The U.P. Top 25 [Week 9]

This is the ninth Uncle Popov Top 25, based on college football games through week thirteen.

RANK	TEAM	POINTS	LAST WK
1	Texas (2)	74	1
2	Alabama (1)	71	2
3	Florida	69	3
4	TCU	68	4
5	Boise State	61	6
6	Cincinnati	60	5
7	Georgia Tech	59	7
8	Pittsburgh	53	8
9	Oregon	51	9
10	Ohio State	48	9
11	Oklahoma State	42	14
12	Penn State	39	12
12	Iowa	39	14
14	BYU	31	16
15	Clemson	24	18
16	Temple	23	20
17	Utah	21	19
18	Oregon State	20	22
19	Houston	19	23
20	LSU	16	11
21	Virginia Tech	14	20
21	North Carolina	14	NR
23	Navy	11	24
23	Mississippi	11	NR
25	Central Michigan	10	24

Others Receiving Votes: Miami, FL (9); Nevada (7); Nebraska (6); Troy (4); Stanford (1)

Dropped Out: Stanford, Wisconsin

Conference Breakdown:

• ACC: four
• SEC: four
• Big Ten: three
• Mountain West: three
• Big East: two
• Big 12: two
• MAC: two
• Pac-10: two
• Conference USA: one
• Independent: one
• WAC: one

Voting for Week 9

The U.P. Top 25 [Week 8]

This is the eighth Uncle Popov Top 25, based on college football games through week twelve.

RANK	TEAM	POINTS	LAST WK
1	Texas (2)	97	1
2	Alabama (1)	96	2
3	Florida (1)	93	3
4	TCU	89	4
5	Cincinnati	82	6
6	Boise State	81	5
7	Georgia Tech	77	7
8	Pittsburgh	71	8
9	Oregon	64	12
9	Ohio State	64	12
11	LSU	58	9
12	Penn State	48	17
13	Wisconsin	44	20
14	Iowa	41	11
14	Oklahoma State	41	19
16	BYU	35	25
17	Stanford	33	NR
18	Clemson	25	NR
19	Utah	24	12
20	Temple	19	21
20	Virginia Tech	19	NR
22	Oregon State	17	NR
23	Houston	15	10
24	Navy	13	24
24	Central Michigan	13	NR

Others Receiving Votes: Rutgers (12); Miami, FL (10); South Carolina (6); Nebraska (5); Nevada (3); Troy (2); Arizona (1); North Carolina (1)

Dropping Out: Arizona, Miami (FL), South Florida, Troy, USC

Conference Breakdown:

• Big Ten: four
• ACC: three
• Mountain West: three
• Pac-10: three
• SEC: three
• Big East: two
• Big 12: two
• MAC: two
• Conference USA: one
• Independents: one
• WAC: one

Voting for Week 8

The U.P. Top 25 [Week 7]

This is the seventh week of the Uncle Popov Top 25 poll, based on games through week ten.

RANK	TEAM	POINTS	LAST WK
1	Texas (2)	73	1
2	Alabama (1)	71	3
3	Florida	70	2
4	TCU	67	5
5	Boise State	63	4
6	Cincinnati	61	5
7	Georgia Tech	57	10
8	Pittsburgh	51	12
9	LSU	48	9
10	Houston	45	12
11	Iowa	44	7
12	Oregon	39	8
12	Utah	39	14
12	Ohio State	39	18
15	Miami (FL)	31	15
15	Arizona	31	16
17	Penn State	25	11
18	USC	24	17
19	Oklahoma State	21	19
20	Wisconsin	12	21
21	Temple	11	23
22	South Florida	10	22
22	Troy	10	25
24	Navy	8	NR
25	BYU	6	NR

Also Receiving Vote: Virginia Tech (5); Nevada (4); West Virginia (4); Clemson (3); Auburn (2); Stanford (1)

Dropping Out: California, Notre Dame

Conference Breakdown:

• Big Ten: four
• Big East: three
• Mountain West: three
• Pac-10: three
• SEC: three
• ACC: two
• Big 12: two
• Conference USA: one
• Independents: one
• MAC: one
• Sun Belt: one
• WAC: one

Voting for Week 7

College Football Routinely Gets it Wrong.

My dear Uncle brought up the problem and didn’t expand on it: that college football has part time refs making $500 a game. Aren’t we passed that now? We got rid of leather helmets didn’t we? The SEC, as an institution, is shameful. This is just one example. A conference that, while generating millions of dollars in revenue, employs part time referees and pays them essentially cab fare/bar money for the rest of the weekend. And we get what they pay for:

Stop with the SEC Ref Conspiracies!

Dan Wetzel discusses those zany SEC referees in his latest article.  In this article, the biggest line is this:

There is no full-blown conspiracy, although fans don’t want to hear it. It’d be impossible for the SEC to get all these refs who earn around $500 a week and maintain full-time jobs to risk federal imprisonment and fix games. Even suggested favoritism is unlikely.

There is no conspiracy.  Why?  Well, that statement speaks to it, but there is one name and one acronym to explain why there is no conspiracy: Tim Donaghy and SWC.

Tim Donaghy pleaded guilty to two federal charges based on his “fixing” of NBA games.  He served time in a federal prison camp.  Something tells me that these SEC referees do not want to follow that path.

And I am certain that the SEC does not want to follow the path of the once-proud but corrupt Southwest Conference (SWC).  A solid investigation that uncovers such a fix in the SEC would destroy the conference.  It is highly doubtful that the fix is in.

But let’s be clear about something.  Unlike the Tennessee-Alabama game where the missed penalty would not have changed the outcome, the LSU interception could have changed the outcome.  But there is no guarantee that LSU would have scored.

Nevertheless…it should have been an interception.

Best angle of the pick: control of ball and foot down.

Here is the problem.  The call on the field is incomplete.  So there has to be “conclusive evidence” to overturn it.  This camera angle does appear conclusive.  However, the two other angles (a side angle and an angle from behind the Alabama offense) were inconclusive.  It was not easy to tell if he had clear possession and exactly where his foot was (go back and watch those angles carefully).

But is it not the fault of the on-field officials.  It is the replay official that blew it.

Nevertheless, there is no conspiracy.  If the refs were really in on it, why not bail Alabama out on the safety, claiming that Ingram (or TE Michael Williams) was the intended target and the hit caused the errant throw.  Or maybe they could have allowed Alabama to take the timeout when they broke with 12 players in the huddle.  Those both seem like fine opportunities to continue to “help Alabama.”

The reason neither of those two happened is because THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY!!!! In fact, allow me to pull three examples that should have favored Alabama.

Against Tennessee, there were two holding calls not called on the key late drive that led to the blocked field goal.  The first was on the big pass down field.  The second was on the field goal itself, where it appeared that Daniel Stricker held an outside rusher (LINK: watch the left side).

The third was from the Alabama-LSU game itself.  The very first play for Alabama was a pass to the right that appeared to be caught (by, I believe Smelley).  It was ruled incomplete, but the CBS replay appeared to show that he grabbed the ball with one hand, had possession as he was pushed out of bounds.

There was no replay!  The reason was the replay booth was, for some reason, down.  Now, who knows whether or not the play would have been overturned or even mattered in the end.  Alabama could have gone on to score a touchdown en route to a blowout, or Ingram could fumble on the next play.  I do not like “what ifs” because so many things could have happened.

And that is really my point with the Patrick Peterson play, who knows if LSU would have even done anything with the ball.  Maybe they score; maybe Lee throws an interception.

Besides, LSU had over three minutes to do something with the ball.  They failed.  Yes, six points is different than nine points and changes the Tigers’ game plan.  Point is, they still had their chance and blew it.

But here is the bigger point — the game is more than one play.  I hate any notion that the game was lost on one play as there are many factors to a game.  LSU had the lead and allow Alabama to get back into it and take over.

Consider the following numbers.

Here are the yardage numbers by quarter for the game, based on the drive log at Yahoo! Sports:

• First Quarter: Alabama 94 yards; LSU 40 yards
• Second Quarter: Alabama 129 yards; LSU 99 yards
• Third Quarter: Alabama 137 yards; LSU 87 yards
• Fourth Quarter: Alabama 112 yards; LSU 8 yards

Wow!  Simply based on that, who is to say that LSU, with Lee at QB, would have even been able to drive on Alabama’s defense after the blown interception call?  LSU was outgained in the first half 223 to 139.  The discrepancy was even greater in the second half (249 to 95).

LSU had one drive of note — a 13-play, 91-yard drive that began at the end of the first quarter and ended with a touchdown in the second and a 7-0 lead for the Tigers.  They did have another touchdown drive that was set-up following the safety-induced free kick.

Beyond that, LSU barely moved the ball.  Remove those two drives, LSU had 84 yards.  They had six three-and-out “drives” that totaled 16 net yards.  Alabama only had one three-and-out.  LSU also had eight “drives” of five plays of less, with seven of those eight leading to punts (the other one was the interception late in the fourth quarter).  LSU had another punt after their only “long” drive (8 plays, 28 yards).

Let’s see.  The referees did not cause all of those three-and-outs.  The referees did not play soft on Julio Jones on a bubble screen, a play that Jones took 71 yards to the house.  The referees did not allow Mark Ingram to run for 144 yards, most of those in the second half.

The referees, or in particular the replay official, might have blown the call.  But LSU blew the game.

The U.P. Top 25 [Week 6]

This is the sixth week of the Uncle Popov Top 25, based on games through Week Nine of the college football season.

RANK	TEAM	POINTS	LAST WK
1	Texas (2)	97	3
2	Florida (1)	97	1
3	Alabama (1)	93	2
4	Boise State	84	4
5	Cincinnati	82	4
5	TCU	82	4
7	Iowa	80	7
8	Oregon	72	10
9	LSU	69	9
10	Georgia Tech	62	11
11	Penn State	60	12
12	Pittsburgh	56	16
13	Houston	51	15
14	Utah	43	17
15	Miami (FL)	42	19
16	Arizona	37	23
17	USC	36	8
18	Ohio State	32	21
19	Oklahoma State	28	13
20	California	19	NR
21	Wisconsin	13	NR
22	South Florida	12	NR
23	Temple	10	NR
23	Notre Dame	10	NR
25	Troy	7	NR

Also Receiving Votes: Oklahoma (6); Virginia Tech (5); Navy (5); Clemson (3); Nevada (3); BYU (2); Central Michigan (1)

Dropping Out: Virginia Tech, South Carolina, Central Michigan, Navy, Mississippi, West Virginia

Conference Breakdown:

• Big Ten: four
• Pac-10: four
• Big East: three
• SEC: three
• ACC: two
• Big 12: two
• Mountain West: two
• Conference USA: one
• Independents: one
• MAC: one
• Sun Belt: one
• WAC: one

Voting for Week 6

Social Justice and College Football: the case for Boise State and TCU

Let’s look at the recent BCS rankings.

1. LSU (7-1)
2. Oklahoma State (6-2)
3. Virginia Tech (5-3)
4. Penn State (8-1)
5. South Florida (6-2)
6. BYU (6-2)
7. Oregon (7-1)

Huh?  Wait a minute!  That is not right.  Let’s try this again…

1. Charleston Southern (3-5)
2. Wyoming (4-4)
3. North Texas (2-6)
4. Arkansas State (2-5)
5. Southeast Missouri State (1-7)
6. Colorado State (3-6)
7. San Jose State (1-6)

What the…?  That cannot be right.

Well, there is a reason for that.  The first list is of the best team that the top seven BCS teams have beaten (based on record).  The second list is the worst team that the top seven have beaten (again, based on record).

Now, what is interesting about those two “polls” is that really there is very little differentiation between the seven teams in the respective polls.  San Jose State and North Texas are comparable.  Oregon and Penn State are comparable.

So, let’s do another alternate top seven…

1. SEC [Florida]
2. Big 12 [Texas]
3. SEC [Alabama]
4. Big Ten [Iowa]
5. Big East [Cincinnati]
6. Mountain West [TCU]
7. WAC [Boise State]

Now, it should start making sense as why the teams are ranked this way.  Considering where Oklahoma State is right now, it seems like Boise State’s victory of Oregon is better than Texas’s victory over Oklahoma State (and Oklahoma).

The important thing to consider first is the arbitrary nature of rankings.  There is a certain privilege that is given to those teams ranked at the top of preseason polls.

Preseason polls are based on perception, but what that does is create naturalized knowledge.  With Florida being ranked number one, it seemed “natural” that they were the best team and thus, if they win even unimpressively, they should remain at the top.  Ergo, Florida and Texas and Alabama were all handed an easy path to the BCS title by being ranked in the top five!

Meanwhile, Boise State started 16th, TCU at 17th, Iowa at 21st, and Cincinnati was not even ranked!  They began at a disadvantage and had to work their way up.  However, Iowa and Cincinnati were able to use their privilege of being in a BCS-conference to jump both Boise State and TCU.

Polls and starting position aside, what it really comes down to is what we can call spatial injustice.  It is based on the locations of Boise State and TCU in relation to the other schools in the college football landscape.  Consider the following.

In geography, regions are arbitrary.  We use regions as a way to create “order” and classifications.  But there is nothing natural about regions as they are constructed through social relationships.  Thus, regions are social (spatial) constructions.

For example, what states make up the “South” in the United States?  Well, the answer to that question will vary based on who you ask.  Certain some states appear more than others — Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia — but what about Florida?  Or Texas?  Or West Virginia?  Or Maryland?  And if Maryland, then why not Delaware?

Hawai’i is the southernmost U.S. state.  Is Hawai’i considered a “southern” state?  Well, most will say no.  And the reason is that people in the U.S. would define the “South” based on the Confederacy, or Southern “culture” (“redneck culture”).  But that in it of itself is a social construction based on difference.

Another example would be Western Europe during the Cold War.  Greece was considered to be part of Western Europe, despite being in eastern Europe.  And the term “The West” usually includes Australia and (sometimes) New Zealand, which is in the same general hemisphere as China, which is the “Far East.”

And even the term “Far East” is constructed and arbitary based on its relative position to Europe.

Thus, regions are arbitrarily constructed.  The same can be said for football conferences.

While there is some continuity in geography and history, there is nothing natural about conferences.  Vanderbilt seems as out of place in the SEC as Louisiana Tech in the WAC or Denver in the Sun Belt (basketball version).  The primary function of conferences is for order and classification and nothing more.

Nevertheless, it is important to discuss the conferences.  Going back to global regions, there are certain perceptions (stereotypes) that are projected on certain regions (e.g., Europe is civilized; Asia is uncivilized).  Likewise, there are certain perceptions about conferences in college football (e.g., the SEC is the best; the WAC is a joke).  In fact, by claiming that the WAC is weak, it constructs other conferences as strong (you cannot have “weak” without a “strong”).

But there is a problem with that.  Because the conferences have been constructed by the powers that be, many teams have little to no say in what conference they belong.  Is it Boise State’s fault that they are in the WAC?

To extend that, is it Boise State’s fault that New Mexico State and Utah State and San Jose State and (this season) Hawai’i are miserable?  Is it fair to hold that against the Broncos?

The partitioning of the conferences was out of the hands of Boise State and Florida and Texas and TCU (although the Horned Frogs did bounce around from the Southwest Conference to the WAC to Conference USA to the Mountain West).  Thus, Boise State and TCU cannot suddenly leave their respective conferences and join a BCS-conference for a season.  They have to play the hand that they are dealt.

Ah, BCS-conferences!  What about those?  “TCU is not in a BCS conference.  So they are not worthy of playing for the title.”

Well, who designed the BCS?  The antecedents of the BCS is rooted in the Bowl Coalition.  The Bowl Coalition was formed by five conferences (ACC, Big East, Big 8, SEC and SWC).  It was later restructured to form the Bowl Alliance, which was still made up of the five conferences and focused on a rotating “championship game” between three bowl games (Fiesta, Sugar and Orange).  Finally in 1998, the BCS was created and added the Big Ten and Pac-10 (the Big 12 was also a part of this system after the consolidation of the Big 8 and SWC).

Ergo, the system that is set up to determine a champion in the FBS was created by conferences that have exclusive access to the system!  Even though non-BCS conferences and teams can get into the system, the BCS still gives an unfair advantage to certain teams and conferences by granting that access.

So Boise State and TCU are criticized for not being a part of a system that they were not had no initial input.  It is no different than the reservations for Amerindians that were set-up without input from the various nations.  It was not until the civil rights movement that Amerindian nations gained a voice in any attempt to alter the reservations in terms of regulations.

But back to the conferences themselves, and in particular schedules.  Both Boise State and TCU are being knocked for their schedules.  The Broncos have the 81st “strongest” schedule while TCU has the 46th toughest schedule.

Boise State is hampered by its conference schedule.  But again, this is not Boise State’s fault (as noted above).  As for its out-of-conference schedule, the Broncos scheduled two traditionally-decent MAC teams, one FCS school, and Oregon.  Oregon was part of a home-and-home series.

So, in terms of the schedule which is more in the hands of Boise State, they did go big with the game with Oregon, but went with more certain wins with Miami University, Bowling Green, and Cal-Davis.   That stated, in terms of each of the seven undefeated teams, the win over Oregon is beginning to look the most impressive.  In fact, only Alabama and Boise State has a big out-of-conference win.

So, let’s look at the non-conference schedule.  The reason for this is that by looking at the entire schedule, we are examining a fixed schedule based on the arbitrary conferences.  So, it seems more appropriate to compare the schedules that teams control.

• Florida: Charleston Southern (3-5); Troy (6-2); FIU (2-6); Florida State (4-4)
• Texas: Louisiana-Monroe (4-4); Wyoming (4-4); UTEP (3-5); UCF (5-3)
• Alabama: Virginia Tech (5-3); FIU (2-6); North Texas (2-6); Chattanooga (5-3)
• Iowa: Northern Iowa (5-3); Iowa State (5-4); Arizona (5-2); Arkansas State (2-5)
• Cincinnati: Southeast Missouri State (1-7); Oregon State (5-3); Fresno State (5-3); Miami University (1-8); Illinois (2-6)
• TCU: Virginia (3-5); Texas State (5-3); Clemson (5-3); SMU (4-4)

So, what makes any of those schedules any better than Boise State’s out-of-conference schedule?  In fact, since the BCS conferences are the “standard” for strength, Texas does not face a single BCS-conference team.  There is no reprieve because the Longhorns played Ohio State recently because we are talking about this season not the past!

Additionally, if you removed non-conferences games that are annually locked-in due to rivalries (Florida State from Florida’s schedule; Iowa State from Iowa’s), Florida does not play a team from a BCS-conference, and Iowa only plays one.

In fact, with that rivalry removal in mind, TCU and Cincinnati are the only teams to go out of its way to schedule two BCS-conference teams.  And, between those two, the Horned Frogs were the only one to travel to two BCS-conference teams.

And, before you knock the fact that TCU played two ACC schools, the Sagarin conference ratings places the ACC third, behind the Pac-10 and the SEC.  Since this ranking is carried by teams in the middle of a conference and TCU played middle-of-the-pack ACC teams, it should speak to the quality of win.

So, TCU’s out-of-conference schedule is better than any of the other six teams.  Boise State’s OOC is comparable to the other five teams.  So, excluding the conference schedule, it seems that both TCU and Boise State are worthy of being in the BCS title game discussion.

To finish the thought of TCU and their schedule, as noted above their schedule ranks as the 46th toughest.  Texas’s schedule is the 42nd toughest.  Thus, even taking into account the “power” of the Big 12, Texas’s schedule is only slightly more difficult than TCU’s schedule.  So, shouldn’t TCU be taken as seriously as the BCS #2 team?

Last thought on strength of schedule.  There is a formula that goes into that measure and a perception of objectivity.  But, there is an attempt to constructed a perception and naturalize knowledge.  The perception is naturalized because the six conferences that make up the BCS are considered the “best.”  Yet, it could be argued that the Mountain West Conference is better than the ACC.

Plus, Washington has the toughest schedule in the country.  But at 3-5, no one is claiming that the Huskies deserve a bowl bid, let alone an invite to the BCS.  Arizona is 5-2 with the ninth toughest schedule.  Maybe they should play for the BCS title!

But wait a minute!  Let’s look at strength of schedule.  The BCS once used strength of schedule as part of its formula.  This component was calculated by using the following formula:

SOS = [2*(Opponents Record + Opponents' Opponents Record)]/3

It is a common formula.  The records used do not count the team themselves (so Florida would not be included in Troy’s record) and excludes non-FBS schools (so Charleston Southern would not be in Florida’s record).

But let’s remove all conference games and use the formula to determine strength of non-conference schedule.  If we use the same formula and figure the opponents’ non-conference FBS record and the opponents’ opponents non-conference FBS record, we have an interesting output.

• Iowa: 0.696
• Boise State: 0.671
• TCU: 0.653
• Cincinnati: 0.587
• Alabama: 0.547
• Florida: 0.537
• Texas: 0.444

So, if we take away the conferences, which again were arbitrarily constructed, and look only at non-conference games, Iowa tops everyone, followed by Boise State and TCU.  In fact, the teams that are being argued as the “weakest” have played a tougher non-conference schedule.  Does that not warrant Boise State and TCU the chance to play in the title game?

The last point here is the argument against Boise State and TCU that if either of those teams were in a BCS conference they would not be undefeated.  There is a fallacy in this argument because it is assuming that Boise State and TCU would be placed in, say, the SEC without any of the historic benefits that comes with playing in the SEC.

For example, what is assumed is that Boise State’s current team based on its connections with the WAC will suddenly be placed in the SEC.  In other words, they were not afforded the same recruiting base and television exposure that SEC teams enjoy.  Ergo, this argument purposely puts Boise State at a disadvantage and in a situation that is unrealistic.

Reverse this argument.  What if Florida was in the WAC or Texas was in the Mountain West?  Well, with the same rosters, these two teams would likely run the table, just as Boise State and TCU have done so far.  But, that means that Florida is beating Utah State and New Mexico State while Texas beats up on Wyoming (well, they already did that) and UNLV.

Now, Florida and Texas no longer appear to be “strong” as they have beaten up on “inferior” opponents.

Again, this is all based on the arbitrary nature of conferences.  Because of circumstances beyond their control, TCU and Boise State were relegated to “weaker” conferences and therefore put at a “natural” disadvantage.  Meanwhile, Florida and Texas were “born” into a life of priviledge.

The argument of the Broncos and the Horned Frogs not being able to go undefeated in a BCS-conference is flawed.  For this to even be considered, Boise State and TCU would need years of access to the recruiting bases of these “power” conferences, as well as the exposure.  They would also need facilities on par with the SEC or Big 12 or Big Ten.  Give them those things, then bring up this argument.

NOTE: Yes, TCU has the state of Texas, but its lack of exposure and the perception of the the Mountain West Conference hinder the Horned Frogs.

And speaking of being born into priviledge, the polls do not help matters.

The reason that Boise State and TCU are not in the conversation (at least, not seriously) is an issue of social justice.  It is about the construction of the conferences, the development of the system to determine a champion in the FBS [the BCS], and who is allowed in and who is allowed to grab the crumbs off of the ground.  The BCS is essentially an oligarchy that priviledges a small elite, excluding teams that are just as deserving, if not more.

There is a very real scenario that could play out with Boise State and TCU are the only undefeated teams in the FBS.  If that is the case, those two teams should be playing in the Pasadena.

But even if those two teams are the only undefeated teams, the system is working against them.

The U.P. Top 25 [Week 5]

Hooray!  Five voters this week!  And Florida regains the top spot.

[Updated at 1630 after an investigation into vote distribution; error on the Uncle!].

RANK	TEAM	POINTS	LAST WK
1	Florida (2)	121	2
2	Alabama (1)	120	1
3	Texas (2)	119	3
4	Boise State	102	4
4	Cincinnati	102	4
4	TCU	102	8
7	Iowa	99	4
8	USC	92	7
9	LSU	86	10
10	Oregon	76	11
11	Georgia Tech	75	13
12	Penn State	72	11
13	Oklahoma State	65	14
14	Virginia Tech	52	15
15	Houston	50	17
16	Pittsburgh	48	18
17	Utah	46	18
18	West Virginia	37	24
19	Miami (FL)	34	9
20	South Carolina	26	21
21	Ohio State	23	22
22	Central Michigan	17	22
23	Arizona	16	NR
24	Navy	14	24
25	Mississippi	12	NR

Others Receiving Votes: BYU (7); California (4); Temple (3); Oklahoma (2); Kansas (1); Kentucky (1); Troy (1)

Dropping Out: Kansas, BYU

Conference Breakdown:

• SEC: five
• ACC: three
• Big East: three
• Big Ten: three
• Pac-10: three
• Big 12: two
• Mountain West: two
• Conference USA: one
• Independents: one
• MAC: one
• WAC: one

Voting for Week 5

Kiffin Should Complain About His Own Team

Tennessee head football coach Lane Kiffin is complaining about a penalty that was not called.

In Tennessee’s game against Alabama on Saturday, the Volunteers attempted a game-winning kick to knock off the second-ranked team in the country.  Vols kicker Daniel Lincoln had a low-trajectory kick that Alabama nose tackle Terrence Cody blocked, his second blocked kick of the game.

Terrence Cody breaks through for a season-saving block! (Mark Almond, Birmingham News)

As the ball rolled around, Cody ran towards the Alabama sideline and removed his helmet.  Time expired and the Crimson Tide escaped with a 12-10 victory.

Kiffin argues, and rightfully so, that Cody should have been penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct.  Kiffin told The Knoxville Sentinel:

“To me, the rule is this: If a play is still going on, you can’t take your helmet off.

“The play is still going. The ball is sitting there. If Luke (Stocker, UT tight end) sees the ball he can pick it up and go score a touchdown and we win the game. The guy (Cody) throws his helmet, then two of their guys go recover the ball.

“It’s a 15-yard penalty and we kick again.”

Well, SEC associate commissioner Charles Bloom commented to The Birmingham News that there was no time left and thus there could not be another play.

But there is more to it than the time.

From the NCAA Football 2009-10 Rules and Regulation (Rule 10, Section 2, Article 2, subsection IV):

A Team A player clips in Team B’s end zone when a scrimmage kick has touched a Team B player in the field of play and the loose ball is still a kick. RULING: Penalty—15 yards. Enforcement is either at the previous spot (Team A retaining possession) or at the spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B (emphasis added).

Now, the way the rule is written, it is using a clipping call by the kick-defending after the kick has been “touched” (blocked?).  But what I gather from this rule is that Team B recovers the ball.  Thus, the penalty is assessed on the offending team, but that team is now in possession of the ball.

Applied to the Alabama-Tennessee game, Alabama should have been penalized, but since they recovered the ball the lose 15 yards and first down Alabama.  Ball game!

Now, because I am not sure if that is the correct rule, here is another (Rule 10, Section 2, Article 3, subsection I):

Either team fouls during a scrimmage kick after the ball has been touched beyond the neutral zone. The foul is more than three yards beyond the neutral zone, and Team A is not in legal possession when the ball is declared dead. RULING: For fouls by Team B, penalty enforcement will be by the Three-and-One Principle with the postscrimmage kick spot as the basic spot (Rule 2-25-11). Team B’s ball, first and 10. For fouls by Team A, penalty enforcement is either from the previous spot or from the spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B (Rule 6-3-13) (emphasis added).

So, again, kick is blocked and the kick-defense team recovers the ball (read: “Team A is not in legal possession when the ball is dead”).  But again, if Team B commits the penalty, they still maintain possession.  First and ten, Alabama.  Ball game!

Thus, either way, even if the penalty was called, Alabama recovered the blocked kick.  Because the penalty occurred while the ball was not in possession of either team, it came down to who got the ball.  In this case, Alabama jumped on the ball.

If Kiffin wants to complain, he should get on his own team and not the SEC officials.  Why did half of his special team unit run AWAY from the ball!?  It seemed they had no idea where the ball was after Cody swatted it away.

That is on his own team.  As Kiffin stated, “The play is still going. The ball is sitting there.”

So where the hell was your team running to, Lane?

Blame your team for not getting on the ball.

Defenseless: Shutouts in the NFL

After Oakland finally showed up last week, the Raiders went Raiders and collapsed against the New York Jets, losing 38-0.  It was so bad that Raiders’ head coach Tom Cable (finally) benched JaMarcus Russell.  It was bad enough that Jets QB Mark Sanchez had time to enjoy a hot dog (allegedly because his stomach was not feeling well).

Just score, baby!

But for as awful as the Raiders have been this season, it was “only” their first time being shutout in 2009.  However, it marked the seventh time this season that an NFL team has been shutout!

Seven shutouts in seven weeks seems like a lot for professionals.  You would expect that people getting paid to play a sport would be talented enough to muster at least one touchdown.

These were not really close games either.

• Week 1: Seattle 28, St. Louis 0
• Week 3: New York Giants 24, Tampa Bay 0
• Week 4: San Francisco 35, St. Louis 0
• Week 5: Seattle 41, Jacksonville 0
• Week 6: Green Bay 26, Detroit 0
• Week 6: New England 59, Tennessee 0
• Week 7: New York Jets 38, Oakland 0

I am not sure which is more amazing, the number of early season shutouts or the fact that both of Seattle’s wins were shutouts.  All or nothing for the Seahawks, I suppose.

Most teams also failed to just show up at all.  In five of the seven shutouts, the offending team managed less than 200 total yards of offense.  This includes the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who managed less than 100 yards (86 net yards to be exact), and the Tennessee Titans’ abysmal -7 passing yards.

The two teams that produced the best were the St. Louis Rams against Seattle (247 yards) and Oakland (263 yards).

And keep in mind that this does not include the games where a team only scored a field goal and managed a late touchdown to avoid the shutout.

With the explosion of shutouts so early in the season, it seems like there are more shutouts than in previous seasons.  So what does the trend look like?  Glad you asked:

• 2009: seven (through 25 October)
• 2008: six
• 2007: five
• 2006: 15
• 2005: six
• 2004: four

Certainly 2006 jumps out as an outlier, but with the other four seasons, there is an average of 5.25 shutouts per season.  So, the 2009 season is well ahead of the trend.  Plus, in those four seasons, the shutouts primarily occurred towards the end of the season — teams “giving up” or resting players (see Tennessee in 2008).

Nevertheless, shutouts are more common that one might think.

To finish the thought before touching on the 2006 season, there is a tendency for the same teams to be shutout.  Since 2004, both Oakland and Cleveland have been shutout five times.  St. Louis, Miami and the Jets have been shutout three times.

Of the 43 shutouts since 2004, 26 have involved AFC teams.  By division, the AFC East has the most teams shutout (nine), with the NFC West is second with seven.  The NFC East has been shutout the least, both times in 2005 (Philadelphia shutout by Seattle and Washington shutout by the Giants).

Now, what of the 2006 season?  The 2009 season is ahead of the pace set in 2006 (six through Week Seven in 2006).  But the 2006 season began with three shutouts on opening week (Tampa Bay, Green Bay and Oakland) and a Week Two Monday night shutout of Pittsburgh by Jacksonville (9-0).

Things were quiet in the middle of the 2006 season (one shutout in Week 9), but then there was an explosion of shutouts between Weeks 11 and 15.

• Week 11: three shutouts
• Week 12: two shutouts
• Week 14: one shutout
• Week 15: two shutouts

The shutouts in 2006 were spread across the board, with two playoff teams (New England [12-4] and New York Jets [10-6]) and two awful teams (Oakland [2-14] and Cleveland [4-12]) being shutout.  In all, ten different teams were shutout in 2006, with Green Bay, Pittsburgh and the Jets being shutout twice and the Raiders three times.

In 2009, the shutout trends appears to be among the worst teams in the NFL.  The six teams are a combined 6-33 this year and includes the three winless teams (Tennessee, St. Louis and Tampa Bay).  The St. Louis-Tennessee game on 13 December could end up being a 0-0 tie!

Well, it could have been worse for the Brits. It could have been another Bucs shutout.

So is the rash of shutouts this season unusual?  Well, shutouts do seem to occur more often than I initially thought.  Excluding the 2006 as an outlier, there are around five per season.  There has also been at least one shutout since 2000 (the scores on NFL.com or ESPN.com do not go back beyond that year).  So shutouts are not extremely rare.

Still, given that there are a total of 256 games per year, only five shutouts per season is still a minuscule number (2.05 percent of all games played).  But it is a fact that a shutout will occur during the season.

And considering that there appear to be so many bad teams in the NFL this year, and since there tends to be an increase in shutouts towards the end of the season as teams give up (Washington?  Kansas City?  Cleveland?), we can expect even more shutouts as the season progresses!