As loyal readers know, I spent about four years pushing for the very four-team playoff that college football finally adopted this summer. I'm still eagerly looking forward to it in 2014. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel a brief moment of buyer's remorse last Saturday night around the time Stanford's Jordan Williamson lined up for that game-winning kick against Oregon.
No system where the coaches can vote for their own teams to reach the championship game is working splendidly. But yes, when BCS defenders talk about protecting the regular season, it's nights like last Saturday they have in mind. Proponents of a full-fledged playoff love mocking that talking point, but you can't tell me you would have been on the edge of your seat flipping between those two brewing upsets if the stakes were along the lines of, "Uh oh, Oregon may lose home-field advantage in the first round." The fact that nothing short of the national championship was at stake is what made those games so riveting. A playoff will be far more exciting than the current postseason, but the regular season is going to lose those peaks in drama. That's just reality.
Now here's why I'm fine with that tradeoff if we're getting a four-team playoff: Have you noticed that later in the season, the number of must-see games drastically decreases? In September and October, it was a fairly big deal any time a top-10 team went down. By early November, our focus had narrowed to just four teams (Alabama, Oregon, Kansas State and Notre Dame). Now this week, there is really only one game the entire country cares about (Notre Dame-USC). Even Ohio State-Michigan, which in any other year would be the game of the week given the Buckeyes' 11-0 record, isn't garnering much buzz due to the lack of BCS implications. And just think, if the Irish do win this week, thereby clinching one of the two spots in Miami, next week will truly be about one game: the SEC championship. By expanding the field by two teams, more late-season games will carry greater consequences -- even if one stunning upset may not mean what it used to.
Meanwhile, the more I contemplate the new system, the more I think that the biggest upgrade isn't the expanded field as much as the advent of the selection committee. The sport has been defined by the polls for so long that we now take certain things for granted. For example, we've come to accept that the undefeated teams rank ahead of the one-loss teams, and that the one-loss teams rank ahead of the two-loss teams. Among each group, the order generally goes by which team lost least recently.
Case in point: Alabama was ranked one spot higher than Oregon when it lost at home to 7-2 Texas A&M. Why are the Ducks now three spots behind the Tide despite suffering an almost identical close loss to 8-2 Stanford? With a selection committee, there is no preexisting order or conventions. Who teams lost to will trump when they lost. And if the committee feels, say, 10-2 Texas A&M is more deserving than 11-1 Kansas State, so be it. Give us the four best teams, not the four best records.
So yes, there are elements of the current system I will miss. But I'm embracing the change. And as most of you know, I don't always embrace change.
So the conference has a chance to make oodles of money -- but at what cost? Expansion isn't improving the league's football product, and it's chipping away at the regional charm that attracted many of its fans in the first place. All of these conferences are gambling that their fans will remain uber-loyal no matter how many rivalries and road trips are taken away.
The traditional notion of conferences as regional groupings of like-minded schools that fans look forward to facing every year is history. Leagues are now basically branded bundles of television packages. They're coalitions, not true conferences, much like the AFC and NFC. In the NFL, except for a few rivalries like Bears-Packers and Cowboys-Giants, a team's actual schedule of 16 games makes almost no impact on fan interest. A Bengals fan is going to watch the Bengals on Sunday whether they're facing the Browns or the Chargers. And that's the type of mindset that's surfacing in college football. If you're a Wisconsin fan, you're going to see Michigan some years, but you're going to see Rutgers every year -- and you're going to like it. So what if you've been in the same conference with LSU since 1896, Georgia fans? You're playing Missouri now. We'll get you a couple of LSU games next decade.
I think all of this is an absolute shame, but it's too soon to know whether the leagues will come to regret it. College fans have been pretty accepting of the changes to date, no matter their initial reaction. I do think there will come a point of resistance; we'll find out down the road whether they've hit it or not.
Based on the amount of e-mails I got like these (and there were a
Now, it may be that the Pac-12 only gets a second BCS berth if Notre Dame wins this weekend. In my projections, Notre Dame, the SEC, the Big 12 and the Pac-12 claim the four at-large spots. The Fiesta Bowl has first choice of at-large teams. If the Irish go to the national championship game, they're off the table; the Sugar gets first dibs to replace the SEC champion, and the game's not going to pit Big 12 against Big 12. So by default, it's going to take a Pac-12 team, even if that's 9-3 Stanford.
However, if the Irish lose, they're going to the Fiesta Bowl. At that point, the national title game may features two SEC teams, and the Sugar Bowl would more likely pit the Big 12 against 11-1 or 10-2 Clemson than take a West Coast team.
And oh, by the way, I wound up picking Stanford to beat UCLA in the
Seriously. You'd be surprised how much respect a team can gain by winning all of its games -- including against a pair of top-15 teams -- and by fielding arguably the nation's top defense. The most amazing stat of the entire season may be this: On 105 drives that started at or inside their opponent's 40-yard line, Notre Dame has allowed one touchdown -- in the opener against Navy.
A hearty to salute to you, Fighting Irish defenders.
Really? We're still playing this game?
I don't normally bite on poll conspiracy questions, but I think there's some truth to this one. Mind you, the Tigers' biggest problem is the ACC's mediocrity. They don't get the bump they might have received in the past for beating Virginia Tech or Georgia Tech. Games against Wake Forest or Maryland are not even going to get noticed. In fact, even last weekend's 62-point outburst against NC State failed to garner any buzz (perhaps giving up 48 points contributed to that). But it's almost as if pollsters are still holding last year's Orange Bowl debacle against Clemson. They're leery of buying in again like they did a year ago, when the Tigers spent much of the season ranked in the top 10. Of course, this may all be moot by Saturday. A win over top-10 foe South Carolina will boost their credibility, and a loss will reinforce how people already feel about them.
But let's talk about Boyd for a second. Last week against NC State, he notched 493 yards of offense and eight total touchdowns (five passing, three rushing). That's a bit Manziel-ian, don't you think? Boyd is first nationally in points responsible for (250), second in pass efficiency (172.7) and seventh in total offense (348.5 yards per game), respectively. I had him on my ballot for Davey O'Brien semifinalist (along with Manziel and Collin Klein), but he missed the cut in favor of Ohio State's Braxton Miller, who ranks 34th in total offense and 49th in pass efficiency. So yes, I'm a bit puzzled. It's as if Clemson and Boyd are playing football in the Bermuda Triangle.
But like I said, all of the Tigers' perceptions issues are likely to change if they beat South Carolina.
So you're sending a question about raging Tennessee man crush Jon Gruden from Knoxville ... Iowa? Mind blown. (Yes, it does exist. I checked. Population: 7,313.)
Anyway, it's a great question, very similar to
As for getting him, or any new coach to come to Iowa. ... good luck with that. Ask whatever lawyers Maryland is employing to circumvent the ACC's $50 million exit fee if they can find a way around Kirk Ferentz's
Congratulations, Stanford, you've arrived. Your fans are finally writing angry e-mails to sportswriters.
I concur. Hazell's accomplishments in just two years at Kent State are remarkable. And his name is already being thrown around -- but I wonder if it's too soon. We see this trend more frequently in basketball than football, but athletic directors have a propensity for jumping on a hot mid-major coach before he's been there long enough to truly know whether he can build and maintain a program. Hazell is just one of several MAC coaches likely to get a look in the coming weeks, along with Northern Illinois' Dave Doeren, Ball State's Pete Lembo and Bowling Green's Dave Clawson. All are having success, and all but Clawson have been FBS head coaches for just two years.
There's no magic formula for figuring out which mid-major coaches will succeed at a high-level program. Utah plucked a young Urban Meyer after just two years at Bowling Green and looked incredibly smart for doing so. Illinois hired Tim Beckman after three years at Toledo and is likely having buyer's remorse right now. Cincinnati snagged Brian Kelly after three years at Central Michigan, while Kansas hired Turner Gill after four years (and one good season) at Buffalo. Still, the safest bet of the bunch might be Lembo. While he's coached just two years at Ball State (improving the Cardinals from 4-8 to 6-6 to 8-3), he spent 10 years before that at two FCS programs, Lehigh and Elon, taking both to the playoffs. Clawson has a similar background, leading Fordham and Richmond to the playoffs.
Hazell took a different route, working as an assistant for Greg Schiano at Rutgers and Jim Tressel at Ohio State, so he may in fact be perfectly groomed for a Big Ten-level job. But you can't gleam that from one great season.
Yes, these two e-mails were in response to the same column. My work is done here.
Have a happy Thanksgiving.