I think it's appropriate that the Harris Poll is named for Commandant Harris of Police Academy. Why? Because both suffer public embarrassments, usually involving bruised testicles.
Longtime readers may remember the series on the Harris Poll I did back in August. If you're new to the CHQ, the links are here, here, here and here. My take back then: it's a bad system.
Now that we have the season and games to look at, I thought it'd be interesting to take a look at the current college football landscape and analyze the Harris Poll's system by taking into account the current facts.
1. The Human Flaw Is Still Evident
While not a full-fledged shitstorm, a few bloggers have taken note of Dick Harmon's moronic poll this week. Pat Forde went into detail:
The latest example of a lame system in action comes in the form of a Harris Poll ballot by a Mr. Dick Harmon (2) of the Deseret News in Salt Lake City. Let The Dash say this up front: Harmon has more cojones than the 62 cowardly coaches who vote anonymously in the USA Today poll, or most of the 112 other voters in the Harris Poll. He publishes his ballot every week in his paper. You have to respect that accountability.
... [discusses Harmon's foolish ranking of Penn State]...
The good thing about the Harris Poll is that, with 113 voters, the random lunatic ballot generally is canceled out by the more rational group voting. But there have been so many dumb votes in this stopgap contrivance of a poll the BCS created to fill the void left when the AP pulled out. Every week, something spectacularly stupid pops up in the Harris Poll's small print.
This was the poll that gave us votes for then-winless and still hopeless Idaho. And this is the poll that, this week, included a point for 3-6 Arizona and six points for 4-4 North Carolina State Guys: Get your eyes off the dog-racing agate long enough to take in the records of the teams you're voting for each week. Either that, or put down the ballot and slowly walk away.
Clearly, the Harris Poll's cone of cluelessness extends beyond Harmon. He's going to catch heat this week for being accountable enough to put his bizarre ballot in the paper. The heat truly belongs to the system.
A good take by a consistently good national columnist, in my opinion. Indeed, there are going to be individuals who make mistakes. I admire Harmon for publishing his toilet paper, but it worries me that the other voters are just wiping their asses and hiding rolls and rolls in their closets. I'm not so certain that the random lunatic is cancelled out, since we don't know whether the rest aren't lunatics too.
It is a task of the voters in these polls to have opinions on teams. While opinions are normally rooted in fact, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes the individual possesses not the faculties to transform facts into opinion. Sometimes the individual doesn't care enough to determine the facts at all. Sometimes the individual gets the facts, but is so certain of his own genius that the opinion is divinely inspired yet opposite to the facts. In any event, the voters might not be right. And Harmon's published poll is just one example of this. Now, is it more likely that his ballot is an exception, or the norm?
But that also brings me to my second point...
2. In the Current System, Every Single Ballot Counts. Period.
The view that one or two rogue ballots in the Harris Poll (or the Coaches' poll, for that matter) don't matter in the grand scheme of things is inaccurate. No ballot gets "cancelled out" by other, more rational ballots. This viewpoint is an erroneous view of how the BCS is tabulated.
The "cancelled out" idea relies on the fact that one rogue ballot alone won't drop a team from it's proper position in the poll. If someone hates Texas and leaves them off the ballot, Texas will probably still end up at #2. But it's also possible that some gaps in votes between teams can be affected by a single voter. Example: The gap between Miami and Alabama in this week's Harris Poll was a mere 16 points. If one rogue ballot decided to drop Miami to 20th from 3rd, there's your gap.
And indeed (and this is a crucial point), the BCS doesn't compute its standings from the Harris Poll based on the position of the team. It counts the percentage of points against a total possible. That's why the BCS component from the Harris Poll isn't a simple "1" or "2", it's a percentage number. This is one of the reasons why Alabama is #3 in the BCS, while #4 in the Harris Poll: the gap between them and Miami isn't very great in the actual voting, and thus Harris Poll Component difference isn't large either (.8981 to .8924). Since the total votes (or points) accumulated in the Harris Poll is the actual determining factor, EVERY SINGLE VOTER'S BALLOT COUNTS.
A further example to show this: Penn State was ranked 17th by Dick Harmon. Had Harmon ranked Penn State in line with the rest of the poll (6th), Penn State would have 11 more points, and their Harris Poll component would change, possibly altering the entire BCS standings. Which brings me to...
3. The Butterfly Effect
We all know that a changing a single thing can cause wildly different results. Basic chaos theory. And with the Harris Poll, this is a clear possibility.
Say one (or two or three) rogue voters send in ballots with one particular team dropped without regard to on-field performance or actual facts, like Harmon's Penn State ballot. Not only would the dropped team have a wrongly lowered Harris Poll component, but all the teams slotted ahead of that dropped team would have benefited wrongly and been unfairly elevated. So multiple teams might have wrongly higher Harris Poll components. The result can be a seriously slanted poll, based on just one or two rogue ballots. And that possibility leads to...
4. The Possibility of Impropriety by Voters
I do not presume to know the intentions of voters. I do not wish to accuse anybody of wrongdoing. I would hope that each Harris Poll voter takes his job seriously.
However, because every vote counts, there is a possibility that voters can submit ballots that serve personal or ulterior motives.
In my original posts, I warned of several voters who serve as fundraisers for institutions. Notre Dame stands to gain $14 million by receiving an at-large bid to a BCS bowl. SEC schools' individual cuts would increase by more than $1 million each if two SEC teams receive BCS bids, rather than one. There is a serious monetary benefit.
And where there is a benefit, and an opportunity to influence the bid selections, there is a possibility of impropriety.
Also, I focus on individuals with reason to help their team. Take note that in a system like this, there is just as much motivation for voters (perhaps distantly related to a particular school) to vote against a particular team. Every decision works in two dimensions. For example, If Virginia Tech is close to the #4 slot and an automatic bid, Va Tech and ACC related voters have a reason to vote them higher, but also a motivation to vote the Hokies' closest competitor lower (say, Ohio State). And then Ohio State and Big Ten related voters have the motive to vote not only the Buckeyes higher, but also the Hokies lower. You might suggest that this all cancels out, but remember that not all teams and conferences have the same representation. And it's possible that one voting bloc is more prone to malfeasance than another. Additionally, if it's a close race between Ohio State and VT, who is to say that impropriety with voting for and against both teams results in them both ranked lower than they should, at the benefit of a third team, like Oregon. The point is that the system is prone to this kind of thing.
Below are, under the current landscape of the BCS, situations that could be influenced by the voters in the Harris Poll. I am focusing on the Harris Poll because of the research I've done on it. NB that the Coaches' Poll should be no less scrutinized, as coaches have just as much on the line.
Title Game Selections
Texas, USC, Alabama: Yes, it is very clear that the Tide are probably going to be out, whether right or wrong. However, in the event of a few lackluster performances by the Longhorns or Trojans and huge wins over LSU, Auburn and in the SEC title game, Alabama might close the gap some. In the event that there are three unbeaten teams and somehow the media decide Alabama might deserve a chance, it might come down to voters. Which schools have voters tied to their program?
Alabama: 5 voters (Lacewell, Melick, Townsend, Tuckett and Grace)
USC: 4 voters (Haden, McGee, Munoz, L. Smith)
Texas: 3 voters (Aldridge, Dykes, Mackovic)
Alabama has more voters, but they aren't all that directly tied to the program. Texas probably has as much antagonism as assistance from their related voters.
Also, I assume that no 1-loss team is going to jump over an undefeated team to get a spot in the title game. Sorry, Miami.
At Large Selections
Assuming that Texas, USC, Alabama, Miami, Penn State and West Virginia receive an automatic bid for winning the conference, the following schools are jockeying for the other two at large bids: Virginia Tech, Ohio State, Georgia, LSU, Texas Tech, Oregon, Notre Dame. These teams are all in the Top 12 of the BCS standings right now.
In order to qualify to receive a BCS at large bid, a team must have 9 regular season wins and finish in the top 12 of the BCS standings. That is the minimum. But for merely qualifying leaves the choice in the hands of the BCS bowls. The BCS rules do provide for automatic qualification, which leaves the bowls' choices out of the equation. I will focus on that.
To automatically receive an at-large bid, there are three methods: (a) for teams outside the Big 10, Big XII, ACC, Big East, SEC, Pac-10 and Notre Dame, the team must finish in the top 6 of the BCS standings; (b) For teams in the Big 10, Big XII, ACC, Big East, SEC and Pac-10, the team must finish in the top 4 of the BCS standings; (c) For Notre Dame, it must finish in the top 10 or have won 9 games*
*: I believe this is an unclear rule - the BCS website suggests that Notre Dame is automatically qualified for a BCS at-large selection "If one or more teams other than Notre Dame qualify for automatic selection under this provision [addressing non-BCS conference teams ranking in the top 6], Notre Dame shall ALSO qualify provided it is ranked in the top 10 or has won at least nine games." To me, that reads that Notre Dame only qualifies AUTOMATICALLY if another non-BCS conference school also qualifies, which under this year's factual scenario, wouldn't take place. By the plain terms of the BCS site, it appears that Notre Dame too would have to finish in the top 6 of the standings, since they are an independent school. The "top 10/9 wins" language only appears after the modifier where another non-BCS team has qualified. I think that in practice, Notre Dame will be the first team selected if they are in the top 12 and there are not 2 automatic qualifiers forced to be selected ahead of them. Also, starting next year, Notre Dame must finish in the Top 6 with 9 wins to receive an automatic bid (and their $$$ share drops). That clears things up.
As things currently exist, those 7 teams are jockeying for positions 3 or 4, assuming that losses by teams ahead of them don't cause them to win the conference and obtain an automatic selection. Let's look at this team by team.
Virginia Tech: Highest ranked team not currently in position to win the conference. They sit 6th. Could move into 4th by winning out and would still not win the conference. Strong in computer rankings, but need to improve in the polls, which is where human tinkering might play a role. Harris Poll voters related: 1 (Bill Dooley). Not much chance for help directly. The conference has 18 voters related to the school though, and they all have an interest in having 2 ACC teams in the BCS (not just in BCS revenues, but also in the way schools with worse records move up in the Bowl bid ladder - i.e. Georgia Tech goes to the Peach Bowl instead of the Meineke Bowl).
LSU: Next highest ranked team, but would win conference if it won out. A loss this weekend forces them to fight for only an at-large slot, but their standing now would change dramatically. Very high in the polls now, need help in the computer polls. Something to watch for is how far they would drop if they lose. Harris Poll voters related: 4 (T. Lewis, Moody, Stokely, Townsend). Also the SEC has the most related voters (27).
Ohio State: Similar to VT, in that they can win out and not win the conference. Also, their high computer average and room to improve in the human polls provides an opportunity for individual voters. Harris Poll voters related: 4 (Bruce, Geiger, Jacoby, Roda). 21 voters have ties to the Big Ten, which would benefit from having 2 teams in the BCS. Andy Geiger's recent ties to the university should be noted.
Georgia: Similar to LSU, in that if they win out, they would earn an automatic bid by virtue of winning the conference. Losing another game probably would prevent them from earning an at-large bid. Harris Poll voters related: 2 (Goff, Bestwick). Again, the SEC has the most related voters.
Oregon: Similar to OSU and VT. Room to improve in the human polls. Can possibly get close to the top 4 if it wins out. Harris Poll voters related: None. The Pac 10 has 17 conflicts. If there is going to be malfeasance, Oregon probably won't benefit. The cards are definitely stacked against them. Also, the fact that their poll rankings are lower than their computer rankings, combined with the lack of an Oregon voter in the Harris Poll should call into question the integrity of the system.
Notre Dame: As stated above, I feel the rules governing Notre Dame are unclear. I'm uncertain whether Notre Dame would receive an automatic bid if they were ranked in the top 12, 10 or 6. Also, whether the rules require them to be ranked there in addition to having 9 wins, or whether 9 wins alone would be sufficient (the BCS site uses the word "or" to suggest the latter). Also, it is unclear from the BCS website as to the priority of Notre Dame when compared to a top 6 non-BCS conference team and compared to a top 4 BCS conference team. In any event, it probably doesn't matter whether Notre Dame needs to get to 6th place, 10th place or 12th place to get an automatic bid. Under the factual scenario as exists today, there will probably not be two BCS conference teams who didn't win their conference at #3 and #4, so likely there will be a "non-automatic" selection to be made by the BCS Bowls. And it is likely that Notre Dame will be that team. So in practice, the number they need to look for is #12, and they are already there. Additional security can be found with the fact that Notre Dame has 5 related voters (Haden, Ismail, McConnell, Morse and Valdiserri). Remember that Morse is a "major benefactor" to their program.
Texas Tech: A longshot to get in the top 4, but it is possible they could win the rest of their games and have several teams ahead of them currently lose. Their computer ranking is currently higher than their human poll ranking as well. Harris Poll related voters: 3 (Dykes, Holub and Lawless). Remember that Holub is a current fundraiser for their athletic program. The Big XII has 23 related voters, second most to the SEC.
And just so I don't leave anyone out, TCU (17th) and Fresno State (22nd) both have a long way to go to compete for a Top 6 BCS rating. Fresno State can make a big statement with an upset of USC, but it probably still wouldn't be enough. Either of these teams have to get to #6 in the BCS standings to qualify for an automatic bid. TCU has one related voter (Windegger) and the Mountain West has only 9 related voters (second fewest). Fresno State has three related voters (Lengyel, F. Lewis and Sweeney) and the WAC has 11 related voters. Sweeney is a current fundraiser for Fresno State.
So that's the situation as it is. I'm on record as saying the Harris Poll is a problem and calls into question the integrity of the game. Whether or not the situation this year will be close enough to have easily determinable malfeasance is still in doubt. Even if the situation doesn't present itself for there to be vote rigging (or trading, or any other problem), the fact that fraud is even possible should be reason enough to reform the system.
Further, I believe college football relies on a narrative as the season goes along. Listen to the way GameDay pundits use the phrase "how this is playing out". Read columnists use similar terminology. Just because the final vote isn't close doesn't mean that a few votes here or there in the earlier Harris Polls might not have changed the way teams were covered. One simple erroneous vote can slot a team a little bit higher, which in turn garners them more attention from the national media, which voters rely upon to vote in the next week's polls, which affects the next week's coverage, etc.
Unfortunately, chaos theory appears to be alive and well in college football, with biased individuals flapping their butterfly winged Harris Poll submissions.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Football Wonk: Harris Teetering
Monday, November 07, 2005
Links (finally) updated
Added a few new things that everyone should read immediately because they're good.
Chowdaheads: Boston stuff, but not as terribly annoying as you'd expect.
Free Darko: You already know how great this is.
MJD: Not the Marietta Daily Journal. Also, he makes fun of Peter King today.
Sports Frog: frequent link on Deadspin. Aight I guess...
YAY! Sports: Be sure to click the various categories. I feel dumb for not reading this way long ago.
All Things Longhorn: This is a good first line of defense against the marauding Trojan armies. Beyond that, it's good analysis even outside of the Peoples Republic of Austin.
Death Valley Saturdays: Lots of previews and recaps.
T. Kyle King: Awesome Georgia stuff. The Mayor of the capital of the college football blogworld.
Schembechler Hall: I truly hope Joey doesn't hold anything back at his new digs. Also, does the hall feature the Lloyd Carr Memorial Urinal Trough?
State Fans Nation: Finally someone to cover Tobacco Road without all that Yankee Carpetbagger pretension.
And I'm on the look for more...
So... self-indulgent to think that you'd like this song...
Stumbled across this post today at Worst Weather Ever, a blog I know nothing about and am unsure how I got to. Includes the author's ultimate Archers of Loaf playlist (and a couple mp3s):
Ultimate Playlist: All The Nation's Airports, Backwash, Fabricoh, Lowest Part is Free, Might, Nevermind the Enemy, Plumb Line, Scenic Pastures, Slow Worm, Strangled by the Stereowire, Toast, Underdogs of Nipomo, Vocal Shrapnel, Web In Front, Wrong.
Hits a few high points, but I'd add Bacteria, Backwash, Telepathic Traffic, South Carolina, Freezing Point, and my personal favorite, What Did You Expect?. Every time What Did You Expect? comes on, I have to crank it all the way up and then hit rewind so I that opening can make my ears bleed. Actually, now that I think of it, it's virtually impossible to create an "ultimate playlist" without leaving out like 5 or 6 songs that I'd be embarrassed not to include.
Also, I ask the one, possibly two, reader(s) out there who know anything about this band: Have you seen that Chevy Trucks advertisement with the John Cougar Mellencamp song "Now More than Ever" on it? For some reason, every single time I kind of think it sounds like the last verse to "Freezing Point". Cougar's version was from 1991, so did the Archers rip that shit off? Or am I an idiot?
Oh, and the guitarist is still "the Daddy".
Lebowski Standings - Week 5
The standings are working out to be a big bell curve, with not much movement at either end, but big swings possible in the middle.
25. Georgia Tech 6-2 (44)
24. Notre Dame 6-2 (34)
23. Boise State 7-2 (107)
22. Toledo 7-2 (106)
21. Auburn 7-2 (73)
20. Florida State 7-2 (63)
19. Florida 7-2 (43)
18. Colorado 7-2 (33)
17. Ohio State 7-2 (16)
16. Wisconsin 8-2 (27)
15. Fresno State 7-1 (115)
14. UTEP 7-1 (112)
13. Georgia 7-1 (64)
12. West Virginia 7-1 (61)
11. LSU 7-1 (60)
10. Miami (Florida) 7-1 (30)
9. UCLA 8-1 (85)
8. Texas Tech 8-1 (49)
7. Oregon 8-1 (28)
6. Virginia Tech 8-1 (23)
5. TCU 9-1 (84)
4. Penn State 9-1 (11)
3. Alabama 9-0 (83)
2. Southern California 9-0 (59)
1. Texas 9-0 (37)
Biggest rises: Northern Illinois (+19 after beating Central Michigan) and Kansas (+19 after the historic win over Nebraska)
Biggest drops: Memphis (-19 after losing to UAB) and Houston (-19 after losing to Central Florida)
Remember, this is not a predictor of who would beat anyone else. This is merely one method to provide an objective system of who has played best so far with the emphasis on wins and losses.
Also take note that things change based on bye games. For example, Georgia dropped two places without playing.
Always the East Coast, Always the Asshole
New title because of my Archers post above...
Original Title: The vastness of your idiocy is impressive
From Monday Morning Schmaltzfest by Peter King (aka Venti McStarfucker):
I think the one thing you can't understand unless you live somewhere on the Eastern Seaboard between Washington and Boston -- or unless you once lived there -- is the intensity of a big sports event. One of the reasons players love playing here, and one of the reasons guys like Joe Gibbs get drawn back into the game magnetically, is because the games are so electric and they feel so important. I felt it Sunday night at Eagles-Redskins and I'll feel it in front of the TV tonight for Pats-Colts. So much fun. Such a gas.
Yes, indeed. you just can't get intensity at the following events:
Raiders-Chiefs
Cowboys-Redskins in Dallas
Oklahoma-Texas
Auburn-Alabama
Ohio State-Michigan
Georgia-Florida
Tennessee-Florida
USC-Notre Dame
Florida State-Miami
Miami-Virginia Tech
Duke-UNC (basketball)
Kentucky-anyone, really... Indiana, Louisville, etc.(Basketball)
Cubs-Cardinals
Pistons-Pacers
Lakers-Kings
Lind Washington Combine Demolition Derby (sound)
The Masters
The Kentucky Derby
The Daytona 500
The Indianapolis 500
Every Championship Boxing Match in Vegas
Every Olympic Games
The Ironman Triathlon
Rangers-Celtic
Boca-River
Man U-Chelsea-Arsenal
Juventus-Milan
Brazil-Argentina
England-Germany
France-Germany and 1000 other possible World Cup matchups
Wimbledon
Le Tour de France
UPDATE:
Any LSU night football game
Any Texas A&M game
All home West Virginia football games.
Clemson-South Carolina
Kansas home basketball games
Any game at Lambeau Field
Vikings-Packers at the Metrodome
Frozen Four Hockey in Minnesota
Texas High School football
The Calgary Stampede
Yes, those things just can't compare to a regular season matchup between two teams which would not be in the playoffs if the season ended today. Those dumb hicks in flyover country just don't know REAL sporting events.
Douchebag.
Also, I watch House, and I have no idea who he's talking about with the "Nurse Whatshername" thing. There isn't a nurse with a speaking part. I guess he might be talking about Doctor Cameron (who looked better last year without the sprayon tan), but then the fact that she's "too perfect" has been a main plot issue for, oh, the last 15 episodes. The fact she's too perfect is the whole point! She's a pure foil to House's misanthrope. Really, I have no idea why I read him.
Another UPDATE:
Saw this this morning, and probably wouldn't have posted had I seen it... Braves and Birds is also on the case, with pictures. And I cannot believe I didn't include Barca-Real.
Feel free to offer your own non-Eastern-Seabord events which are just not intense. I'm talking about events where the attendees (if there really are any) would feel just as at home at a backyard tea party for your 3 year old niece. You know, events where you can just walk up to the gate and get a ticket, like Nebraska Football.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Gameday Recap
Corso:
VT needs to jump on top early and let the crowd get involved. Pressure and special teams are keys to VT.
Marcedes Lewis is key for UCLA.
ND can score against anybody.
Calls Michigan a bigger disappointment than Tennessee. Then mentions Oklahoma. Neither choice is supportable.
Alabama's closing schedule is "monster". Doesn't think they'll win out.
Talks about how bad Tennessee's offense is, just like Fowler did about 20 minutes beforehand.
Corso doesn't like the USC prank because o the suicide angle. Is there a dark background? I know he doesn't have much of a sense of humor...
BCS is flawed at best. But it's the way it is. So let it run its course, and after the year take on the BCS (when nobody cares about it). This rant was kind of a jab at Herbstreit.
Never heard of an undefeated team that gave up as many points as UCLA. Picks them anyway. "They finally win one". Dude, the team hasn't lost yet.
Miami can match VT's intensity on Defense. Miami has revenge on their minds too. "Pride"
Game Changer: Drew Weatherford ("best Freshman QB in the nation").
Herbstreit:
The "whole world is watching" VT.
Miami cannot win without a big game from Tyrone Moss. Miami is the best D VT has seen all year (didn't he say something similar the opening week against NC State?)
Doesn't think there's another stadium in the country that affects the game as much as VT's.
Marcedes Lewis is a "pretty" athlete. Someone send Kirk a dictionary or thesaurus. Football players shouldn't be called "pretty".
Wisconsin-PSU might be the game of the year in the Big 10.
Randy Sanders is the "martyr" at Tennessee for their offense. Martyr? Let's not overdo it. Then he uses intangible phrases like unity, leadership and "killer instinct". And blames it on Kelley Washington. Even Fowler calls him on that strange statement.
Stands up for Michigan the last few weeks (which is totally correct - Corso is talking out his ass). Also mentions Texas A&M as a disappointment "Got off of them after week one". Shoud we give him credit for that?
Florida is on letdown alert. Astute. Then he says the Gators roll.
Calls Alabama "your Tide team, my friend". Can't tell who he's talking to. Nobody, from what I can tell, is really backing Alabama. Then he clarifies it on Fowler. Says Fowler wanted nothing to do with the Tide until they got things going the last few weeks. (like, when they've started playing creampuffs). Doesn't think they'll win out.
Brady Quinn can work any system, make any throw. Also has a lot of talent around him (wait, I thought talent was way down at ND because of recruiting under Willingham?). Tennesse still has talent. Put ND in the BCS right now.
In re USC and the Halloween prank, Kirk totally has the right take - looseness is key. Says people make too much out of it.
"How pretty was Vince Young last week?" What's with the prettiness, Kirk?
Calls the Baylor game right because of the angriness after last week's Texas scare.
Dick comment bringing in Tommy Tuberville. He has the same POV as Kirk, but they feel like they need to marginalize him. Sensitive.
"John Stocco has grown up right before our eyes." Is Kirk having some personal struggles or something? He seems so feminine today. Weird. Likes Wisconsin to win big.
Picks Arizona, because of running game and clock control.
Picks Oregon to outscore Cal - a good way of describing Pac-10 games.
Dixon might be the most talented QB at Oregon (better than 2 top five NFL picks? - kind of bold).
Marcus Vick is ahead of Michael at this stage. Comparing apples to oranges.
Thinks this is the best VT Defense ever. Probably right.
Mocks Corso's firing-Miami-up speech. Corso bashing returns.
Watch out for NC State.
Game Changer: Willie Tuitama - good call.
Fowler:
Blacksburg is like Death Valley, Chechnya and Tora Bora. Inhospitable. Civic pride has to be swelling up there.
VT has to impress voters tonight. Defenses will be tough. "Bonecrushing" "Feeding Frenzy"
Tennessee is really bad at offense - same # of TDs as Army. Also, ND's defense isn't that bad.
NC State also a disappointment.
Calls USC over Arkansas an upset. Not sure about that, no matter what the line is.
Says all SEC teams are "pretty good", none stand out. Then says that's in response to Spurrier's comments. Again, substantively, they don't really respond to the criticism. Just laugh it off.
Kind of trashes the USC prank, which was awesome and I'm really glad they had footage of, by acting like USC is bored with winning.
Jabs at Corso for picking Penn State to win the Big 10 recently. Like they all don't change their picks. Haven't seen much Lee-bashing the last couple weeks. I guess it's back.
Miami's been "undressed" - terrible pun right after the fashion segment.
The Marcus vs. Michael Vick chart they put up is way misleading. Michael's numbers came from his redshirt freshman season, Marcus in his third year. Same age, Michael was playing for the Falcons. Apples and oranges.
"You don't see too many games like [VT-Miami] outside of the SEC where it's a tense, tough game, where every play, a missed tackle, can change the complection of the game". I take this as a compliment of the SEC. Noted.
Game Changer: Michael Robinson. Admits he was way wrong last week.
Howard:
VT's tunnel is the most unique in CFB. Very small and narrow.
Weis told him Quinn has "leadership", that "special something", "the it-factor". Such important, concrete praise.
Says ND wins by 2 TDs, receiving a double NSFMF from Lee and Kirk.
May:
Nice shirt, says Fowler.
Admits he'll change his mind, but only about #2. Fluid, yeah right. Really just plays up VT. Thinks VT wins big today because of Marcus Vick.
Holtz:
Miscellaneous:
Gillette Game Face is not as bad as usual. I like the throwback helmet look.
Tom Rinaldi's piece on ND feels like it'll be shown 100 times on Sportscenter.
A Chris Connelly piece on uniform fashion. Straight from the geniuses that gave us ESPN Hollywood. And interviews from Michael Irvin and some dude from "Queer Eye." Do the producers of Gameday not realize that the viewers do not give a rat's ass about this kind of thing? Why does Connelly have a job on this show again?
A triumphant return to the astroturf walk-through segment. I totally missed it. Seriously, this is such a waste. You can't hear what they're saying because the crowd is so close, and they don't have enough people to really act it all out. I do like the "RUSH SAE" banner behind them though. I'm sure there are Es everywhere very very proud.
Energizer Fan Meter matches Georgia-Florida.
2 "Wired" segments (Wisconsin and VT). I'm not much of a fan - needs more context.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Premiership Picks
I have been terribly lazy when it comes to focusing on soccer lately. I've caught the football bug and I've been spending way too much time debating useless arguments in that part of the sports world. And I was picking these games so well too. I should dance with what brung me, but the prettier girl keeps calling me over...
Last time around: 6/10, 2 right scores.
Season: 48/94 (51% ), 13 right scores.
This weekend:
Aston Villa v.Liverpool: 1-1. Both teams have to be disappointed so far this year. I have to think Liverpool's class will start to shine through, but I'm afraid they'll have to get bounced from the Champions' League first. Too many matches against teams trying to take down the Champ.
Newcastle United v. Birmingham City: 1-2. I think Birmingham are better than this. Watch them rise, and their West Midlands neighbor West Brom drop.
Arsenal v. Sunderland: 3-0. A perfect time for Arsenal to invite the Black Cats to Highbury. Breakout and beginning of a rise.
West Ham United v. West Bromwich Albion: 2-0. West Ham is destined for mid-table obscurity. West Brom is destined for relegation.
Fulham v. Manchester City: 0-1. Not a very interesting game, I think. Important for City though.
Blackburn Rovers v. Charlton Athletic: 2-1. 1500 fouls called in this game.
Portsmouth v. Wigan Athletic: 0-2. Go with a hot hand.
Everton v. Middlesbrough: 1-0. Minor upset. Who would've thought that by November a home win over Boro would be an upset? Everton have been that bad though.
Manchester United v. Chelsea: 2-3. Why not call a match of the year?
Bolton Wanderers v. Tottenham Hotspur: 2-1. This should be pretty great too, I'd guess.
And I'm promising to pick back up with the Champions' Leage and UEFA Cup in a few weeks.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Diction Lesson
From Gameday's spokesman in response to Spurrier's criticism:
"Our analysts utilize their expert knowledge and experiences to provide objective opinions on college football," Krulewitz said. [emphasis added]
From Webster's Dictionary online, with emphasis added:
Objective: of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind...
Subjective: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind; ... relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states; ... peculiar to a particular individual; ... modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background; ... lacking in reality or substance.
Objective?
Football Wonk (sort of) - Windmills
[note: I'm not particularly happy with this post, but, ahh screw it. I've spent too much time on it just to trash it. Feel free to skip it.]
All week, and usually about this time every football season, the topic of discussion turns to the reliable "which conference is best." It's one that quickly gets fans' ire up. Folks down south refuse to believe the slow linemen in the Big Ten are as strong as they think, while the people out west think the rest of the country is too dumb to play offense, while the folks in the ACC hector about getting respect and for people to quit thinking of them as a basketball conference, while the people in the midwest talk about tradition, and on and on. People wnat everyone else to know how great their conference is, and how their teams have it so tough that they should be rated higher just for playing in said conference. Just about every conference has chestbeaters and people playing the "respect" card, or people who disrespect the accomplishments of other teams because they play in a weak conference.
The truth of the matter is that there is absolutely no possible way to determine "the best conference" in a particular year and base it solely on objective fact. There aren't enough games between conferences and between comparable conference teams to determine it. Some have tried, myself included, by tallying up OOC games and trying to compare them conference-wide. But there are two specific logical flaws with that.
First, the sample size is too small. The largest conferences are 12 teams, who each play 3 OOC games, so you'd think 36 OOC games might be enough. Statistically speaking, I wouldn't consider 36 games to be much of a trend. But those 36 games actually break down into much smaller subsets. You could break it down by conference (no conference plays all their OOC games against another conference). You could break it down by "major" conferences and "minor" conferences. You could take away lower division opponents. In any event, if you wanted to compare OOC records between conferences, you're stuck with a sample size too small to prove any trends. You could increase the size of the sample by comparing several years worth of OOC games, but that pollutes the question. By looking to other years, you cannot say who is best this year, but rather who's the best over those several years, which, because of attrition, cannot prove much about this year.
Second, there is a flaw in simply looking at raw numbers because those numbers represent actual matchups which might not prove a thing. Say the Big Ten plays 5 OOC games against the Pac 10. In every single one of them, the Pac 10 team is a double-digit underdog. Bottom feeders from one conference playing elite teams from another. If the result is 5 wins for the Big Ten, all that shows is that good teams from one conference beat bad teams from another. It doesn't show the relative strengths or weaknesses of each. We could look at gambling spreads to take away this, but spreads no not necessarily tell the story of relative strengths either (the goal of the spread is equal money, not competitive balance, and much more goes into setting a line than just the strengths of the teams).
So it is op paramount importance that I state clearly and unambiguously that I believe nobody can say, with anything even remotely approaching factual certainty, that one conference is definitely better than another. There just isn't enough factual evidence to support any argument. And the factual evidence we have is flawed and unreliable.
We're left with opinions. Which is fine and what makes college football fun. I can think that one conference is better than others, and others can think their conference is better than mine. But whenever someone says "the facts say Conference X is clearly the best/worst" that person is merely stating their own opinion. There are no facts that can say such.
But it's still semi-interesting to debate it. Tilting at windmills, as it were.
And so I set out to try to come up with an objective (as in a set of rules governing the discussion, flaws revealed, and failures admitted) system that pits conferences against each other. When I was younger, our family was big time into college basketball. We lived in Atlanta, but the patriarch is a Villanova grad. I remember following the Big East-ACC Challenges in theiir early days. The two conferences would line up the teams best to worst and play on the court, often at neutral sites. Most wins won the challenge. I think the Big Ten and ACC have done this recently too. It's not a perfect system, but it did settle it on the court (sort of).
It'd be impossible to structure the same in college football, since schedules are set so far in advance and $$$ controls everything. But we can do it in the internet world.
So here's what I did: I drew a huge spreadsheet ranking the conference teams based upon the ColleyRatings. I find that to be the most accurate and reliable system, based upon how they run their system (shifting rankings to infinity until they don't change). I also don't find any inherent bias in their system (favoring offense or defense scoring, etc.). So I'd rank the teams solely based on where they ranked in the ColleyRatings list on this very week [see below for the biggest caveat of them all - I realize the results will change week to week]. I did not alter the list based upon conference standings or head to head within the conference. [see below for my caveat] I then created these "ladders" for each conference. Then I lined them up. 1-12 for the SEC against 1-12 for the ACC. And then they "played" head to head, with the rating by Colley being the score. For example, the top ranked SEC team was Alabama, ranked 5th against the top ranked ACC team (VT), ranked 2nd. Virginia Tech won the matchup. Then I'd take the second slotted team, third slotted team, and so on. I'd run every conference against every other conference. If the conferences were of different size, I wouldn't count the bottom teams for the larger conference [see caveat below]. My thinking on that is that the 8th best team in one conference should be comparable to the 8th best team in another, not the 12th best team. I counted from the top, not the bottom (because the top really should count more - and yes, see the caveat below).
After running each simulated "challenge", it started to look pretty clear. Is this an irrefutable answer to "Who's the best conference?" NO. It's a system-based answer. Under this system, here's your answer.
1. Big Ten 90-9, 34-9
2. Big XII 82-21, 24-21
3. ACC 80-23, 22-23
4. SEC 77-26, 19-26
5. Pac-10 62-32, 10-30
6. Big East 32-48, 32-8
7. Conference USA 36-67, 36-10
8. Mountain West 28-60, 28-15
9. Mid American 24-79, 22-24
10. WAC 11-77, 11-32
11. Sun Belt 0-80, 0-40
First off, there is a clear demarcation between the top 5 conferences and the bottom 6. of the "challenge matches" between those conferences, the top 5 went 282-2 against the bottom 6. (the two losses? Ball State over Washington and Eastern Michigan over Arizona). The Big East didn't have a single challenge win over the other BCS automatic bid conferences, which should tell you something.
Second off, the key to doing well in this system is two fold: a) several strong teams at the top and b) not-terribly weak teams at the bottom. It might seem obvious, but I think this is actually a good gauge of conference strength. To me, what makes a conference strong is the difficulty in playing week in and week out. If a conference has two incredible and near-unbeatable teams, 3 mediocre teams and 4 bad teams, that conference isn't all that good. If a conference has 8 teams that "on any given Saturday" can beat each other, or at least test each other, I think it's a good conference.
And in fact, that's what this system ended up with. The top 3 conferences all have 9 teams each ranked in the top 60. In comparison, the SEC only has 7, and the Pac-10 has 6. The Big Ten has depth and elite teams. The Big XII and the ACC have great depth. The SEC's weakness at the bottom hurts them badly. Likewise with the Pac-10, whose top 3 can take on just about anyone, but who falls off precipitously after that.
Remember, I don't think this solves the question. I don't think that's even possible. But I do think this is one interesting way to frame the debate. And interestingly enough, this list matches up pretty closely with Massey's Ratings (MWC ahead of C-USA), though not really Colley's conference rankings.
Here are the flaws in the system (and I'm making them very clear):
1. Everything relies upon the Colley Ratings. If the ratings aren't an accurate judge, the entire thing fails. I recognize this and admit it as a real problem. To do a stupid study like this, you have to rely on some form of independent ranking of all 119 teams. I chose this one. Others may be as good. I think using Colley is better than me choosing the slotting of the teams. But, yes, I realize that this is the bottom layer of the house of cards.
2. This list only applies for this very week and this week alone. Since the Colley Ratings change every week, the head to head matchups may vary significantly from week to week. And in actuality, there were several "challenge matches" decide by one or two ranking positions. Even the slightest shift in the Colley Ratings can change the results of this exercise entirely. So, the results above only apply for right now. Trying this again at the end of the year (or really any other week) may result in a much different list. I admit it, and realize it as a flaw.
3. In relying on the Colley Ratings to create a ladder of teams, I made no changes to the ladder based on head-to-head wins or conference standings. In some examples, what I think might've been a better team may have been ranked behind what I consider a worse team. The possibility of incorrect ladders exists because I relied on an independent list. Another recognition that the Colley Rankings flaws may translate over to this list.
4. Conference sizes: yes, they're different. And yes, comparing the worst team in one conference to the 4th worst in another conference is not exactly fair. But there isn't a good way to remove teams - it wouldn't be fair to omit the best team in the larger conferences either. It may seem like an advantage for larger conferences, but the results don't really show that either. Because of intra-conference games, the conferences all spread out quality in sort of a bell curve regardless of the size. But the main reason why I did it this way is because the top of the ladder should be mre important than the bottom. It's a choice I made, without knowing how it would really play out. I admit that it may have skewed the results. It's definitely a flaw in the system.
5. Equal Weight: Probably, I should weigh the top of the ladder games more heavily than the bottom of the ladder games. I might revisit the data and apply a fomula that would weigh the elite teams more. Haven't done it yet, though. Haven't figured out a right formula. But I fully admit the flaw in how this system treats the strength of the elite teams (comparatively) equal to the comparative strength of bottom feeders. Huge flaw in the system.
So there's my attempt, which really proves little. In fact, the main thing I've learned from this is that it's a fool's errand to actually try to establish clearly and concisely, based upon fact, which conference is definitely better. It cannot be done with any level of actual unimpeachable proof. However, we can debate the issue, and try our best to come up with a way to explain our opinions. I started this thinking the SEC was good, the ACC a little better, the Big XII terrible and the Big 10 about as good as the SEC. I created a system not to prove my opinions, but because it seemed somewhat independent. The results were much different from what I expected. Does that make them right? Your guess is as good as mine.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Gameday Recap - Not as Gritty as it Used to Be
Better late than never, I guess. A quick pass at it this week because my battery can't handle 2 hours of posting in a row. Also, this episode is a little hard to watch with hindsight. Especially the selections.
Corso:
Climbs up on the high horse to knock teams running up the score.
Georgia's pressure will cause turnovers. The key won't just be how many times they sack Leak, but how much they hit him. (and I'm throwing up in my mouth).
Hints that he thinks Weis would leave for the right $$$. "Money talks."
Interesting fact: The Big XII has been on top of the BCS rankings twice as many weeks as any other conference.
Big XII not as bad as everybody says. I actually agree with this. I'll have a football wonk up tomorrow on this topic. Corso comes back to it too, focusing on the perception of others.
Florida has OL trouble because too much confusion in assignments. "Paralysis through analysis". I don't know what that means.
Predicts Florida to add a TE, maybe more RB blocking. Astute. Herbstreit kind of laughs at him.
Michigan's OL is as good as it gets. M. Hart, when healthy, is sensational. "Watch it on ESPN." Heh.
After Fowler points out how Texas had to come back big on OKState last year, Corso says "not this year, sweetheart." Heh. Predicts a big win and a stay at the top of the BCS. Wrong and wrong, and sort of lacking in knowledge of how the BCS works.
Only Texas will run the table.
"No one can tell me [USC] has a National Championship defense, especially the secondary." Bold-ish.
Georgia without Shockley isn't even in the top 10.
In re the BCS problems Herbstreit rants about: "once you're the president you don't have to give reasons." Stellar analysis.
They're not playing worth a crap on defense at Florida State. Then he picks them.
Can't spell Tereshinski.
Alabama football is tough, hardnosed, forcing turnovers football.
Thinks UCLA won't win out up to USC.
Struggles through his analysis of Joe T. Stumbling. Teleprompter issues, I hope.
Calls South Carolina close, at least.
#1 QB in the Big Ten is Michael Robinson
Game Changer: UGA Special teams. Corso Hex is in place. 2 missed FGs...
Reminds us how he picked Ohio State to win it all and that they still have a chance if like 8 teams lose twice more. Never give up!
Herbstreit:
Pumps fist and says "We Love It" when Fowler mentions SEC defense. Kind of a contrast to most coverage, I'd say.
Suggests that closing the margins in the human polls might be enough to get past Texas. You know Texas was #1 at the time.
Knocks Okla. State's D and expects UT to roll.
Best game of the day is Michigan and Northwestern.
Scoop Herbstreit, Junior Cub reporter pulls the news out on the Weis extension. Says Weis has been committed to ND "since day one". So, uhh, why does he need a mid-season extension? "He will be at ND for 10 years, which helps recruiting". Again, with the recruiting news on Gameday. Claims Weis there for 10 years will bring stability, recruits, take them to a level that they're accustomed to having. (If I were a dick, which I am, I'd say ND for the last decade has been accustomed to mediocrity...). Mentions how committed Weis is, like 8 times.
In describing the Big XII and "why they're down" he hits on a good point: if the teams moronic big media turds think should be good aren't, the perception is that the conference is bad. Compares it to the SEC - if Florida, Tenn and UGA were all bad in the same year... This I think is the lazy thinking of so many national writers (Mandel). Then Herbstreit says he agrees in this instance - that the Big XII really is down. Blames it on a lack of offensive skill (aside from Young and Klatt). Uhh... dude, Texas Tech like, leads the nation in offense. Fowler chimes in with Cody Hodges and Brad Smith and Reggie McNeal.
Kansas State has fallen off the map.
Calls Corso "LC". Fowler laughs (as do I).
The Big East and the Big XII North should play in the same conference. "Awful outside of Colorado."
"If Texas played in the SEC, they'd play five teams better than [Texas Tech]. " WHOA. That's bold right there. I'm not sure even I'd say that, and I'm a huge SEC homer.
In re Michigan-NW: "Oh, you've gotta watch it. 7:00 eastern, should be a good one." Heh. NW wins. "Purple not so fast" He gets sensitive when Fowler calls him on his OSU ties. I get the feeling like they're more self-recognizing today.
"Reggie Bush had another one of those moments last week and he'll have a lot more today." Last week Bush didn't have all that great a game, just one good return, really. But Kirk just projected it like he did. Narrative in place.
FINALLY! Herbstreit goes off on a rant about how the system screws undefeated #3 teams. But he says another game would solve it (it wouldn't necessarily). But he does say they need to settle it on the field. "It's not working." A good start.
Reasonable comments on Tuberville. Excellent in contrast to Fowler.
Texas and USC have separated themselves from VT because VT hasn't played a quality schedule yet. (VT has played a tougher schedule than USC by just about every SOS system). "The jury is out on VT. The jury is out on Marcus Vick. Until they play Miami..." Same BS they said on the Sports Reporters last week. Just garbage.
Can spell Tereshinski. Such important analysis.
Florida's D is athletic and opportunistic.
Don't underestimate Tereshinski because he has family at Georgia.
Thought about a South Carolina upset...
Minnesota can't line up and run at OSU. Need to throw.
Game Changer: Brett Basanez (and calls Corso LC again)
Seems like Corso and Herbstreit both thought Missouri was playing Colorado this week. C'mon guys. 90 Minutes a week, that's all we ask. Herbstreit cracks up once he realizes it.
Knocks Missouri after picking them. Mandelization.
Fowler:
Ga-Fla is one of the great rivalries in CFB. Repeats the "Georgia always wins Friday" line. I like that.
Lists the litany of stars in the SEC that are injured. An interesting point missing from most columns.
"We all know the controversy is between 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the BCS". Not sure what he's getting at here. If he's saying USC is a sure thing (they weren't #1 at the time), I don't get it. If he's saying the key is teams getting screwed at those positions, I hear him. I think he means the latter.
States a truth: that for VT or someone else to close the gap, voters do have to move down UT or USC.
Takes no real side the Fisher DeBerry thing. Nobody else does either.
Never seen a conference dominated like Texas has this year, not even FSU in early ACC days (I disagree with that, big time).
Reasons Florida's O hasn't worked: Leak, OL, Defenses. I'd reverse the order. He mentions Ds again.
Meyer at Utah was "best I've ever seen in the red zone"
Brett Basanez is a tough guy. More passing yards than Matt Leinart. really? Didn't know that.
Lloyd Carr "isn't really expecting to stop Brett Basanez". I hate those kind of lines. Of course Carr wants to stop him, and they are going to try to.
Nice shoutout to the WSU flag.
In re the BCS: UGA, Alabama, etc need one of the top 2 teams to lose because "that's how it's playing out right now." IT'S PLAYING OUT LIKE THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE LISTEN TO YOU AND YOU'VE BEEN SAYING THAT ALL YEAR.
In re Tuberville's comments: (this probably deserves its own post). First off, he says Auburn was wrongly denied by the unfair system. Then he takes a very snide POV toward TT's comments, shrugging them off like "hey, we don't do anything, we cover everyone fairly, nobody pays attention to us anyway, voters shouldn't listen to us." This is at best, misguided and dim. I actually think it's total BS. Gameday sells itself as the voice of college football. They know that they affect things. They know that voters can't watch 50+ games each weekend, so they're reliant on ESPN's coverage. They know this. To act otherwise should be beneath them, but apparently it isn't. Mock it like it's a "conspiracy theory"? Fowler. You're part of the problem, and when you start admitting it, and treat your job as gatekeeper more professionally, everything will be better off.
Which one is Sparky?
Calls UGA's defense "no-name". It only is because you haven't covered them. "They lost a lot of big names on D." I have such a low opinion of national media guys. It's just laziness.
He said UCLA had never won in the Bay Area. That can't be right can it? He must've messed that up somehow. Maybe he meant just Maurice Drew hadn't, but he said "the Bruins".
Praises UCLA for not going to lingerie parties like USC. But they talked about the Victoria's Secret thing as if it were good a while back... It's like they change positions...
Fowler can name lots of Polish quarterbacks.
Richt might be prone to get conservative with Joe Tereshinski.
Also hints at a South Carolina win. They're either on to something or they just like Spurrier.
Game Changer: Brad Smith
"There are certain days when I am glad we have a screen behind us. Today is one of them." And that, for those of you who have never been, is Georgia-Florida.
Howard:
SEC has "Black athletes" unlike the MWC. Leak getting hit too much. Blames the OL. Time to stop learning, start knowing.
USC will ruin UCLA's season.
Maurice Drew "has more cuts than a VS-1 princess cut diamond ring" (I think that's what he was trying to say). OK.
May:
Thinks USC, Texas and VT will all run the table.
Gets sore as fuggg at Corso for knocking USC. Pulls a Stephen A. Smith screaming and talking fast as hell. Herbstreit tells him to calm down.
Holtz: absent
Miscellaneous:
"Tailgate Cam" seems new.
Game Face is lame as usual.
The spelling bee segment was the worst of the year. Worse than Lachey singing Hail to the Victors.
Looks like the loudest crowd so far this year according to the Energizer Fan Meter. And the first time in SEC country... Coincidence?
I like the little graphic at the bottom that says "Coming Up: Why Florida will Beat Georgia"... and then everyone picks Georgia.
I know this was kind of an ornery recap. Hard to watch again having seen the actual game.
Lebowski Standings - Week 4
And now the current standings. And by "current", I mean "not including last night's game". Memphis and UAB were ranked with their records based on the end of Saturday's games.
25. Rutgers 6-2 (105)
24. Boise State 6-2 (102)
23. California 6-2 (98)
22. Auburn 6-2 (67)
21. Boston College 6-2 (39)
20. Colorado 6-2 (38)
19. Florida 6-2 (28)
18. Ohio State 6-2 (6)
17. UTEP 6-1 (115)
16. Fresno State 6-1 (106)
15. Miami (Florida) 6-1 (65)
14. LSU 6-1 (55)
13. West Virginia 6-1 (40)
12. Florida State 7-1 (64)
11. Georgia 7-1 (53)
10. Texas Tech 7-1 (51)
9. Oregon 7-1 (31)
8. TCU 8-1 (89)
7. Wisconsin 8-1 (60)
6. Penn State 8-1 (17)
5. UCLA 8-0 (77)
4. Alabama 8-0 (76)
3. Southern Cal 8-0 (73)
2. Virginia Tech 8-0 (42)
1. Texas 8-0 (33)
Biggest Risers: Akron (+18 after beating Bowling Green), Iowa State (+17 after beating Texas A&M), Central Michigan (+16 after beating Toledo)
Biggest Droppers: Oregon State (-20 after loss to Arizona), Kansas State (-17 after loss to Colorado), New Mexico (-17 after loss to Colorado State), Northern Illinois (-17 after loss to Ball State).
Lebowski Standings - Week 3
A week late, but let's make sure the historical record exists...
25. Nebraska 5-2 (31)
24. Missouri 5-2 (43*)
23. Minnesota 5-2 (20)
22. Northwestern 5-2 (17)
21. Ohio State 5-2 (13)
20. California 6-2 (97)
19. Fresno State 5-1 (105)
18. UTEP 5-1 (99)
17. Miami (Florida) 5-1 (68)
16. LSU 5-1 (28)
15. Toledo 6-1 (118)
14. Boston College 6-1 (77)
13. Florida State 6-1 (69)
12. Texas Tech 6-1 (52)
11. West Virginia 6-1 (35)
10. TCU 7-1 (86)
9. Wisconsin 7-1 (38)
8. Oregon 7-1 (30)
7. Penn State 7-1 (18)
6. UCLA 7-0 (85)
5. Southern Cal 7-0 (72)
4. Virginia Tech 7-0 (70)
3. Georgia 7-0 (64)
2. Alabama 7-0 (54)
1. Texas 7-0 (26)
Biggest risers: Ole Miss (+18 after beating Kentucky), Western Michigan (+17 after beating Bowling Green), Utah (+17 after beating UNLV)
Biggest drops: Virginia (-20 after losing to UNC), Bowling Green (-20 after losing to WMU), Connecticut (-19 after losing to Rutgers), Tennessee (-19 after losing to Alabama)
Monday, October 31, 2005
Dropping off the Links at the Pool
A few things really worth reading:
1) Michael Elkon on Stewart Mandel's article last week. Really captures what I was thinking, except without the ad hominem attacks and unnecessary expletives. Which I actually think belong. But he's really smart and a good writer, being able to prove his points without using words like "douche" and "hatchet wound." So yeah, I'm late, but it's worth reading.
2) Apparently you can put a price on human feces. $1,693.62. Via EDSBS.
3) The Collective of Six is a breakthrough in college football analysis.
4) And while many may laugh at [GASP!] a Georgia fan in jean shorts, I offer this in response:
There will be no more discussion on whose fans dress worse. As they say, QED, MF.
Flick the Button
Elephant: Another one of those movies where I get a little pissed because a better movie could've been made on the subject, but since this was made nobody's going to make another movie about it. The non-linear (or is it multi-linear) chronology was interesting for a while, but after a while you realize that it's just a trick to keep the focus away from the fact that it's pretty much a 15 minute film stretched out over an hour and a half. Kind of pretentious. And there's one small little detail that I don't want to spoil, but I'd like crush critically - you'll know it if you've seen it. Just unnecessary and courting controversy. It's a movie about school shootings. You'll get all the controversy you want. That detail isn't needed. You're Fired.
Mean Girls: OK, this is actually a good movie about high school. It stays within itself, unlike Elephant. Plus, it's actually really funny. Much moreso than I was expecting. And since I know my readers are like 99.9% male, let me offer this: rent it. You'll get credit for giving in, you'll laugh, and you'll not mind the views. However, I think this movie proves the Law of Conservation of Hotttttness. Lohan and McAdams entered with a 90-10 shellacking in favor of Lohan. However, McAdams has definitely had her Chi jostled loose, and now it's more like 70-30 in her favor. I have to think Lindsay can get it back though. I pull for the redheads. Caddy for the genre.
Hellboy: Well, the title character was at least sort of interesting. The rest of the characters, weren't really. A lot of the fight sequences were too dark to see anything. A lot of the effects definitely felt like an early spring release, not a summer blockbuster. Maybe if I was more of a comic book guy, I'd be more into it. It just didn't work for me. Got bored by the end. Fired.
Kung Fu Hustle: Now here's a movie that does something few American films have done in the past few years - make me sit up straight and actually think that the filmmakers used some creativity. Hilarious, quick, well choreographed, clever, just great. Why can't an American studio make something like this? I haven't seen Chow's other stuff, but I definitely want to. Cadillac.
and two repeat viewings:
The Godfather: One of the few movies where detail means so much. It's so effortless though. One of the few movies worth seeing once a year. Like you need me to tell you how good it is.
L.A. Confidential: Here's my statement. I cannot name a better film, all things considered, made over the last decade. Seriously. Pure, unadulterated masculinity. Pushes the same buttons as The Godfather. Just a classic. Supremely underrated. I'm open to an argument.
Race and Sport
Obviously, I'm no expert on this. But I do think there should be a dialogue on race and disparate treatment. I take no particular side. I instead open the floor to debate.
First, via the Wrangler...
John Rocker, in Sports Illustrated, December 27, 1999:
"The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?"
Jamal Lewis, interview with ESPN's Michael Smith, 2005:
"A lot of people think four months is not a long time, but you try doing 120 days in one place, being in a dorm with a bunch of people of all different nationalities that you don't even know, and not being able to have some of the things that you're used to."
And now another issue, discussed on 2 Live Stews on my drive home today...
Tyrone Willingham after seven games: 7-0.
Charlie Weis after seven games: 5-2.
Tyrone Willingham: no contract extensions over three years.
Charlie Weis: 10 year, $30-40 million dollar extension seven games into his career at Notre Dame.
Comments anyone?
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Quickly
A little update on things...
Sorry about the light posting the past few days. I've been having computer battery issues. And my AC adapter doesn't charge the battery while the computer operates. Weirdly, when I turn off the computer, it charges immediately.
Thanks to all the one time visitors. I guess the Narrative post passed around message boards pretty well. If you've come back, thanks and have a look around. Always glad for the traffic.
That said, I think it's a good time to mention my own view towards blogging. I started this because first and foremost, I had these opinions and theories on stuff, but a decade of alcohol damage has left my brain wanting. I see this weblog as a sort of zip drive for my mind. I really haven't expected many people to read this, aside from maybe a few personal friends. The hits I've received over the past week has left me feeling a little stage-frightened. I'm not really sure I like the attention. Or, I guess more specifically, I'm not sure I like the responsibility of writing for a wider audience than just people I already know and who already know me well enough not to take me all that seriously. When a commenter hinted that I'm a member of the media I criticize, I got a little freaked out. I'm no journalist. I'm no expert. I'm just a guy with a computer and some opinions. I know there's some responsibility when you click that "Publish Now" button, but if any of you actually knew me, you'd know that I'm not one to take seriously.
Gameday recap will have to wait until tomorrow or possibly Tuesday. Sorry. I'm just not all that excited about rewatching it just yet.
I screwed up last week about the Lebowski rankings. I'll post last week's along with next week's in a few days.
And quickly about the Dawgs: I have this weird sense of zen right now about yesterday's game. I honestly knew we weren't going to win, and, unlike most Florida games over the last 15 years, I didn't delude myself into thinking "it might be different this year." Strangely, this made watching the game a lot easier, and recovering from the sting of a loss easier too. I was almost happy at our performance yesterday. After Florida's first two drives, I thought 38-7 was the likely result. The D stepped up big. Joe T played about as well as I expected. The line and backs on O played pretty damn well. But a win is a win and a loss is a loss. Expectations only affect the attitudes of people who aren't playing. Florida won, and congratulations to them. Now, the SEC race gets very interesting. On November 12th there are basically 3 do-or-die games. Florida needs to beat Spurrier and his recently gelled Gamecocks in Columbia. Both Auburn and Georgia need to win: Georgia to basically clinch, Auburn to stay alive. LSU and Alabama might have even more on the line, since the loser of that game might be out of the SEC West race. Should be an amazing day of football. I really wonder which game will be the CBS game. I'd guess Alabama-LSU, but who knows?
I'll also do a monthlong update of Gameday recaps like I did last month. Might take a few days though.
So that's where I've been and what's ahead. And if anyone knows what I can do about these battery issues, leave a comment.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Apologies
It's Georgia-Florida week, and for some of the new readers, let me explain further.
Georgia is in the unique position of having multiple rivals, of varying degrees. Some schools have one real rival and everyone else matters a little less, like say, Clemson and South Carolina. Some schools have two rivals and don't really care about anyone else (Alabama). Georgia has lots of rivals, and the degrees of rivalry change over time and depending on the recent results.
If you asked 10 Georgia fans who the Dawgs most bitter rival is, you might get 5 different answers. Georgia Tech, Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, and even Clemson for some of the old guard. And the rival you choose kind of determines what kind of Dawg fan you are.
People who hate Tech are usually from Atlanta and work with a lot of obnoxious Tech fans.
People who hate Auburn are usually from Columbus or West Georgia.
People who hate Tennessee are usually from North Georgia.
People who hate Clemson probably matured as fans in the early 80s.
And the rest of us hate Florida.
It's the recent dominance. It's Spurrier. It's the way we used to own them, and then got lax, starting to think we had bigger rivals elsewhere, then gave the series to them for the last 15 years to the point that now they have bigger rivals elsewhere. It's the way I hate them. Period.
As a college freshman, Florida played in Athens for the first time in 50+ years. I was a fraternity pledge. Spurrier put the starters back in and ran a trick play to be able to be the first visiting team to score 50 in Sanford Stadium. Then the Braves won the world series. The next morning the parking lot of the lodge was about 6 inches deep in coleslaw. Cleaning up was awesome. And I've never thought twice about hating Florida. My mind just returns to that coleslaw. Bastards.
I spent 7 years at UGA. Our record against Florida over that time? 1-6.
So yes, I hate Florida.
And I really know we're getting waxed this weekend.
And I'm ornery because of it. Been so all week. The wife thinks there's something wrong. There is. I've been posting annoying comments at EDSBS all week. Normally I lurk, but this week I can't keep my trap shut. I'm annoying myself.
So we've got three more days of nervous energy and dread, then a week of pissed off "would've should've" bullshit. I can't wait.
I called you a douchebag... I was too kind.
I had a nasty post all teed up on Stewart Mandel's turd today, but I'm A Realist took it on first. I might add a few things tomorrow or something.
Basically my feelings are these:
Before I wrote "Mandel can eat a dick." Now, I'd like to retract that. I'm not sure he's bright enough even to eat a dick. I could see the case being that someone else would have to cut up and chew the dick and then mash the dick into a fine paste and feed it to little Stewie with a spoon while making the airplane landing noises.
Seriously, I think Mandel's too stupid to know how to shit himself.
UPDATE: T. Kyle King, who I've been meaning to add to the blogroll forever, throws in a great item on SEC defenses. A line I've been meaning to write myself:
Maybe that's why, when high-flying offenses run up against dominating defenses---such as in the national championship games pitting Alabama and Miami in 1992, Nebraska and Florida in 1995, Oklahoma and Florida State in 2000, and Louisiana State and Oklahoma in 2003---O gets its bell rung by D.
While I'm not sure this is always true (last year I think Oklahoma's D was pretty stout), I think it's a pretty good trend. Something to think about at the end of the year.
The Narrative
I guess the main focus of my posting this time of year is on media coverage of college football. As you may have guessed, I think it's not very good. A few bloggers this week, after Tommy Tuberville's and Beamer's comments, have noted, like I have earlier in the year, the dominance of ESPN in the college football opinioneering world. I think that this hegemony is a bad thing for the sport, since the games are affected by externalities. I think the problems are numerous, and that those who have talked about a corporate bias in favor of the teams or conferences that have direct ties to ESPN and its parent company are probably right. Put it this way, ESPN would be dumb not to cover the Big 10 heavily. With more coverage, there's more interest, with more interest, there's more viewers, with more viewers they can charge more for ad revenue and everyone's happy.
But that is only one of the main problems with ESPN's coverage. The other is a wider, deeper problem with mass media journalism, and isn't specifically an ESPN problem. That problem is with "the narrative," which has become the way all news coverage seems to work these days.
In mass media journalism, there is a greater reliance on profit than in the past. And when profit matters more, the corporate heads want to ensure that the journalists stay within bounds - whatever stories are covered need to be more predictable, so the accountants and such know what they can expect. Things are planned out in advance. Storylines are decided upon weeks ahead of time. It's a matter of certainty.
And in the college football journalism world, certainty matters too. As early as the Spring, storylines are developed and plans are set in motion. Gameday knew probably back in January that the Ohio State-Texas game would be a huge matchup, so ESPN started hyping it a month ahead of time. ESPN decided USC would be a big story, so they've had Shelley Smith preparing in depth stories for months.
The key is that they decide upon the story ahead of time, so when something comes up that doesn't fit the parameters of that story, they don't know what to do.
A prime example was Auburn last year. Preseason, Auburn was way off the radar. They were an underachieving team that just didn't perform. No buzz whatsoever. Of course, they did have every important player returning and an easy schedule, but they just weren't part of the narrative going into the year. Last year's narrative was about USC, Oklahoma or Texas and in the SEC, Georgia. Auburn wasn't part of the narrative. So when they kept winning, people didn't really know what to do with them. The story had been decided already, and that was that USC and Oklahoma were the best two teams.
The truth of the matter is that nobody knows anything until the games are played and it's settled on the field. But that brings spontaneity into the equation, and that isn't something major corporations can allow for. It's a whole lot easier and cheaper to just keep Steve Cyphers in South Bend and have him file stories about Notre Dame than it would be to have him flying all over the country covering teams that have surprised people.
So there has to be a narrative and we have to stick with it.
[as a side note, there also is the ever present, "see how right I was" inertia of punditry that fits into the narrative, but that's another post.]
This year it's pretty easy to see how narratives have developed, and how things change once the narratives don't really work out.
Example: In the SEC, pre-season, most pundits, writers and coverage focused on three teams - Florida, Tennessee and LSU- and one coach, Steve Spurrier. Florida had a new coach who was going to bring a totally new style of play to the boring old 3 yards and a cloud of dust league. Tennessee had a dynamic young QB, a good RB with a great pedigree and a fantastic D. LSU had talent galore. Spurrier is Spurrier. Then Florida started losing and the dynamic offense couldn't move well at all. Tennessee's dynamic QB wasn't good at all. Suddenly the two teams in the East nearly everyone picked to win weren't very successful. So do they change the narrative and bring up how surprising Georgia is instead? Nope, just talk about how the league is "down" and disappointing. Two undefeated teams, three top 10 teams. But when they aren't the teams the wise men in Bristol thought they'd be, the league is down. A shift in the narrative is plainly evident
For the Heisman Trophy race, a narrative is clearly needed to jumpstart any campaign. The USC players had it preseason, along with Vince Young. Guys like Ted Ginn and Marcus Vick had the narrative behind them before a single snap was played. Then the games started, and really the only candidate that has had any traction is Brady Quinn, with a built in narrative behind him.
But for the national title, the narrative takes on a different meaning. As readers of this blog have known, I believe undefeated teams deserve a chance at a title. The reason: nobody's beaten them on the field. Comparing two teams in college football is difficult because there are too many variables (different schedules, different matchups with opponents). I think it is a fool's errand to try to say one team is definitely better than another when both have not been beaten on the field. Nobody knows a damn thing unless it's settled on the field.
And that's why I can't stand the comments like "Team X and Team Y have definitely separated themselves from the rest of the pack." The only way for two teams to separate themselves is if every other team has lost. Those two teams might look better than the rest, but no matter how you slice it, it's just conjecture. Nobody knows how USC would far playing Alabama's schedule, and nobody knows how Texas would fare playing UCLA's.
All this brings me to a fascinating discussion on (I know...) Sunday's episode of The Sports Reporters. Here's a transcript:
John Saunders: ...we also have another system where there is no playoff and that's in college football where the top two teams both won CONVINCINGLY, but we could have a huge logjam at the end of the year. But USC and Texas are CLEARLY 1 and 2
Thomas George: And I think they're going to make sure we don't have that logjam. I think as the season continues on, they're going to separate themselves from those other teams. I see them as clearly better than Alabama and clearly better then the other guy- Virginia Tech and the other teams that are chasing them.
Stop there. The only way there won't be a logjam is if there are only two unbeaten teams. The other teams have to lose. No team can "separate itself" aside from beating other unbeaten teams, which Texas and USC have only limited ability to do. But take note at how the host framed the issue - think Narrative. Now continuing...
Mike Lupica: Do you really think they're that much better than Virginia Tech?
George: I do. I think they're that much better than Virginia Tech and I think they'll show it as the season rolls on. And not only do I believe that, but I think Texas is the team that has the upside, I think they're the team. While USC is the darling and they have the streak going, I think we need to really keep our eyes on Texas.
See what happened there? USC, he hints, is already the darling and is assumed to be a top team. But we need to watch Texas because they're a clear #2. Separation is the narrative, pick out your eagle and feed it, starve the chicken. Continuing...
Lupica: [rants for a while about the BCS ] Is there anything that Virginia Tech can do over the rest of the season to pass Texas if they both end up undefeated?
Saunders: They would have to do something so great, make such an impression that the human voters would put them ahead of Texas.
Lupica: Don't you have a problem with that? Marcus Vick isn't even going to have a chance?
Bob Ryan: There is that chance. It's 45-0 over Miami. That's their chance. They have to destroy Miami, that's their chance, that's asking an awful lot.
Stop right there. More narrative. These guys have already decided on it. Say Texas plays lackluster the rest of the way? Doesn't matter. Did they require Texas to beat OSU by 45? No. The decisions have been made and the coverage must adapt to the decisions. Continuing again.
Saunders then brings up the queer fact that the initial BCS 1 and 2 have never met in a title game. Lupica thinks that's a reason to hope, then talks about Texas-Texas Tech for a while.
Then the most interesting, and HONEST portion of the entire debate:
Ryan: With all due respect to our friends in Blacksburg and Tuscaloosa... We don't want you. OK. [Lupica tries to interrupt] Don't take this personally. We don't want you.The rest of us in America want SC and Texas. We want those 2 programs, we want... That's the only Rose Bowl we want.
Lupica: How can you possibly say that?
Ryan: Because THAT'S THE TRUTH. The generic college football sportsfan wants that battle of the titans and nothing else. We don't want VT, we don't want Alabama. We want Texas and SC, Michael that's the truth.
Lupica: But you don't know that.
Ryan: I'm not saying it's fair, but that's what we want.
Lupica: But don't say that's what we want.
Ryan: We want the horse and the band and the big drum and together in the same place at the same time January 4th in the Rose Bowl. That's what we want. What's the big stick with VT? I don't know. What do we care about Alabama? I don't know. We want Texas and SC.
George: I will referee and agree with Bob. Because I really believe that Texas now... where they've been a team that has flopped and you have a lot of criticism of Mack Brown in the past, the coaching is going with the playing, that team is in synch. I think they're an exciting team and an exciting QB. You get Vince Young in that game with Matt Leinart in the game, and then everything rolls from there.
And if you ever needed a better description of how things work in college football, there it is. Why are Texas and USC the best Rose Bowl teams? The horse, the drum, excitement. Alabama and Virginia Tech cannot provide that (let alone Georgia or UCLA). The national media has a story in their mind and they will promote that story no matter what. They want the story they've already written. They want the game they've already mapped out. Never mind that each team has 5 more games to play. Never mind what the other undefeated teams have done already, or might do. They have a narrative, and they want to see how the book in their own heads ends. Period. Ryan is dead right, and dangerously honest.
Let's face it. The matchups that decide the national title are decided upon in production meetings months ahead of time. The teams that make the sexiest title game are discussed between writers and editors in August.
That's how you want to decide a champion? Not me.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Gameday Recap - Too much to say today... I go off on rants...
First, indulge me a bit. For as much as I've mocked the theme song to Gameday this year, I really should give it a little more credit. Why, you may ask, should I give any credit to that annoying piece of corn-strewed shit? Well, probably because the Gameday version and accompanying video montage is freaking Casablanca and the first two Godfathers combined compared to the actual "Comin' to your city" song and video. I caught the video on one of the country music TV stations on Friday and let me tell you, if there is a worse video ever made, I have yet to see it. Aliens board a guitar the shape of one you might see in Helloween and they travel through a list of cities Big & Rich might visit soon. There are stripper-looking women, midgets and strobelike lighting. It is, in a word, diarrhetictacular. So from here on out, I will think highly of the opener, since it's light years ahead of the actual video. And if you want to have actual human shit hurtle at your eyes, it's on this site.
And on to the show...
Corso:
Texas-TT might be the longest game in CFB history. "Pack dinner"
This year's Big 10 is "the best race I've ever seen."
Corso hasn't had a chance to fluff his former employers much this year, but he throws in a big push for the Hoosiers.
Big 10: 1. PSU, 2. OSU, 3. Iowa
Admits he was wrong about ND. Good on ye'.
Also brings up an elephant in the room- was it right to fire Tyrone Willingham?- says it was for $$$ reasons.
ND winning out and going to the BCS.
Agrees with Howard about Reggie Bush, but then raves about Maurice Drew. Good comment, actually. I think the dosage is right for Lee today.
Thinks only Texas goes undefeated. But then laughs and says it won't happen.
Loves Texas Tech's creampuff schedule.
Also, considers Texas close with USC.
Unsure if Spurrier has the patience to stay at South Carolina and win. Thinks Vandy beats him.
Game Changer: Maurice Drew. Apparently, Lee had a book report due on him this week.
MSU's D is poor. Northwestern's is even worse.
Herbstreit:
Hints at emotional games the previous week carrying over to the next week. Is Herbie reading this?
Vols are desperate.
"They're playing Washington, but you've gotta show Reggie Bush every week." Honest words come out from Herbstreit. Sorry, y'all, but the media has already decided the Heisman.
USC's D will get much better as the season goes on, become "dominant".
UCLA cannot stop anybody, and "they represent the Pac-10". I agree to some extent, but watch the west coast get their panties in a wad over that.
"Big 10 has really upgraded the coaching." They added Terry Hoeppner and Ron Zook since last year. That's all. We'll see on Hoeppner, since he hasn't beaten anyone of substance. And Zook? Right. Everyone else has been there for at least what, 5 years? He qualifies it by comparing it to 10 or 15 years ago (I'd still dispute it), but Corso takes offense, which makes the statement totally worth it.
Big 10: 1. Iowa and Ohio State (OSU gets the tiebreaker on h-to-h)
If you think the season is going well for ND, the recruiting is going even better. Another aside (and I've already had a few with Herbstreit today)- it's one thing for a recruiting dude on the internet to comment about how well teams are doing in recruiting, because I think those types have minimal impact on the actual recruiting. But when one of the most prominent CFB talking heads raves about a particular team, I think recruits might pay some attention. I don't think I'd appreciate that comment if I were a recruiting coordinator at another midwestern school.
ND winning out, going to BCS.
Heisman is a 2 man race between Bush and Young, but Bush is at a different (higher) level than anyone, maybe EVER! Whoa! Here comes overpromotion!
Thinks UGA and Alabama both lose. Thinks USC, Texas and VT go undefeated.
Auburn has the best tandem of Defensive Ends in the SEC, arguably the country. There are 4 other teams in the SEC (UGA, LSU, UT, Alabama) about which he could've said the same thing (not saying it's definitely wrong, but I think they're all really good). He was probably right in that it was the game of the day.
Doesn't think South Carolina goes to a bowl.
Alabama's lost their "rhythm". Where's LaChey to provide insight on beat and melody?
Iowa locker room is overrated, but the fans (when Iowa's good) are nasty.
Texas is probably the best offensive line in all of college football (I'll have to check the notes, but I thought he said that about Minnesota a few weeks ago)
Game Changer: Drew Tate
Fowler:
"Every week in the Big 10 is fun. We're going to talk about all 5 games there." And how many of them are broadcasted on the ESPN family of networks? Just askin'... [and, yes, they talked about 4 SEC games, but the same promotion wasn't there.]
In a list of "good" things about the Big 10, he includes "porous defenses". Factually accurate, but the OSU message boards probably just posted his home phone number for death threats.
Tries to push aside Corso's comment on Willingham - "You've gotta get over the whole firing thing, we're moving forward." Then he brings back up how Corso was wrong about ND (which he'd just apologized for). Two interesting dynamics at play with this one little comment: 1) more pointing out how Corso doesn't know what he's talking about (hinting that they might be puching him out the door, to me) and 2) the Willingham firing can only have one storyline (and it's not that it was the right thing to do).
OK, there HAS to be a better anecdote than the one offered when it comes to Mike Tyson and Matt Leinart at a Victoria's Secret party. Seriously, that was a freaking tease. And then he follows it up with a weak joke.
It's a shame Maurice Drew doesn't play in the SEC because he'd get more attention as a Heisman candidate. Aside - This is, without question, the dumbest comment Fowler has said today. First, the SEC has some great backs. Like Joseph Addai or Ken Darby. The SEC has some great straight up players this year. Like Skyler Green, DJ Shockley, Jay Cutler or Brodie Croyle. And guess what? NONE of them have gotten a damn second's worth of serious Heisman hype from ESPN. If Maurice Drew played in the SEC, he'd be completely ignored just like all the other players down here. Second, if Maurice Drew played in the SEC, he'd run up against 5 of the top 25 rushing defenses in the country. The Pac-10? ONE. And that's USC, who, by virtue of whipping ass, forces teams into throwing the ball the entire second half. I think Drew's been pretty great. But he also hasn't played a defensive front anywhere near as good as Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, etc. That statement is just a freaking embarassment. And Corso and Herbstreit nod and agree. Sad, sad, sad.
Thinks Auburn's travel schedule is a big issue.
Calls Cody Hodges a "gunslinger". I love you too, Chris. Mention me again and I'll know it's true...
Game Changer: LSU's Defense.
Howard:
Totally expects ND to win out and make a BCS game.
Reggie Bush is the most exciting, entertaining and explosive player in CFB. "If I were a singer in a church choir, I couldn't sing his praises high enough."
Maurice Drew is a watered down version of Bush. Vince Young is a good Heisman runner-up.
Holtz:
ND wins out. Makes the BCS. Good thing there are no dissenting opinions.
May:
Truant. Fire him like Trev.
Miscellaneous:
The horserace bit on the Big 10 race is unnecessary overpromotion. Strangely, they don't do this for the SEC West, or the Big 12 North, or the ACC Coastal, or the Big East. The marriage between the Big 10 and ESPN/ABC is not good for college football. There, I said it. What? What?
The piece on the ND-USC game from last week was pretty good.
Game Face: I've got to hand it to Texas. The winner actually didn't look like the biggest tool on earth, unlike every other school they've visited. He still looked like a tool, but not quite as bad.
Aaaarrrrgh!! The Home Depot Demo Field returns, with lance Armstrong. Waste of time, not entertaining or informative. Armstrong provides tepid analysis. "Mack Brown's a great guy."
A lot of commercials in the second half of today's show.
Pink locker room bit was worth showing, but again, Chris Connelly?
All in all, a lot to take issue with today. I would not consider this one of their better efforts.
