Nutting Up: Arkansas Does the Right Thing by Firing Petrino
At the stage, it is difficult to pontificate on the Bobby Petrino situation at Arkansas without stepping on what someone else has already stated. But, we love a challenge.
~~Don't lose your job in a roadside ditch!~~
To recap, the former head football coach of the Arkansas Razorbacks was involved in a motorcycle accident on 1 April 2012. Riding on his Harley on the backroads of Arkansas, Petrino lost control of his bike and was thrown into some shrubbery. He was taken to a hospital and treated for broken ribs and various cuts and scratches. Petrino soon faced the media, something that along with his return to practice local papers hailed as a reflection of how tough a man Petrino must be…Montana-hardened! [NOTE: that article has since been "archived"...hmm.......well, thank God for LexisNexis].
But this “tough man” was evidently lying to everyone about the incident. Oh sure, there was a crash. But he was not alone. AND, not only was he not alone, but he was riding with a female companion…one that was not his wife. AND, one with whom he was apparently having an “inappropriate relationship”…AND this young woman was a former student and volleyball player for Arkansas…AND she was recently hired by Petrino.
Oh, the tangled webs we weave! And this sinister web led to discussions about what type of punishment would be handed down to Petrino. Placed on administrative leave (with pay) while university administrators investigated the incident, people wondered if he would get suspended. Some hinted that maybe he would be fired………but only if he had a losing record. Given that Petrino was a winner — 34-17 with back-to-back double-digit win seasons and a BCS bowl game appearance (2011 Sugar Bowl) — many did not think the Razorbacks would dismiss Bobby. Not in the SEC — God’s football country!
And then came THE DECISION! A real decision…not one floated by narcicissm but one that was brought about by necessity; one driven by doing what was right.
I have informed Coach Petrino that his employment with the university was being terminated immediately. I have spoken with Assistant Head Coach Taver Johnson and have asked him to continue the responsibility for the football program’s administrative operation through the completion of spring practice April 21. –Arkansas Athletic Director Jeff Long
In the words of Brett Myers, “Boom! Outta here!”
Wow! How refreshing it is to see someone make a very difficult — but very necessary — decision. To be sure, this will hurt Arkansas’s football program…at least in the short term. Some recruits may leave. But, long term this is what is best not just for the football team, but for the university.
With regards to the football team, if Arkansas opted to retain Petrino, how could he as the leadership of that time preach responsibility to his young men? How could they ever take him seriously when he attempts to discipline players for poor decisions? How could they ever be expect to sacrifice “for the team” when he committed such a selfish act? Because of his actions, he was destined to lose the team…this team. Furthermore, you know other SEC schools would use this incident against him in recruiting. He was doomed from the get go.
But the football team will get through regardless. But it was more about the university’s integrity than that of the team and players. Players are going to go to Arkansas regardless of whether or not Petrino is there. Maybe Petrino would have been able to overcome the reputation hit, keep his players on task, and recruit well…again, had Arkansas retained him. Hell, no one seemed to care about him walking out on the Atlanta Falcons!
BUT, regardless of how the team would have performed under a tainted Petrino, the university would have suffered. And, college football would have suffered. In both cases, the suffering would have come down because a decision to retain Petrino would have meant that football (and winning) mean more than integrity. Retaining Petrino in light of what happened would have undermined university regulations and authority, thereby insinuating that it was okay to do whatever one wanted…so long as they win. Hell, Petrino could have been raping hogs while pouring sugar in the governor’s gas tank as long as he was winning.
So, the university had no choice. They had to fire Petrino. And while we may pretend that this was a tough decision, in reality it was an easy decision because Arkansas had no choice! Petrino brought this on himself not because of anything on the football field. And really not because of his infidelity. Again, I will use Long’s words (and i will piece parts of it together):
By itself, Coach Petrino’s consensual relationship with Ms. Dorrell prior to her joining the football staff was not against university policy. By itself, it’s a matter between individuals and their families. However, in this case, Coach Petrino abused his authority when, over the past few weeks, he made a staff decision, and personal choices that benefited himself and jeopardized the integrity of the football program. In short, Coach Petrino engaged in a pattern of misleading and manipulative behavior designed to deceive me, and members of the athletics staff, both before and after the motorcycle accident. He used the athletic department funds to hire, for his staff, a person with whom he had had an inappropriate relationship. . . . Coach Petrino knowingly misled the athletics department and the university about the circumstances related to his accident. He had multiple opportunities over a four-day period to be forthcoming with me. He chose not to. He treated the news media and the general public in a similar manner (emphasis added).
It was not his coaching nor his actual relationship, but that he abused his authority and circumvented university policies, leading to the need for Petrino to misled Long. It was a “conscious decision” to manipulate the facts not just of the accident — again, not the reason for his firing — but of the relationship with Jessica Dorrell and her hiring that led to Petrino’s dismissal. After all, he hired Dorrell knowing that he had a relationship with her that apparently no one else knew was occurring. Their relationship gave her “an unfair, and undisclosed, advantage” over the 159 applicants applying for that position. And, apparently Petrino had given Dorrell $20,000…for what, I do not know.
[Side note: Some have tried to shelter Jessica Dorrell and make her out as a victim. No, she is just as guilty with regards to the relationship as Petrino. She maintained a relationship with him despite being engaged and allowed for that relationship to help her gain employment on his staff. She is not absolved of anything here and is just as much of the problem as Petrino.]
It is not as though this is the first time that a university or a sports organization has made such a tough decision. Remember that Mike Price was fired from the University of Alabama before he even coached a single football game because of a boozing and strip club incident in Pensacola, Florida. Apparently, Price had already been warned about excessive drinking in Tuscaloosa, so that incident led to the quick release.
And, let’s not forget Larry Eustachy, who “resigned” (i.e. forced out) as men’s basketball coach at Iowa State after pictures surfaced of the Cyclones’ coach getting down at a party on the campus of Missouri!!! This was following a game between Iowa State and Missouri, and it later came to light that he partied at a fraternity gathering at Kansas State following a game in Manhattan. He was suspended with the recommendation of termination before Eustachy “resigned.”
So, the decision is not new ground. But, it was the correct decision. And, Petrino and Arkansas will be better off for it. Price eventually landed at UTEP, while Eustachy restored the Southern Miss program before accepting the head coaching job at Colorado State. So, it is likely that Petrino will land on his feet once again; he will be fine.
And the University of Arkansas will be fine. It is sad that we have to applaud Arkansas for doing the right thing; it should be a non-issue. But in this era of win-at-all-cost, the decision to cut ties with Petrino is held as an anomaly rather than what should be the norm. Nevertheless, the football program will be fine, the university maintains its integrity and authority, and college football does not suffer another black eye for embracing the winning-trumps-all attitude. So, big ups to Arkansas and athletic director Jeff Long.
Oh, and if Petrino is interested, I hear that the New Orleans Saints are looking for a temporary head coach. After all, Petrino does have experience with short-term NFL gigs.
The NFL’s Death Penalty: Why the Penalties for the Saints Were Not Only Justified, But Necessary
Three letters in the English language can quickly conjure up the epitome of corruption in college sports.
S.
M.
U.
And those same three letters also bring to mind one of the harshest penalties ever handed down to a college program — the so-called “Death Penalty.”
In 1986, the NCAA handed down the “Death Penalty” to Southern Methodist University for it widespread pay-for-play scheme that lasted for nearly a decade. The NCAA had already stepped in and told the university to cut it out, even placing the program on probation in 1985. That probation should have served as a warning, but instead seemed to embolden the boosters and alumni as the payments continued to flow in.
The NCAA had no choice. In an era when there were several ongoing investigations to such schemes, the governing body of college athletics needed to send a message that this would not be tolerated. And SMU, perhaps the most egregious offender at the time (though by no means the only offender), became the burned body hanged over the bridge. A symbol to all of what would happen if you followed the Mustangs’ slippery path.
Death.
Penalty.
SMU was banned from football in 1987. The effect was so bad that the Mustangs could not even field a viable team in 1988, once the ban ended. It shook the program so terribly that they did not field a competitive team for two decades, dropping from being a once-proud (albeit corrupt) program to being the laughingstock of college football. In their first season back, SMU lost to Houston 95-21 and for the season gave up an average of over 45 points per game (over 51 points per loss). It would not be until 1997 — ten years after the Death Penalty year — that SMU would have a winning record (though no bowl) and not until 2009 that the Mustangs returned to a bowl game.
In other words, the penalties were devastating, but continues to serve as a reminder to NOT follow the path of SMU.
This is exactly why the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell needed to sentence the New Orleans Saints to its own “Death Penalty” for its bounty system. And the parallels between SMU and the Saints are striking.
Just like the Mustangs, there was a pay scheme based on a slush fund. Saints players would put up money for big time plays. This could be something as simple as an interception, or something more devious like purposely injuring an opposing player. Of course, the issue here is twofold.
First, in an era of the NFL trying to show more concern about player safety, a bounty system that rewards injurious plays runs counter to the NFL’s mission. Second, such bonuses circumvent salary cap regulations and therefore circumvent the collective bargaining agreement.
In 2010, evidence first surfaced of a possible bounty system under Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams. This came in light of the numerous hard shots placed on Arizona Cardinals QB Kurt Warner and Minnesota Vikings passer Brett Favre during the 2009-10 playoffs. There was nothing concrete at the time, but the NFL told the Saints organization that if there were a bounty system that it needed to end and the “culture” needed to be cleaned up. Saints’ brass agreed. We can call this the probation.
But then in March 2012, more firm evidence was revealed that not only was there previously a bounty system in place, but it continued through the 2011 season! Like SMU, the Saints continued with their ways despite being warned. And like the NCAA, the NFL needed to send a message — that charred body over the bridge to warn all!
And so, the NFL dropped their death penalty. Former Saints DC (now with the Rams…kind of) Williams is suspended from the League indefinitely with a review after the 2012 season. Saints head coach Sean Payton is suspended without pay for the entire 2012 season (beginning 1 April). General Manager Mickey Loomis is suspended for the 2012 regular season (beginning after the preseason). And the organization must cough up $500,000, as well as draft picks in both the 2012 and 2013 seasons.
The only thing missing here is a ban on the Saints even participating in the 2012 season. Maybe the NFL could have stripped the Saints of home games…or force them to play in an empty Superdome for all the home games (a punishment that is often seen in soccer). But, that would be punishing the fans of New Orleans — fans who did nothing wrong — although it would hit the organization hard. Furthermore, I doubt that the NFL would want that to be the catalyst for the Saints bolting to, say, Los Angeles because of the lost revenue.
Like in SMU’s case, there were likely cases were other teams also had bounties. And perhaps the NFL and Goodell know about those (hence the mandatory certification that no such system exists). But also like SMU, an example was needed and the Saints fit that need.
Many have wondered if the penalties were too harsh. After the bounty system was made public — and before the penalties were announced – Sports Illustrated‘s Peter King thought that the penalties would be severe, but that Payton would only lose a few games in the 2012 season. Instead, the hammer was brought down.
But, the penalties are not “too harsh.” Hell, given that we are discussing the livelihood of NFL players, the penalties may not have been harsh enough. Certainly more penalties will be handed down as the Saints’ players that were involved in the scheme receive their punishment. But in the end, the NFL’s penalties were likely just right.
The NFL needed to make an example that bounty systems will NOT be tolerated. Do you think head coaches and coordinators want to miss a year without pay? Do you think GM’s want to be so heavily penalized? Do you think that the owner wants to be parting ways with half-a-million dollars?
Universities looked at what happened to SMU — and in many ways, what is still happening to SMU — and decided that they did not want that kind of punishment handed down to their program, especially in the era of big money college football. Oh sure, there is still a level of corruption in college sports. But it is no where near what it was in the 1980s with SMU (or, at least, not as visible).
NFL teams will do the same when considering what happened to the Saints. Certainly, teams and players may try to offer some incentives for big plays (interceptions, for example), but placing bounties on opposing players will not likely return for fear of the “Death Penalty.” The NFL was not only justified in its decision, but the decision was necessary for the safety of the players and the viability of the League.
Bracketology Mythology: Comparing the Predictions for the 2012 NCAA Basketball Brackets
The term “bracketology” has become a popular term in the sports lexicon, especially during the months of February and March. According to the most trustworthy source of knowledge in the world, “bracketology” means
the process of predicting the field of the [Men's] NCAA Basketball Tournament (wikipedia).
It is a term that was popularized by Joe Lunardi, who currently works for ESPN, but a term that is used by all. In fact, bracketology itself has practically become a sport of its own, with several websites touting its expertise.
Well, how accurate are these predictions? Glad that I asked. That is what I decided to look at with this entry. While there are some websites that breakdown the success/failure rate of these bracketologist, I am more concerned with the top sports media websites with regards to men’s college basketball — ESPN, Yahoo! Sports, and CBS Sports. I want to look at these in particular because most people likely turn to these sites to get their projections. I also include the website Bracketville, which according to The Bracket Project is the most accurate projector of brackets among 44 “veterans” [Yahoo! Sports' Mike Huguenin ranks 22nd; CBS Sports' Jerry Palm is 26th; Lunardi for ESPN is tied for 27th].
Before I get started, it is important to understand what we are looking at here. First, I looked at the difference between each bracketologist’s projection and the actual seeding. With this, I could figure out how accurate each site proved to be. In order to account for teams missed (like Iona), the bracketologist is given a “predicted” seeding of 17 [i.e. not in the tournament]. Second, I took a total count of accurate seedings. Third, using a scoring system established by PHSports, a score is giving for each bracketologist that also includes total number of teams in the field, accurate seedings, and seedings with one line. Finally, for ESPN, CBS Sports, and Bracketville, I also looked at accuracy with seedings AND regions [Yahoo! Sports does not slot teams into regions].
So, in terms of accurately projecting seeds, Jerry Palm was the most accurate by getting 36 seeds correct. However, the other three bracketologists landed 35 seeds. Therefore, there is no big difference between the four guessers. On average, all tended to underseed teams, although this is somewhat tricky. Obviously missing out on a team is going to bring down the number and grossly skew towards underseeding. Because all missed on Iona, all are knocked down a level. But, Huguenin, Palm and Bracketville all missed on another team.
- Bracketville: -8
- CBS Sports (Palm): -8
- ESPN (Lunardi): -3
- Yahoo! Sports (Huguenin): -8
Now, if we take out the teams missed completely, most projections naturally level off, with Palm overseeding by one and Bracketville underseeding by 2. In terms of teams, the biggest overseeded teams are BYU (Huguenin and Palm by three) and Creighton (Palm by three) and the biggest underseeded team was Southern Miss (Huguenin by three). In terms of total over/underseeding (adding up the seeding differences between the four bracketologist), Harvard can be added to BYU and Creighton as teams overseeded (all overseeded Harvard by two spots).
So, what about the bracketology score? While all nailed roughly the same number of seeds correctly, there is a slight difference when it comes to within one seed line.
- Bracketville: 351
- CBS Sports (Palm): 352
- ESPN (Lunardi): 358
- Yahoo! Sports (Huguenin): 351
In this case, Lunardi’s extra points for missing out only on Iona helps him here. Palm gets a leg up on the other two for getting one more seeding correct.
Finally, let’s look at the three that broke down the regions. Here are the top four seeds in each region:
|
EAST |
||||
|
SEED |
Lunardi |
Palm |
Bracketville |
ACTUAL |
|
1 |
Syracuse |
Syracuse |
Syracuse |
Syracuse |
|
2 |
Duke |
Duke |
Duke |
Ohio State |
|
3 |
Michigan |
Michigan |
Michigan |
Florida State |
|
4 |
Indiana |
Wisconsin |
Indiana |
Wisconsin |
|
SOUTH |
||||
|
SEED |
Lunardi |
Palm |
Bracketville |
ACTUAL |
|
1 |
North Carolina |
North Carolina |
North Carolina |
Kentucky |
|
2 |
Ohio State |
Ohio State |
Ohio State |
Duke |
|
3 |
Baylor |
Baylor |
Baylor |
Baylor |
|
4 |
Wisconsin |
Indiana |
Georgetown |
Indiana |
|
MIDWEST |
||||
|
SEED |
Lunardi |
Palm |
Bracketville |
ACTUAL |
|
1 |
Kentucky |
Kentucky |
Kentucky |
North Carolina |
|
2 |
Missouri |
Missouri |
Missouri |
Kansas |
|
3 |
Georgetown |
Louisville |
Louisville |
Georgetown |
|
4 |
Louisville |
Florida State |
Wisconsin |
Michigan |
|
WEST |
||||
|
SEED |
Lunardi |
Palm |
Bracketville |
ACTUAL |
|
1 |
Michigan State |
Michigan State |
Michigan State |
Michigan State |
|
2 |
Kansas |
Kansas |
Kansas |
Missouri |
|
3 |
Marquette |
Marquette |
Marquette |
Marquette |
|
4 |
Florida State |
Murray State |
Florida State |
Louisville |
All missed on the location for Kentucky and North Carolina, as well as all of the number two seeds. Although, they did at least get those seeds correct. In fact, in terms of the top four seeds in each region (i.e., top 16 seeds overall), the only mis-seeded teams are Florida State (all projected the Seminoles fourth rather than third) and Michigan (third rather than fourth). Only one person got Louisville in the correct fourth seed (Lunardi), while only one person nailed Georgetown in the three seed (Lunardi again). Murray State (Huguenin and Palm) was the only team predicted to be a top four seed but missed, while Indiana (Huguenin) and Georgetown (Palm) were the only teams predicted outside of the top four seeds.
As far as accuracy in regions, Lunardi and Palm both got 16 teams in their correct regionandseed, while Bracketville only got ten teams. They were the most accurate in the East bracket, with Lunardi getting five correct, Palm with four teams, and Bracketville with three teams. The fewest accurate projections was Jerry Palm’s Midwest bracket (Vermont as the sixteenth). In terms of at least getting the teams in the correct region regardless of proper seeding, Palm was the most accurate with 25 teams in the correct region, followed by Lunardi (21) and Bracketville (14).
One final measure of region/seeding accuracy, using the scoring measure for the regions lends itself heavily towards Palm.
- Bracketville: 78
- CBS Sports (Palm): 137
- ESPN (Lunardi): 121
Now, the trickiest part is the Last Four In/First Four Out. According to the First Four match-ups, the Last Four In are BYU, California, Iona and South Florida. With regards to this, Bracketville (California and South Florida) and Lunardi (BYU and South Florida) got two right, while Palm only got one (California). In terms of their predicted Last Four actually making the field in any capacity, Bracketville and Lunardi add North Carolina State, while Palm added Colorado State. All three missed on Seton Hall, while Palm (Northwestern) and Bracketville (Drexel) missed on another.
As for First Four (or more) Out, according to ESPN.com, the NCAA would have chosen between Drexel, Miami (FL), Mississippi State, Nevada and Oral Roberts had St. Bonaventure not won the Atlantic-10 tournament. Nevertheless, Lunardi and Palm both missed on Iona while Bracketville did not even list Iona as in consideration. Palm also missed on NC State while Bracketville missed BYU.
So, in terms of general accuracy, it does not seem that there is much difference between the four bracketologists, at least for the 2012 Tournament. But, when we look at regional accuracy, Palm and Lunardi are far more accurate than Bracketville.
The last thing I want to look at are the teams; which teams did all sources accurately project and which teams did they all miss? Well, there were 20 teams that all four bracketologists accurately predicted their seeding:
|
ALL CORRECT |
|||
|
Team |
Rank |
Team |
Rank |
|
Alabama |
9 |
Mississippi Valley State |
16 |
|
Baylor |
3 |
Missouri |
2 |
|
Duke |
2 |
North Carolina |
1 |
|
Kansas |
2 |
Ohio State |
2 |
|
Kentucky |
1 |
Saint Louis |
9 |
|
Lamar |
16 |
Syracuse |
1 |
|
Lehigh |
15 |
Vermont |
16 |
|
Loyola (MD) |
15 |
West Virginia |
10 |
|
Marquette |
3 |
Western Kentucky |
16 |
|
Michigan State |
1 |
Wisconsin |
4 |
And then, there were 13 teams that none of the four got right (n is the average mis-seeding):
|
ALL WRONG |
|||
|
Team |
n |
Team |
n |
| BYU |
1.25 |
Memphis |
1.25 |
| Creighton |
2 |
Michigan |
1 |
| Florida State |
-1 |
Montana |
-1 |
| Gonzaga |
-1 |
Norfolk State |
-1 |
| Harvard |
2 |
Southern Miss |
-1.75 |
| Iona |
-3 |
St. Bonaventure |
1 |
| LIU-Brooklyn |
1 |
||
As mentioned above, Iona surprised just about everyone with their inclusion and was the only team that all four bracketologists left off of their projections. The only other teams left off were BYU (Bracketville), California (Huguenin), and North Carolina State (Palm).
And finally, here are the teams that only one of the Bracketologists got correct:
- Bracketville [3]: Colorado State (11), Murray State (6), UNLV (6)
- CBS Sports (Palm) [4]: California (12), Cincinnati (6), New Mexico State (13),VCU (12)
- ESPN (Lunardi) [4]: Georgetown (3), Louisville (4), Purdue (10), Texas (11)
- Yahoo! Sports (Huguenin) [7]: Colorado (11), Davidson (13), North Carolina State (11), Notre Dame (7), San Diego State (6), Temple (5), Virgina (10)
Okay, that is all.
Introducing the Florida State…Gators?
Thanks to a heads up from a friend (Jonathan), apparently THE Florida State University has decided to follow the lead of Arkansas State and UL-Monroe and get rid of its hostile nickname and mascots. That’s right! No longer will Chief Osceola charge out onto the field — flaming spear in hand — riding his trusty horse Renegade. No longer will FSU exploit Native Americans for its financial benefits.
According to ESPN2, Florida State now has a new logo representing the proud university in Tallahassee. ESPN2 unveiled it while showing the ACC Men’s Basketball Tournament bracket. Take a look:
Ah, that looks great. That looks awesome. That looks…………hey, wait a minute. Let’s get a closer look at that:
WHOOPS! That looks a lot like another university’s logo. I’ve seen it before…but where? I cannot put my finger on it. Nevertheless, I’m looking forward to see the new look Florida State Gators take on the winner of the Miami-Georgia Tech game.
With a Name Like “Oil Can,” How Can You Be Surprised?: Drugs, Sports and Our Society
Recently, it was released that Oil Can Boyd (real name Dennis Boyd) liberally used cocaine during his baseball career. As quoted in this article from SI.com, Boyd states:
Some of the best games that I’ve ever, ever pitched in the major leagues, I stayed up all night [doing cocaine]. I’d say two-thirds of them . . . [I] wasn’t doing anything that hundreds of ballplayers weren’t doing at the time, because that’s how I learned it and I just caught the deep end of it.
He goes on to note that he was never drug tested, but told to clean it up.
Now, I grew up knowing of Oil Can; his baseball card was my favorite because of his nickname. It has always stuck with me and every time that I hear his name, I immediately think of his baseball card.
So, when I first heard his name the other day, my mind went to that card. But when I heard that he admitted to probably pitching 67 percent of his games high on cocaine (and actually using it during games), my thought went to one word……….And?
I mean, does this really surprise anyone? And, it is not just that it is Oil Can, although with a name like that how could you not figure that he was probably juiced up (and I don’t mean on HGH)? But why are we surprised when it turns out that an athlete in any sport does drugs, or god forbid perform their sport high or hungover. Don’t be so self-righteous and hypocritical!
How many times have you (or at least someone you have known, if you want to be naive) gone to work with a hangover? Essentially, that is what Oil Can is stating would happen. Most of the time, he’d stay up all night with his friend cocaine, and the next day go out and pitch. The effects have not fully worn off and thus, he is pitching “hungover” off of cocaine. And certainly, he admitted to using during games as well. But how is it any different than any of you going to work hungover from alcohol?
Or going to work high. Hell, growing up I know people who would take a “bathroom” break just to smoke up. Are you telling me that “common people” can do that, but athletes cannot? Well, you should not do drugs anyway (our PSA/cover our ass statement), but the problem is we demonize athletes for pitching while high or playing while stoned, while at the same time brushing off people working under such conditions [unless, of course, an accident happens resulting in injury or death]. So, do not be hypocritical.
But also, do not be so naive as to not heed Oil Can’s words that it was rampant. One only needs to look into the annals of baseball history to find the most infamous no-hitter as evidence of drug use while playing. In 1970, Dock Ellis decided to enjoy some LSD on his off-day. However, he soon realized that it was not an off-day and he, in fact, was scheduled to start! Allegedly still feeling the effects of the drug, Ellis went out and threw a no-hitter…while walking eight batters. Again, he did not take the drug while playing, but took it prior and was still “hungover” from it.
And, let us not forget the recent stories about the drinking sessions in the Boston Red Sox clubhouse.
So, why the shock? Why the big news? I mean, I would not be surprised it baseball players were snorting lines off of baseball bats. Or that football players were growing ‘shrooms in their helmets. Or basketball players had a heat lamp in their locker that aided the growth of marijuana. In other words, this is not surprising. In the paraphrase Clark W. Griswald, I would have been more surprised “if I woke up tomorrow with my head sewn to the carpet.”
It is not that there is a drug/alcohol problem in sports (although, it does seem to be confined to baseball; but, athletes from all sports have been busted for DUI and drug possession). But sports reflect society. Sure, we hold athletes to higher standards because of their visible position and salaries. But they are still human. And they are still a part of society that also has individuals that use drugs or drinks alcohol.
This in no way condones the actions of Oil Can Boyd. If anything, he was being irresponsible. But, we as humans sometimes make irresponsible decisions. To paint this only as a sports thing is to ignore that similar actions are conducted by “common people.” And this ignorance is done purposely because it turns the light away from our own mistakes and towards those individuals that we place on higher pedestals.
Athletes are still human. They are still part of our society. Their status simply brings more attention to their actions, whether it is drug use, or alcoholism, or promiscuous activity. But it is not any different than what happens in the everyday lives of millions of U.S.ians.
Again, I am not condoning that activity. Nor am I suggestion that everyone uses drugs, or consumes alcohol, or sleeps around. But, stop pretending that athletes are no different (in terms of lifestyles) than regular folks.
Stop being surprised!
A Win-Lin Situation?: How Jeremy Lin Will Always Be a Success, Even If He Fails
Yeah, I know…I tried to avoid the cheesy “Lin-ization” of a word for the title of this article, but it is difficult to do. Especially, if I want a modicum of traffic. Plus, it is better that my original idea of replacing every instance of “in” throughout this article with “Lin.” But that thought made my Lintestines hurt.
Anyway, I have avoid jumping onto the bandwagon of writing about the impact and awesomeness of Jeremy Lin. I mean, writers and sports talk show hosts and television analysts have salivated over the Harvard product enough. So, why add to the stack? Well, because I have nothing better to do.
Over the past two weeks, Jeremy Lin has gone from being an obscure player on a sinking team to an international star that has helped the Knicks rise like a phoenix. His explosion on the scene surprised almost everyone associated with the NBA. While Houston Rockets’ general manager Daryl Morey stated that the team “should have kept” Lin, he followed that up with the logical statement that he “did not know that [Lin] was this good.” Most agreed that the talent was there to be an NBA player, but few knew he was going to explode like this. Truth is that he was anonymous to most. And while I knew who he was — my wife is Taiwanese, after all — I am not going to pretend that I knew either. Kevin Martin said it best:
I couldn’t tell anything about him. . . . He was cut [with the Warriors]. We cut him. That should tell you something. … It’s pretty amazing. We and the rest of the league are pretty stunned.
But look at his numbers both pre- and post- Mike D’antoni’s epiphany and you can see just how stunning it is.
|
GP |
Min |
FG% |
3Pt% |
FT% |
Reb |
Ast |
TO |
Ast/TO |
Stl |
Pts |
|
| Pre-Star |
9 |
6:02 |
48.14 |
0.00 |
84.53 |
1.11 |
1.89 |
0.89 |
1.50 |
0.33 |
3.56 |
| Post-Star |
9 |
38:43 |
52.96 |
34.16 |
69.64 |
3.78 |
9.22 |
5.89 |
2.40 |
2.22 |
25 |
| TOTAL |
18 |
22:23 |
49.70 |
32.30 |
73.60 |
2.44 |
5.56 |
3.39 |
1.64 |
1.28 |
14.28 |
In addition, he is shooting 15 shots more than over those previous nine games in obscurity, and getting to the free throw line an average of eight time a game (versus just over two times a game pre-star). Of course, minutes have a ton to do with that. But his production has been outstanding, especially when you consider the new burden on him for minutes. Not only that, remember that he only played in nine of the Knicks first 22 games! And in a couple of those games, he was actually down in the D-League.
But Lin’s sudden rise to stardom has not gone over well with everyone. Certainly, Kobe Bryant took a dig at him prior to the Knicks’ game against the Los Angeles Lakers, but that was Kobe being Kobe; not praising anyone. But, the angles have been everything from questioning the system to invoking race. And all, of course, miss the point.
For example, Jason Terry’s notion that Lin is a “system” guy ignores the fact that many players flourish because of the system in which they play. Terry himself benefits from Dallas’s rotation system that allows him to be a spark off the bench, garnering minutes equal to those of starters. Ben Wallace was a defensive menace for the defensive-minded Detroit Pistons, while teams like the Denver Nuggets produce players with lots of transition points because of their style of offense. In each case, teams implement “systems” and bring in the players to run those systems. In other words, those players have the necessary skills to run that “system”; very few players in the NBA are so talented that they can dominate regardless. We call those players “superstars.” Lin is NOT a superstar, but neither is Terry.
And then you have Floyd Mayweather’s nonsense about Lin’s race. When he is not ducking Manny Pacquiao, apparently Mayweather is busy taking shots at Lin and taking a stand “on behalf of other NBA players” [I did not know Mayweather was a basketball player]. Does “race” have something to do with the hype? Sure. But, it is because of the rarity of an Asian-American player in the NBA; not because of his ethnicity alone. But the attention from the media is beyond race, as we are talking about a player waived by two teams, on the verge of being waived by a third team, and whose career was rotting on the Knicks’ bench.
Mayweather is upset because what he sees is a non-black man doing what black men are “known” to do. That, and Money May’s apparent fear of Asians. That is all he sees. What the rest of us see is a man finally getting a chance after so many rejections; a story not just of an Asian man or a black man, but one of many people just looking for that one opportunity.
Additionally, as has been mentioned on sports talk radio, that this is playing out in New York City is what also makes it relevant. Had Lin received his opportunity with Golden State or in Houston, it would not have been this big. Maybe it would be newsworthy for a few days, but not to this extent. I mean, it is the reason why Lin is headlining ESPN.com and Yahoo! Sports, while the San Antonio Spurs’ current 10-game winning streak and Kevin Durant’s 51-points are relatively obscured.
Regardless of the reason, Lin’s ascension has been incredible. And his game against the Dallas Mavericks — arguably the best defense that he has faced since taking over the Knicks’ point guard position — helped solidify his place in the league, as well as wash away the bad taste from the loss to the New Orleans Hornets on 17 February. Tuffy Rhodes he is not (although Rhodes did have a stellar career in Japan).
But, eventually, Lin’s production will slow down. It may not go to 10 points a game, with four assists every night. But his production will plateau. And it is difficult to imagine that the Knicks can maintain this pace. Remember that New York was out of playoff contention just two weeks ago, battling the New Jersey Nets for the Atlantic Division’s basement!
Will that team return? Maybe not. The Knicks are feeding off of Lin’s energy. Or, more appropriately, the Madison Square Garden crowd is energized with Lin in the lineup, which in turn energizes the Knicks. But this momentum will slow. And when it does, will the MSG crowd turn on Lin and blame him if the Knicks fail? Will Lin eventually “fail”?
I say no. And the reason is as simple as tonight’s game. Tonight, the Knicks take on the team that kick-started Lin’s rise — the New Jersey Nets. But, more importantly, it is apparently going to also signal the return of Carmelo Anthony. And THAT return is why Lin will still be viewed as a success, even if the Knicks fall to pieces as the season progresses.
Keep in mind that Lin and Anthony have only been on the floor for long stretches of the game once — 4 February’s game against the Nets. In other words, they truly played together in Lin’s first significant game. In that game, Anthony struggled from the field, going 3 for 15 from the field for just 11 points. Lin shot 10 for 19 for 25 points. That means that those two players accounted for 40.97 percent of the shots attempted and 35.1 percent of shots made. Add in Amar’e Stoudemire’s 6 for 11 game and that is over 54 percent of attempted shots and 51.4 percent of made shots. But, that percentage is far lower than a typical game from the Miami Heat trio of Chris Bosh, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade. In other words, there appear to be enough shots for them all.
But, if Lin plays the role of a “true” point guard, then his facilitation should work well with Stoudemire and Anthony. That 4 February game has been the only one were all three played together. Since that time, the Knicks have won with only Lin on the floor and they have won with Lin and Stoudemire on the floor. Tonight represents the first time since Lin’s ascension to starter that all three will be on the floor. What if the Knicks fail?
Well, one only has to look at the variables, combinations and outcomes. Without Lin (Stoudemire + Anthony), the Knicks were 8-15 on the season. With Lin only (and counting the 6 February game against the Utah Jazz, since Anthony left early with his groin injury), the team was 4-0. With Stoudemire back in the lineup (Lin + Stoudemire), New York is 3-1. So, at this point, the Knicks have been successfully with Lin as the starter versus the times without Lin starting.
Now, of course, the only game where the Knicks’ new Big Three played was a game where Lin did not start. So, tonight should mark the first time that all three have played together where Lin was the starter (assuming Anthony is not eased back in as a bench player). What happens if the success ends? Who is to blame?
Well, the answer is going to fall on the variable that was lacking during this current run — Anthony. Even if Lin has double-digit turnovers or shoots less than 30 percent from the field, the inclusion of Anthony into the lineup is going to shift the blame from Lin to Anthony. Lin will be heralded as the guy who got the Knicks rolling and back into playoff contention. Anthony will be the one crucified for the Knicks’ failure to maintain that momentum. Lin will be the unselfish energizer, while Anthony will be the equivalent of a black hole on the basketball court.
Anthony does demand a lot of shots, as he is averaging 19.6 shots per game this season. The problem is that we do not even know how the Knicks will be with Anthony back in the lineup. Maybe Anthony has not played with a “true” pick-and-roll point guard, but he has certainly played with PGs that dish the ball. Andre Miller, for example, averaged 8.2 assists per game when Anthony averaged 19.7 shots (26.5 PPG) in 2005-06. In 2007-08, Carmelo shot an average of 19.2 times per game (25.7 PPG) with Allen Iverson dishing out 7.2 assists per game (while also scoring 26.4 PPG on an average of 19 shots).
But Anthony has become so vilified as a “ball hog” and a selfish player that there is a tendency to believe that he is incapable of “sharing” the ball [all the while ignoring that the role of most small forwards is to score points rather than create assists]. This also ignores that fact that Carmelo is fifth among all forwards in assists per game and has finished in the top 10 in assists among small forwards in four of his eight previous seasons (and top 15 in all eight).
And personally, I do think that Anthony can coexist with Lin. But, if the Knicks do indeed sputter, the blame will be on Anthony and his “inability” to be a team player, rather than on Lin’s shortcomings.
In other words, Lin will be seen as a hero regardless of how the rest of the season plays out. For Anthony, he can only pray that the momentum continues. Otherwise, it will be his head the Knicks faithful will be after and not Lin.
Lockdown After the Lockout: The Scoring Dip in the NBA’s 2011-12 Season
I have not been paying a lot of attention to the NBA this season. In part, it has been because of the lockout. Also, my favorite player is busy playing in Russia (Andrei Kirilenko). And, I have been busy moving [which also explains the dearth of articles and the lack of updates to the U.P Top 23].
Nevertheless, I catch an NBA game every now and then and I do see the scores online. And something crazy is going on in the NBA. No…I am not referring to “Linsanity”; I am referring to the low scores in the NBA this season.
While certainly the lockout and labor dispute can be blamed, there still appears to be a trend this season where not only are scores low, but also there appear to be more blowouts. It could be conditioning and the impact of back-to-back-to-back games, but nevertheless scoring — the highlight of basketball — appears to be lacking.
For example, this season there are currently (as of 14 February 2012) four teams averaging under 90 points per game – Toronto Raptors (88.2), Detroit Pistons (87.2), New Orleans Hornets (87.1), and the Charlotte Bobcats (86.1). You have to go back to the 2005-06 season just to find a team that averaged under 90 points per game [Portland Trail Blazers - 88.8]. The Bobcats’ average is the lowest since Toronto (85.4) in the 2003-04 season. Just for comparison, the highest scoring NCAA team is the North Carolina Tar Heels, which average 83.5 points per game, but do so in eight fewer minutes.
[Side Note: in 2008-09, Virginia Military Institute outscored the lowest-scoring NBA team 93.8 to 93.6. In 2006-07, VMI outscored 22 NBA teams!].
On the high end, the Denver Nuggets are the highest scoring team in the NBA by averaging 103.9 points per game. This is followed by the Miami Heat (103.4) and the Oklahoma City Thunder (101.2). These are the only three teams averaging over 100 points per game. Denver’s average is the lowest high mark going to the 2002-03 season (Dallas Mavericks – 103 PPG). The number of teams scoring over 100 points is the fewest since 2003-04 (two teams).
But how does the trend compare overall? Let’s take a look at the last few seasons to see if a pattern exist, or is it just a consequence of the lockout-shortened season. It should be noted that the statistics that I gathered for the 2011-12 season were obtained last Thursday (9 February 2012) and therefore covers 372 games through 8 February. The total data goes back to the 2006-07 season.
First, let’s see how much scoring is down. Through 13 February 2012, the average points per game for all teams is 94.7. Over the study period, that is the lowest, although as will be noted later that is NOT the lowest since the 1976 merger. But average for all teams does not tell us too much. What about how much the winning team is scoring, versus how much the losing team is scoring?
On average, winning NBA teams in the 2011-12 season are scoring an average of 100.52 points per game while losing teams are scoring an average of 88.88 points per game. Over the study period, these are the lowest numbers for average points per game. Winning teams this season are scoring on average 4.68 points fewer than over the previous five seasons. Losing teams are doing slight worse, averaging fewer than 5.37 points per game compared to the last five seasons.
| Season |
Games |
Avg Win |
Avg Loss |
| 2011-12 |
372 |
100.5161 |
88.87634 |
| 2010-11 |
1230 |
104.8463 |
94.25447 |
| 2009-10 |
1230 |
105.9846 |
94.90976 |
| 2008-09 |
1230 |
105.422 |
94.47967 |
| 2007-08 |
1230 |
105.6756 |
94.17073 |
| 2006-07 |
1230 |
104.0472 |
93.43171 |
The highest score by a team was 129 by the Miami Heat; that is by far the lowest over the study period (144 in 2010-11 is the next closest). The lowest score in 2011-12 was 56 points by the Orlando Magic. That, however, is not the lowest (54 points in 2007-09, as well as a tie in 2010-11).
In terms of breaking down the scoring by amount scored, only 3.23 percent of winning teams in 2011-12 scored more than 120 points in their wins. This is the lowest over the study period (2009-10 is the highest with 11.38 percent of winning teams scoring over 120). Most winning teams in 2011-12 score between 90-99 points per game (41.13 percent), which is on average 15 percent more than any other season over the study period (the next closest is 2006-07 with 28.05 percent). Typically, based on the previous five seasons, most winning teams score between 100-109 points (on average 35 percent of all winning scores fall in this range).
At the other end of the spectrum, 1.61 percent of winning teams scored between 70-79 points in their victories. Over the previous five season, the percentage of winning scores falling in this range never topped 0.5 percent!!! To put this in perspective, through 352 games in 2011-12, there were six winners scoring between 70-79 points. That is equal to or greater than any of the previous five seasons!!!!! Additionally, so far during the 2011-12 season, 7.26 percent of winners scored between 80-89 points…the highest over the study period.
|
POINTS SCORED BY WINNING TEAM, by POINT RANGE and SEASON |
||||||||
| Season |
Games |
> 120 |
110-119 |
100-109 |
90-99 |
80-89 |
70-79 |
<70 |
| 2011-12 |
372 |
3.23% |
11.83% |
34.95% |
41.13% |
7.26% |
1.61% |
0.00% |
| 2010-11 |
1230 |
9.35% |
23.41% |
34.88% |
25.45% |
6.50% |
0.41% |
0.00% |
| 2009-10 |
1230 |
11.38% |
22.20% |
36.67% |
25.37% |
4.07% |
0.33% |
0.00% |
| 2008-09 |
1230 |
9.84% |
22.85% |
36.34% |
24.39% |
6.18% |
0.41% |
0.00% |
| 2007-08 |
1230 |
11.14% |
25.04% |
34.23% |
22.60% |
6.50% |
0.49% |
0.00% |
| 2006-07 |
1230 |
8.05% |
20.57% |
36.42% |
28.05% |
6.59% |
0.33% |
0.00% |
As for the losing teams, a similar pattern emerges. On the low end, 2.96 percent of losing teams in the 2011-12 season scored fewer than 70 points in their loss, far exceeding the averages over the previous five seasons. The 11 games where the loser scores fewer than 70 points is more than in each of 2010-11, 2009-10, and 2008-09 seasons! Losing teams score in the 70-79 range 13.44 percent of the time. Most losing teams in 2011-12 score in the 80-89 point range (35.75 percent). Over the previous five seasons, most losing teams score between 90-99 points in their losses (35.48 percent of the time).
On the high end, no losing team in 2011-12 scored over 120 points. While that might seem extremely rare — and to be fair it is rare — it does happen 1.61 percent of the time. Only five losing teams in 2011-12 have scored in the 110-119 range (1.34 percent of the time), compared to an average percentage of 7.04 percent of the time over the last five seasons.
|
POINTS SCORED BY LOSING TEAM, by POINT RANGE and SEASON |
||||||||
| Season |
Games |
> 120 |
110-119 |
100-109 |
90-99 |
80-89 |
70-79 |
<70 |
| 2011-12 |
372 |
0.00% |
1.34% |
13.71% |
32.80% |
35.75% |
13.44% |
2.96% |
| 2010-11 |
1230 |
1.38% |
6.75% |
22.28% |
35.77% |
25.69% |
7.72% |
0.41% |
| 2009-10 |
1230 |
1.22% |
6.83% |
22.85% |
37.97% |
25.37% |
5.20% |
0.57% |
| 2008-09 |
1230 |
2.28% |
7.15% |
21.06% |
33.58% |
26.75% |
8.62% |
0.57% |
| 2007-08 |
1230 |
1.71% |
8.54% |
19.51% |
35.93% |
24.31% |
8.29% |
1.71% |
| 2006-07 |
1230 |
1.46% |
5.93% |
21.06% |
34.15% |
26.67% |
9.51% |
1.22% |
If you combine the data from above, typically a winning team scores between 100 and 109 points, while a losing team typically will score between 90-99 points. However, for the lockout-shortened 2011-12 season, we see a complete jump down to a lower point range for both winners and losers; winners now fall in the 90-99 range and losers are in the 80-89 range. Given that the numbers were fairly stagnant but trending towards more scoring (for both winners and losers), the drop this season is not part of a longer trend and therefore does seem to be caused by the lockout.
Now, what about blowouts? Are there more blowouts this season when compared to the previous five seasons?
The average point differential in 2011-12 is 11.639 points, which is the highest over the study period. But the difference between this current season and the previous five seasons is minuscule. In fact, the 2007-08 numbers are quite close to this seasons differential (11.504 in 2007-08). The average point differential over the last five NBA seasons is 10.946. So the 2011-12 season seems to generally fall in line with the previous seasons.
In fact, if we breakdown the point differential into ranges, most games tend to fall in the same range. Over the study period, most games fall in one of two ranges: 6-10 points and 11-20 points. In 2011-12, 30.47 percent of games were between 11-20 with 29.92 percent of games between 6-10 points. The 2007-08 and 2006-07 seasons had percentages similar to this current season, while the other three seasons (2010-11, 2009-10, and 2008-09) had slightly more games in the 6-10 point range than the 11-20 point range. So, in this case, the 2011-12 season is no different than previous seasons.
However, it is when we start to look at the extremes that the current NBA season separates itself from previous seasons. Over the last five years, one-point margins of victory occurred in four percent of NBA games. However, this season, one-point wins are only occurring 2.15 percent of the time. At the other side, the percentage of margins of victory between 31-40 points is close to double the average over the previous five seasons (3.76 percent in 2011-12 versus an average of 2.02 percent in previous years).
If we define a blowout as margins exceeding 20 points, then 15.32 percent of games this season would qualify as a “blowout” versus an average of 12.24 percent over the last five seasons (second highest is 14.39 percent in 2007-08). If we define a blowout as margins exceeding 30 points, then the percentage of games in the 2011-12 season that are blowouts would be 4.03 percent (versus an average of 2.42 percent).
|
MARGIN OF VICTORY, by POINT RANGE and SEASON |
||||||||
| Season |
Games |
1-pt |
2-5 |
6-10 |
11-20 |
21-30 |
31-40 |
>40 |
| 2011-12 |
372 |
2.15% |
23.92% |
29.03% |
29.57% |
11.29% |
3.76% |
0.27% |
| 2010-11 |
1230 |
4.63% |
24.07% |
30.57% |
29.84% |
8.46% |
2.03% |
0.41% |
| 2009-10 |
1230 |
4.07% |
21.46% |
31.54% |
30.73% |
9.51% |
2.44% |
0.24% |
| 2008-09 |
1230 |
3.50% |
24.23% |
30.98% |
29.59% |
9.27% |
1.95% |
0.49% |
| 2007-08 |
1230 |
3.09% |
22.52% |
28.05% |
31.95% |
11.87% |
1.95% |
0.57% |
| 2006-07 |
1230 |
4.88% |
25.45% |
28.46% |
29.19% |
10.00% |
1.71% |
0.33% |
What is this telling us? Simply put, there does tend to be fewer close games and more blowouts, but not exceedingly so. Most games still tend to fall in the middle ranges (6-10 and 11-20) and the average margin of victory is not far off of the average.
What does stand out is that scoring in general is much lower. But if the lockout is to blame, how is it truly translating on the court? Sloppy play? While turnovers per game are at the highest since 2006-07 (15 per game this season versus 15.1 five seasons ago), it is not far off the trend (average turnovers per game since the 2000-01 season is 14.55). More personal fouls? Actually, the average number of personal fouls per game is at the lowest since the merger in 1976 (20 fouls per game). So, it is not necessarily sloppy play.
But, if we look at field goal shooting — the heart of scoring — we can see part of the problem. The average field goal percentage across the league this season is 44.3 percent. That is the lowest since the 2003-04 season, when it was 43.9 percent. Not surprisingly, the 2003-04 season had the second-lowest scoring average since the NBA-ABA merger (93.4 points per game). The lowest since the merger? The 1998-99 NBA season, where teams average 91.6 points per game. That season also had the lowest field goal percentage since the merger — 43.7 percent. At the current rate, the 2011-12 season will have the third-lowest points per game average and the fourth-lowest field goal percentage since the merger. Low free throw shooting also leads to lower scoring (intuitive, i know, but worth noting).
The 2011-12 season does share something in common with the lowest-scoring season; the 1998-99 season was also a lockout-shortened season. Thus, the lockout does indeed seem to have an adverse effect on field goal shooting, which in turn affects scoring. Additionally, both lockout-shortened seasons had more back-to-back games and the atypical back-to-back-to-back games. So, does the three games in a row really matter?
Well, unless I overlooked a series, back-to-back-to-back games have occurred 18 times for 17 teams (the Denver Nuggets have had it twice). In those series, two teams have gone 3-0 (Chicago Bulls and the Oklahoma City Thunder); seven teams have gone 2-1, eight teams have gone 1-2, and only one teams has gone winless (Detroit Pistons). In other words, it is split right even with nine back-to-back-to-back sequences producing winning records and nine producing losing records. Teams are also 10-8 on the back end of that series.
In terms of scoring, it is also not clear if such grueling games decrease scoring as the three days progress. The average score on the third game of the back-to-back-to-back is 95.3 points, with the high being 109 and the low being 78. The average for the opening game of that series is 96 points (high 112 and low 74); so the difference is marginal. The toughest game may actually be that middle game, where teams average 92.7 points per game (112 the high and 78 the low).
In four cases, the team gradually improved their scoring (or equaled the first games score in the third game), whereas a team gradually decreased its scoring only once (Orlando Magic). In most cases, the scoring simply fluctuated with the highs and lows in the three straight games occurring in any of the three games. And, in seven series, the team scored more points in that third game — even in losses — than in the first game.
So, in the end, it appears that the general fatigue and rustiness affects shooting and therefore scoring more so than the grueling back-to-back-to-back games. Of course, the increase in back-to-back games plays a role in this, as does the fewer days off. Hopefully, for NBA fans used to high-scoring games, this is only a temporary, one-season setback.
If previous precedent prevails again, scoring will return next season!
Hijacking the Heisman: Who Truly Deserves the Stiff-Arm?
Lots of debate going on about which player most deserves perhaps the most overrated trophy in sports — the Heisman Trophy.
I write “overrated” because for “most outstanding player,” it almost always goes to a player on the top couple of teams. Certainly those players are “outstanding,” but “outstanding” is conflated with “best team” and there are plenty of players who are outstanding, but on weak teams. It is through no fault of their own that they are on poor teams.
Furthermore, players on good teams are often overlooked as well. While Mark Ingram was certainly deserving of his Heisman trophy, one has to wonder if Stanford being 8-4 hurt Toby Gerhart’s chances.
Nevertheless, this year the debate seems to be between Trent Richardson and Robert Griffin III. Like in 2009, Richardson’s Alabama team is headed to the BCS Game, while RG3 is on a team that has multiple losses (three). And yet, from the pundits, it appears that the talented Baylor quarterback is going to win the trophy.
That stated, those supporting Richardson openly question the level of competition that Griffin III has faced this season. And at the surface, that is a worthwhile question. Here is a table comparing four offensive finalists and the level of competition in terms of total yards allowed.
|
BALL |
GRIFFIN |
LUCK |
RICHARDSON |
| UNLV (106) | TCU (32) | SJSU (93) | Kent (19) |
| OreSt (83) | FCS (X) | Duke (92) | PSU (10) |
| NIU (86) | Rice (111) | Ariz. (110) | Ntexas (97) |
| FCS (X) | K-State (74) | UCLA (91) | Ark. (51) |
| Neb. (36) | IowaSt. (98) | Colo. (103) | UF (9) |
| Ind. (109) | TAMU (66) | WSU (81) | Vandy (20) |
| MichSt (5) | OkState (107) | Wash (94) | Miss. (88) |
| OSU (24) | Missou (61) | SoCal (54) | Tenn (28) |
| Pur (69) | Kan (120) | OreSt (83) | LSU (2) |
| Minn (77) | OU (62) | Ore (60) | MSU (43) |
| Illi. (7) | TxTech (115) | Cal (26) | FCS (X) |
| PSU (10) | Tex. (14) | ND (34) | Aub. (78) |
And here is a look at the defenses faced and their ranked relative to the position of the Heisman candidate (passing defense for Griffin III and Luck; rushing defense for Ball and Richardson).
|
BALL |
GRIFFIN |
LUCK |
RICHARDSON |
| UNLV (98) | TCU (56) | SJSU (57) | Kent (34) |
| OreSt (101) | FCS (X) | Duke (85) | PSU (48) |
| NIU (83) | Rice (111) | Ariz. (119) | Ntexas (72) |
| FCS (X) | K-State (104) | UCLA (68) | Ark. (79) |
| Neb. (66) | IowaSt. (72) | Colo. (97) | UF (40) |
| Ind. (118) | TAMU (113) | WSU (95) | Vandy (27) |
| MichSt (12) | OkState (102) | Wash (116) | Miss. (111) |
| OSU (52) | Missou (91) | SoCal (101) | Tenn (69) |
| Pur (91) | Kan (108) | OreSt (49) | LSU (3) |
| Minn (93) | OU (83) | Ore (82) | MSU (65) |
| Illi. (42) | TxTech (65) | Cal (43) | FCS (X) |
| PSU (48) | Tex. (47) | ND (34) | Aub. (99) |
[NOTE: Montee Ball faced Michigan State twice, but I only listed it once in the above tables.]
Now…that nice. But, it does not tell you that much. Why? Because just like a winning percentage can lie because of a soft (or difficult) schedule, so too can offensive and defensive yards. For example, are the defenses in the Big 12 giving up a lot of yards because they are poor…or because those D’s face high-octane offenses? Subsequently, are SEC defenses really that good, or are those teams facing anemic offenses?
Thus, it is best to see how each of the players fare relative to how other teams have fared against the same defenses. In other words, how does Richardson’s stats measure up to how other teams performed against Alabama’s opponents; and how does Griffin stack up against the other teams that played Baylor’s opponents.
In order to do this properly, I looked at how each player fared in stats relative to their position. For the quarterbacks, I looked at passer efficiency ratings while with the running backs I looked at rushing yards gained. With the latter, to account for rushing yards gained by other players on the team, I took the players percentage of rushing yards gained in a given game and multiplied it the average a defense allows. In other words, Richardson gained only 47 percent of Alabama’s 389 rushing yards against Mississippi. So, I multiplied 47 by the Rebels’ average rushing yards allowed (224.9) in order to get a more comparable number (105.7).
To make more sense of the numbers, a ratio was used comparing yards earned to yards given up. Any number over 1 means the player (or team) outgained the average, while a number less than 1 means the player (or team) underachieved. Finally, I compared that number with a similar ratio looking at how likely an opponent was to over/underachieve against a given defense. In other words, were teams more likely to have bigger-than-normal games against Indiana?
So, here we go…in alphabetical order.
MONTEE BALL (RB-Wisconsin)
| Team | Yards | BALL | Score |
| UNLV |
63 |
1.241 |
1.008 |
| Oregon State |
118 |
1.057 |
0.811 |
| Northern Illinois |
91 |
1.494 |
1.241 |
| South Dakota |
88 |
X |
X |
| Nebraska |
151 |
1.430 |
1.082 |
| Indiana |
142 |
1.363 |
1.571 |
| Michigan State |
115 |
2.109 |
1.073 |
| Ohio State |
85 |
0.625 |
0.426 |
| Purdue |
223 |
1.961 |
1.815 |
| Minnesota |
166 |
1.518 |
1.208 |
| Illinois |
224 |
1.470 |
0.875 |
| Penn State |
156 |
1.903 |
1.407 |
| Michigan State |
137 |
1.208 |
0.615 |
| AVERAGE |
135.3077 |
1.448082 |
1.09431 |
ROBERT GRIFFIN III (QB-Baylor)
| Team | Rating | GRIFFIN | Score |
| TCU |
158.3 |
1.435 |
1.187 |
| Stephen F. Austin |
158.3 |
X |
X |
| Rice |
148.9 |
1.488 |
1.093 |
| Kansas State |
136.6 |
1.100 |
0.995 |
| Iowa State |
103.8 |
0.662 |
0.741 |
| Texas A&M |
119.8 |
0.954 |
0.881 |
| Oklahoma State |
82.5 |
0.648 |
0.597 |
| Missouri |
122.6 |
0.824 |
0.880 |
| Kansas |
130.2 |
0.975 |
0.911 |
| Oklahoma |
144.9 |
1.040 |
1.040 |
| Texas Tech |
125.6 |
1.123 |
0.913 |
| Texas |
122.3 |
1.068 |
0.886 |
| AVERAGE |
129.4833 |
1.029 |
0.920 |
ANDREW LUCK (QB-Stanford)
| Team | Rating | LUCK | Score |
| San Jose State |
109.6 |
0.721 |
0.814 |
| Duke |
129.5 |
0.928 |
0.931 |
| Arizona |
121 |
0.764 |
0.838 |
| UCLA |
138.7 |
1.027 |
0.985 |
| Colorado |
131.1 |
1.024 |
0.934 |
| Washington State |
119.7 |
0.783 |
0.892 |
| Washington |
130.9 |
0.962 |
0.944 |
| Southern California |
111.5 |
1.207 |
0.812 |
| Oregon State |
105.7 |
0.896 |
0.723 |
| Oregon |
87 |
0.693 |
0.606 |
| California |
101.7 |
0.700 |
0.711 |
| Notre Dame |
115.7 |
0.973 |
0.857 |
| AVERAGE |
116.8417 |
0.890 |
0.837 |
TRENT RICHARDSON (RB-Alabama)
| Team | Yards | RICHARDSON | Score |
| Kent State |
37 |
1.427 |
0.856 |
| Penn State |
111 |
1.413 |
1.045 |
| North Texas |
167 |
2.122 |
1.399 |
| Arkansas |
126 |
1.130 |
0.977 |
| Florida |
181 |
1.708 |
1.164 |
| Vanderbilt |
107 |
1.244 |
0.774 |
| Mississippi |
183 |
1.730 |
1.828 |
| Tennessee |
77 |
0.879 |
0.689 |
| LSU |
89 |
1.123 |
0.451 |
| Mississippi State |
127 |
1.385 |
1.109 |
| Georgia Southern |
175 |
X |
X |
| Auburn |
203 |
1.094 |
1.044 |
|
131.9167 |
1.387 |
1.031 |
What do you see? I see a player being overlooked — Montee Ball! He scored the highest (average of the “score”) and had the highest ratio (yards to defensive yards allowed). However, the latter may be a bit biased towards running backs as there is not a lot of potential for large deviations in passer efficiency ratings. In other words, while a running back can double up the yards a defense normally allows, it is unlikely that a quarterback can double up the passer efficiency defended.
It should be noted that when looking at passing yards compared to defenses, Griffin III has the highest ratio among the four offensive finalist. What does that mean? It means that RG3′s passing numbers are better than what his opponents’ defenses allow; much better. Thus, even if he is facing porous pass defenses, he is shredding them much more than those defenses allow on average.
However, what offsets that is the ratio, where it appears that many teams overachieve against those same defenses. And certainly there is some bias in the ratio as teams may stop throwing late, as well as there may be game plans that favor exploiting an opponent’s run defense (see Stanford v. Washington).
One final note, if we take into account Griffin’s rushing numbers, then he likely moves up ahead of Ball. However, it would also be necessary to look at Ball’s receiving numbers, which while low would still need to be examined in context.
Nevertheless, if we are going to talk about stats and teams faced, then Montee Ball should be your Heisman winner. He is not flashy, which is what unfortunately will doom him this evening, but he has over 1750 rushing yards (over 2000 total yards) and 38 TDs.
Coming into this, I thought that RG3 should win it. However, after doing this, I now believe that Montee Ball should win it. However, it is almost a given that Ball will not win it. Shame.
The BCS Is What We Thought It Was!
You knew that as soon as the announcement was made that the critics would be out in full force. Regardless of which team was second in the BCS, criticism was coming.
Of course, this should have been known long ago. The BCS is almost predicated on controversy. And yet, every time it happens, so many people act surprised.
Let’s first clear up something. I do not care what people try to tell you…no one wants to see Oklahoma State face LSU. No one! Maybe some Oklahoma State fans, but that is it. No one in the United States wants to see a one-loss Cowboys team — a team that lost to friggin’ Iowa State — face the undefeated Tigers.
Just like no one wants to see Alabama faces LSU for a second time. What people want to see is a more legitimate way to determine a champion at college football’s highest tier. And yet, what we are left with is an illogical system that does nothing but cause problems.
I have laid it out before that I think that — based on its system — that the BCS got it right in terms of the two teams. And I have already laid it why I think that is the case. But, just to revisit it (in case you are too damn lazy to click on a link)…
Oklahoma State beat some quality opponents. But no Cowboys advocate wants to talk about quality losses, which head-to-head Iowa State is a far worse loss than Alabama losing to LSU. And while people want to argue that Alabama lost at home as a (slight) favorite, it is not as though Ames is known as a tough place to play…especially when your are nearly a four-touchdown favorite!!!
Additionally, Oklahoma State was buoyed by two teams that were scheduled for an easy “W” — UL-Lafayette and Tulsa. While Tulsa does put out good teams, the Ragin’ Cajun were expected to finish at the bottom of the Sun Belt (arguably the worst conference in the FBS). That UL-Lafayette and Tulsa finished with 8-4 records likely inflated Oklahoma State’s strength of schedule. (The opposite could be argued for Alabama, as Florida finished far worse than anyone expected, though OK-State can also point to Texas and Texas A&M).
And finally, the Oklahoma victory gave Oklahoma State a last-ditch emotional push. But, like the Iowa State game, the timing is the problem here. What if the Iron Bowl, which could not be played on the same day, were also played at the same time? I think there would have been a clearer juxtaposition between the two teams — Alabama dominating an Auburn team that likely overachieved, and Oklahoma State destroying a depleted Sooners teams.
But do not blame Alabama for the rematch. Blame the system. The BCS did exactly what it was supposed to do and yet everyone is trying to misplace the blame.
Do not blame the SEC, as Mark Bradley of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution attempt to do. Here is a cat who tries to make it out like the SEC has some monopoly over the BCS, all the while ignoring the travesty of the Big East still carrying an automatic bid to the BCS. Of course, as Dan Wetzel notes, it was the SEC and the ACC that tried to correct the illegitimacy of the BCS by offering a “plus one” model; guess which conference (among many) shot it down? Now Mark…why would a conference that allegedly has its claws deep into the BCS want to change the BCS?
Of course, Bradley is the same guy who spends parts of his article taking potshots at Nick Saban while somehow being surprised that brand matters. Hello!? Why else has Boise State and TCU been ignored for so long? The entire bowl system is all about money and Bradley is somehow shocked that it is the same for the BCS!?
Bradley also seems to believe that a team not winning its on division playing for the BCS title is something new. Not so (see 2002 Rose Bowl). Guess why that was the case…the BCS!!!!!!!!!!! Not the SEC cartel, or more appropriately in this case the Big 12 cartel. The BCS was the reason Nebraska went to the Rose Bowl to play against (and lose to) Miami.
And one final point, on this notion that the #2 team must be a conference champion. I laid out the potential for a situation where the highest ranked conference champ may not even be in the top five. But, are people like Bradley suggesting that Arkansas State is better than Alabama simply because they won their conference? Good god, imagine if California-Los Angeles had won the Pac-12 title!!!! Would the Bruins be considered better than Alabama?
Winning the conference — or even the division — is not a prerequisite to being number two in the BCS. Again, blame the system; not the SEC or Alabama.
Next, we have people who want to blame Troy Calhoun, head coach of the Air Force Academy. Why? Because Calhoun, who has a vote in the Coaches’ Poll, voted Oklahoma State fifth! But Calhoun’s ballot needs to be taken into context.
Following the loss to Iowa State, Calhoun dropped the Cowboys down to ninth! While it is not clear how all other pollsters voted, it is obvious that the Falcons’ head coach rightly punished the Cowboys for that loss to the Cyclones. I would hope that the same would have occurred had Alabama lost to Vanderbilt (the Cyclones and Commodores are comparable). Since then, Oklahoma State climbed in Calhoun’s ballot up to fifth.
But Calhoun is not to blame here, but the system is. The entire polling process is arbitrary and fueled by perception. Plus, as noted in a previous article, the instructions to pollsters is simply to rank the teams 1-25 based on performance. The rules are so ambiguous that each voter is left to form their own rubric.
So, for Calhoun, maybe he viewed the ISU loss much more harshly, as he did the Boise State loss to TCU. He moved the Cowboys up one spot coming off of a bye week, and then three spots after their win over Oklahoma.
But look across the board and you will see more puzzling ballots. Todd Berry (Boise State 13th)? Pat Hill (Boise State fourth; TCU ninth)!? Les Miles (TCU 21st)!?! Sonny Dykes (Houston ninth)!?!? Friggin’ Tom O’brien (Georgia ninth)!?!?!?!?!
But, it is not just the Coaches’ Poll. Have you seen the Harris Poll? Brentson Buckner has Baylor eighth and did not even rank Nebraska. Tony Jones has Arkansas ranked 19th, right behind Southern Mississippi; but at least ahead of Texas (23rd). Derrick Mayes has Clemson eighth, Georgia unranked, and Oklahoma State sixth!! Jim Walden has Alabama fourth (behind Oklahoma State and Stanford), Houston eighth and Penn State 13th!!! And, the most egregious of all the ballots, George Wine has Oklahoma State SIXTH behind Alabama, Stanford, Boise State and……HOUSTON!!!!!!!! Who the fuck are these people and what are they watching!? It is NOT the Houston Texans!
But, again, it is not the pollsters themselves but the nature of the polls. Ambiguously regulated and arbitrarily determined, when the rubric is left up to the individual pollsters, this is what you get. So, do not blame Troy Calhoun or even George Wine; blame the system.
Lastly, there are some sour grapes. Berry Tramel decided to publish perhaps the most embarrassing response one can make to the BCS travesty — you [Oklahoma State] do not want to go New Orleans, anyway. Instead, go enjoy suburban Phoenix!
Yeah…that’s mature. In his sad article, Tramel decides to resort to stereotypes, hanging on to vestiges of Dixie and harping on the SEC cartel. And while some LSU fans are rude, it is not as though there are not similar fans for all other universities. Stanford’s civilized fans? Have you seen the Stanford band (which I love, by the way)!?
But the sour grapes from Tramel is just more whining and blaming of others. It must be Saban, or “Dixie,” or ESPN, or Iowa State. Oops, wait a minute. Tramel is right about that one…at least he is willing to admit that Oklahoma State also blew there chance. After all, every game counts!
And that is the thing. Every game did count. All of Alabama’s games and all of Oklahoma State’s games counted. And when it came down to it one counted more than the other — a loss to a 6-6 team. It is why even though they have the same number of wins over BCS ranked teams (one), Stanford is in a BCS game over Boise State…the Broncos’ loss to TCU “counted” more than Stanford’s loss to Oregon.
[Side note: Stanford did beat a very good Southern California team that, due to penalties, cannot be ranked in the BCS].
But if every game truly counted, then LSU should already be crowned the “national” champion. They are the only unbeaten team. Tramel wants to punish Alabama because their loss should be “counted,” then the same should apply to Oklahoma State, Stanford and Boise State. They all lost. If, say, Oklahoma State were to have been given the slot in the BCS Game and then beat LSU, what happens next? Should Stanford get a shot at Oklahoma State since they now all have one loss? This is not boxing or mixed martial arts!
Nevertheless, perhaps Mike Gundy said it best when he said that “we believe in the system.” And therein lies the issue for it does not matter how much Tramel and Bradley blame Nick Saban or the SEC or ESPN, the system is to blame. It is the system that is giving us Alabama v. LSU. If it were Oklahoma State to have been selected, it would have been the same exact system.
The game everyone wants to see is NOT Alabama v. LSU, nor is it Oklahoma State v. LSU. At the very least, it is Alabama v. Oklahoma State…and maybe LSU v. Stanford with the two winners meeting for a legitimate national title.
But that is not what we have; we have a system to which all the big boys agreed would decide the “national” champion at college football’s highest level. There is no conspiracy, T. Boone! If you want to investigate, you should have been doing it when your school’s conference was benefiting from it in 2001 and 2003.
The BCS is what we thought it was! And we continue to let it off of the hook!
Alabama v. Oklahoma State: Laying Out the Arguments for LSU’s Opponent
In an ideal world, Alabama and Oklahoma State would face off against one another to determine which team will face LSU in the BCS Game.
But, this is not an ideal world but the surreal world of the BCS. And since there must be an arbitrary choice made, it is worth while looking at both teams and how each measures up.
First, I am not interested in arguing the merits of the “rematch.” By this, I mean that I am not concerned with the “Alabama had their shot” argument. The BCS has never been about avoiding rematches, but matching up the two best teams regardless of if it creates a rematch or a game with a team that did not win its conference. For all of the arguments that Alabama had their shot, I’d counter that they had no choice; it actually seems that Alabama is being punished for playing in the SEC (and having to play LSU).
So, the “we don’t need a rematch” should be a moot argument.
Now, before I delve into this, I should explain some of the numbers. Strength of schedule is takes into account winning percentage, opponents’ winning percentage, and opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage; it also removes the impact of the teams wins (and loss) on their opponent. Offensive Ratio looks at the team’s offensive average versus the opponents’ average defense; Defensive Ratio looks at the team’s defensive average versus the opponents’ average offense. Points For Ratio and Points Against Ratio are similar to the Offensive and Defensive Ratios. Ranked Teams At Time are the number of ranked teams each faced at the time of the game; Ranked Teams Current are the number of teams each faced based on the current Coaches’ Poll.
Alabama Crimson Tide
- Record: 11-1 (0.917)
- Conference Record: 7-1 (0.875)
- Conference Rank: 2nd
- Preseason Rank: 2nd
- Strength of Schedule: 9th
- Offense Ratio: 1.27 (6th)
- Defensive Ratio: 1.8 (1st)
- Points For Ratio: 1.52 (6th)
- Points Against Ratio: 3.0 (1st)
- Teams Ranked At Time: Five (4-1)
- Teams Ranked Current: three (2-1)
- Winning Percentage of Defeated Teams: 61-59 (.517)
- Best Win: Arkansas (38-14)
- Winning Percentage of LSU: 12-0 (1.000)
Oklahoma State Cowboys
- Record: 11-1 (0.917)
- Conference Record: 8-1 (0.889)
- Conference Rank: 1st
- Preseason Rank: 8th
- Strength of Schedule: 11th
- Offense Ratio: 1.29 (5th)
- Defensive Ratio: 0.976 (80th)
- Points For Ratio: 1.46 (9th)
- Points Against Ratio: 1.25 (28th)
- Teams Ranked At Time: four (4-0)
- Teams Ranked Current: three (3-0)
- Winning Percentage of Defeated Teams: 75-57 (.568)
- Best Win: Kansas State (52-45)
- Winning Percentage of Iowa State: 6-6 (.500)
Anarchy in the BCS: Only True Chaos Will Bring Down the BCS
Ever since the calendar turned to November, we have been bombarded with notions that the BCS is in “chaos.” Alabama only falling a couple of spots; Boise State losing; Stanford losing; Oklahoma State blowing it; even losses by then one-loss Oklahoma and Oregon. All of these games have created chaos.
No it has not! If Alabama plays LSU for the BCS title, it will not be the first rematch in a bowl game (or “national championship” game) ever…see Florida v. Florida State in 1996, for example. In that rematch, Florida avenged an earlier loss to the Seminoles to win the AP and Coaches’ national championship.
Also, if Alabama plays LSU again, it will not even be the first rematch between two teams from the same conference…even in the Sugar Bowl! In the 1960 Sugar Bowl, Mississippi avenged an earlier loss to LSU by winning the bowl game 21-0 and splitting the national title (with Syracuse).
Even if LSU loses and still plays in the BCS game it will not be the first time (e.g. Oklahoma in 2003). And if Alabama does play in the BCS game despite not playing in the SEC championship game, it would not be the first time (e.g. Nebraska in 2001). Nor would Oklahoma State jumping an idle Alabama to play be a first (Florida jumping Michigan in 2006).
So none of those scenarios would create chaos.
You want chaos? Here is what needs to happen.
- Houston loses to Southern Miss in the Conference USA championship game. This removes the Cougars as the BCS Buster and an undefeated claim.
- Georgia beats LSU. Like Houston, a loss by the Tigers removes the last undefeated team from the FBS.
- Boise State beats New Mexico. Should not be difficult, but for chaos we need the Broncos to remain a one-loss team.
- Clemson to knock off Virginia Tech. It is just better this way…trust me!
- Wisconsin to win the rematch against Michigan State. Michigan State is ranked higher anyway, but the Badgers winning the rematch will demonstrate that a rematch can go the other way and still legitimate the champion (of the conference, at least).
- Oklahoma wins the Bedlam Series against Oklahoma State. Gotta take the Cowboys out of the picture…and OU has owned this series.
- Hawai’i knocks off BYU. Not because it will matter in our chaos, but because I want it to happen.
So, do you see the picture that has been painted? The two undefeated teams fall and every conference winner will have at least two (overall) losses. It would have been nice had UCLA somehow upset Oregon, but I want the Bruins to end up 6-8 after their bowl game.
Now, with that mess, which teams go to the BCS title game? The highest ranked conference champ would likely be Oklahoma…with two losses! Alabama and Stanford would not have lost, but did not even win their division. Boise State would have only one-loss, but does not automatically qualify because they did not win their conference; they’d have to go as an at-large…IF chosen at all.
In other words, the BCS game would have no other choice but have two teams that did not win their conference. It would also destroy any argument that the BCS should only have conference champions because which teams are you going to take — two-loss Oregon and two-loss Oklahoma!?
You want chaos? Pray for the scenario above to play out!
Alabama Slammer: How the BCS Can “Get It Right” with a Rematch
I have sat on the issue of a potential rematch between LSU and Alabama in the BCS game for some time. But a recent article on the website of the “four letter” coerced me to go ahead and write about it.
Let me clear up front: I am an Alabama fan, but I also do not like the concept of a rematch. But also, if you have read anything that I have written on this or other websites then you will know that I am very anti-bowl and anti-BCS.
Nevertheless, given the system that is in play at the top tier of college football, if a rematch were to occur then I would at least “accept” it because that is the system that we are left with due to greed and ignorance in the sport. Because, as the BCS attempted to promote via The State, the BCS works “most of the time.” However, many are bitching about the BCS being “unfair” and how the system is flawed because of what appears to be the inevitable rematch between two SEC teams. But, the system is “working” the way it is supposed to work — matching the two best teams.
Let’s keep in mind the following — the BCS did not suddenly become broken once it became evident that the SEC would hold a monopoly on the BCS game. Remember the snubbing of Miami and Washington in 2000; Nebraska getting into the BCS game in 2001 despite not winning the Big 12 (and snubbing of Oregon); Oklahoma in the BCS game as loser of the Big 12 in 2003; undefeated Auburn left out in 2004; Boise State in 2006 and the avoidance of a Michigan rematch with Ohio State; undefeated Utah in 2008 being ignored; and undefeated TCU in 2010 not even being considered. If none of those have pissed you off, then why is this potential all-SEC final now reason for anger?
Well, along comes some cat named Rick Reilly, who attempts to dismiss the potential rematch with a very poorly argue diatribe against Alabama and the SEC. In full disclosure, I have never knowingly read anything by Reilly and do not really know who this person is (the name sounds familiar, but I cannot place). But, for someone who writes for ESPN.com, I would expect better output.
In an article titled “Been There, Done That,” Reilly attempts to deconstruct the rematch while also taking potshots at the SEC. For someone who is a national sports writer, this piece should be an embarrassment for its asinine and illogical arguments. That, or he is attempting to piss people off simply for the hits (desperation?).
Let’s start with the assertion that the rematch would be boring. I have already admitted that the November game was not exciting and that the hype — driven by Reilly’s employer more than Alabama or LSU — was overblown. But, to suggest that the rematch would boring is ignorant. Recall that the 2010 BCS game (Alabama v. Texas) was supposed to be low scoring (37-21) and the 2011 BCS game (Auburn v. Oregon) was supposed to be a shootout (22-19).
There seems to be a lack of appreciation of defensive football. That is evident in the groaning over a potential rematch. But, “boring” defensive football does not mean there should not be a rematch (and to Reilly’s credit he does not claim that there should not be a rematch because of boredom). However, it is interesting that Reilly references boring games when he apparently follows golf, an incredibly boring game to watch.
Anyway, Reilly next delves into his diatribe, railing against the motto of the BCS — “every game counts” (more on this below) — before ripping the rematch. He brings up the fair question about what to call Alabama if they do win the rematch, despite being 1-1 against LSU and not winning their division.
Well, how about call Alabama “BCS Champion”? Is Reilly so clueless about the BCS process that he does not recognize that the winner of the BCS game is the BCS champion? It does not matter what happened in the regular season, but what happens in the post-season. It is why no one questions sixth-seeded Green Bay’s Super Bowl title last season or the St. Louis Cardinals winning the World Series as the wild card. Yes, those are playoffs but that is also the system that the NFL and Major League Baseball have chosen in order to determine its champion. The top tier of college football has chosen to use the BCS — this is what we have to deal with. If Reilly is really upset at the fact that a team that did not win its conference could play in the BCS game, then he should have been upset when Nebraska and Oklahoma were pulling this crap. The anger should have existed before this current situation.
And yes, Rick Perry can withdraw from the Republican nomination for presidency and still end up running against President Obama. See Charlie Crist v. Marco Rubio in Florida for one of the state’s Senate seats as an example. It is always possible, Reilly.
Anyway, the point is that the BCS game is what decides the BCS champion and not a game in early November. Regardless of Alabama being 1-1 against LSU, Alabama would have won the game that matter. I mean, did the Washington Capitals argue that they should have advance to the Eastern Conference finals rather than the Tampa Bay Lightning because the Caps won the regular season series (4-2)? Exactly!
The winner of the BCS game is the BCS champion, regardless of if it is from a rematch or not. If Oklahoma State were to beat LSU, the Cowboys are the BCS champion even though LSU would have a better winning percentage.
Next, Reilly lays out other potential BCS match-ups that he rather see, stating that he’d prefer “any team that has not already blown its chance.” Really? Oklahoma State was in prime position to play for the BCS title and blew their chance by falling to a near-four touchdown underdog in Iowa State! The Cyclones, for god’s sake!!!! That the Cowboys only fell two spots after losing to ISU should be questioned just as much as Alabama only falling one spot following the LSU loss…but at least Alabama’s loss was to the top-ranked team in the FBS!
Stanford? Blew their chance by losing their only true test of the season versus Oregon. Same for Boise State as the Broncos blew their only late season test against TCU. Virginia Tech was blown out by Clemson. Like Alabama, all three of these teams lost at home.
So, if we are going to talk about teams that have not blown their chance, then the discussion should be on Houston. Where is Reilly’s argument for the Cougars? Nowhere!
Anyway, let’s dig deeper in the teams that allegedly have not blown their chances.
Oklahoma State. While I have already hit OK-State, it is worth revisiting quickly as I find Reilly’s reason behind the Cowboys’ loss to be laughable. He wrote that Oklahoma State’s
only loss was in double overtime to Iowa State the same week an OSU school plane crashed, killing two women’s basketball coaches
Really? He is going to “blame” the Cowboys’ loss on that tragic accident while also ignoring the tragedy that Alabama and the city of Tuscaloosa faced in April?! The Cowboys did not lose because of that accident — the offense played very well — but because their defense gave up nearly 600 yards! That’s been the story of the season and it caught up to OK-State. End of story!
Reilly’s argument that the Cowboys have beaten more BCS Top 25 teams than Alabama is a sound one (Reilly claims four to two, but technically four to three since Alabama beat Auburn knocking them out of the Top 25…however, if the Cowboys defeat Oklahoma then it would be five to three).
However, it is more about the loss rather than the wins. Alabama lost to LSU; Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State. Talk BCS Top 25 all you want, but losing to Iowa State is not the same as losing to LSU and thus cannot simply be dismissed. If we are going to discuss the strength of wins, then we should also discuss the strength of losses.
Stanford. Really? How illogical can Reilly be to offer up Stanford as a better choice than Alabama!? Reilly argued that Alabama does not deserve a rematch because they would not “even have won their SEC division, much less their conference.” Um, hello!? Stanford would also not “even have won their … division, much less their conference.” How can the argument work against Alabama, but not even be used against Stanford?
In the same paragraph, Reilly anoints Stanford QB Andrew Luck the “shoo-in Heisman winner.” Really? The same Luck who played his worst game of the season in his biggest game of the season? That Luck struggled against the Oregon defense makes Reilly’s suggestion that the Cardinal’s QB would have a field day against LSU laughable.
The counter to the Stanford suggestion (not a conference winner) can be applied to Boise State. Although, it is funny that Reilly mentions the Broncos’ victory over Georgia while ignoring the weakness of the Bulldogs’ SEC schedule.
Virginia Tech. So, a rematch is “bonkers” in part because if the loser of the first game wins the rematch, then questions abound concerning the legitimate winner, yeah? Well, what about Virginia Tech, which is facing Clemson in a rematch in the ACC Championship game? In fact, there are two rematches in conference title games (Michigan State v. Wisconsin in the Big Ten title game; a rematch of the earlier thriller won by MSU).
If Virginia Tech wins the ACC championship game, then is Reilly going to question the legitimacy of that title? Of course not because that would destroy his argument. Nevertheless, Reilly is arguing for the winner of a rematch to play in the BCS title game to avoid a rematch. Huh!?
The only team that Reilly does not promote is Houston. If any team has a legitimate argument, it should be Kevin Sumlin’s Cougars. They have not blown their chance. Remember that Reilly ridiculed the BCS and its “Every Game Counts” motto. And yet, if that is the case, then the only team that should face LSU (assuming the Tigers take care of Georgia) is Houston.
But not a peep about it! Why? Well, because it would not support Reilly’s argument about strength of scheduling that he uses with Oklahoma State. Now, I am not claiming that Houston should be in the BCS game, but if Reilly wants to discuss what is “fair” and giving other teams a shot, then Houston is perhaps more deserving than any other team.
And this gets to Reilly’s last point — “fair.” He closes his article with the following:
Two-thirds of the rankings are based on humans. Voters, be fair.
Be fair? Hmm, that is interesting because now Reilly is politicking for pollsters to go against their job.
I contact USA Today about how pollsters are supposed to approach filling out their ballots. This was their response:
Voters are instructed to vote for the best 25 teams in order, based on their performance
So, the best teams “based on performance.” That is what the pollsters are tasked to do. Ergo, if pollsters feel that LSU is number one and Alabama is number two based on “performance,” then why does Reilly have a problem with it?
Instead of accepting the results and the work of the pollsters, Reilly is using his platform to lobby these pollsters to alter their task and rank not the best 25 teams in order, but rank them so that Alabama is not number two! How is that “fair”?
Reilly’s anger is misplaced. It is not the fault of Alabama or the SEC that the system is set up to allow for a rematch. It is also not the Tide’s fault that Oklahoma State cannot beat a 6-5 Iowa State team. Maybe Reilly is afraid to criticize the BCS since he works for ESPN, but he’d be much better served focusing his anger at that broken system rather than an Alabama team that is one of the two best teams in the country.
I’ve noted before that no matter how broken the BCS is, it does what it sets out to do — place the top two teams in their poll in the BCS game. So what if it turns out to be a rematch?
For an “11-time National Sportswriter of the Year,” I am surprised at the illogical arguments that Reilly lays out. If the goal of the BCS is to pit the two best teams against one another, it should not matter if it is a rematch.
But, at least Reilly and I can agree on one thing: perhaps a rematch will finally bring much needed reform to the BCS.
2011 Uncle Popov NFL Power Rankings (Week 9)
After looking at it, I was able to get it to where I like it. Remember, it is a power ranking based on three-plus seasons…so Detroit is still hampered by that 0-16 season, but they are moving up. I will still keep the 2011 rankings (for now), but I still need to figure out why San Francisco keeps ranking so high (number two).
WEEK 9!!!
POWER RANKING
|
Rank |
Team |
Points |
Last Week |
CHANGE |
|
1 |
Green Bay Packers |
14.329 |
4 |
3 |
|
2 |
Pittsburgh Steelers |
13.402 |
1 |
-1 |
|
3 |
Baltimore Ravens |
13.153 |
3 |
– |
|
4 |
New England Patriots |
13.005 |
2 |
-2 |
|
5 |
New Orleans Saints |
12.592 |
6 |
1 |
|
6 |
Atlanta Falcons |
12.590 |
5 |
-1 |
|
7 |
New York Giants |
12.375 |
7 |
– |
|
8 |
Chicago Bears |
11.094 |
11 |
3 |
|
9 |
New York Jets |
10.967 |
8 |
-1 |
|
10 |
Philadelphia Eagles |
10.814 |
9 |
-1 |
|
11 |
San Francisco 49ers |
10.645 |
17 |
6 |
|
12 |
Dallas Cowboys |
10.144 |
14 |
2 |
|
13 |
San Diego Chargers |
9.921 |
10 |
-3 |
|
14 |
Houston Texans |
9.819 |
15 |
1 |
|
15 |
Cincinnati Bengals |
9.637 |
19 |
4 |
|
16 |
Tennessee Titans |
9.606 |
12 |
-4 |
|
17 |
Tampa Bay Buccaneers |
9.111 |
18 |
1 |
|
18 |
Minnesota Vikings |
8.987 |
16 |
-2 |
|
19 |
Buffalo Bills |
8.450 |
20 |
1 |
|
20 |
Detroit Lions |
8.225 |
29 |
9 |
|
21 |
Carolina Panthers |
7.818 |
22 |
1 |
|
22 |
Indianapolis Colts |
7.401 |
13 |
-9 |
|
23 |
Washington Redskins |
7.188 |
24 |
1 |
|
24 |
Oakland Raiders |
7.034 |
21 |
-3 |
|
25 |
Denver Broncos |
6.607 |
27 |
2 |
|
26 |
Arizona Cardinals |
6.467 |
25 |
-1 |
|
27 |
Miami Dolphins |
6.463 |
23 |
-4 |
|
28 |
Kansas City Chiefs |
6.454 |
26 |
-2 |
|
29 |
Cleveland Browns |
5.906 |
30 |
1 |
|
30 |
Jacksonville Jaguars |
5.869 |
28 |
-2 |
|
31 |
Seattle Seahawks |
5.347 |
31 |
– |
|
32 |
St. Louis Rams |
3.562 |
32 |
– |
2011 RANKING
|
Rank |
TEAM |
Points |
Last Week |
CHANGE |
|
1 |
Green Bay Packers |
14.427 |
1 |
– |
|
2 |
San Francisco 49ers |
13.420 |
2 |
– |
|
3 |
Detroit Lions |
12.087 |
3 |
– |
|
4 |
Cincinnati Bengals |
11.562 |
7 |
3 |
|
5 |
New York Giants |
11.049 |
9 |
4 |
|
6 |
Baltimore Ravens |
10.950 |
8 |
2 |
|
7 |
Buffalo Bills |
10.909 |
4 |
-3 |
|
8 |
Pittsburgh Steelers |
10.614 |
5 |
-3 |
|
9 |
New England Patriots |
10.452 |
6 |
-3 |
|
10 |
Chicago Bears |
10.403 |
13 |
3 |
|
11 |
New Orleans Saints |
10.220 |
10 |
-1 |
|
12 |
Houston Texans |
10.189 |
11 |
-1 |
|
13 |
New York Jets |
10.077 |
17 |
4 |
|
14 |
Atlanta Falcons |
9.983 |
16 |
2 |
|
15 |
Dallas Cowboys |
9.127 |
20 |
5 |
|
16 |
San Diego Chargers |
8.926 |
18 |
2 |
|
17 |
Tampa Bay Buccaneers |
8.859 |
12 |
-5 |
|
18 |
Oakland Raiders |
8.724 |
15 |
-3 |
|
19 |
Kansas City Chiefs |
8.564 |
14 |
-5 |
|
20 |
Tennessee Titans |
8.479 |
19 |
-1 |
|
21 |
Philadelphia Eagles |
7.634 |
21 |
– |
|
22 |
Denver Broncos |
7.547 |
26 |
4 |
|
23 |
Cleveland Browns |
7.508 |
22 |
-1 |
|
24 |
Washington Redskins |
7.210 |
23 |
-1 |
|
25 |
Seattle Seahawks |
6.628 |
25 |
– |
|
26 |
Jacksonville Jaguars |
6.619 |
27 |
1 |
|
27 |
Minnesota Vikings |
6.497 |
28 |
1 |
|
28 |
Carolina Panthers |
6.001 |
29 |
1 |
|
29 |
Arizona Cardinals |
5.746 |
30 |
1 |
|
30 |
Miami Dolphins |
4.708 |
32 |
2 |
|
31 |
St. Louis Rams |
4.560 |
24 |
-7 |
|
32 |
Indianapolis Colts |
3.611 |
31 |
-1 |
Interpreting the LSU Victory over Alabama: or, How Bitter People Are Towards Defense
Not long after the LSU Tigers knocked off the Alabama Crimson Tide in overtime on 5 November, reactions began to trickle through the Internets! And oh, how bitter some people were at that game. From SEC-haters to people who formerly claimed to hate Twitter, there was much bitterness over the game itself. It was boring! Where is the offense? These are the top two teams in the country? Andrew Luck would shred these defenses. Or just take these comments posted on some website:
–Neither team looked impressive, let alone “BCS worthy”. The game was over-hyped, klutzy and, frankly, boring. Please, stop the spin…..
–I was only able to catch the overtime but any game that contains no touchdowns and a fistload of missed field goals is no “game of the century”. Of course the SEC fanatics will spew out canards about the “great defense”
–Anyone who thinks either Alabama or LSU have a “college level QB” is just dumb! This game was a bore because they neither have good teams, just mediocre teams with patsy schedules.
–Horrible, boring game. A bunch of big, fast jocks who can’t play as a team. No passing or kicking games.
–SEC football is considered “superior” not because the play on the field is great but because 100,000 screamin’, frenzied, liquored-up southerners on their way to the Piggly-Wiggly make it seem that way. Seriously. 9-6 ?! Doesn’t even qualify as “Game of The Day.”
–Number one and numnber two—Balony! Real number one and number two find ways to put up 7 points on the board at some point in the game. LSU and Alabama should not even be in the top ten.
And each complaint about that game missed the point. It was not about style points, or being exciting, or 52-45 scores or shredding defenses. It was about defenses shredding the offenses.
If you bought into the “Game of the Century” hype and came away from the Alabama/LSU game disappointed, then you are a fucking moron! The hype was way overdone and should have been ignored from the beginning. However, this game was between the two top teams in the country and these were teams built on defense! And if you watched and became disappointed because there was very little scoring, then again you are an idiot because apparently you have never watched SEC football before in your life!
Let’s start with those defenses. Going into the game, these were two of the top defenses in the country. Alabama came in ranked number one in scoring defense, rushing defense, and scoring defense, as well as second in pass defense. LSU was number two in scoring defense, top five in rushing and total defense, and top ten in passing defense. The success of these two teams has been predicated on their defense, not their offense. So, you knew that these defenses would be front and center in this game.
So, why would anyone expect a high-scoring game? Ask nearly any college football analyst and they will tell you that these are STILL the top two defenses in the country. To complain about the score and lack of trips into the end zone is to miss what makes these two teams great.
This is why the incompetent Chris Dufresne meanders through an argument that lacks any real value. At one point he credits the defenses with being stellar, but then follows it up with questions about quarterback play. Really? You do recognize that in the case of Alabama, their offense is built around running the ball, yeah? You do recognize that when Alabama won titles in 1992 and 2009 that it was NOT on the arm of the quarterback…but by putting quarterbacks on their backs! Stick with what you know, which apparently is NOT SEC football!
And before I move on, Dufresne also thinks that it is reasonable to suggest that Andrew Luck would be able to pick a few holes in the defenses of LSU and Alabama. Perhaps, as Luck is perhaps the best QB this season. BUT, do not forget that Luck has faced some of the worst defenses in the country. Let’s not pull a literally Suck for Luck just yet, Mr. Dufresne.
Nevertheless, you knew that defenses would be the star of the Alabama-LSU game; not offenses. So stop bitching about the lack of scoring. What made it even more humorous was these same people were praising the scoring-frenzy that was Oklahoma State v. Kansas State. No complaints about the lack of defense? Really? If you were looking for offense, you should have been watching that track meet and not Alabama/LSU. You knew what you were getting from the beginning. Even if you bought into the pre-game hype, you knew that all of the hype was on the defense and NOT the offense!!!
Get over the defensive battle and lack of scoring. That is what good defensive teams do; shut down offenses. Pay attention to these things and you will learn not to be disappointed.
[QUICK SIDE NOTE: I do find it humorous that many of the same people who love a 9-6 defensive battle are many of the same people who hate soccer for its lack of scoring].
But what of those offenses? Not great, to be sure. But Alabama did come into the game with the 22nd ranked offense in the country. That was better than nine of the twelve teams of the Pac-12; it was only middle of the pack in the Big 12. Keep in mind that on average, Alabama did that against statistically better defenses. Thus, the offense of Alabama was pretty respectable. The same could not be said of LSU (81st going into the game).
Still, LSU held Alabama to a season-low 295 yards, over 162 yards below their season average. That eclipsed the previous low by Alabama set in the Penn State game (359 total yards). Alabama’s rushing total — the strength of the Crimson Tide — was the lowest on the season, while the passing numbers fell in the middle. From LSU’s side, the 295 was the third-highest allowed by the Tigers; West Virginia (533) was by far the most, followed by Oregon (335). Notice the opponents here — Alabama’s previous low was against a statistically high-ranking defense (Penn State at 8th), and LSU’s two highest yards allowed were against two high-octane offenses. Alabama performed well against a top flight defense that has only yielded big yards against top offenses.
As for the LSU offense, their 239 was their lowest output of the season, beating out the 273 they put up against Oregon. For Alabama’s offense, it was the second-most yards allowed after the 251 given up to Penn State. LSU ran for 148 yards, the most given up by Alabama. While it does not resonate as much as the examination of Alabama’s offense versus LSU’s defense, the fact remains that LSU found a way to move the ball against a defense that shut down teams all season.
Where was the offense, critics complain? It was there moving the ball against the top two defenses in the country. But when it came to scoring, those defenses tightened up. One would expect a team like Stanford or Oklahoma State to be able to move the ball and score points when they get the chance. Why not also expect Alabama or LSU to kill scoring chances whey they get the chance?
Now, I am by no means attempting to claim that Alabama and LSU are Houston and Oklahoma State. And yes, I get that yards do not equal points, which were lacking. And yes, Jarrett Lee, Jordan Jefferson and A.J. McCarron are NOT Case Keenam, Nick Foles or Bryant Moniz.
But, McCarron’s 199 yards passing were more than Texas Tech’s Seth Doege put up against Iowa State, one of the worst defenses in the country, and only seven yards less than Andrew Luck put up against Oregon State, another poor defense. Just saying.
Was this the “Game of the Century”? Of course not! Anyone who thought so going into the game was foolish.
But the same can be said about those who expected lots of points and offense. How foolish can one be to have watched the LSU-Alabama game expecting 52-45! Was it boring? Yes. But that is because “average” viewer has ADD and expects lots of action. People love the big plays and high-scoring offenses. So, it was “boring” in terms of action, but excellent in terms of defenses and strategy (even if some of it was questionable).
Recall the scene from Natural Born Killers where the old Native American is telling the story of the snake. You turned on the game knowing what it was going to be. Don’t be surprised that you got a defensive battle!
Or, to paraphrase the old man…”Look bitches! You knew this was going to be a defensive game!”
2011 Uncle Popov NFL Power Rankings (Week 8)
Not much in the way of altering the formula needed as the delay in releasing it got it to where I wanted it. We do have a new number one in the polls — Pittsburgh. Again, I will include both rankings (formula-based and ranking-composite) until I decide which one best reflects reality.
FORMULATED RANKING
|
Rank |
TEAM |
Points |
Last Week |
CHANGE |
|
1 |
Pittsburgh Steelers |
14.786 |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
New England Patriots |
14.369 |
1 |
-1 |
|
3 |
Baltimore Ravens |
14.129 |
3 |
– |
|
4 |
Green Bay Packers |
13.842 |
4 |
– |
|
5 |
Atlanta Falcons |
13.401 |
6 |
1 |
|
6 |
New Orleans Saints |
13.088 |
5 |
-1 |
|
7 |
New York Giants |
12.586 |
8 |
1 |
|
8 |
New York Jets |
12.186 |
9 |
1 |
|
9 |
Philadelphia Eagles |
12.169 |
10 |
1 |
|
10 |
San Diego Chargers |
11.970 |
7 |
-3 |
|
11 |
Chicago Bears |
11.780 |
11 |
– |
|
12 |
Tennessee Titans |
11.273 |
14 |
2 |
|
13 |
Indianapolis Colts |
11.089 |
12 |
-1 |
|
14 |
Dallas Cowboys |
10.751 |
13 |
-1 |
|
15 |
Houston Texans |
10.592 |
16 |
1 |
|
16 |
Minnesota Vikings |
10.573 |
18 |
2 |
|
17 |
San Francisco 49ers |
10.487 |
17 |
– |
|
18 |
Tampa Bay Buccaneers |
10.352 |
15 |
-3 |
|
19 |
Cincinnati Bengals |
9.999 |
19 |
– |
|
20 |
Buffalo Bills |
9.402 |
21 |
1 |
|
21 |
Oakland Raiders |
8.940 |
22 |
1 |
|
22 |
Carolina Panthers |
8.889 |
20 |
-2 |
|
23 |
Miami Dolphins |
8.611 |
23 |
– |
|
24 |
Washington Redskins |
8.444 |
24 |
– |
|
25 |
Arizona Cardinals |
8.407 |
26 |
1 |
|
26 |
Kansas City Chiefs |
8.367 |
28 |
2 |
|
27 |
Denver Broncos |
8.214 |
25 |
-2 |
|
28 |
Jacksonville Jaguars |
8.132 |
27 |
-1 |
|
29 |
Detroit Lions |
7.578 |
30 |
1 |
|
30 |
Cleveland Browns |
7.568 |
29 |
-1 |
|
31 |
Seattle Seahawks |
7.061 |
31 |
– |
|
32 |
St. Louis Rams |
5.069 |
32 |
– |
COMPOSITE RANKING
|
Rank |
TEAM |
Points |
Last Week |
CHANGE |
|
1 |
Pittsburgh Steelers |
30.092 |
3 |
2 |
|
2 |
New England Patriots |
29.317 |
1 |
-1 |
|
3 |
Green Bay Packers |
28.893 |
4 |
1 |
|
4 |
New Orleans Saints |
28.275 |
2 |
-2 |
|
5 |
Baltimore Ravens |
28.156 |
6 |
1 |
|
6 |
Atlanta Falcons |
28.075 |
5 |
-1 |
|
7 |
New York Giants |
26.810 |
7 |
– |
|
8 |
Philadelphia Eagles |
26.020 |
8 |
– |
|
9 |
Chicago Bears |
21.631 |
9 |
– |
|
10 |
New York Jets |
20.561 |
11 |
1 |
|
11 |
Dallas Cowboys |
20.105 |
10 |
-1 |
|
12 |
Minnesota Vikings |
19.686 |
14 |
2 |
|
13 |
San Diego Chargers |
19.092 |
12 |
-1 |
|
14 |
Tennessee Titans |
18.790 |
16 |
2 |
|
15 |
Tampa Bay Buccaneers |
17.500 |
13 |
-2 |
|
16 |
Houston Texans |
17.000 |
17 |
1 |
|
17 |
Carolina Panthers |
16.800 |
15 |
-2 |
|
18 |
Indianapolis Colts |
15.820 |
18 |
– |
|
19 |
San Francisco 49ers |
15.750 |
19 |
– |
|
20 |
Cincinnati Bengals |
13.797 |
21 |
1 |
|
21 |
Washington Redskins |
12.750 |
20 |
-1 |
|
22 |
Buffalo Bills |
11.000 |
23 |
1 |
|
23 |
Miami Dolphins |
10.772 |
22 |
-1 |
|
24 |
Detroit Lions |
9.750 |
24 |
– |
|
25 |
Arizona Cardinals |
9.271 |
25 |
– |
|
26 |
Oakland Raiders |
7.500 |
27 |
1 |
|
27 |
Denver Broncos |
7.250 |
26 |
-1 |
|
28 |
Kansas City Chiefs |
6.017 |
30 |
2 |
|
29 |
Jacksonville Jaguars |
6.000 |
28 |
-1 |
|
30 |
Cleveland Browns |
5.750 |
29 |
-1 |
|
31 |
Seattle Seahawks |
4.954 |
31 |
– |
|
32 |
St. Louis Rams |
2.250 |
32 |
– |
2011 Uncle Popov NFL Power Rankings
Fun with numbers has now led me to do a power ranking for the NFL. Yes, it is now entering Week 8, but it took a minute to get the numbers to flow accurately.
Just like the College Football Rankings, the NFL rankings is based on three-plus seasons worth of data. Unlike the CFB rankings, there are a bit more weights involved, including divisional and conference weights, and an even heavier weight on success in the current season. I found it was somewhat of an injustice that under the initial formula that Detroit was stuck at 31st. However, even after tweaking it a bit, Detroit is only able to move up to 30th. That 0-16 season really hurts.
So, what appears below is actually two rankings. The first ranking is one using the secret formula that I devised and the other is a composite of the team’s rankings in the four major measures (record, competition, statistics, scoring), plus a playoff boost. For now, I am going to include both until I determine which one best reflects the “power” of a team.
Also, I am working on a formula to determine player rankings versus competition. We’ll see if that will work out.
FORMULATED RANKING
|
RANK |
Team |
Points |
|
1 |
New England Patriots |
14.8305 |
|
2 |
Pittsburgh Steelers |
14.50723 |
|
3 |
Baltimore Ravens |
13.8711 |
|
4 |
Green Bay Packers |
13.75026 |
|
5 |
New Orleans Saints |
13.64142 |
|
6 |
Atlanta Falcons |
13.44772 |
|
7 |
San Diego Chargers |
12.3892 |
|
8 |
New York Giants |
12.33676 |
|
9 |
New York Jets |
12.23704 |
|
10 |
Philadelphia Eagles |
11.78655 |
|
11 |
Chicago Bears |
11.67999 |
|
12 |
Indianapolis Colts |
11.20726 |
|
13 |
Dallas Cowboys |
11.06803 |
|
14 |
Tennessee Titans |
10.9413 |
|
15 |
Tampa Bay Buccaneers |
10.43857 |
|
16 |
Houston Texans |
10.32693 |
|
17 |
San Francisco 49ers |
10.19978 |
|
18 |
Minnesota Vikings |
10.1433 |
|
19 |
Cincinnati Bengals |
9.784424 |
|
20 |
Carolina Panthers |
9.183861 |
|
21 |
Buffalo Bills |
9.169663 |
|
22 |
Oakland Raiders |
8.945386 |
|
23 |
Miami Dolphins |
8.748644 |
|
24 |
Washington Redskins |
8.708267 |
|
25 |
Denver Broncos |
8.480375 |
|
26 |
Arizona Cardinals |
8.455963 |
|
27 |
Jacksonville Jaguars |
8.279993 |
|
28 |
Kansas City Chiefs |
8.006228 |
|
29 |
Cleveland Browns |
7.839625 |
|
30 |
Detroit Lions |
7.330598 |
|
31 |
Seattle Seahawks |
7.198756 |
|
32 |
St. Louis Rams |
4.506914 |
COMPOSITE RANKING
|
Rank |
Team |
Points |
|
1 |
New England Patriots |
29.817 |
|
2 |
New Orleans Saints |
29.775 |
|
3 |
Pittsburgh Steelers |
29.592 |
|
4 |
Green Bay Packers |
28.143 |
|
5 |
Atlanta Falcons |
28.075 |
|
6 |
Baltimore Ravens |
27.656 |
|
7 |
New York Giants |
25.560 |
|
8 |
Philadelphia Eagles |
24.770 |
|
9 |
Chicago Bears |
21.631 |
|
10 |
Dallas Cowboys |
21.105 |
|
11 |
New York Jets |
20.811 |
|
12 |
San Diego Chargers |
20.092 |
|
13 |
Tampa Bay Buccaneers |
18.750 |
|
14 |
Minnesota Vikings |
18.186 |
|
15 |
Carolina Panthers |
17.550 |
|
16 |
Tennessee Titans |
17.540 |
|
17 |
Houston Texans |
16.750 |
|
18 |
Indianapolis Colts |
15.570 |
|
19 |
San Francisco 49ers |
15.500 |
|
20 |
Washington Redskins |
13.250 |
|
21 |
Cincinnati Bengals |
13.047 |
|
22 |
Miami Dolphins |
11.022 |
|
23 |
Buffalo Bills |
10.500 |
|
24 |
Detroit Lions |
9.750 |
|
25 |
Arizona Cardinals |
9.271 |
|
26 |
Denver Broncos |
8.500 |
|
27 |
Oakland Raiders |
7.250 |
|
28 |
Jacksonville Jaguars |
6.750 |
|
29 |
Cleveland Browns |
6.250 |
|
30 |
Kansas City Chiefs |
5.517 |
|
31 |
Seattle Seahawks |
5.454 |
|
32 |
St. Louis Rams |
2.000 |
More Explanations on the Uncle Popov College Football Poll
I have actually received a few questions about the structure of the Uncle Popov Top 23 College Football Poll. One was related to the issue of why 23 teams. That has been covered before, but it is related to the arbitrary nature of numbers; why 25? Why not 23? I mean, it used to be the Top 20. Certainly fives and tens divide nicely, but so do twos. So, 23 is just for the hell of it.
But, I have received more recently questions concerning the poll itself, namely how a team like Florida can still be ranked #2 in the poll. That explanation is simple — this is a long-term poll that takes into account three-plus years of data and not just one season. While more-recent data is weighed heavier than that from 2008, the latter still plays a role. Thus, Florida’s 2008 season continues to give them a noticeable boost. Next season, that will come off the “books” and they will not be buoyed by that season.
Yet, in a recent off-line discussion about that, it was raised why don’t we do a poll for just this season based off of the same formula used for the U.P. Top 23. While a good idea, the formula as is does not lend itself to small data sets like one season. It would take an incredible amount of tweaking in order to fit within one season. Recruiting for the current season would have to be removed because it is incomplete (some teams do not have recruiting data yet). Conference data could not be entered until October (once all teams have played at least one conference game). So, it would not work as well.
HOWEVER, I decided to run it anyway, just to see how it would look. I also did a retroactive formula to see how 2008, 2009, and 2010 would have turned out had I applied the formula to just those seasons. First, the season-by-season Top 10.
|
RANK |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
|
1 |
Alabama | Texas | Auburn | Alabama |
|
2 |
Oklahoma | Alabama | Oregon | Wisconsin |
|
3 |
Florida | Florida | Texas Christian | Louisiana State |
|
4 |
Utah | Texas Christian | Stanford | Oklahoma |
|
5 |
Boise State | Boise State | Ohio State | Boise State |
|
6 |
Ohio State | Cincinnati | Oklahoma | Stanford |
|
7 |
Texas | Penn State | Louisiana State | Oklahoma State |
|
8 |
Southern California | Oregon | Alabama | Kansas State |
|
9 |
Texas Tech | Ohio State | Wisconsin | Michigan State |
|
10 |
Georgia | Georgia Tech | Arkansas | Clemson |
As you can see, there is not necessarily a match-up between the top team here and the BCS national champion. Of the three completed seasons, only Auburn topped the altered U.P. poll and the BCS poll. Remember that bowl games are weighed evenly regardless of the “prestige” of a given bowl game. And, even though Alabama lost to Utah in 2008, Alabama still topped the poll that season with the Utes finishing fourth. Similarly, Texas ranked ahead of Alabama in 2009 even though the Tide defeated Texas. Again, the timing of a loss is not a factor, but competition and performance against particular teams weighs more that simply “perception.”
As for 2011, nine of the ten undefeated teams are in the altered U.P. Top 10. Only Houston is not in the Top 10 (coming in at #13). Michigan State is the only team with a loss in the Top 10. The formula seems to like Wisconsin over both LSU and Oklahoma.
Here is a look at the Basement (Bottom 5) for these four seasons:
|
RANK |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
|
116 |
SMU | New Mexico | Eastern Michigan | Kent State |
|
117 |
Army | Miami (OH) | Memphis | UAB |
|
118 |
Western Kentucky | Washington State | New Mexico | Memphis |
|
119 |
Washington | Western Kentucky | San Jose State | Florida Atlantic |
|
120 |
North Texas | Eastern Michigan | Akron | New Mexico |
New Mexico likes the Basement, appearing in three of the four seasons (in 2008 the Lobos were 99th). SMU, ranked 116th in 2008, is now 21st this season. Boston College has fallen the farthest, going from 31st in 2008 to 113th this season.
Next, I worked a formula to combine the point scores for each of the four seasons in order to juxtapose the individual seasons as components with the four seasons as a continuous process (the current U.P. poll). Here is how those two compared:
|
RANK |
Year-by-Year |
U.P. Formula |
Difference |
|
1 |
Alabama | Alabama |
0 |
|
2 |
Texas Christian | Florida |
1 |
|
3 |
Oregon | Texas Christian |
4 |
|
4 |
Boise State | Louisiana State |
2 |
|
5 |
Oklahoma | Oklahoma |
0 |
|
6 |
Louisiana State | Boise State |
-2 |
|
7 |
Ohio State | Oregon |
4 |
|
8 |
Oklahoma State | Utah |
1 |
|
9 |
Wisconsin | Oklahoma State |
11 |
|
10 |
Stanford | Auburn |
19 |
|
11 |
Auburn | Ohio State |
-1 |
|
12 |
Florida | Penn State |
-10 |
|
13 |
Virginia Tech | Texas |
4 |
|
14 |
Nebraska | West Virginia |
4 |
|
15 |
Texas | Brigham Young |
-2 |
|
16 |
Michigan State | Georgia |
12 |
|
17 |
Penn State | Virginia Tech |
-5 |
|
18 |
Utah | Nebraska |
-10 |
|
19 |
Southern California | Arkansas |
2 |
|
20 |
Arkansas | Wisconsin |
-1 |
|
21 |
West Virginia | Southern California |
-7 |
|
22 |
Missouri | South Carolina |
4 |
|
23 |
South Carolina | Texas Tech |
-1 |
Alabama is still at the top, but TCU actually moves up one spot. LSU slides down a few spots as Oregon and Boise State move up. For LSU, they are still being hurt by 7-5 (2008) and 9-3 (2009) seasons. Oregon is a bit better with their “worst” season being 9-3 in 2008, while Boise State is helped by losing only one regular season game over the past three-plus seasons. By taking the each of the seasons individually, there seems to be a bit more fluidity. For example, Florida and Utah drop ten slots while Stanford explodes up the poll (19 slots). However, the fluidity comes at a cost as LSU is punished even more for its relatively poor showing in 2008.
Finally, I wanted to see how the official U.P. Top 23 compared to just looking at the 2011 altered poll:
|
RANK |
2011 |
U.P. Formula |
Difference |
|
1 |
Alabama | Alabama |
0 |
|
2 |
Wisconsin | Florida |
18 |
|
3 |
Louisiana State | Texas Christian |
1 |
|
4 |
Oklahoma | Louisiana State |
1 |
|
5 |
Boise State | Oklahoma |
1 |
|
6 |
Stanford | Boise State |
23 |
|
7 |
Oklahoma State | Oregon |
2 |
|
8 |
Kansas State | Utah |
47 |
|
9 |
Michigan State | Oklahoma State |
19 |
|
10 |
Clemson | Auburn |
23 |
|
11 |
Oregon | Ohio State |
-4 |
|
12 |
Penn State | Penn State |
0 |
|
13 |
Houston | Texas |
30 |
|
14 |
South Carolina | West Virginia |
8 |
|
15 |
Virginia Tech | Brigham Young |
2 |
|
16 |
Nebraska | Georgia |
2 |
|
17 |
West Virginia | Virginia Tech |
-3 |
|
18 |
Michigan | Nebraska |
46 |
|
19 |
Arkansas | Arkansas |
0 |
|
20 |
Illinois | Wisconsin |
47 |
|
21 |
Southern Methodist | Southern California |
54 |
|
22 |
Georgia Tech | South Carolina |
5 |
|
23 |
Washington | Texas Tech |
57 |
Obviously, looking at one season versus a combination of four seasons is going to give a big difference. Alabama still holds the top spot, but Wisconsin makes an 18-slot jump to take the number two spot. Stanford moves up 23 spots to number six, while Washington makes the largest jump of all — 57 spots — to round out the Top 23. The biggest loser from the U.P. Top 23 is Florida, which drops 50 spots from #2 to #52. But, in terms of the entire poll, the biggest drop is Boston College and Arizona as both teams lose 63 spots!
So, would it be better to look at the seasons individually? No. Why? Because the purpose of the Uncle Popov Top 23 College Football Poll is (A) to maintain consistency from season-to-season, (B) avoid perception as a means for ranking teams, and (C) eliminate the unbalanced weighing of the timing of a loss. Looking at one season would not avoid those things and would lead to too much fluidity.
But, the question arises: is the U.P. poll too static? Maybe. Why should a three-loss Florida team and a two-loss TCU team be ranked ahead of an undefeated LSU team? Well, again, remember that it is not a three-loss Florida team, but a ten-loss Florida team (35-10), as well as a four-loss TCU team (38-4), ahead of a ten-loss LSU team (33-10). And, the poll is not just records, but conference performance, statistical weights, and recruiting.
Perhaps there can be some reconciliation between the four-year formula that takes each season into account individually and the current formula that examines the four seasons as one continuous process. But, for now, we will stick with the latter.
Questions?
