Here is the generic version of the college football playoff picture:
Monday, December 3, 2012
BCS Solution (2012 season integration)
The pic basically says it all:
Here is the generic version of the college football playoff picture:
Here is the generic version of the college football playoff picture:
Sunday, November 18, 2012
I HAD to add this.....NCAA, please adopt a new system.
Prologue:
The 2012 season sure has had plenty of excitement in the past couple of weeks with Alabama losing to Texas A&M on November 10, and in the following week seeing both new No. 1 Kansas State and No. 2 Oregon go down in the same week which hadn't happened since 2007 when No. 1 Missouri and No. 2 West Virginia both lost. However, there have been plenty of other upsets in the previous weeks with a steady change in guard outside of the No. 1 spot in the nation. I feel that this "chaos" has perhaps left voters confused.....or rather over-hyped and subjective, which doesn't work well when you are nationally influencing a ranking system that has such a profound effect in the NCAA college football realm.As such, I lead to saying this: The whole and entire college football rankings systems (BCS and AP) are complete [insert profanity and the term "non-sense"]. That seems to be a consensus nationwide that we can ALL agree on (something that I don't EVER foreseeing in politics). I'm not just going to blow hot air like the rest. I have PROOF!
-->Proof!: In weeks 1-9, Florida State ranked higher than Georgia (they both lost their only loss in the same week (Week 6)).
Then in Week 10, they got the pass in the AP poll, all along being ranked higher than Florida State in the BCS.
Now, even though both teams have continued to win their games, Georgia has continued to move up while Florida State slipped back from #8 to #10 (Texas A&M and LSU pass them).
-->End Proof.
You should clearly see that despite following the exact same W/L path, Georgia has moved ahead of Florida State at no fault of FSU's own all while being ranked higher from the get go in the BCS poll.
If you looked 10 some years ago and saw Florida State 10-1, you'd have them either 1 or 2. No question. However, we now look at the "strength", "size", and "talent" of players as well as team play to determine who is the better undefeated or 1-2 loss team. IN FACT, we don't just do that, but perhaps look MORE so at these same factors for their team opponents (better known as "strength of schedule"). The voters see the SEC teams with 0 or 1 losses as better than any other team with the same record or sometimes even better because the SEC is synonymous with "Big man/Grown man" football. So they argue that any ACC team is worth the least to beat while beating an SEC foe is the best with Pac-12, Big Ten, and Big 12 mixed in between in some order.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Why college football needed Alabama to win the BCS National Championship
Unless you were living under a rock this past week, Alabama defeated, NO....SHUTOUT, the #1 top ranked team in the country, LSU, for the BCS National Championship. It was a true masterpiece of defensive domination, poise, and sweet redemption. Let me explain:
1) Alabama only let LSU past midfield (the 50 yard line) into Alabama territory ONCE!!...and they held them to around the 40 yard line eventually forcing them back and recovering a fumble on 4th down at the 50 yard line.
2) Alabama held LSU's defense to 98 total yards. LSU had t
3) Alabama only committed ONE penalty the entire game, an offsides call at 2 min
of the 4th quarter on LSU possession 4th and 15, which they punted anyways, after which Alabama was leading 21-0. Nick Saban was STILL infuriated.
4) A.J. McCarron played cool and collective throwing the ball out there, not forcing the issue, all while making smart reads and decisions. Jordan Jefferson on the other side fumbled the snap 2-3 times in the game, fumble, and threw a pitch toss to the RB (Spencer Ware) who was not looking and thus got intercepted by Alabama's Mosley near the 30 yard line.
First, I use the word "Redemption" rather than "Revenge" because revenge implies that the victim is seeking retaliation for an injury CAUSED BY the attacker. Redemption is the case for where the victim failed themselves or were failed by some external cause (the Football Gods) and thus now seek to "redeem" the previous status like if they fell of a rock and just got back on but where such redemption is made by pushing the rock down to get back up. Alabama just had to push LSU down and didn't attack it (somewhat of a good point as you can see by the lack of TDs on Alabama's part).
I think though that if you had watched the game very closely, you should have realized that the shutout and shocking stats for Alabama's defense where not as great as you think. You could obviously tell that LSU was not really doing their thing out there. So I guess you wondered why. Watching LSU in the big games of the season, the similarity is that LSU needed a BIG play on defense or special teams to get their team motivated to play. Beyond that, LSU needed the opponent to mess up, goof up on coverage or have a missed assignment. It was the big plays of LSU's defense (in particular Mathieu, Claiborne, and Reid) which took advantage of the opponents' weaknesses and exploited them. As well, LSU got the win by running the ball hard on soft, mediocre defenses soft as cheese. Against Alabama, in BOTH games, Alabama had none of the weaknesses of that of the other teams. Alabama halted Tyrann Mathieu, the "Honey Badger", on special teams and defense. In the national championship, they even threw to the man Mathieu was covering on defense, exploiting MATHIEU's short height weakness. Alabama was able to do what they wanted on offense because they had the personnel (all strong, big, and very well coached guys) whom were able to hold the line and get lead blocks for QB A.J. McCarron and RB Trent Richardson. Alabama sustained drives and punched several FGs on board as the offense rolled with a great balance of passing and tough and quick running by RB Trent Richardson. The lack of LSU to cause any turnovers or any big and critical negative plays meant that Alabama was forcing LSU to play offense without their regular fuel and ignition. Perhaps now you may say the game was lost by LSU (like Nov. 5 game lost by Alabama). I think many LSU fans may have a point, however the college football fan and media base, whether consciously or subconsciously, know that Alabama's defense was VERY effective in shutting down the LSU running and option game. Your point is taken by the fact that I think LSU failed to pass more often and not consider Jarrett Lee for passing. You have to highly wonder and think if LSU tried to pass more, could Alabama's secondary have really knocked down/intercept/contain all the possible passing attempts? If you look at what is happening in the NFL with the passing attack by Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Brady, and company, the answer really starts to look like NO because a VERY accurate throw has proven week-in-and-week-out that a GREAT passing game can subdue a very good defense. If Alabama was able to knock down and subdue LSU's attack, if the passes would have been well thrown, then we would have no doubt in saying Alabama's defense was truly one of the best of the decade and possibly half-century.
Despite all the possibilities that could have preceded, it was important for college football to have Alabama win this game. That is because if LSU had won, it would have meant that the BCS system was absolutely and undoubtedly unflawed for bringing in LSU, having them win it all, and be the unanimous #1 national champion, just like it did for the last several years. There would only be a very few stubborn people who would come to think that Oklahoma State would've beaten them. Looking at how they just sneaked out of the Fiesta Bowl over Stanford, basically all of the college football fan, media, and voting base would know that they probably wouldn't have a chance against LSU playing like that with a pretty mediocre defense but decent offense, which LSU would have likely done something against. But it is just that!!!!!: we need to have a playoff system that ultimately determines the true national champion by giving every legitimate team a chance to play. We would make the argument likely for all of LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, Stanford, and even Oregon, Wisconsin, and Boise State. If you see my "The BCS solution" post, you will find how I believe this can be successfully accomplished.
1) Alabama only let LSU past midfield (the 50 yard line) into Alabama territory ONCE!!...and they held them to around the 40 yard line eventually forcing them back and recovering a fumble on 4th down at the 50 yard line.
2) Alabama held LSU's defense to 98 total yards. LSU had t
3) Alabama only committed ONE penalty the entire game, an offsides call at 2 min
of the 4th quarter on LSU possession 4th and 15, which they punted anyways, after which Alabama was leading 21-0. Nick Saban was STILL infuriated.
4) A.J. McCarron played cool and collective throwing the ball out there, not forcing the issue, all while making smart reads and decisions. Jordan Jefferson on the other side fumbled the snap 2-3 times in the game, fumble, and threw a pitch toss to the RB (Spencer Ware) who was not looking and thus got intercepted by Alabama's Mosley near the 30 yard line.
First, I use the word "Redemption" rather than "Revenge" because revenge implies that the victim is seeking retaliation for an injury CAUSED BY the attacker. Redemption is the case for where the victim failed themselves or were failed by some external cause (the Football Gods) and thus now seek to "redeem" the previous status like if they fell of a rock and just got back on but where such redemption is made by pushing the rock down to get back up. Alabama just had to push LSU down and didn't attack it (somewhat of a good point as you can see by the lack of TDs on Alabama's part).
I think though that if you had watched the game very closely, you should have realized that the shutout and shocking stats for Alabama's defense where not as great as you think. You could obviously tell that LSU was not really doing their thing out there. So I guess you wondered why. Watching LSU in the big games of the season, the similarity is that LSU needed a BIG play on defense or special teams to get their team motivated to play. Beyond that, LSU needed the opponent to mess up, goof up on coverage or have a missed assignment. It was the big plays of LSU's defense (in particular Mathieu, Claiborne, and Reid) which took advantage of the opponents' weaknesses and exploited them. As well, LSU got the win by running the ball hard on soft, mediocre defenses soft as cheese. Against Alabama, in BOTH games, Alabama had none of the weaknesses of that of the other teams. Alabama halted Tyrann Mathieu, the "Honey Badger", on special teams and defense. In the national championship, they even threw to the man Mathieu was covering on defense, exploiting MATHIEU's short height weakness. Alabama was able to do what they wanted on offense because they had the personnel (all strong, big, and very well coached guys) whom were able to hold the line and get lead blocks for QB A.J. McCarron and RB Trent Richardson. Alabama sustained drives and punched several FGs on board as the offense rolled with a great balance of passing and tough and quick running by RB Trent Richardson. The lack of LSU to cause any turnovers or any big and critical negative plays meant that Alabama was forcing LSU to play offense without their regular fuel and ignition. Perhaps now you may say the game was lost by LSU (like Nov. 5 game lost by Alabama). I think many LSU fans may have a point, however the college football fan and media base, whether consciously or subconsciously, know that Alabama's defense was VERY effective in shutting down the LSU running and option game. Your point is taken by the fact that I think LSU failed to pass more often and not consider Jarrett Lee for passing. You have to highly wonder and think if LSU tried to pass more, could Alabama's secondary have really knocked down/intercept/contain all the possible passing attempts? If you look at what is happening in the NFL with the passing attack by Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Brady, and company, the answer really starts to look like NO because a VERY accurate throw has proven week-in-and-week-out that a GREAT passing game can subdue a very good defense. If Alabama was able to knock down and subdue LSU's attack, if the passes would have been well thrown, then we would have no doubt in saying Alabama's defense was truly one of the best of the decade and possibly half-century.
Despite all the possibilities that could have preceded, it was important for college football to have Alabama win this game. That is because if LSU had won, it would have meant that the BCS system was absolutely and undoubtedly unflawed for bringing in LSU, having them win it all, and be the unanimous #1 national champion, just like it did for the last several years. There would only be a very few stubborn people who would come to think that Oklahoma State would've beaten them. Looking at how they just sneaked out of the Fiesta Bowl over Stanford, basically all of the college football fan, media, and voting base would know that they probably wouldn't have a chance against LSU playing like that with a pretty mediocre defense but decent offense, which LSU would have likely done something against. But it is just that!!!!!: we need to have a playoff system that ultimately determines the true national champion by giving every legitimate team a chance to play. We would make the argument likely for all of LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, Stanford, and even Oregon, Wisconsin, and Boise State. If you see my "The BCS solution" post, you will find how I believe this can be successfully accomplished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)