula had endured the unenviable job of Alabama head coach during the probation years.

Saban was brought in at the end of this period and did not have to deal with NCAA-imposed restrictions.

Miles took over a program loaded with future No. 1 draft picks in 2005. He had the misfortune of having to deal with Hurricane Katrina his first year.

Otherwise, there is a good chance LSU ends the season ala 2004 Auburn, undefeated but at home watching others (TX - USCw) play for the national championship.

Despite all the problems, LSU goes 11-2/7-1 with a disappointing loss to Georgia in the SECCG followed by crushing favored No. 9 Miami in the Peach Bowl.

The next year, 2006, what is arguably his most talented team doesn't even play for the SEC championship. Despite having three No. 1 draft picks on offense the Tigers manage to score only a field goal against a very good, but not great, Auburn team.

Later in the year, LSU somehow manages to give up five turnovers in a loss to underdog Florida. Miles wins beats a very good Tennessee team in the SECCG and wins national championship in his third year, 2007, by convincingly beating Big 10 champion, Ohio State 39-24.

All this is accomplished while dealing with the media frenzy about his taking the head coaching position at Michigan. Instead of being given due credit of his success, Miles is tagged with, “he won with Saban’s players.”

The fact that Urban Meyer won his first and Bob Stoops and Jim Tressel won their only national championships at Florida, Oklahoma, and Ohio State respectively in their second year using primarily players recruited by their predecessor is conveniently ignored.

2008 was big for establishing the perceived abilities of the two coaches. Saban followed a mediocre 2007 at Alabama 7-6/4-4, including a 21-14 home loss to ULM, with a 12-0/8-0 regular season in 2008.

Unfortunately, for the Tide the clock struck midnight at the end of the regular season. Bama ended with with consecutive losses to Florida in the SECCG and a shocking 31-17 thrashing by heavy underdog Utah in the Sugar Bowl.

An interesting side note that while many blamed 2007 on Shula, few if any bothered to point out that in 2008 the Tide rolled largely with Shula’s players.

Meanwhile, Miles, coming off of a national championship, struggles to an 8-5/3-5 record. This is the worst follow-up season for any reigning BCS champion.

Granted, the Tigers had QB problems. Still there is no rationalizing away the poor defendse (by recent LSU standards).

The one area in which Miles has bested Saban is in post-season play. While at LSU Saban was 2-0 in SECCGs, 1-0 in BCSCGs, and 2-2 in other Bowls.

If his record at Alabama is included, Saban is 2-1 in SECCGs, 1-0 in BCSCGs and 3-3 in other bowls. Miles is 1-1 in SECCGs, 1-0 in BCSCGs, and 3-0 in other bowls.

Probably the comparison of the two men can be summed up in one sentence:

In most years Saban's teams have seemed to exceed pre-season expectations, while Miles' teams have underacheived.

For both Miles and Saban, 2009 is critical and could go a long way in establishing dominance in the SEC west. Both have teams loaded with talent, but have holes to fill and questions to answer.

Will the changes in his coaching staff enable Miles to put the Tigers back in the hunt for championships? Or has Saban awakened another sleeping giant? Circle Nov. 14 on your calendars and stay tuned.

(Before any Arkansas or Ole Miss folks comment, please bear in mind the article is a comparison between Saban of Alabama and Miles of LSU. Thus the summary pertains to them.)

Can The NCAA Be Forced To Have a D-1 Playoff In Football?

Paul — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:50:15 -0400

Several on Bleacher Report have written about how great it would be if there was some sort of playoff in D-1 (I refuse to use FBS or whatever the acronym is) football. Recently the issue was raised in Congress.

Having nothing better to do, I thought what were the chances an external forces could pressure the NCAA into establishing a football playoff.

Let's start with Congress. There are two possible scenarios.

1. The BCS conferences/schools, whether they are for or against a playoff, are against congressional involvement. Since BCS schools are in states with more votes than states without a BCS team, there is almost zero probability of any law being passed.

2. Conversely, assume those conferences/schools, which actually want a playoff, urge their congressmen to pass legislation requiring one. The odds of a law being passed increase substantially. For the sake of discussion, say a law is passed.

Although I'm no lawyer, I think the NCAA could get the law overturned in federal court. It's hard to imagine the courts allowing such a prescedent for government interference in internal affairs of voluntary organization being set.

OK, Congress is a dead end. How about the courts?

One possible approach would be for a conference or school to sue the NCAA through antitrust laws. The situation would be similar to when the NCAA's television monopoly was broken up in 1984. What are some, not necessarily all, possible outcomes?

1. The courts do nothing to change the status quo.

2. Require more non-BCS school be included in predetermined bowl pairings. For example; instead of the 6th ranked SEC team playing the 6th ranked Big XII team, a first or second ranked non-BCS team could be substituted for one of the slots.

It would be sort of an affirmitive action plan for college football.

3. Require an even distribution of expenses after post season and TV income among all D-1 schools. This would definitely get the NCAA's attention.

4. Order the breakup of the BCS as being in violation of antitrust laws through its virtual monopoly of media exposure and post season revenues.

If you noticed, my possible solutions did not include forcing a playoff. As I said before, I don't think the courts would force the NCAA to initiate a playoff.

Can the fans, especially those with the deepest pockets, do the trick?

They probably could force a change, but they won't.

The reason they won't is the various groups of fans and backers are focused on their team and are not organized in a way, which encourages cooperation with other groups of fans on any issue.

If the government cannot and the fans are too disorganized, who can force a playoff in D-1 football? There is one thing, which talks louder than anything when it comes to intercollegiate athletics; MONEY.

The media, CBS, ESPN, and many other outlets, are the one segment of society the NCAA will listen to.

Why do you think, short of a coach caught handing the keys to a new car to a recruit, no big time football program will ever be penalized in a way, which hurts TV ratings (banned from TV or bowl games) again?

If the moneybags decide a playoff is the way to go, I think the NCAA, including the Big 10, PAC 10, and Rose Bowl, can be convinced.

Solve the problem the old fashioned American way. Throw money at it.

What Led to SEC's Rise In College Football?

Paul — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:52:11 -0400

Before I begin, let me clarify that this article is not intended to be a my daddy can beat up your daddy rant. While nothing is for certain in life or college football except for the kickoff and final whistle, for the past decade the SEC has been in ascendancy.

Anyone with an IQ in excess of his shoe size knows over time the power center will move elsewhere at sometime in the future.

For example, a generation ago the power teams were in what is now the Big XII, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas. Colorado and Texas A&M spent short stints during this time on the national stage.

Although I have no empirical evidence showing a cause and effect relationship, I think there is a strong correlation between the following circumstances and events, which led to the current status-quo in college football.

1. There are only three NFL teams in the southeast compared to six the northeast and seven in the midwest. In fact there were no NFL teams in the south prior to 1966.

To make matters better for the college game, with the exception of Tampa Bay's one championship the NFL teams in the south are for the most part non-contenders. With a brief NFL tradition and only a few weak NFL teams the media and fans continued to concentrate more on the college game.

A corollary is what has happened to USC. The Trojans have been a national power for decades. Their rise to super power status over the last ten years is due in part to the departure of the Rams and Raiders.

They benefit immensley from being in the nation's second largest media market with only UCLA competing for coverage during the football season.

2. Major universities in the south began integrating in earnest during the late 60s. As a result every talented minority player, who went to Alabama was one less moving north to play for Penn State.

The net result was the quality of play in the south increased at the expense of teams in the north and northeast. It must be noted that the shift wasn't sudden. It took nearly a generation for minority kids in the south to identify with their instate institutions.

While white athletes grew up dreaming of playing for old state U, SEC coaches had to recruit minority kids as though they were out of state prospects.

3. There has been a major population shift from the northeast and midwest to the south and southwest. Fifty years ago, except for California virtually all the largest states in the union were in the northeast and midwest.

Today two of the four largest states are within the boundaries of the old Confederacy, Texas and Florida. Only New York, hardly a recruiting hotbed, is among the top four.

4. In 1984 the Supreme Court broke the NCAA monopoly on television coverage of college football. About the same time ESPN came into being. Suddenly schools, which had virtually no chance of being seen outside their stadium were getting national exposure.

Prior to 1984 non traditional powers had virtually no chance of national exposure.

During the pre-1984 era fans in the south experienced the same frustration watching the Big 10/Notre Dame game of the week that fans outside the south now feel when having to listen to the talking heads rave about how great the SEC is.

5. Although less significant, climate is a factor. As bad as two a days in 90 degree August heat is, it pales with playing in subzero snow drifts in November.

I'm sure someone(s) smarter than I can come up with valid arguments supporting or contradicting my thesis. I contend the above provides a logical explanation of the current state of relative strength in college football.

Why Does Les Miles of LSU Get No Respect?

Paul — Fri, 22 May 2009 11:56:47 -0400

Recently, a Rivals.com writer ranked the nation's Div. I-A coaches.

Despite having a 42-11 win-loss record, winning a national championship, and being undefeated in the postseason since arriving at LSU, Les Miles is ranked only 28th.

Most of the coaches rated ahead of Miles seem to fall into two categories. They either returned historically elite programs to glory (e.g. Urban Meyer, Bob Stoops, Nick Saban, Mack Brown, and Jim Tressel) or seem to be able to have teams consistently perform above the level their apparent talent would justify (Kirk Ferentz, Jim Grobe, Frank Beamer, Brian Kelly and Houston Nutt).

The fact that Miles took over a talent-loaded team just two years from a national championship and among the favorites to compete for the crystal took a lot away from his accomplishments.

Rather than emphasize Miles' near-heroic efforts following Hurricane Katrina, most critics emphasize his inability to win even the SEC championship with all that talent.

While he won the 2007 BCS National Championship, detractors point out that the Tigers had to benefit from a virtual gridiron miracle of upsets to back into the game.

Thanks to Florida kicking the crap out of Ohio State the previous year, LSU's victory was not considered that big of a deal. Check any evaluation of the best of the national championships, and you will find the 2007 game at or near the bottom.

One of the major points detractors of Miles make is that he won the 2007 national championship in his third year with Saban's players.

Why then isn't it pointed out that:

No. 1: Meyer won his first championship in his second year with Ron Zook's players. Little note was given to the outstanding recruiting job Zook did while he was in Gainesville.

No. 2: Stoops and Tressel won their only championships in their second year with John Blake's and John Cooper's players, respectively. This fact is also conveniently ignored. That they both managed to lose their other three championship games with their players as well as performing abysmally in the postseason makes one scratch their head at the rankings.

By my math, winning a championship in a coach's second year means he most probably depended more on the previous coach's players than a coach who won in his third year.

His 2006 and 2008 really hurt Miles' image. In 2006, he took what arguably is his best team so far to the Sugar Bowl while second-year coach Urban Meyer led his underdog Gators to a rout of Ohio State.

That the light didn't finally go on inside the head of LSU's starting QB JaMarcus Russell until about midseason is little known outside the Tiger nation. The fact that Meyer had to politic to get into the 2006 BCS National Championship game and benefited from a completely unexpected UCLA upset of USC has been conveniently forgotten.

Last year's performance is considered further evidence that Miles only can only win with Saban's players. If it weren't for the rent-a-wins in 2008, LSU would likely have had a losing season.

Personnel losses and injuries are justifiably discounted by critics because they are just part of the game and must be dealt with. The co-defensive coordinator disaster is correctly laid at his feet.

Thanks to the Mike Archer/Curley Hallman/Gerry DiNardo dark ages, LSU is, in the minds of most of today's college football fans, a Johnny-come-lately to the nation's elite.

2009 is key for Miles and the LSU program. Another mediocre year could have us looking back at 2008 as the beginning of the end of the Miles era at LSU.

Having said all the above, I think Miles is highly underrated, and LSU has a very good chance to win at least 10 regular season games and go to a major bowl in 2009. The fly in the ointment is they must negotiate the most difficult conference schedule in the SEC.

Why a D-1 Playoff Will Work—One Possible Scenario

Paul — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:03:44 -0400

I propose that all D-1 NCAA teams have an opportunity to play for a true national championship.

Before this can happen some fundamental changes must be made in the structure of D-1.

1. The NCAA will implement a playoff.

2. Any school wishing its team be considered for the playoff must belong to a conference. No team will be given special consideration. Hear me, Notre Dame?

3. All conferences must either have at least 10 members and have a championship game or not less than 8 members with a round-robin conference schedule. Either configuration puts all conferences on an even footing.

4. All conference champions will receive an automatic bid. At large bids will be given based on an RPI similar to what is used for basketball. Strength of schedule MATTERS. Are you listening SEC?

The two major arguments against a playoff are:

1. It would make the regular season meaningless and attendance would drop significantly.

This argument is completely bogus. For one thing, I know of no evidence that playoffs in the lower divisions affect attendance at regular season games. Fans would lose interest in their team when they realized they had no chance of making the playoff.

Using this reasoning at least 100 or the 117(+ or -) teams would see a fall off in interest/attendance by mid October.

Fan interest is directly related to how the team performs on the field. I'm not referring to the die hards but to the vast majority of sport fans. If the team is winning tickets are at a premium, donations are up, fans travel to watch the team at away games, and sales of licensed gear goes through the roof.

The truth is, a playoff would increase the importance of the regular season. Because teams play only 12 regular season games, each football game is significant.

Unlike basketball and baseball, in which a team can lose several games and still make the playoffs, one or two losses can knock a team out.

2. It would wreck a very profitable bowl system.

Another specious argument. A 16-team playoff would fit the current bowl system just fine.

Many have remarked and most agree that there are too many bowl games under the current system. I suspect that only fans of the teams, some football fanatics, and the media covering the game actually watch most minor bowl games. These minor bowls can continue and draw the same audience, playoff or no playoff.

The 16-team playoff would add to the importance of the regular season because at seasons end there are still 16 teams with a chance at the national championship instead of just two.

The four current BCS bowls could host the finals, semifinals, and one of the quarter final games on a rotating basis. Whichever bowl hosts the championship game gets the quarter final the next year. The top-paying secondary bowls such as the Cotton, Chick-Fil-A, and Cap One would host the remaining quarter final and first round games on a rotating basis.

The TV audience, and thus sponsorship money, for these games would far exceed what the bowls draw now. People, who would normally watch only the bowl game their team is in and maybe the BCSCG would watch all, or most of the playoff games because the outcome of other games would have an effect on their their team.

There are at least two possible drawbacks with a playoff:

1. The logistical problems fans would have trying to arrange travel, lodging, etc. week-to-week as their team advances. Once again, one only needs look at the model followed in the lower divisions playoffs to see how these problems are dealt with.

2. Because of the requirement that all teams belong to a conference and the limit on the number of members a conference can handle and function normally, some realignment will be necessary. For example: Where would Notre Dame and Navy go? Probably most realignment could be accomplished with a minimum disruption in membership in current conferences.

December 6, 2003, the Beginning of the End for the BCS

Paul — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:08:15 -0400

The first five years of the BCS, 1998—2002, went rather smoothly considering what was at stake. Teams that had a reasonable argument for belonging in the national title game usually lost their bowl games; thus cutting off further discussion.

Then came 2003 and the BCS has not been the same since. There was the unbeatable team of the century, for that year at least, Oklahoma, everyone's media darling, Southern California, and the rags to riches contender, LSU.

On the morning of December 6, 2003, each of the three contenders had a game to play. USC (10-1) was to play their final regular season game at home against a good 7-4 Oregon State team. OU(12-0) was set to play a dangerous 10-3 Kansas State team in the Big XII Championship game, and LSU (10-1) had a rematch against a very good 10-2 Georgia team in Atlanta.

The championship game "everyone" anticipated was between the the high powered offenses of Southern California (48.5 ppg) and Oklahoma (49.6 ppg). Both teams were loaded with star power.

Oklahoma had the Heisman Trophy winner and the winner of virtually every post season award. Southern California had two future Heisman Trophy winners. LSU was almost an afterthought. The consensus was, after struggling to beat Georgia 17-10 at home, that the Tigers were unlikely to beat the Dawgs in their own backyard.

Unfortunately, the college football gods were not smiling on the BCS that day. USC started the day by disposing of Oregon State with surprising ease 52-28. Pundits had remarked repeatedly that Oklahoma could lose the Big XII championship game (wink, wink) and still play in the BCS championship game.

Then the best laid plans started to unravel. Oklahoma was crushed by Kansas State 35-7 and LSU routed Georgia 35-13. Due to the strength of schedule factor in the BCS formula, LSU nudged past USC for the second spot in the BCS championship game.

With Oklahoma's loss, each of the three teams had one loss. USC lost on the road 31-34 to a decent California team(7-6). LSU lost at home 7-19 to a fairly good Florida team(8-5).

A hew and a cry went up, decrying the injustice of a system that would deny the media darling a place in the championship game. The sports writers were so incensed that they had the AP withdraw from the BCS and declared USC the national champion after beating two loss Michigan in the Rose Bowl. To date, 2003 is the only split national championship in the BCS era.

Four things came out of the aftermath of 2003. All were directly or indirectly the result of USC being denied participation in the championship game.

1. The strength of schedule was removed as a separate factor in the BCS formula. As a result, more and more teams schedule rent-a-wins in order to pad their W-L record without fear of a strength of schedule component.

2. The human component of the BCS formula was increased and the computer component was reduced.

3. Although not officially part of the BCS formula, it is highly unlikely a team will be selected for a future BCS championship game if it does not win its conference title.

4. The push for a playoff in Division I began in earnest.

The merits of how the teams were selected for the 2003 BCS championship have been debated over the years. Valid arguments can be made for whichever side you happen to support. Most will agree that if a playoff or at least a plus-one is adopted, 2003 will be have been worth all of the controversy

Some Reasons Reality Defies Logic

Paul — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:50:22 -0400

Does anyone besides me wonder how schools located in states with relatively small populations can be competitive in D-1 football over extended periods of time. Any team can be successful for short periods of two to four years because of a particular coach and/or group of special athletes, who happen to come together.

By extended periods of time I mean a team, which maintains a high level of performance for five or more consecutive years and can do so with different coaches and groups of athletes and during different eras. Oklahoma is an excellent example of a program in a relatively small state, which has had excellent teams for extended period's of time during different eras.

There are several basic geographic strategies for building and maintaining a successful program. Among them are:

1. Be the only big time program in the state (LSU, Ohio State, Nebraska)

2. If there is more than one "big time" program in the state, be the dominant one. (Michigan, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas)

3. Be located in a state with a high population to school ratio. (Southern California, Texas, Florida, Michigan)

3. Be located next to a state with a high population to school ratio. (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Clemson, Arizona State, Oregon)

4. Establish a national recruiting network. (Notre Dame, Tennessee)

Some programs are able to exploit a combination of the strategies. For example, Tennessee is the dominate in state program and recruits nationally. LSU is the only big time in state program and recruits east Texas heavily. Michigan is the top dog in state and mines northern Ohio.

A normal assumption regarding recruiting is that the number of quality athletes in a given state is a function of the population. Granted there are exceptions to every rule. For example, Hawaii would be expected to produce more champion surfers than Minnesota despite Minnisota's 5.2M to 1.3M population advantage.

Still it is reasonable to think that due to the need for large numbers of quality athletes with various body sizes and skill sets, collegiate Football would require a large pool of recruits. Hence the athletes available in a given state should be a rough reflection of the states population. For the sake of this discussion the Census Bureau 2008 estimated population of each state is used.

Only BCS schools were considered in determining the population available per school. Non BCS D-1 schools were not considered because of the assumption that the BCS schools in a given state would sign any players recruited by both them and in-state non BCS D-1 schools.

To count these schools would skew the numbers unrealistically. For example, Both California and Louisiana have four non-BCS D-1 schools. It goes without saying that LSU is at least competitive with all of the California BCS schools.

The following chart shows the ratio of number of BCS schools to the state's population rounded to the nearest 0.1 M:

State^..POPU........BCS Schools..AVG

NY..........19.5M.........1...................19.5

OH............11.5M........1*.................11.5(05.8)
CA..........36.8M.........4..................09.2
NJ..........08.7M.........1..................08.7
MA..........06.5M........1..................06.5
IL.............12.9M........2.................06.5
PA............12.4M.........2.................06.2

FL............18.3M.........3*...............06.1(04.6)
TX...........24.3M........4..................06.1
MO..........05.5M.........1.................05.9
MD...........05.6M........1.................05.6
WS..........05.6M.........1.................05.6
MN..........05.2M.........1.................05.2
MI...........10.0M.........2.................05.0
CO...........04.9M.........1.................04.9
GA...........09.7M.........2................04.9
LA...........04.4M..........1................04.4
VA...........07.8M.........2................03.9
CT...........03.5M..........1................03.5
WA..........06.6M........2................03.3
AZ..........06.5M.........2................03.3
TN..........06.2M.........2................03.1
AR..........02.9M..........1................02.9
AL..........04.7M..........2................02.4
NC..........09.2M.........4................02.3
SC..........04.5M..........2...............02.3
KY..........04.3M..........2...............02.2
IN..........06.4M.........3................02.1
OR..........03.8M.........2................01.9
OK..........03.6M.........2................01.8
WV..........01.8M.........1.................01.8
NE..........01.8M..........1.................01.8
IO..........03.0M.........2................01.5
MS..........02.9M........2................01.5
KS..........02.8M.........2................01.4

A question arises, why aren't Boston College (MA), Rutgers (NJ), and Syracuse (NY) consistent powers? One could argue that other than Syracuse, schools in the east have no tradition of being football powers for at least the last seventy-five years.

One possible explanation could be that for most of that time the public and media have been focused on pro rather than collegiate sports. As a result, at least until recently, the resources have not been available to these schools athletic programs.

How does one explain the relative weakness of programs in states with high population to BCS school ratios, i.e. Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

Unlike the eastern schools, these schools have tradition and massive local public and media support. All have a higher population to BCS school ratio than almost every other any other state with BCS programs.

One possible explanation could be that the minority kids from the south and southwest, who due to segregation, once played for these programs now play for teams closer to home.

I'm not making the case that any of the theories put forth in this treatise are the only ones plausible. They are just some possible explanations of why the balance of power has shifted over the last few decades. Neither am I stating that the status today is how it will be forever.

^ - Only states with BCS schools were included.

* - Although Big East members, Cincinnati and USF are both BCS schools, it is unlikely that either take any recruits that Ohio State or the Florida big three (UF, FSU & Mia) respectively want to sign. The numbers in ( ) show the population ratio if the Big East schools are considered.

An Unscientific Analysis of 2009 Recruiting

Paul — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:57:47 -0500

Many, if not most, who frequent BR, follow recruiting. It seems every recruiting service, rivals, scout, ESPN et al have crowned a different team as having recruited the No. 1 class for 2009. For the purposes of this article, I used Athlon's consensus top 100 ( http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/12724/athlon-consensus-100 ). The fact that only 100 recruits were considered fails to allow for the total depth of a given class and is the primary reason I titled the article as being unscientific.

For the purposes of the article, I considered only those schools, which had a legitimate claim to have the No. 1 class, Alabama (ALA), LSU, Ohio State (OhSt), and University of Southern California (USCw).

To reach the total for each class, I used the sum of three factors:

AVG—The purpose of this factor is to give weight to the ranking of each recruit in a given class. One hundred points were awarded for No. 1 rated recruit, 99 points for the No. 2 recruit and so on to one point for No. 100. The total points for the recruits a school had was divided the number of recruits in the top 100.

#Players—The purpose of this factor is to show the depth of the class. It shows the number of players each school has in the top 100.

Quartile Pts—This factor is a hybrid of the first two. It gives value for individual rank and the number of players in the class. Each player in the top 25 was awarded four points. Those from 26 to 50 were awarded three points. Those from 52 to 75 were awarded two points. The remaining 25 were awarded one point.

School...................AVG....# Players...............Quartile Pts................Total

LSU.......................76.7...........6............................22.........................104.7

USCw....................73.7...........7............................22.........................102.7

ALA.......................64.7...........7............................23...........................94.7

OHST....................45.4...........7............................17...........................69.4

As can be seen the most players any one team had in the top 100 was seven, which is between 1/4 and 1/3 of the total signed in an average class; albeit the top 1/4 to 1/3 of the class.

When Will MWC-to-BCS Blogs End?

Paul — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:40:11 -0500

There have been more than a few blogs championing the idea of including the MWC in the BCS. In my opinion, asking for a guaranteed BCS bowl bid is the same as wanting to become part of the BCS.

Entry is accomplished either by expanding the BCS to seven conferences or having the MWC replace an existing BCS conference. Rationale from the reasonable to the ridiculous was put forward.

For all those who want to continue to argue for including the MWC in the BCS, please present some new reasoning. If all you are going to do is continue repeating how well the MWC did in 2008, save yourself the effort and the rest of us the time. The argument is becoming tedious.

As to the question of the MWC becoming part of the BCS: Sorry, folks. As things stand, the MWC becoming a BCS conference is not going to happen. The BCS will remain as the current six conferences.

Here are just four of many reasons why:

1. The MWC is not the only non-BCS conference in the FBS. If the MWC is allowed in, why not the MAC, CUSA, Sunbelt, and/or WAC?

2. The MWC cannot demand entry based on one very good season. Utah beat a very good Alabama team in the recent Sugar Bowl. Boise State beat a better Oklahoma team two years previously. What has the MWC done as a whole during the BCS era?

3. With the exception of TCU and San Diego St., the MWC is located in low density (read: small TV market) states. Despite being in two of the largest states, TCU and San Diego St. aren't close to being the dominant programs or having anywhere near the largest fanbase in their state.

4. Because most of the teams are in either the Mountain or Pacific time zones, it makes it difficult for them to receive exposure east of the Mississippi. The Pac-10 has had to deal with this problem from the beginning.

Forget about replacing one of the existing BCS conferences. The Big East will remain because several of its teams are concentrated in very large TV markets.

Though not as large a TV market as the Big East, the market for the ACC is substantially larger than the MWC. Further, the ACC has several teams, such as Miami, FSU, and VTech, which have established themselves as being competitive nationally over many years.

Is the BCS fair? Probably not. Fair has nothing to do with reality. It's all about the bottom line.

The MWC, like the other non-BCS conferences, is caught in a Catch-22. Until MWC teams can generate interest outside of their region, they will not receive the needed exposure. Without exposure outside their region, they will not generate interest.

MWC teams may be the victims of their own success. By upsetting BCS teams from time to time, the BCS teams, especially the contenders, reduce or stop scheduling MWC teams.

BCS contenders consider these "no-win" games. If the BCS team wins, it was supposed to. If it loses, any chance it may have of making it to the BCS Championship Game is probably over.

This is a fate suffered over the years by other programs, such as Southern Mississippi and Marshall. It took intervention by state legislators to force the "big time" in-state universities to play them.

Note, earlier, I said "as things stand." One possibility, which could result in a change, is if the Cotton Bowl becomes a BCS bowl after it moves to its new home. This would open two more BCS bowl spots.

At that time the non-BCS conferences would have to justify entry into the club.

The MWC would have to justify why it should be selected ahead of the other non-BCS conferences. "We play a better brand of football," is a non-starter.

Justification must be in economic terms. In other words, what do you bring to the table in terms of revenue generation, which justifies you getting a slice of the BCS pie on a regular basis?

Five Steps for Your Team to Reach the BCS Championship Game

Paul — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:34:57 -0400

Most of us consider the primary purpose of the regular season to be winning games and thus giving us bragging rights at the water cooler. However, there is a second and more important purpose: to win championships and get into BCS Bowls.

Following are what I consider the five keys (in order of importance) to getting your team into the BCS Championship Game (BCSCG).

1. Be a BCS Conference Champion

Since USC was left out of the 2003 BCSCG in favor of Big 12 runner-up Oklahoma, it has become an unwritten rule that if a team is unable to win its conference championship, it does not deserve a shot at the national championship.

Kansas in 2007 is a perfect example. The Wildcats were the only BCS team other than Ohio State that had only one regular season loss. Since they did not win the Big 12 title, they weren't even considered for a spot in last year's BCSCG.

2. Overall W-L record

The strength of a team's schedule is secondary. OSU in 2007 is a prime example. Despite the Big 10+1 being comparatively down and the Buckeyes having a pathetic out-of-conference schedule (Youngstown State, Akron, Washington, and Kent State), they finished the regular season rated No. 1 because they were the only BCS conference champion with fewer than two losses.

3. Preseason Polls/Ranking

LSU benefited from this in 2007 despite having two losses, including their last regular season game at home.

4. Playing a conference championship game vs. not playing one

Winning the SEC CG against a ranked opponent gave LSU a slight edge over Southern Cal in the eyes of the pollsters.

5. Out-of-Conference schedule

Apparently when it comes to ranking, the strength of the opponents in a team's conference is a non-factor when compared to the strength of the team's OOC opponents. This probably has as much to do with regional bias as anything.

In 2007 it was the win over VA Tech—not beating three SEC teams, which also finished in the final top 15, prior to bowl selection day—that enabled LSU to separate itself from Oklahoma.

Having said all the above, what type of OOC schedule works to a school's advantage in its quest for championships? Either of the following is ideal.

1. One top-tier OOC BCS opponent and the rest cupcakes, or

2. Two second-tier OOC BCS opponents and the rest cupcakes.

In most seasons since the advent of the BCS, there has been at least one undefeated BCS team. Thus, the second team in the BCSCG usually can afford no more than one loss.

As a general rule, pollsters ignore strength of schedule except in tiebreaker situations. Regardless of how tough a team's schedule is, it will not overcome the W-L rule.

For example, a 12-1 record that includes the SEC championship game will not be ranked ahead of an undefeated team from the Big East conference at season's end.

Scheduling more than one top-tier OOC opponent significantly increases the likelihood of a team losing two or more regular season games. This is particularly true if the team plays in a highly competitive conference.

If a team schedules all cupcakes, the team almost certainly must go undefeated in conference play. Even then, it is likely to lose any tiebreakers. As much as anything, it was Auburn's OOC schedule of LA Monroe, Citadel, and LA Tech which cost them any chance of playing for the 2004 national championship, despite being undefeated.

That year USC played OOC games against VA Tech, Colorado State, BYU, and Notre Dame, while Oklahoma played Bowling Green, Houston, and Oregon.