Charlie Whitehurst Trivia
Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at 09:03PM Clemson quarterback Charlie Whitehurst has a sister who is on the
Clemson basketball team. Pretty cool, as athletics runs in the
family along both genders.
"Spend a few minutes reading College Football Resource" - Whit Watson, Sun Sports
"Maybe you should start your own blog" - Bruce Feldman, ESPN
"[An] Excellent resource for all things college football. It’s blog index is the definitive listing of the CFB blogosphere ... [A] must-read for fans." - Sports Illustrated (On Campus)
"The big daddy of them all, the nerve center of this twisted college football blogsphere" - The House Rock Built
"Unsurprisingly, College Football Resource has generated some discussion" -Dawg Sports
Standing Against College Football Playoffs
CFR
Dawg Sports
The Baseball Savant
Get the Picture
Tempin' Ain't Easy
Pitch Right
Orange and Blue Hue
Burrill Strong
Mountainlair
Mark Richt
Corn Nation
The National Championship Issue
College Gridiron Boss
What Thou The Odds
Saturday Sound Offs
Chuck Klosterman
Jim Delany
Roll 'Bama Roll
Broken Cowboy
Heisman Pundit
Tom Dienhart
Our Sturdy Golden Blog
Chris Petersen
College Football Authority
The Power T
Rites of Autumn
Gordon Gee
Bill Plaschke
ACC Football Report
Todd Blackledge
Ramblin' Racket
Robert Smith
Jesse Palmer
ND Irish Blog
SEC Football Blogger
We Suck At Sports
The Business of College Football
Brian Curtis
Classic Sports Photos
College Football Frenzy
EDSBS
Double Deuce: Second Rate News
Lou Holtz
Bobby Bowden
Gregg Easterbrook
Mike Greenberg
Georgia Sports Blog
Sports Law Professor (sort of)
Buddy Martin
Dick Bestwick
Tom Hansen
Barry Alvarez
Bob Stoops
Mike Tranghese
Gary Patterson
Jim Tressel
Kevin White
Jack Swarbick
Email me to be added!
After Week Seven
Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at 09:03PM Clemson quarterback Charlie Whitehurst has a sister who is on the
Clemson basketball team. Pretty cool, as athletics runs in the
family along both genders.
Players
Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at 08:55PM Random, but interesting-link
There's a really cool comparison chart within the link. Clemson's
athletic department did their homework (with the help of IMG Marketing)
and feel they're very competitive relative to regional schools.
The season-ticket cost is $225.00
Single-game ticket prices (opponent):
Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at 08:45PM This is a rare spring practice update from us.
One of the more interesting stories coming out of spring this year is
the quarterback competition at Florida State. We'd be shocked to
see incumbent Wyatt Sexton unseated, but his job is very unsafe once
the Seminoles get past the season-opener against Miami.
Here is a fairly vanilla story from the Orlando Sentinel about that competition.
The names to know
Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at 08:37PM South Carolina's Spring Game will be televised. Call this a hat-tip to Steve Spurrier from ESPN.
The details-
Coaches,
General,
Punditry/Media,
Teams
Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at 08:21PM From ESPN.com's Mark Kriedler, in the aftermath of Rick Neuheisel's "victory" over the NCAA-
This is also a man who will be running another major college football program. Because Rick Neuheisel, generally speaking, winds up winning a bunch more games than he loses.
There is no vindication here for college sports, put it that way. The college game, so much higher-stakes than the highest-stakes NCAA basketball pool could ever be, now pivots almost solely on the concepts of W-L, bowl participation and attendance. Neuheisel, again speaking generally, delivers on all fronts.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at 08:15PM One of our favorite topics on here is Ted Ginn, Ohio State's precocious
"athlete". In just 32 touches last year, he scored 8 times.
Yeah.
On our old location we campaigned hard for people to stand up and
notice his skills well before the national media or Ohio State's
coaches really took notice.
Anyway, ESPN's blogger extraordinaire Bruce Feldman is reporting that
Ginn may finally end up at his original position---cornerback. He
has apparently added some weight and the Chris Gamble comparisons are
starting up. The difference is that Ginn is light years ahead of
Gamble athletically, and according to Feldman's sources, defensive
technique. Scary.
We'll file this under Heisman, not necessarily for this year (the
3-headed monster of Bush, Leinart and Peterson should come away with
the award), but maybe Ginn's junior year, presumably his last in
college football.
Monday, March 14, 2005 at 05:56PM In the spirit of the current season, I'd like to jump up and let it be
known that college football is still around. For a while now I've
held onto an article by The Sporting News' Tom Dienhart.
He lists 65 reasons college football is better than college
basketball. Keep in mind this is dated to 3/6/2002. What would
you add to this list?
he NCAA Tournament will begin next week. It's a fun event, especially the
first weekend. In fact, it may be among the four best days on the sports
calendar. Still, college hoops pales in comparison to college football. Let
me count the ways, 65 of them in all.
General,
History,
Punditry/Media,
Teams
Monday, March 14, 2005 at 05:36PM I finally found a link with 2005 spring practice dates. Yes,
spring practice is well underway for many teams, but several out there
haven't started.
Saturday, March 12, 2005 at 04:51PM Today is the inaugural edition of Friday Heisman Blogging. Yes, I know it's Saturday. Go figure.
Right off the bat, there is the news that 1946 Heisman winner, Army's Glenn Davis, died Wednesday. There is another piece and pictures of him on the Heisman.com website.
He scored 59 touchdowns and netted 4,129 yards rushing and receiving in his career.
He had led an interesting life, dating famous actresses, and later
marrying the ex-wife of 1954 Heisman winner, Wisconsin's Alan Ameche.
A cool picture of Davis-

More to come...
Thursday, March 10, 2005 at 09:19PM Yes, I'm a party-pooper.
Tomorrow, we will have a new friday blogging ritual, to keep up with
the joneses of the blogging world who often "cat blog" or "car blog" or
"XYZ blog" on Fridays.
Friday will become our "Heisman blogging" time.
Much more on the weekend unless more distractions come our way.
As always, thank you for stopping by and please continue to use our wealth of links.
Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 07:44PM I can't believe it's come to this.
More and more idiotic Tommy Tuberville quotes and news items continue
to come to my attention. Hopefully this is a one-time deal but I
have my doubts.
So, where to begin? How about...this
"Before you go and play Georgia and Alabama, do you want to go play at Michigan? I don't"-Tommy Tuberville
Wow. Tommy, this quote is typical of your fraudulent and broken
logic about Auburn's schedule. The reason you were left out of
the Orange Bowl last year and not Oklahoma, was exactly because you
didn't come close to scheduling anyone competitive out of
conference. In addition, your conference was way down last year,
and you coasted in on a light in-conference slate.
So, how do you go about planning to make a run at the title game?
You continue scheduling cupcakes! How stupid. The reason
you were rightly excluded is you didn't give your team a chance to lose
like so many other D-1 teams are willing to do, in the name of proving
themselves. Solid out-of-conference games are college football's
weeding system. When an overhyped team meets a legit OOC opponent
and loses, they are weeded out of the title hunt. It's a great
system, keeping the Auburns of the world from ever coming close to a
title game when they barely have a top 5 squad.
So how does Auburn, and others of its ilk, cheat a good and meaningful
system? They build a cupcake highway on which to declare
themselves rightful Orange Bowl participants. It's wrong, its
fraudulent. I'm not sure Auburn would have survived a normal OOC
slate so early in the season last year. They were tripped up by
lowly Georgia Tech just the year before. The system did its job
there. So auburn responded by avoiding the system altogether.
It's a horrible aspect of the game, and we've already devoted way too many words to it on here already. Check our archives for plenty more.
Unfortunately, the Auburn athletic department and its fiat-in-chief
Tuberville have made with the wayward crowd populated by half the SEC
and Kansas State. Auburn gets some credit for taking on USC, but
OOC schedules are often made many years in advance, and at the time USC
was a rare big-name program that happened to be dragging along
rock-bottom, perfect pray for a midlevel SEC team hoping to grab and
coattail as a solid OOC conquest. Unfortunately for Auburn, USC
got good just as they appeared on the schedule.
Here are some more great Tuberville quotes-
"I'm not going to put our guys in a situation where they have to play a very tough conference game, then go out and play a very tough road non-conference game," he said. "I'm not going to do it. It's not fair to them. Our conference is hard enough."
"We don't have to apologize for the schedule we play," Tuberville said. "We've got Georgia Tech. You want to put yourself in a scenario where you can have a competitive schedule, but you want to win the SEC. That's your goal."
The e-mails came pouring in from the Plains the day after Southern California disposed of Oklahoma and secured the national title. Auburn was robbed. Auburn would've given the Trojans a better game. Auburn this, Auburn that. Auburn, Auburn, Auburn.
At this point, I'll introduce Pat Hill. You know him as Fresno State's brash and bold coach, a guy who has built a program from the scrap heap and will play anyone, any time, any place to gain respect. So I placed a call to Hill last week and told him Auburn just added a home game against Division I-AA Western Kentucky to complete its 2005 schedule. And before I could ask the question, he gave the answer.
"We called them," Hill interrupted. "We wanted to play them. I guess their schedule was already filled."
No, it wasn't. Fresno officials called before Auburn added Western Kentucky, and Hill is speaking with a politically correct tone because, well, he'd love a shot at Auburn somewhere down the road. Yeah, good luck with that. Auburn has bigger fish to flop.
Like The Citadel. Or Western Kentucky. Or big, bad Ball State.
This is why Auburn wasn't one of two teams playing in the Orange Bowl national title game last season, why the Tigers were stuck in the Sugar Bowl politicking for respect. Respect? Play someone with a pulse outside your conference, then we'll talk.
Wait, I take that back. Aubie played USC in the 2002 and '03 seasons and lost by a combined 47-17. The Tigers also played Georgia Tech in 2003 and lost 17-3. Hence, the reason for last year's brutal nonconference slate of Louisiana-Monroe, The Citadel and Louisiana Tech. And the reason the Tigers weren't playing USC in the Orange Bowl.
Look, Auburn shouldn't have to apologize for its schedule; it plays in the SEC, the toughest conference in college football. But like it or not, teams must prove themselves outside of their conferences to earn style points. It's as much a beauty pageant as it is a demolition derby.
Auburn was put in this predicament after Southern Miss bailed out of a game because of conflicts with the new Conference USA schedule. But here's the hitch: Southern Miss informed Auburn last September. University officials knew for five months -- through a magical unbeaten season, through the controversy of not being able to play for the national title because of a pathetic nonconference schedule -- that they needed a nonconference game for 2005, yet they chose to continue down the same path.
A university spokeswoman says Auburn needs seven home games per season to make budget. Fresno State didn't want a game in return -- "We usually play on the road; we know that," Hill says -- but Auburn steered clear of a team that is 10-8 against BCS teams since 2000.
CFR
Unbelievably, there's MORE from CTT (Coach Tommy Tuberville, as the Auburn folk like to say)-
This, from Ivan Maisel/ESPN.com-Auburn is replacing the best backfield in the last 50 years!
Unbelievable. I'm not sold on Carnell Williams, but Ronnie Brown
was/is the real deal. Jason Campbell's a decent quarterback, but
not much more than that.
I remember a few years ago Notre Dame had a modest backfield of a
decent quarterback, Rick Mirer, and 4 super backs, the "Killer
B's"-Jerome Bettis, an NFL Hall of Fame type back, Lee Becton, the best
back on the 1993 Irish squad that finished #2, Reggie Brooks, another
first-round pick like Bettis, and the sleek Jeff Burris, would would
star as a terrific free safety and future NFL cornerback.
Or how about the current USC squad of Heisman trophy winner and
eventual #1 pick Matt Leinart, with two future first round backs in
Reggie Bush and LenDale White, and potentially, a third this year in
Chauncey Washington.
What is Tommy smoking? I just listed two better
backfields in the last 15 years, both of whom achieved far far far more
on the field where it counts, than the Campbell/Brown/Williams troika.
BCS,
Coaches,
Features,
Intelligence,
Politics,
Punditry/Media,
Teams
Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 07:09PM Nor should it. It looks like some folks are starting to catch on...
First, from the sometimes up, often down Pete Fiutak, on CFN's "Ask CFN" (March 4, 2005 entry)-
Is it just me or has the Pac 10 gone weak-kneed in the scheduling department this year? I have always been a fan of the league because, while other conferences were beating up on the small fry and talking about how great they were, Pac-10 teams were hitting the road and playing games worth watching. The Southern California and Arizona schools are keeping up their end but the northern schools are wimping out big time. Is it just a 1-year fluke, are the schedules tougher than they appear, or are Pac-10 schools trending towards softer schedules? – JAHNice work, Pete. This underlines another point I've danced around, but knew someone out there would run with it---the Pac-10 is consistently the best scheduling conference in college football.A: Absolutely, dead wrong. The Pac 10 did a great job scheduling real non-conference games and has even better ones on tap for 2006. You’re right; USC didn’t have to schedule a landmine like Fresno State. Arizona State is going to LSU and Arizona is going to Utah and hosting Purdue. There are some great other non-conference matchups too. UCLA plays Oklahoma, Oregon State is playing Boise State and at Louisville. Stanford is playing at Navy and Notre Dame, and Washington also plays the Irish. As far as the future, none of the other BCS leagues come close to having as good a non-conference slate in 2006: Arizona at LSU, Arizona State at Colorado, California at Tennessee and against Minnesota, Oregon at Fresno State, Oregon State at Boise State, Stanford at Notre Dame, USC at Arkansas and against Nebraska and Notre Dame, UCLA against Utah and at Notre Dame, and Washington at Oklahoma and against Fresno State. Only Washington State is taking it easy.
The NCAA (or the infamous BCS group) should enact a policy whereby wins against non-IA opponents to not count toward a team's record, but a loss would. Therefore, there's no reward for scheduling such cupcakes - only risk. It won't stop the bullies from scheduling "tune up scrimmage games" like this, but it might take away some of the motivation to do so. – DougThis isn't a bad suggestion, at first glance. I still don't understand the need to grab teams from another entire division, but I agree with Fiutak that teams would be best served with some kind of warmup game that didn't count for anything instead of early-season losses when strong and weak teams are on more equal footing costing a great team more than they should when the polls come out.
A: For everyone’s sake and for the betterment of the game, I have a different solution. Every D-I team should get one home game that doesn't count against a D-IAA team on the last weekend in August. This does two things: 1) it gives every team a tune up game. Without the preseason like the NFL has, college football teams have to rock from the opening kickoff. The result is sloppy play and uneven teams that aren’t nearly as good as the are a few weeks later. Wouldn’t you rather see Miami play Florida State in the middle of October than on opening day? If teams don’t want to risk injury, they can play their backups and develop some depth. 2) It’s an easy payday for the schools making the athletic directors happy. After that one home game, there are no more D-IAA games on the schedule.
Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 06:20PM In his new blog (premium content) on ESPN.com, Bruce Feldman had a brief discussion about the running and throwing abilities of Texas quarterback Vincent Young.
Feldman says he is on Young's bandwagon, noting the obvious athletic
skills, but hits on something I'd like to discuss a little more.
However this Dallas Morning News writer says it's time the rest of us acknowledge what Young and his coach Mack Brown are asserting: Young can throw the football, too. Actually, it's not time just yet. Spring drills don't prove that. And while he may have a better completion rate (59%) than Major Applewhite and Chris Simms had, Young's 12-11 TD-INT rate is downright mediocre. Good passers usually operate at a two or three-to-one clip.
Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 06:09PM As always, the SportsLawBlog has a terrific write-up on the situation.
The gist-
The NCAA has a tough task in regulating amateur, intercollegiate
athletics,but its tendency to strictly rely on its often contradictory
rules has hurt athletes (see Jeremy Bloom, Mike Williams). And
now its own employees could not keep up with the changing bylaws,
creating the loophole through which coach Neuheisel escaped, costing
the NCAA $2.5 million dollars.
In the end Neuheisel claims he was vindicated, but he escaped on a
technicality, as the NCAA argued in its letter published yesterday (and
reproduced on CollegeFootballResource).
But the NCAA also got a taste of its own medicine, so the author is
somewhat unsympathetic to their having to pay for their slipup.
The people most hurt by the situation are the athletes and fans of
the "once proud" UW football program, who suffered through a 1-10
season last year, as well as the smoldering mess in Neuheisel's wake at
Washington and Colorado, both under heavy investigation and sanction
from the NCAA and suffering on the field.
Great, great read.
Monday, March 7, 2005 at 08:40PM I guess this means Neuheisel won?
Here's the USA Today story. This thing is wrong on so many accounts, not just coach Neuheisel, but the UW and the NCAA.
Some noteworthy sections of the story-
"I feel fully vindicated," Neuheisel said outside the courtroom. "Obviously they're going to have their stories, too, but I feel like this is the best scenario. Nobody's nose gets bloodied.""The legal system works," he added. "The players got together and found an amicable resolution. I'm thrilled to be moving on."
There's more...
Last week, [Trial Judge Michael] Spearman left open the possibility of declaring a mistrial because the NCAA had failed to provide Neuheisel's legal team with an updated version of its bylaws during discovery. In a statement Monday, the university said it agreed to settle because a mistrial could be declared. The updated bylaws seem to bolster Neuheisel's argument that NCAA investigators acted improperly when they failed to tell him in advance that they planned to question him regarding his gambling.
It appears the case could have gone either way until the last-minute NCAA bylaws thing prompted a settlement in Neuheisel's favor.
Here is the NCAA's release concerning the situation-
Myles Brand Statement Regarding Settlement Agreement with Rick NeuheiselFor Immediate Release
Monday, March 7,2005
ContactWallace I. Renfro
Senior Advisor to the President
317/917-6339 (office)
317/966-6503 (cell)
317/917-6117 (public and media relations main line)“The NCAA has agreed to a settlement in the lawsuit brought against the Association by former University of Washington head football coach Rick Neuheisel. The settlement is in the amount of $2.5 million and includes Mr. Neuheisel’s attorney’s fees and costs.
“One of the issues in the lawsuit was the meaning of NCAA Bylaw 32.3.7 (Disclosure of Purpose of Interview). Editorial revisions to the bylaw were adopted effective approximately six weeks before Mr. Neuheisel was interviewed in June 2003. The NCAA's interpretation of Bylaw 32.3.7 is that the disclosures required by the bylaw may be made at any time before the staff asks questions of an interviewee. Moreover, the disclosures required do not include a disclosure of the specific NCAA bylaw that the interviewee may have violated. In the NCAA's view, a broader reading of the bylaw is contrary to the intent of the drafters of the bylaw, and inconsistent with the language and purpose of the bylaw.
“The settlement in this case is the result of restrictions placed on the NCAA by the court about how the Association could explain the bylaw and defend its rightful interpretation.
“I have complete confidence that the NCAA enforcement staff acted properly and in compliance with NCAA bylaws with regard to Mr. Neuheisel's interviews. Even so, an independent examination of procedures and processes employed by the national office staff to implement NCAA bylaws will be expanded to review this specific instance. In addition, the Association’s general counsel is reviewing all enforcement interviews subsequent to April 2003, where ethical-conduct concerns were being addressed and where the same interpretation was applied. The Association's member institutions hold themselves and their employees to a high standard of compliance with NCAA bylaws, and the NCAA staff will continue to hold itself to the same high standard.”
Monday, March 7, 2005 at 08:26PM Elizabeth Hoffman, the president of the University of Colorado-Boulder, has resigned.
There were several issues at work here, but clearly the football
sex/booze/prostitutes recruiting scandal and very recent sexual abuse
allegations had a major impact.
Below is the text of her letter of resignation-
To the Board of Regents:
I have spoken many times about my view of principled leadership. It has become clear to me that, amid the serious matters the University of Colorado now confronts, my role as the leader of the University has become an issue. It appears to me it is in the University's best interest that I remove the issue of my future from the debate so that nothing inhibits CU's ability to successfully create the bright future it so deserves.
Therefore, I intend to resign my position as President of the University of Colorado effective June 30, 2005 or whenever the Board names a successor.
This decision enables me to continue to be an advocate for quality public higher education in the State of Colorado and to work even more closely with the Board to resolve the very serious budget matters currently before the state legislature, to resolve the Ward Churchill matter, and to attend to the pending Title IX trial. It further enables us to oversee the first full year of the reforms we implemented regarding the Athletics Department, football recruiting and our alcohol and sexual conduct programs. It also provides time for the Regents and the University to make as orderly and seamless a leadership transition as possible.
I do not take this step lightly or hastily. I love CU. I have given it my heart and soul these past five years. I deeply appreciate the enormous support and assistance I have received from the students, faculty, administrators, legislature and the larger CU community.
The controversies we have confronted in the past year have helped clarify a set of values and principles I think are vitally important for the University's future. They are values and principles I personally hold dear. They include:
To that end, the larger CU agenda is quite clear, and I urge the Regents and my successors to continue to pursue it vigorously. It requires ensuring the financial health of the University; creating and maintaining an environment that is welcoming, tolerant and supportive of all students; stimulating learning, academic excellence and increasing the number of areas in which CU is a true academic leader; maintaining the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior; and rebuilding CU's reputation as the outstanding university that it is.
It has been my honor and privilege to serve as President of the University of Colorado. We have accomplished great things, the controversies of the past year notwithstanding. Among them are the creation of the Coleman Institute and the molecular biotechnology initiative, the rapid growth of the Fitzsimons campus, gaining enterprise status for CU and all of higher education, consolidation of the Denver and Health Sciences campuses, strengthening the future of the Colorado Springs campus, and creating one of the most productive technology transfer programs in the country. During that time, two faculty members have won Nobel Prizes, four have been awarded MacArthur Genius Awards, and annual research productivity has increased by $100 million.
Of these achievements we should all be proud.
I thank you deeply for your past support, and wish CU nothing but the best and brightest future.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hoffman
Sunday, March 6, 2005 at 10:34AM It's early, but we're already getting excited about the upcoming
college football season. The time leading up to that starting
point is a fairly lengthy, but simple process, marked by several key
events.
Right now we have just survived the important but overhyped NFL
combine, and spring practices have begun for about half the
schools. Those will continue for about a month, abating in time
for the less publicized summer workouts, when many recruits are
eligible to work out with their teammates.
Around that time a ridiculous slew of preview magazines are published,
followed by the fall practices and then the season. There are
some events we are forgetting, but for the most part this is the
process.
Of particular interest to us at this time is the annual hype fest
generated by the preview magazines. Like many college football
fans, we'll head to the newsstands, or our nearby bookstore, and browse
the magazines. But we feel its important to note that they aren't
what they're cracked up to be.
By all means, spend your money and enjoy the magazines, but simply do
not take much stock in their predictions. Over the years its
become apparent that the preseason rankings by the magazines simply
don't rely on any kind of consistent, systematic methodology.
There's no doubt that the magazine editors and writers sit down and
excrutiatingly go about finding a way to most accurately predict their
top 25 for that given year, but at the same time, they really haven't
done so well over the years, or uncovered better ways to do it.
There might be a better way. The magazines simply haven't found it.
Instead, much of their material discusses team stories, which are great
to read, but light on the analysis. If there is analysis, it's
often focused on the marginally useful roster and coaching
changes. They often follow a simple pattern. So and so
fired X bad coached and replaced with Y coach. Y coach is a
retread, team must be stagnant. Y coach is a fresh face, team
will improve. Y coach is moving up in the college ranks, team
will be a contender. You get the picture.
Or, the discussion will revolve around a quarterback battle or a switch
from a graduating star at tailback to a trio of newcomers. All of
this is interesting, and somewhat important, but we have come to
realize it fails to really give a good picture of what the team is
going to be like the following year.
This is not a dismissal of those critical bits of information. We
ourselves consider those same things when trying to gauge the outcome
of the upcoming season. There are other ways to think about
college football on field success, though, and we hope that some of the
models and ideas we currently follow here at CollegeFootballResource can give a BETTER picture of what will happen.
Please don't read this as arrogant, but simply critical of the
process. I personally had an enlightenment of sorts a few years
ago, running into a few friends who have an understanding of the game,
and the whole college football thing, a lot more advanced than my
own. I've tried very hard to learn from them, and test their own
models and thoughts, and incorporate them into my own style. So
far they have been much more accurate and if nothing else, more
informative, in the sense that I actually understand now, much of the
time, why such an event occurs.
Prediction will always be a crap shoot, but even there, these folks
have found something closer to the ideal. We're not always
perfect, not even close. A lot of what I've taken from them has
collapsed. But its also led to further analysis and improvement
of the ideas and models, something that simply doesn't happen in the
preseason magazine world, or the college football analyst world, for
that matter.
Right now I am hoping that when it comes to "prediction time," the
things I believe in will have a greater reliability and sound reasoning
than what most fans take as analysis.
So, what exactly am I talking about? Well, in simple terms, sophistication/coaching, and talent.
The preseason magazines themselves, and much of the overall college
football analysis, follows various simple talent models. We do,
too, but in a different way. For a while I used to think talent
would be an overriding factor in games, and in how rosters themselves
were made up. The model worked in some ways, and completely
failed in others. But we can take a larger concept from it---overriding talent.
For example, let's say Washington State played Miami in a game.
All things being equal (a risky assumption, but let's use it for the
model), Washington State is going to get absolutely waxed by the
Hurricanes. This is an overriding talent example. But if
LSU plays Auburn, or Michigan plays Tennessee or USC plays Oklahoma, in
theory these teams are all but equals, in talent. Nobody has an
overriding edge. Yet some of these games are going to be
ridiculously lopsided, such as USC/Oklahoma or Michigan/Tennessee.
Why is that?
Sophistication.
We can actually call this sophistication/coaching, but the idea is
this---college football, unlike the NFL, has a huge gap in coaching
aptitude. College coaches fall into many categories, such as
offensive-minded, defensive-minded, sophisticated, old ball coach,
etc. They all follow different styles and implement various
offensive and defensive schemes. Each model a coach uses or can
be labeled by, has its advantages and disadvantages. But the more
sophisticated the model, the greater the chance for success.
On-field intelligence, like overriding talent, is a very relevant
factor in the outcome of games.
That is why we weren't the least bit shocked when USC breezed past
Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl. The reason was sophistication.
Both teams were relative equals in on-field talent, but most analysts
were only able to grasp their talent models and find ways within that
model to give a slight edge to USC, or more often, Oklahoma. But
there was more to the situation than that.
The offensive and defensive packages USC ran were well ahead of what
Oklahoma had been running, or witnessed, in quite a few years.
The variety of looks, formations, and styles on both offense and
defense provided USC the luxury of confusing the hell out of Oklahoma's
players, and to a lesser extent, its coaches. If the game were
replayed ten times, the outcome would be eerily similar each
time. Talent had simply been neutralized in the matchup and
sophistication took over.
That is why in my post-season top 10 list I had 5 high-IQ teams, all on the offensive side of the ball (USC, Utah, Louisville, California, Boise State), in the top 10.
Obviously there are several other factors at work, but these tend to
dominate. Most matchups don't have vary large gaps of talent or
sophistication between teams, so prediction becomes murkier and we have
to look to less reliable factors, but for the most part this model is
holding up well.
One example where on the surface it doesn't is the Cal/Texas Tech
matchup. I had wrongly assumed before the game California, with
its incredible offense, would coast past the Red Raiders. But I
had forgotten another fairly important sub-category of this
model---familiarity.
These teams on paper had similar talent, with a slight edge to
California (Aaron Rodgers and J.J. Arrington are clearly stars), but in
sophistication California has TCBO, The Country's Best Offense. I
gave them a fairly large nod over the Red Raiders, because Texas Tech
had a sophisticated, but gimmicky offense. I tend to look down on
gimmick offenses, but in situations like this, I really shouldn't.
For several years now Texas Tech's offense has become increasingly less
potent within its own conference. Even the weaker defensive teams
within the Big 12 are now picking up much of what they are doing, and,
having played Tech several years running, can adjust much easier to
their schemes. This overall downgrade in the Tech offense had
little bearing, though, outside of its own conference, except against
teams who have faced similar offenses. Cal wasn't one of
them. Although Cal plays in the high-sophistication Pac-10, most
Pac-10 offenses are not gimmicky, and run a lot of pro formations and
looks. Although both Tech's offensive style and the Pac-10
offenses are similar in potency, they simply do not look the same once
you're on the field.
I have since lost the quote, but California's safety, after the game,
was quoted as saying something similar to "we practiced for a month
against that kind of offense, and then we hit the field and just had no
clue how to stop it". This, in a nutshell, is familiarity.
You can watch something on film, and practice against something roughly
similar to it, but unless you have seen it in a game at least once, if
not many more times, you simply cannot adequately prepare for it.
This was a factor in the USC/Oklahoma game, I might add, hurting the
Sooners' chances, since Oklahoma's offense especially was so low-tech
compared to what USC's defense had been facing.
An analogy about familiarity one of my football smart friends likes to
make is actually a basketball analogy. Say, for example, you're
on a basketball team that plays man-to-man, and has a lot of
talent. You've run that one style for years, and have figured out
how to play it on defense and beat it on offense. You're doing
great. Even better, all your opponents run roughly the same
man-to-man style. You are familiar with it to the point where
with your talent you can overcome your similar opponents.
But then you get into a tournament and your upcoming opponent is a
highly skilled zone team. They have run zone for years, but play
in a mixed league, so they have an understanding of how to play against
your man style, and also can stick to their own zone style. Well,
you can go and practice all you want against a dummy zone style, but it
simply won't prepare you for what will happen on the court against that
technically proficient zone team who also happens to be familiar with
what you are doing. The outcome, barring some other factors, is
predictable well in advance, and against your favor. The zone
team will simply crush your team.
Same thing is at work here. California's offense had some aspects
that Texas Tech had some familiarity with, but California simply had no
idea how to stop a low-talent but confusing team like Texas Tech.
One additional factor at work was Cal's loss of basically the entire WR
corps. Their back, J.J. Arrington had a fine game, and the Bears
had scored around 28 legitemate points, a low output,but nothing
frightening. Unfortunately, they had lost all 3 of their capable
WR's, two of them just before the game. The new guys were
dropping a ton of balls and looked lost against Tech's secondary, one
who had practiced all year against 5 WR fronts and some intricate
offensive packages. That last factor pushed the game from a close
nod to the Red Raiders, to the blowout that we saw on TV.
Hopefully by now you can get an idea of what I personally look at right
now, at least in terms of matchups. The model also applies for
predictions, as well, because the ideas have their effects on the
field. We haven't gotten into the nitty-gritty because that's an
ever-evolving part of the game. I would love to say that LSU's
new coach Les Miles will be a flop because he runs a 1-dimensional
offense and that will get chewed up by some of the suddenly
sophisticated SEC offenses that are coming in with the other new
coaching hires. But I don't know that. Miles may have run
that 1-trick-pony excellent run offense at Oklahoma State out of
necessity, despite having a balanced offensive background. We'll
find out soon enough, but that's where things get murky. And
that's where we get to have some fun.
The bigger picture here is that something along the lines of what I've
just presented is way beyond what is normally taken as "expert"
analysis by the preseason magazines and prognosticators out
there. So far, in my eyes, its proven closer to the truth.
There are many gaps in it, as there are in any model, since its very
difficult to have a scenario that can accurately account for all 117 or
so D-1 programs, let alone be aware of what each one is doing within
that model. But we try, and we'll be all the more accurate for
it. So if accuracy and truth are what you are after, know that
some of us are out there with a better idea of what that really is,
warts and all. So keep buying those magazines, for entertainment
purposes, as we ourselves do, but not for prognostication.
Sunday, March 6, 2005 at 10:03AM We praise Ohio State for their new athletic director hire, Gene Smith,
formerly the AD at Arizona State. We don't know a lot about him,
but ASU has a terrific overall athletics tradition, remaining
competitive in the Sears Cup standings alongside Pac-10 powers
Stanford, UCLA and USC, as well as in-state rival Arizona.
As noted below, Smith's "operating budget" jumps from $34 million to $80 million.
As an aside, we'll document his salary since it is apparently public
information. It's interesting to track salaries over the years,
both for coaches and AD's, to note the increasing demand for
high-profile candidates and what they get paid relative to their
era. It's something to look back to.
Here's an exerpt from the report at BuckeyeSports.com-
Smith accepted an offer for a seven-year contract with an option for a three-year extension after 24 months in the position. His initial base salary will be $450,000 with annual incentives of up to $75,000 for achieving athletic performance goals and up to $50,000 for achieving academic performance goals. An additional total sum of $350,000 will be contributed by Ohio State to a deferred compensation plan that will vest, along with any accrued earning, seven years after the initial date of employment, which will be April 15
Another article we ran across also said former Buckeye AD Andy Geiger was paid $250,000 annually.
Salary information is a lot easier to find among public universities, because by most if not all state laws they must disclose practically any expenditures. They are responsible to the public, and in turn, their "private" information isn't so private. At least not compared to private colleges who can be more secretive about salaries. Hence, nobody knows for sure what Pete Carroll is making, although it's rumored in the $3 million range, or how well Miami compensates its coaches and athletic director.
Coaches,
General,
Intelligence,
Legal,
Teams
Saturday, March 5, 2005 at 10:52PM As noted earlier, we may not get too involved in the goings-on of
spring practices around the country. Its a vitally important time
for the programs, but its a bit much to cover on here.
That said, we recommend stopping by CSTV's college football
stories section, as several programs' releases on spring practice, such
as previews, dates, interviews and whatnot are posted daily. You
can get a good idea of what several programs are doing.
General
Saturday, March 5, 2005 at 10:44PM The 2004 Holiday Bowl made a record payout this year, awarding identical $2,044,988 payments to California and Texas Tech.
This is the fifth consecutive year the Holiday Bowl has paid the participating teams at least $2 million. The Holiday Bowl's team payout ranks ninth-largest of the 28 bowls

