This is not very surprising. The Mountain West Conference had to sign this deal, there was no way around it. If they didn't, then it would have spelled the end of the MWC in competitive terms. They had absolutely no choice.
I've heard and read a number of comments that the MWC sold out and lacked the determination to make a stand. I assume that virtually all of these comments are coming from someone who doesn't have much of an interest in the competitive nature of the MWC schools. Easy to make that claim when it wouldn't be your team that is sent to obscurity while losing recruiting avenues and financial revenue that it currently enjoys.
I've also seen some comments, particularly by Graham Watson at ESPN, that now that the MWC has agreed to this system, that it cannot complain about it. That is a rediculous statement. Can't complain about a totally unfair agreement that the MWC is forced into for competitive reasons? Can't complain about an agreement that they have no choice but to sign or wallow in absolute obscurity? Can't complain about an agreement that offers little to no chance at change, but gives the only chance for recognition? Can't complain about a patently unfair system that makes the lower conferences chances of ever becoming competitive nearly a pipe dream? Absolutely they can complain about the contract. As an attorney, I deal with contract complaints all the time and sometimes those complaints really do help one of the parties out with renegotiating or restructuring of a contract. I think they should continue to complain about it, but they have to take what is offered for now.
This is not some type of negotiated agreement. This is the BCS conferences saying that they will give out some scraps to keep the other conferences placated and they offered all the terms. No discussion allowed. Though it is painful to see that this will last another 5 years, it is still the right decision.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Would a college football playoff devalue the regular season?
One of the main arguments against a college football playoff is related to the devaluation of the regular season. It comes up consistently and regularly. It also has some merit. I emphasise the word some. However, it would also increase the value of the regular season more than it would devalue it. Granted an 8 team playoff and a 16 team playoff would have different impacts, but for the reasons listed in my previous post, I'm going to focus on a 16 team playoff.
Lets take a look at the 2008 football season. We now have to figure out what would have been devalued. Next I'll review what would have stayed the same in importance. Then I'll take a look at what would have been upgraded.
Devalued--to be a devalued game, it would have to be between teams that were guaranteed to get into the playoff, or with one team with a guarantee in and didn't have much to play for. The other reason I've seen for devaluing a game is that each game doesn't matter as much because each team can lose a game or two. However, while a team from a big conference could likely lose one game and still get in, how is that different from now? A team with one loss has gotten into the championship game in more than half of the BCS years.
Under a 16 team playoff, only two or maybe three teams could get in as an at large with more than one loss. Last year only Ohio State and TCU, whose four combined losses were all to top 10 teams, would have made it. Also, 2 loss teams, even in big conferences, could easily be left out. Another factor is that seeding will be so crucially important that every team will be highly motivated to will every game. Every two loss team will almost certainly be the lower seed in a first round matchup.
And if a team does lose a game, then the rest of the season becomes even more important because they cannot afford to lose again. The lower seed would also be key because if there was a 16 team playoff there would also most likely be home field for the higher seed.
Games that would have been devalued:
1. SEC Championship game--Both teams would have gotten a bid into a 16 team playoff. The game would have only been for seeding and SEC bragging rights. This game would have certainly lost some luster. It is likely that the SEC would get both teams in more often than not regardless of the outcome of the game.
2. Probably the big 12 title game. Oklahoma would have been in at this point, but Missouri would have been fighting for their lives to get in. Very big game for Missou, but less importance for Ok because they would have been a virtual lock. The game probably looses some luster because Ok was playing for more and Missou was still highly motivated.
There will be some years that both the North and South champs will warrant an at large bid, those years the championship game could be considered to lose even more value.
3. Probably any Pac-10 game for USC before its loss to OSU. Since USC will essentially get a mulligan with a playoff, they won't have as much to worry about before a loss so the luster may drop a bit. Not a ton though because USC would be so heavily favored in just about every pac-10 game for the near future, so the games collectively don't hold a lot of interest already unless an upset begins to look likely.
4. Late season conference games between two locks. These types of games don't happen that often, but will happen occasionally. Last season, outside of the SEC conference championship game there were only two games from November on that would have included teams that both would have made the playoffs. OK vs Texas Tech and Utah vs TCU. And having gone to the Utah TCU game, there is no way that game would have been any less exciting and important if both teams still had a chance to make the playoffs, both teams would not have any certainty with a loss. Especially since both had additional games against decent opponents. The Ok-Tech game also would have been huge because it would have been the second loss Ok and Tech was seeking a number one spot. However, because both teams would still have a very good chance at making the playoff, the game would have probably lost some of its importance.
Same amount of value/excitement--These types of games will not change in intensity regardless of the playoff structure.
1. Rivalry games that have no postseason implications. Rivalry games are just so huge and it isn't just because of the post season. Some of the most exciting games are for nothing more than bragging rights.
2. Early season big non conference games. I'll use USC-Ohio State as an example. This game is early enough that it already had limited impact on the national title picture. Either team could have run the table after losing that game and still had a shot at the national title depending on the other factors that the BCS takes into account such as schedule strength, poll placement and other teams performance. A playoff wouldn't change this as the impact would also be marginalized in a similar manner to what it is already.
3. Early and mid season conference games between likely playoff contenders. These games will really determine who gets to go to a playoff. The intensity shouldn't change much.
Increased excitement--These games would have to be games that would have an increased importance during the season and a greater impact on the postseason. There would be a lot of those games.
1. Every other conference championship game. Right now the championship games in the non bcs conferences really don't hold a lot of excitement or importance nationally. This would immediately change and would have a lot of interest nationally, especially from schools that are expecting to play one of the lower seeded champs. The games themselves would have a lot of intensity because they know they are going to the big stage.
2. Any conference game from non bcs conferences where a conference contender is playing. Since any conference losses will hurt or kill a chance at an autobid, every conference that only expects an autobid will have huge meaning for the top teams in the conference. Those conferences could expect to have a much increased excitement and intensity in their own fans and regions for the teams that are competing for a berth.
3. Games involving top teams that have suffered a loss. This really would effect USC more than anyone. Last year the OSU loss was huge because they were essentially done for the chance at a championship due to schedule strength. Now, they could not suffer a second loss or they would have been out. Every game would have been huge.
4. Any game involving borderline playoff teams for the last couple months of the season. The following games all would have had a large impact on the postseason outcome where a loss by the playoff contender most often would have put them out of the running: Texas Tech-Baylor, USC-UCLA, USC-Cal, Ok-Ok St, Ohio State-Michigan, Penn St-Michigan State, Air Force-TCU, Utah-TCU, and Utah-BYU. I imagine that there are additional games that I missed, but the ones listed all would have increased in the national importance. It seems that the collective interest could easily increase rather than decrease nationwide due to the increased number of important games. A loss at this point and you are out.
So there you have it, while the argument for a loss of importance of the regular season has some merit, it would be overshadowed by the increased importance of games in other areas. College football would become even more watched, more interesting, and more fun for all of the schools that play D-1 football.
Winning a championship for the nonbcs schools is not nearly as important as the chance to win one. Revenues would increase across the board and the smaller schools would finally have the opportunity to go toe to toe regularly with the big boys. It would provide an avenue for schools and conferences to build in importance, tradition, and revenue. I firmly believe that a 16 team playoff would be amazing and only good for college football. There remains a couple of other issues including logistics and fan travel that would certainly be issues, but they could be worked out in a way that would mainly satisfy everyone, but those are issues for another post.
Lets take a look at the 2008 football season. We now have to figure out what would have been devalued. Next I'll review what would have stayed the same in importance. Then I'll take a look at what would have been upgraded.
Devalued--to be a devalued game, it would have to be between teams that were guaranteed to get into the playoff, or with one team with a guarantee in and didn't have much to play for. The other reason I've seen for devaluing a game is that each game doesn't matter as much because each team can lose a game or two. However, while a team from a big conference could likely lose one game and still get in, how is that different from now? A team with one loss has gotten into the championship game in more than half of the BCS years.
Under a 16 team playoff, only two or maybe three teams could get in as an at large with more than one loss. Last year only Ohio State and TCU, whose four combined losses were all to top 10 teams, would have made it. Also, 2 loss teams, even in big conferences, could easily be left out. Another factor is that seeding will be so crucially important that every team will be highly motivated to will every game. Every two loss team will almost certainly be the lower seed in a first round matchup.
And if a team does lose a game, then the rest of the season becomes even more important because they cannot afford to lose again. The lower seed would also be key because if there was a 16 team playoff there would also most likely be home field for the higher seed.
Games that would have been devalued:
1. SEC Championship game--Both teams would have gotten a bid into a 16 team playoff. The game would have only been for seeding and SEC bragging rights. This game would have certainly lost some luster. It is likely that the SEC would get both teams in more often than not regardless of the outcome of the game.
2. Probably the big 12 title game. Oklahoma would have been in at this point, but Missouri would have been fighting for their lives to get in. Very big game for Missou, but less importance for Ok because they would have been a virtual lock. The game probably looses some luster because Ok was playing for more and Missou was still highly motivated.
There will be some years that both the North and South champs will warrant an at large bid, those years the championship game could be considered to lose even more value.
3. Probably any Pac-10 game for USC before its loss to OSU. Since USC will essentially get a mulligan with a playoff, they won't have as much to worry about before a loss so the luster may drop a bit. Not a ton though because USC would be so heavily favored in just about every pac-10 game for the near future, so the games collectively don't hold a lot of interest already unless an upset begins to look likely.
4. Late season conference games between two locks. These types of games don't happen that often, but will happen occasionally. Last season, outside of the SEC conference championship game there were only two games from November on that would have included teams that both would have made the playoffs. OK vs Texas Tech and Utah vs TCU. And having gone to the Utah TCU game, there is no way that game would have been any less exciting and important if both teams still had a chance to make the playoffs, both teams would not have any certainty with a loss. Especially since both had additional games against decent opponents. The Ok-Tech game also would have been huge because it would have been the second loss Ok and Tech was seeking a number one spot. However, because both teams would still have a very good chance at making the playoff, the game would have probably lost some of its importance.
Same amount of value/excitement--These types of games will not change in intensity regardless of the playoff structure.
1. Rivalry games that have no postseason implications. Rivalry games are just so huge and it isn't just because of the post season. Some of the most exciting games are for nothing more than bragging rights.
2. Early season big non conference games. I'll use USC-Ohio State as an example. This game is early enough that it already had limited impact on the national title picture. Either team could have run the table after losing that game and still had a shot at the national title depending on the other factors that the BCS takes into account such as schedule strength, poll placement and other teams performance. A playoff wouldn't change this as the impact would also be marginalized in a similar manner to what it is already.
3. Early and mid season conference games between likely playoff contenders. These games will really determine who gets to go to a playoff. The intensity shouldn't change much.
Increased excitement--These games would have to be games that would have an increased importance during the season and a greater impact on the postseason. There would be a lot of those games.
1. Every other conference championship game. Right now the championship games in the non bcs conferences really don't hold a lot of excitement or importance nationally. This would immediately change and would have a lot of interest nationally, especially from schools that are expecting to play one of the lower seeded champs. The games themselves would have a lot of intensity because they know they are going to the big stage.
2. Any conference game from non bcs conferences where a conference contender is playing. Since any conference losses will hurt or kill a chance at an autobid, every conference that only expects an autobid will have huge meaning for the top teams in the conference. Those conferences could expect to have a much increased excitement and intensity in their own fans and regions for the teams that are competing for a berth.
3. Games involving top teams that have suffered a loss. This really would effect USC more than anyone. Last year the OSU loss was huge because they were essentially done for the chance at a championship due to schedule strength. Now, they could not suffer a second loss or they would have been out. Every game would have been huge.
4. Any game involving borderline playoff teams for the last couple months of the season. The following games all would have had a large impact on the postseason outcome where a loss by the playoff contender most often would have put them out of the running: Texas Tech-Baylor, USC-UCLA, USC-Cal, Ok-Ok St, Ohio State-Michigan, Penn St-Michigan State, Air Force-TCU, Utah-TCU, and Utah-BYU. I imagine that there are additional games that I missed, but the ones listed all would have increased in the national importance. It seems that the collective interest could easily increase rather than decrease nationwide due to the increased number of important games. A loss at this point and you are out.
So there you have it, while the argument for a loss of importance of the regular season has some merit, it would be overshadowed by the increased importance of games in other areas. College football would become even more watched, more interesting, and more fun for all of the schools that play D-1 football.
Winning a championship for the nonbcs schools is not nearly as important as the chance to win one. Revenues would increase across the board and the smaller schools would finally have the opportunity to go toe to toe regularly with the big boys. It would provide an avenue for schools and conferences to build in importance, tradition, and revenue. I firmly believe that a 16 team playoff would be amazing and only good for college football. There remains a couple of other issues including logistics and fan travel that would certainly be issues, but they could be worked out in a way that would mainly satisfy everyone, but those are issues for another post.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
College football should not go to an 8-team playoff
With all of the possible playoff talk, the majority of the proposals have come in the format of an 8-team playoff. Unfortunately, no one seems to be discussing the problems that go along with an 8-team playoff. This size of playoff will not solve all of college football's postseason ills and it may even exacerbate some of the current problems. I'm going to list several of these problems and discuss each of them. This post won't deal with the general problems against a playoff, just focusing on if a playoff was adopted, why an 8-team playoff would not be the best format.
Problem 1: Who gets invited?
Why this is a problem: The issue as to who gets invited is a serious problem that an 8-team playoff would face. There would be no clear agreement on the format. There are several options that have been discussed and I'll show why they are problematic.
Option 1: BCS style selection. This is the most common option put forth by proponents of an 8-team playoff. 6 AQ conferences put in one team, with two at large positions. Seems great, right? Not if you are in a really good conference or if you are in a non AQ conference. The SEC would really get hurt by this setup and so would the BIG 12. They would have great championship contenders get left in the cold. Not to mention that access to the big game would essentially be cut off from the non big 6 conferences.
There could be a provision allowing a non big 6 to get in if they are ranked high enough, but that team would be blasted because they got in over a supposed worthier opponent. Also, low ranked teams will get bids even though they may be out of the top 15 or possibly even the top 20. It is a tough pill to swallow that some very unworthy teams would get bids, when several more worthy teams would be left in the cold. Last year, all but two of the following teams would have been left out: Texas, Utah, Alabama, Texas Tech, Boise State, TCU and Ohio State. Texas and Alabama would have been the most likely choices, barring a nonBCS provision that would have put Utah in ahead of Alabama or Texas.
Could you imagine the outcry if Alabama (BCS rank 4 after the season) or Texas (BCS rank 3 after the season) was left in the cold? Especially Texas, as they were seen as a team that could have won the NC last year, but they would probably still get in. Alabama would have been the real focus if they got dropped over Virginia Tech, Utah, and Cincinnati, though they had only one loss to the number two ranked BCS team.
There could be the argument that Alabama and Texas had their chance, but lost their games. But then we are right back where we are now because only two teams were undefeated before the postseason, which were Utah and Boise State. So an 8-team playoff wouldn't solve that problem.
If you are really trying to get the best out there to get a national champ, then leaving out one or even two of the top 5 or 6 teams is just plain ridiculous.
Option 2: Top eight teams only. I've seen this offered, but it is nuts to even suggest it. There is no way this gets passed because no conference wants to risk being left in the cold on a down year, while another conference gets multiple bids. This last year the Big 12 would have gotten three bids, SEC two, Pac10 one, MWC one, and the Big 10 one. The Big East and the ACC would have been left out and the Big 10 nearly left out. This will never be possible because not enough conferences would sign off on it.
Option 3: Auto bids for the big 6, unless ranked too low. I could see the cutoff at 16 or so. I like this possibility, but it probably falls into the same problem as Option 2. Conferences don't want to be left out, and this could leave them out. Plus, this would risk cutting out teams that are ranked in the top 4, like the first option, though the risk is lower.
So the three options all have serious flaws with teams that would be very unhappy one way or another.
Problem 2: Reduction of access from the current BCS model. This problem is sort of an extension from the previous problem. Right now 10 teams get to play on the big stage. This allows for the majority of the top tier teams to get in. With a reduction of two teams, there will be a big increase of groups that are unhappy and left out.
Problem 3: Non BCS schools will never achieve equality. This may be a problem that many college football fans really don't care about. However, if you are a fan or member of one of the 54 institutions that do not have an AQ, it is a huge deal. These schools will rarely reach the notoriety of many of the traditional national powerhouses if they are put on a level playing field, but if they are severely cut out of playoff possibilities, then none of them ever will be, unless they get invited to a big 6 conference. Essentially, you have 54 teams all vying for one slot that may or may not even be available to them. Rarely any recruit would choose to go to one of those schools, and fans would either have to accept permanent mediocrity or give up the sport. Schools like Utah, BYU, TCU, and Boise State would struggle even more than they do now to compete with the big programs. The few times that one of these teams makes it to the playoff, they would likely get paired with a very strong conference champ and lose far more often then win, which would further lower the perception of these conferences and teams.
I think that the conference commissioners and the university presidents of the non bcs schools realize this, but are hoping that if they can get an 8-team playoff, that a larger playoff will just be around the corner. Maybe, but who knows.
So what would work for a playoff?
The only model that would truly solve the above problems is a 12 or 16 team playoff. The 16 team playoff in particular would solve all of the problems and the 12 would do fairly well.
In a 16 team playoff, all 11 conferences would get one auto bid, just like in NCAA basketball. Then the remaining five would go to at large, with a selection committee or by BCS standings. No team that does not have a legitimate NC chance would be left out. This last year, the highest team that would have been left out would have been Oklahoma State, which was 1-4 verses ranked teams last year (1-3 during the regular season). So a 16-team playoff would virtually always only eliminate teams that would be unlikely to compete for a championship, would give the non BCS conferences an opportunity to prove themselves, and give college football a very exciting postseason.
In a 12 team playoff, autobids would have to be narrowed. The big six still get them and I would say that at least two need to go to non bcs teams as long as two are ranked in the top 20. Then the rest would be at larges based on ranking. The top four teams get a first round bye. This proposal would have given the non bcs two bids (Utah and Boise State) and TCU would have been the highest ranked team left outside looking in. TCU was a very good team, but a 12 team playoff will leave out teams like them more than a 16 team. Still acceptable to the non bcs schools and works great for the top four teams and top conferences.
Because either a 12 team or 16 team playoff would really work well for college football, they are the only ways to go and if a playoff is started, I believe that eventually we'll end up there. This may be one of the reasons that the big 6 are fighting any playoff form so hard, because they don't want to end up here.
Problem 1: Who gets invited?
Why this is a problem: The issue as to who gets invited is a serious problem that an 8-team playoff would face. There would be no clear agreement on the format. There are several options that have been discussed and I'll show why they are problematic.
Option 1: BCS style selection. This is the most common option put forth by proponents of an 8-team playoff. 6 AQ conferences put in one team, with two at large positions. Seems great, right? Not if you are in a really good conference or if you are in a non AQ conference. The SEC would really get hurt by this setup and so would the BIG 12. They would have great championship contenders get left in the cold. Not to mention that access to the big game would essentially be cut off from the non big 6 conferences.
There could be a provision allowing a non big 6 to get in if they are ranked high enough, but that team would be blasted because they got in over a supposed worthier opponent. Also, low ranked teams will get bids even though they may be out of the top 15 or possibly even the top 20. It is a tough pill to swallow that some very unworthy teams would get bids, when several more worthy teams would be left in the cold. Last year, all but two of the following teams would have been left out: Texas, Utah, Alabama, Texas Tech, Boise State, TCU and Ohio State. Texas and Alabama would have been the most likely choices, barring a nonBCS provision that would have put Utah in ahead of Alabama or Texas.
Could you imagine the outcry if Alabama (BCS rank 4 after the season) or Texas (BCS rank 3 after the season) was left in the cold? Especially Texas, as they were seen as a team that could have won the NC last year, but they would probably still get in. Alabama would have been the real focus if they got dropped over Virginia Tech, Utah, and Cincinnati, though they had only one loss to the number two ranked BCS team.
There could be the argument that Alabama and Texas had their chance, but lost their games. But then we are right back where we are now because only two teams were undefeated before the postseason, which were Utah and Boise State. So an 8-team playoff wouldn't solve that problem.
If you are really trying to get the best out there to get a national champ, then leaving out one or even two of the top 5 or 6 teams is just plain ridiculous.
Option 2: Top eight teams only. I've seen this offered, but it is nuts to even suggest it. There is no way this gets passed because no conference wants to risk being left in the cold on a down year, while another conference gets multiple bids. This last year the Big 12 would have gotten three bids, SEC two, Pac10 one, MWC one, and the Big 10 one. The Big East and the ACC would have been left out and the Big 10 nearly left out. This will never be possible because not enough conferences would sign off on it.
Option 3: Auto bids for the big 6, unless ranked too low. I could see the cutoff at 16 or so. I like this possibility, but it probably falls into the same problem as Option 2. Conferences don't want to be left out, and this could leave them out. Plus, this would risk cutting out teams that are ranked in the top 4, like the first option, though the risk is lower.
So the three options all have serious flaws with teams that would be very unhappy one way or another.
Problem 2: Reduction of access from the current BCS model. This problem is sort of an extension from the previous problem. Right now 10 teams get to play on the big stage. This allows for the majority of the top tier teams to get in. With a reduction of two teams, there will be a big increase of groups that are unhappy and left out.
Problem 3: Non BCS schools will never achieve equality. This may be a problem that many college football fans really don't care about. However, if you are a fan or member of one of the 54 institutions that do not have an AQ, it is a huge deal. These schools will rarely reach the notoriety of many of the traditional national powerhouses if they are put on a level playing field, but if they are severely cut out of playoff possibilities, then none of them ever will be, unless they get invited to a big 6 conference. Essentially, you have 54 teams all vying for one slot that may or may not even be available to them. Rarely any recruit would choose to go to one of those schools, and fans would either have to accept permanent mediocrity or give up the sport. Schools like Utah, BYU, TCU, and Boise State would struggle even more than they do now to compete with the big programs. The few times that one of these teams makes it to the playoff, they would likely get paired with a very strong conference champ and lose far more often then win, which would further lower the perception of these conferences and teams.
I think that the conference commissioners and the university presidents of the non bcs schools realize this, but are hoping that if they can get an 8-team playoff, that a larger playoff will just be around the corner. Maybe, but who knows.
So what would work for a playoff?
The only model that would truly solve the above problems is a 12 or 16 team playoff. The 16 team playoff in particular would solve all of the problems and the 12 would do fairly well.
In a 16 team playoff, all 11 conferences would get one auto bid, just like in NCAA basketball. Then the remaining five would go to at large, with a selection committee or by BCS standings. No team that does not have a legitimate NC chance would be left out. This last year, the highest team that would have been left out would have been Oklahoma State, which was 1-4 verses ranked teams last year (1-3 during the regular season). So a 16-team playoff would virtually always only eliminate teams that would be unlikely to compete for a championship, would give the non BCS conferences an opportunity to prove themselves, and give college football a very exciting postseason.
In a 12 team playoff, autobids would have to be narrowed. The big six still get them and I would say that at least two need to go to non bcs teams as long as two are ranked in the top 20. Then the rest would be at larges based on ranking. The top four teams get a first round bye. This proposal would have given the non bcs two bids (Utah and Boise State) and TCU would have been the highest ranked team left outside looking in. TCU was a very good team, but a 12 team playoff will leave out teams like them more than a 16 team. Still acceptable to the non bcs schools and works great for the top four teams and top conferences.
Because either a 12 team or 16 team playoff would really work well for college football, they are the only ways to go and if a playoff is started, I believe that eventually we'll end up there. This may be one of the reasons that the big 6 are fighting any playoff form so hard, because they don't want to end up here.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
NCAA Football Playoff Not Likely
There has been a lot of talk recently about a college football playoff. It was, in part, sparked by the great run that Utah had, followed by the victory over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. The Mountain West Conference followed this season up with challenges to the system and the offering of a new BCS selection format proposal. Congress also got involved and put additional pressure on the BCS. In addition, public pressure has increased and the BCS is under constant fire.
So what will the result of all this pressure be? Nothing, at least not right now. It may play out more in the future, but if the money keeps flowing to the BCS conferences, then it is unlikely that they will ever receive enough pressure to make changes. Especially, considering the other problems with instituting a playoff, including the impact to other bowls and the potential lessening of the regular season's importance.
So what will the result of all this pressure be? Nothing, at least not right now. It may play out more in the future, but if the money keeps flowing to the BCS conferences, then it is unlikely that they will ever receive enough pressure to make changes. Especially, considering the other problems with instituting a playoff, including the impact to other bowls and the potential lessening of the regular season's importance.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Utes Early Entries
Well, I know its tough to hold onto the top players on great teams, but the losses of Paul Kruger and Sean Smith are particularly difficult to stomach. They both are leaving early for the NFL Draft after Utah's fantastic season. It is painful because Utah's defense was expected to be even better than it was this year, but now the Utes have to replace both corners, which is such a vital position in Utah's pressure defense and replace its top pass rusher. While Utah will put good players on the field, they will not come close to the quality that Smith and Kruger brought. Utah has a bunch of corners that look like they will be good and they are bringing in some D-linemen that should be able to help right away, but it will take a while to get over the losses.
It wouldn't be so bad if Utah wasn't also retooling its offense next year with the losses it sustained. Utah will certainly not be as good next year, but hopefully a few players can blossom into big time play makers. We'll just have to wait and see. I think Utah will still have a strong defense, especially in the run game. Offense will struggle at times, but if Louks or Cain can develop into a decent short passer (Utah showed the deep ball is not necessary in this offense) then they will be pretty good. My guess as of right now is that Utah wins all of its home games, since the home schedule is very weak and then wins 3 of 6 on the road for a 9-3 season. Losses at Oregon, BYU and TCU, with victories at CSU, SJSU, & UNLV. That is a respectable record, and a decent follow up to the great season. If they get to 10-2 Whittingham should be the coach of the year.
It wouldn't be so bad if Utah wasn't also retooling its offense next year with the losses it sustained. Utah will certainly not be as good next year, but hopefully a few players can blossom into big time play makers. We'll just have to wait and see. I think Utah will still have a strong defense, especially in the run game. Offense will struggle at times, but if Louks or Cain can develop into a decent short passer (Utah showed the deep ball is not necessary in this offense) then they will be pretty good. My guess as of right now is that Utah wins all of its home games, since the home schedule is very weak and then wins 3 of 6 on the road for a 9-3 season. Losses at Oregon, BYU and TCU, with victories at CSU, SJSU, & UNLV. That is a respectable record, and a decent follow up to the great season. If they get to 10-2 Whittingham should be the coach of the year.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Utah Number 2
Well its official, Utah did not quite have enough momentum to steal the top spot in the AP poll. Though they got pretty close with the number two spot. Plus they had 16 first place votes, which is fantastic. Best ranking ever for the U and totally unexpected at the start of the year. Now the question is whether or not Utah can follow up this amazing season and keep the ball rolling. Whittingham is the key to that. Since he is staying, Utah won't suffer the loss of momentum that nearly sent Utah into a tailspin after Meyer left. But with Brian Johnson and a few key playmakers leaving due to graduation, or possible early entries into the draft (Sean Smith, and Paul Kruger) they will certainly have some big holes to fill.
Also, I should mention that ranked fourth in the coaches poll is dissappointing, but not surprizing. All the teams in front of them also have strong arguments for being ranked that high, so coaches judgments were not necessarily faulty. I just wish Utah had been able to prove more to the coaches.
Also, I should mention that ranked fourth in the coaches poll is dissappointing, but not surprizing. All the teams in front of them also have strong arguments for being ranked that high, so coaches judgments were not necessarily faulty. I just wish Utah had been able to prove more to the coaches.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Utah National Champ articles
Since the Sugar Bowl victory, there have been a lot of articles written by sportswriters around the country about whether or not Utah deserves to be number 1. I'm listing some of my favorites, and one that is less complimentary of the Utes.
Rick Reilly, ESPN Magazine: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3815656
I love this article. In a way that only Rick Reilly can describe, he puts Utah up as the national champs. It is tough to argue with his reasoning, because really Utah did something that no one else did this season, won all their games.
John Feinstien, Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010600092.html
John Feinstien also makes strong points in favor of Utah. Great to see the pub coming from the Washington post. I doubt that they've ever written something about the Utah Utes football team before. Very complimentary
Stewart Mandel, SI http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/stewart_mandel/01/07/cfb.mailbag/index.html
I consider Mandel to be a fairly objective writer. It is also difficult to argue with his reasoning that he just doesn't see Utah as the best team in the country. While I would wish it otherwise, I probably have to agree with him because of Utah's close games against teams that Florida and Oklahoma probably would have taken care of in short order.
Greg Doyel, CBS Sports
http://www.sportsline.com/columns/story/11229831
This was certainly my least favorite of the national writer's articles. Doyel took the opportunity to show his bias against nonBCS schools and tear down Utah. While he does touch on some valid points, he doesn't focus on them. Instead, he takes the opportunity to trash Utah, its fans, and others in the national media that have proclaimed Utah number 1. While I probably agree that Utah doesn't have as strong a resume as a couple of the other top teams, it is frustrating to see that still are still supposed non biased writers that refuse to give them the credit they deserve. A case in point in his article is his comment about Utah probably being a top ten team, which is rediculous. They beat two other top ten teams and didn't lose a game. How he could not even give them credit for being a top team in the country is beyond me. Utah is certainly a top ten team, and likely a top four team. There is no probably about it. It is tough to go from a fairly objective writer like Mandel to a clearly biased one like Doyel.
These articles are only a sampling of what I've read in the last few days about the Utes. Most of the rest is also good. Utah clearly has marked itself in the national picture and they really have a chance to build on this momentum and become a great team for a lot of years. If anybody sees any other atricles that they would like to have included here, let me know and I'll add them.
Rick Reilly, ESPN Magazine: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3815656
I love this article. In a way that only Rick Reilly can describe, he puts Utah up as the national champs. It is tough to argue with his reasoning, because really Utah did something that no one else did this season, won all their games.
John Feinstien, Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010600092.html
John Feinstien also makes strong points in favor of Utah. Great to see the pub coming from the Washington post. I doubt that they've ever written something about the Utah Utes football team before. Very complimentary
Stewart Mandel, SI http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/stewart_mandel/01/07/cfb.mailbag/index.html
I consider Mandel to be a fairly objective writer. It is also difficult to argue with his reasoning that he just doesn't see Utah as the best team in the country. While I would wish it otherwise, I probably have to agree with him because of Utah's close games against teams that Florida and Oklahoma probably would have taken care of in short order.
Greg Doyel, CBS Sports
http://www.sportsline.com/columns/story/11229831
This was certainly my least favorite of the national writer's articles. Doyel took the opportunity to show his bias against nonBCS schools and tear down Utah. While he does touch on some valid points, he doesn't focus on them. Instead, he takes the opportunity to trash Utah, its fans, and others in the national media that have proclaimed Utah number 1. While I probably agree that Utah doesn't have as strong a resume as a couple of the other top teams, it is frustrating to see that still are still supposed non biased writers that refuse to give them the credit they deserve. A case in point in his article is his comment about Utah probably being a top ten team, which is rediculous. They beat two other top ten teams and didn't lose a game. How he could not even give them credit for being a top team in the country is beyond me. Utah is certainly a top ten team, and likely a top four team. There is no probably about it. It is tough to go from a fairly objective writer like Mandel to a clearly biased one like Doyel.
These articles are only a sampling of what I've read in the last few days about the Utes. Most of the rest is also good. Utah clearly has marked itself in the national picture and they really have a chance to build on this momentum and become a great team for a lot of years. If anybody sees any other atricles that they would like to have included here, let me know and I'll add them.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
First Post
Welcome to my blog, this is the first time I've tried this so we'll see how it goes. Anyhow, I'm going to make this a blog focused on sports. Particularly Utah Utes and college football, though I'm open to talking about just about anything on it. Its been a big last week for us Ute fans and there's lots to say about them.
First though, Congrats to Kyle Wittingham and the team. Way to go in and kick the BCS to the curb. Next, thanks to all Alabama fans for your friendliness and good sportsmanship. I was certainly impressed.
Anyhow, feel free to send me a message on this topic or anything elst that you would like to hear from me.
First though, Congrats to Kyle Wittingham and the team. Way to go in and kick the BCS to the curb. Next, thanks to all Alabama fans for your friendliness and good sportsmanship. I was certainly impressed.
Anyhow, feel free to send me a message on this topic or anything elst that you would like to hear from me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
