“Lists.” They can be broken into subcategories or become all-inclusive. The Sporting News magazine recently released a Top 50 list that falls into the latter category.
The publication compiled a list of Top 50 coaches of all time regardless of sport. Well, the sports accounted for are football (college and pro), basketball (NBA along with college men’s and women’s), baseball (MLB) and hockey (NHL). Well, if you really wanted to make the list ALL inclusive you could put Dan Gable on that list based on winning 15 consecutive NCAA wrestling titles at the University of Iowa. You could also include Augie Garrido for winning more games than any coach in NCAA baseball history (478) and five College World Series titles but you can’t make the list too big or you complicate matters much more.
Anyhow, the list had Tom Osborne at No. 34. Osborne (now Nebraska’s athletic director) went 255-49-3 with 13 conference championships in 25 years as the Huskers head coach and three national championships.
First off, great to see Osborne on the list. He belongs there with out a doubt. The list was selected by a panel of 118 Hall of Famers, championship coaches and other experts.
As far as college football coaches are concerned: Osborne ranked eighth trailing No. 3 Bear Bryant, No. 10 Knute Rockne, No. 13 Joe Paterno, No. 23 Eddie Robinson, No. 24 Bobby Bowden, No. 27 Woody Hayes and No. 29 Bud Wilkinson.
UCLA's John Wooden was the runaway overall winner, picking up 57 first-place votes from TSN's panel, which included Osborne, Scotty Bowman, Larry Brown, Whitey Herzog, Tommy Lasorda, Marv Levy, Don Shula, Steve Spurrier, Bob Stoops, Pat Summitt, Barry Switzer, Lenny Wilkens and Roy Williams.
The top 50: 1. Wooden; 2. Vince Lombardi; 3. Bear Bryant; 4. Phil Jackson; 5. Shula; 6. Red Auerbach; 7. Bowman; 8. Dean Smith; 9. Casey Stengel; 10. Knute Rockne; 11. Summitt; 12. Paul Brown; 13. Paterno; 14. George Halas; 15. Chuck Noll; 16. Bob Knight; 17. Joe Gibbs; 18. Tom Landry; 19. Mike Krzyzewski; 20. Bill Belichick.
21. Adolph Rupp; 22. Joe McCarthy; 23. Eddie Robinson; 24. Bowden; 25. John McGraw; 26. Bill Walsh; 27. Woody Hayes; 28. Connie Mack; 29. Bud Wilkinson; 30. Pat Riley; 31. Pete Newell; 32. Joe Torre; 33. Bill Parcells; 34. Osborne; 35. Walter Alston; 36. Bo Schembechler; 37. Toe Blake (NHL); 38. Sparky Anderson; 39. Al Arbour (NHL); 40. Amos Alonzo Stagg. 41. Tony La Russa; 42. Geno Auriemma; 43. Dick Irvin (NHL); 44. Ara Parseghian; 45. Chuck Daly; 46. Bobby Cox; 47. Hank Iba; 48. Tommy Lasorda; 49. Gregg Popovich; 50. Herb Brooks.
Is Osborne too low or too high? Like most Husker fans, I’ll admit to being prejudiced and think Osborne should be higher but let’s also realize that every sport at every level is like comparing apples to oranges to bananas and even apricots. Heck, maybe tangerines. It’s really not worth getting caught up in because again, lists are subjective. Plus, we’re going to talk about more than Coach Osborne. Why not? Because we can.
So I ask myself – whom should Osborne definitely be ahead of on the list? Looking beyond his aforementioned win-loss record, I can understand his 12-13 bowl game record knocking him down a bit but some of those loses also came against some damn good teams. However, the worst season he ever had was 9-3-1 in 1976. Plus, his 1994 Nebraska team that won the National title beat a Miami team (24-17) that had two future NFL Hall-of-Famers (Ray Lewis and Warren Sapp).
As far as college football coaches, I can’t argue ranking Bryant, Rockne, Robinson and Wilkinson ahead of him but Paterno, Bowden and Hayes? Sorry. True Paterno has 383 wins but he has also coached 18 years longer than Osborne and had five losing seasons. Bowden, meanwhile has 382 career wins. Yes, his Seminoles beat Nebraska 18-16 in 1993 but also thanks to an officiating crew that was dislexic in that they didn’t know the difference between William Floyd fumbling before crossing the goal-line and not before the goal-line, not to mention the phantom holding call on Corey Dixon’s punt return for a TD. However, Bowden has also coached 14 years longer than TO. Plus, Florida State has been a pedestrian 31-21 since 2005. As for Hayes, he has three National titles (like Osborne) but not as good a win-loss record at 205-79-9 with 14 conference titles in 30 years. Sorry, no sell.
As for the remainder of the list. OK, we’ve addressed Joe Pa at No. 14, Bowden at No. 24 and wilkinson at No. 29. One from another sport I would pick Osborne to trump:
No. 15 Chuck Noll (Pittsburgh Steelers): OK, I know some Steeler fans might whack me with their Terrible Towel. Noll posted a 193-148-1 record with four Super Bowl crowns in six years (twice repeating as champs) and recorded a mark of 101-29-1 from 1972-1979. However, the Steelers were loaded with Hall-of-Famers. The Steelers had one playoff appearance in the 34 years before Noll’s arrival. He has more Super Bowl wins than any head coach in NFL history. However, besides that run during the Pittsburgh dynasty, the team was fairly average in going 95-95 from 1980-1991.
You can make a case for picking Osborne over say Tom Landry (Dallas Cowboys) or Bill Belicheck (New England Patriots) but I don’t have a huge probloem with those two being ahead of TO.
Again, lists are subjective and fun to talk about but let’s consider ourselves fortunate that TO is our athletic director and was our head coach for several great seasons.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Walkon mystique conversation continues
If there’s one thing that Nebraska football fans speak of with great reverence – it’s the walk-on program.
Well, not just the program itself per se. Pretty much any school has such a program. It’s just that at Nebraska, that part of the program has such a deep rooted meaning based on what football means to the state.
By definition, the term walk-on is used to describe an athlete who becomes part of a team without being actively recruited beforehand or awarded an athletic scholarship. This results in the differentiation between "walk-on" players and "scholarship" players.
Walk-ons have a particularly developed history in college football. Often these athletes are relegated to the scout team, and may not even be played on the official depth chart or travelling team. However there are occasions, sometimes well publicized, where a walk-on will become a noted member of their team in one of several ways.
At Nebraska there have been several. Too many to list. Granted, it’s not news but it is always intriguing. I was listening to the podcast of Unsportsmanlike Conduct, which is an Omaha based sports talk show hosted by Kevin Kugler and Mike’L Severe.
“Walk Ons: Huskers’ Edge” is a documentary that will air Tuesday on NET and captivates you by showing Alex Henery’s dramatic 57-yard field goal last November in a 40-31 win over Colorado while noting that the three components involved are walks. There is Henery the kicker. TJ O’Leary the long-snapper and Jake Wesch the holder.
Anyhow, on Friday’s version of Unsportsmanlike conduct, Kugler and Severe interviewed numerous former Nebraska walkons such as Adam Treu, Jared Tomich and Joel Mackovica.
You see, it’s one thing for us as fans and/or recreational bloggers to talk about the significance of the walkon program. It’s another to hear former players several years after being removed from their playing days.
It’s good to see the program get re-emphasized. I think to some degree Bill Callahan gets a bad wrap for his dealing with the walkon program during his time as head coach from 2004-2007. It’s not like he eliminated it. He just made a decision that was going to have to get made at some point – reducing it. Sorry to tell you folks but had Bo Pelini taken the job in 2004 as opposed to 2008, he would have made the same decision.
Callahan’s biggest mistake was his reluctance to embrace Nebraska’s rich history. I firmly believe that the walkon program always gave Nebraska an advantage because football means so much to the state. The only culture that is comparable is Alabama. The walkons have such a deep passion for Nebraska football that they push the five-star recruits in practice to be better players. Kids that grow up in Nebraska live in homes decked out in Husker red, therefore they are likely to practice much harder during the week and give it that much more effort on Saturday.
Some of these walkons will go on to be key components on the team. Others might never even play in a game. However, even if a player is in the latter category at Nebraska, they will still push the highly regarded scholarship athletes to the limit in practice. Why? Because walkons at Nebraska are treated with the same respect as the scholarship guys.
Players are not walkons because they are not good enough. Some guys will fall through the cracks. Also, kids in metro areas such as Omaha (or any bigger city) are going to get scouted much more comprehensively than someone in Alliance.
Kids playing in those areas might get offered scholarships at Iowa State or a Div I-AA, Div-II or NAIA school but that is a hard sell. Those kids might also be playing 8-man football as opposed to 11-man, making it much different to evaluate.
The walk-on program is also to Nebraska’s advantage because they teach the out of state recruits just how important football is to the entire state.
Well, not just the program itself per se. Pretty much any school has such a program. It’s just that at Nebraska, that part of the program has such a deep rooted meaning based on what football means to the state.
By definition, the term walk-on is used to describe an athlete who becomes part of a team without being actively recruited beforehand or awarded an athletic scholarship. This results in the differentiation between "walk-on" players and "scholarship" players.
Walk-ons have a particularly developed history in college football. Often these athletes are relegated to the scout team, and may not even be played on the official depth chart or travelling team. However there are occasions, sometimes well publicized, where a walk-on will become a noted member of their team in one of several ways.
At Nebraska there have been several. Too many to list. Granted, it’s not news but it is always intriguing. I was listening to the podcast of Unsportsmanlike Conduct, which is an Omaha based sports talk show hosted by Kevin Kugler and Mike’L Severe.
“Walk Ons: Huskers’ Edge” is a documentary that will air Tuesday on NET and captivates you by showing Alex Henery’s dramatic 57-yard field goal last November in a 40-31 win over Colorado while noting that the three components involved are walks. There is Henery the kicker. TJ O’Leary the long-snapper and Jake Wesch the holder.
Anyhow, on Friday’s version of Unsportsmanlike conduct, Kugler and Severe interviewed numerous former Nebraska walkons such as Adam Treu, Jared Tomich and Joel Mackovica.
You see, it’s one thing for us as fans and/or recreational bloggers to talk about the significance of the walkon program. It’s another to hear former players several years after being removed from their playing days.
It’s good to see the program get re-emphasized. I think to some degree Bill Callahan gets a bad wrap for his dealing with the walkon program during his time as head coach from 2004-2007. It’s not like he eliminated it. He just made a decision that was going to have to get made at some point – reducing it. Sorry to tell you folks but had Bo Pelini taken the job in 2004 as opposed to 2008, he would have made the same decision.
Callahan’s biggest mistake was his reluctance to embrace Nebraska’s rich history. I firmly believe that the walkon program always gave Nebraska an advantage because football means so much to the state. The only culture that is comparable is Alabama. The walkons have such a deep passion for Nebraska football that they push the five-star recruits in practice to be better players. Kids that grow up in Nebraska live in homes decked out in Husker red, therefore they are likely to practice much harder during the week and give it that much more effort on Saturday.
Some of these walkons will go on to be key components on the team. Others might never even play in a game. However, even if a player is in the latter category at Nebraska, they will still push the highly regarded scholarship athletes to the limit in practice. Why? Because walkons at Nebraska are treated with the same respect as the scholarship guys.
Players are not walkons because they are not good enough. Some guys will fall through the cracks. Also, kids in metro areas such as Omaha (or any bigger city) are going to get scouted much more comprehensively than someone in Alliance.
Kids playing in those areas might get offered scholarships at Iowa State or a Div I-AA, Div-II or NAIA school but that is a hard sell. Those kids might also be playing 8-man football as opposed to 11-man, making it much different to evaluate.
The walk-on program is also to Nebraska’s advantage because they teach the out of state recruits just how important football is to the entire state.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
At what point is Nebraska "back?"
“Back!” You hear the term in so many different contexts. Anatomically, it is the posterior part of our body – North of our ass and South of our neck.
In a sports context, you hear the phrase, “We’re back!” That expression is often times uttered when a perennially outstanding team hits a valley (be it for a year or a few years) and struggles before rebounding. Nebraska football is like that fallen champion trying to rebound. From 1962-2001, the Huskers epitomized consistency even beyond their five National Championships. It was not a matter of “Are we going to a bowl game?” It was a matter of “Which one?”
From 2002-2007, there was a lot of mediocrity in going 44-28 but even that record was inflated by a 10-3 campaign in 2003. After that season, then athletic director Steve Pederson (that phony, disingenuous and deceitful piece of crap) got on his podium after firing Frank Solich and justified a 58-19 tenure by saying, “I refuse to let this program gravitate toward mediocrity.” Pederson has since been replaced by Tom Osborne and returned to the University of Pitts-puke!
Only Pederson’s hire of Bill Callahan made mediocrity look inviting as Nebraska went 27-22 with two losing and bowl-less seasons under Callahan. The Huskers rebounded in 2008 with a 9-4 record but most importantly won six of their last seven games.
Current Nebraska head coach Bo Pelini enters his second season. While the Huskers took a step in the right direction, neither Pelini nor his players are convinced that the program is “back.” On the way back? Yes, there’s every reason to think so. But being “on the way back” and “being back” are two different things. After all, if you are driving Eastbound on I-80 and you’ve reached Des Moines, Iowa, you don’t say, “We’re in Chicago now,” you say, “We’re on our way to Chicago.”
“Our players don't feel Nebraska's back,” Pelini said at Big 12 Media Day in Dallas on Monday. “Our expectations in the program are very, very high. I think (the team) is starting to feel the momentum from last season.”
So what constitutes Nebraska being “back?” Well, being “back” means different things to different people.
Jason Page, who is a very good friend of mine, and I had this very conversation by phone on Tuesday. Page and I both used to live in Cather Hall as students back in the mid-1990s. Page lives in Lee’s Summitt, Mo. (Kansas City suburb) while yours truly lives in Napa, CA. We talk by phone about once a week on average. Page is employed by Sprint and by HyVee Grocery. Just don’t expect him to be Kurt Warner Part II. To my knowledge an Arena Football League team has not signed him unless he is keeping something from us.
Anyhow, Jason asked me a question that I found compelling. The speaker was as unlikely as the words. You see, Jason is an eternal optimist. Sometimes I wonder of he sips too much Kool-Aid. Sorry, Jason. Like me and most any other Husker fan, Jason is totally on board with the era of Pelini as head coach and Osborne as AD.
Anyhow, Mr. Page broached a question pertaining to the Pelini era saying to the effect of, “I hate to even imagine this but what if it doesn’t work out. Are we the Minnesota Golden Gophers?”
Well, for starters, I feel confident that will not happen. However, to answer that question fairly, it depends on what you mean by “not work out” or “Nebraska being back.”
If the team implodes like say 2004 or 2007 in going 5-6 and 5-7 respectively under Callahan, then – yes. All of the sudden those comparisons to Minnesota are warranted. Never in a million years should Nebraska have seasons like that.
If the team wins a BCS bowl game this year but falters back to being say a perpetual 7-5 or 8-4 team, then you can say Nebraska is a flash in the pan. Just like Arizona State in 1996. That won’t fly but again I feel confident that won’t happen.
If the team is a consistent 9-4 to 11-2 team but occasionally (say every 6-8 years) goes say 13-1 or better and vies for a National Title, then I think the Pelini era is working out just fine.
If the teams goes on a run like 1993-1997 where it goes 60-3 – now that’s a program that is “back.” However, runs like that come along once a generation. We might never see a run like that again from any team let alone ours.
The main thing is to be consistent. And if a coach manages a roster with the emphasis on building a “program” rather than “a team,” then the recipe for consistent success is there.
In a sports context, you hear the phrase, “We’re back!” That expression is often times uttered when a perennially outstanding team hits a valley (be it for a year or a few years) and struggles before rebounding. Nebraska football is like that fallen champion trying to rebound. From 1962-2001, the Huskers epitomized consistency even beyond their five National Championships. It was not a matter of “Are we going to a bowl game?” It was a matter of “Which one?”
From 2002-2007, there was a lot of mediocrity in going 44-28 but even that record was inflated by a 10-3 campaign in 2003. After that season, then athletic director Steve Pederson (that phony, disingenuous and deceitful piece of crap) got on his podium after firing Frank Solich and justified a 58-19 tenure by saying, “I refuse to let this program gravitate toward mediocrity.” Pederson has since been replaced by Tom Osborne and returned to the University of Pitts-puke!
Only Pederson’s hire of Bill Callahan made mediocrity look inviting as Nebraska went 27-22 with two losing and bowl-less seasons under Callahan. The Huskers rebounded in 2008 with a 9-4 record but most importantly won six of their last seven games.
Current Nebraska head coach Bo Pelini enters his second season. While the Huskers took a step in the right direction, neither Pelini nor his players are convinced that the program is “back.” On the way back? Yes, there’s every reason to think so. But being “on the way back” and “being back” are two different things. After all, if you are driving Eastbound on I-80 and you’ve reached Des Moines, Iowa, you don’t say, “We’re in Chicago now,” you say, “We’re on our way to Chicago.”
“Our players don't feel Nebraska's back,” Pelini said at Big 12 Media Day in Dallas on Monday. “Our expectations in the program are very, very high. I think (the team) is starting to feel the momentum from last season.”
So what constitutes Nebraska being “back?” Well, being “back” means different things to different people.
Jason Page, who is a very good friend of mine, and I had this very conversation by phone on Tuesday. Page and I both used to live in Cather Hall as students back in the mid-1990s. Page lives in Lee’s Summitt, Mo. (Kansas City suburb) while yours truly lives in Napa, CA. We talk by phone about once a week on average. Page is employed by Sprint and by HyVee Grocery. Just don’t expect him to be Kurt Warner Part II. To my knowledge an Arena Football League team has not signed him unless he is keeping something from us.
Anyhow, Jason asked me a question that I found compelling. The speaker was as unlikely as the words. You see, Jason is an eternal optimist. Sometimes I wonder of he sips too much Kool-Aid. Sorry, Jason. Like me and most any other Husker fan, Jason is totally on board with the era of Pelini as head coach and Osborne as AD.
Anyhow, Mr. Page broached a question pertaining to the Pelini era saying to the effect of, “I hate to even imagine this but what if it doesn’t work out. Are we the Minnesota Golden Gophers?”
Well, for starters, I feel confident that will not happen. However, to answer that question fairly, it depends on what you mean by “not work out” or “Nebraska being back.”
If the team implodes like say 2004 or 2007 in going 5-6 and 5-7 respectively under Callahan, then – yes. All of the sudden those comparisons to Minnesota are warranted. Never in a million years should Nebraska have seasons like that.
If the team wins a BCS bowl game this year but falters back to being say a perpetual 7-5 or 8-4 team, then you can say Nebraska is a flash in the pan. Just like Arizona State in 1996. That won’t fly but again I feel confident that won’t happen.
If the team is a consistent 9-4 to 11-2 team but occasionally (say every 6-8 years) goes say 13-1 or better and vies for a National Title, then I think the Pelini era is working out just fine.
If the teams goes on a run like 1993-1997 where it goes 60-3 – now that’s a program that is “back.” However, runs like that come along once a generation. We might never see a run like that again from any team let alone ours.
The main thing is to be consistent. And if a coach manages a roster with the emphasis on building a “program” rather than “a team,” then the recipe for consistent success is there.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Big 12 Media Day in Big D
The Nebraska football team (well not the entire team) took center-stage in Dallas on Monday for Big 12 Media Day.
Head coach Bo Pelini, defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh, offensive guard Jacob Hickman and running back Roy Helu represented the Huskers. I did not have a chance to listen to any sound bites due to my work schedule at my regular job. However, I did have a chance to read the quote transcription from Pelini.
There are four things that Pelini addressed that stood out to me:
“I think right now our football team now understands what it means to put a good hard day's work in.”
What I take out of that sound bite is that any time a new regeme comes in and asks players to work harder than they did under a previous coaching staff, there is going to be resistance at first. Pelini admitted as much. On the other hand, those that are not on board are thrown overboard rather quickly. Granted, no football coach is going to outright say to the media, “Our team is a bunch of lazy asses.” On the other hand, you just get the sense from Pelini that this team understands that to achieve success (short term or long term), there are no shortcuts.
“Zac Lee came out in the spring. No one's won a job yet. We still have a whole camp ahead of us before we play the first game. Zac came out as the clear-cut favorite. He'll go into fall camp as a starter.”
Pelini said this in reference to the starting quarterback job as the team looks to replace the graduated Joe Ganz. This approach is quite the departure of Bill Callahan in 2007 when Sam Keller transferred from Arizona State. Callahan said over and over that Ganz and Keller were competing for the job when everyone in their right mind knew that Keller would be the starter. After Keller got injured, Ganz showed why he should have the starter. I like the fact that Pelini stated explicitly that the job belongs to Lee until he proves he is not worthy of being the Huskers starting signal-caller. On the other hand, it’s good that Pelini said, “No one has won a job yet” if for no other reason than to not give Lee a false sense of security. The real question is how the No. 2 position shakes out between Kody Spano, LaTravis Washington and Cody Green.
“Our players don't feel Nebraska's back. Our expectations in the program are very, very high. I think (the team) is starting to feel the momentum from last season.”
While there is every reason to think the Huskers are “on their way back” after a 9-4 season in 2008 that included winning six of their last seven contests, there’s a difference between “being back” and “on your way back.” I’ve stated numerous times on this blog (some postings come with Kool-Aid sipping, others do not) that going from 5-7 in 2007 to 9-4 in 2008 was the easy part but going from 9-4 in 2008 to say 11-2 in 2009 will be the hard part. Since two of Nebraska’s four defeats came by less than seven points (a 35-30 loss to Virginia Tech and a 37-31 overtime loss to Texas Tech), an argument can be made that the Huskers could have been 11-2 last year. Well, coulda, woulda, shoulda but didn’t. Therein also lies the issue, the higher a team shoots up the ladder, the smaller that margin for error becomes.
“Well, I've only been back in the league for a year. But I don't – my expectations aren't going to change.”
Pelini said this in reference to the Big 12 offenses producing basketball like scores and the fact that he is a defensive minded coach. Pelini has coaching dominant defenses wherever he has been and is cocksure in his ability to do the same at Nebraska. The Huskers improved last year defensively from 112th to No. 55, enough to where they didn’t lead the world in crappy defense. With another year of seasoning under Pelini’s system, there’s every reason to think this team will get better. In 2007 when teams went through the Husker defense quicker than a pizza at a Weight Watchers convention, there was often a lack of passion, fire and purpose. Last year’s team played hard but not always smart. To that end, Pelini added: “Part of that is coaching. Part of that is players being accountable.” Even in the era of high scoring Big 12 offenses, part of slowing them down is executing assignments.
Head coach Bo Pelini, defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh, offensive guard Jacob Hickman and running back Roy Helu represented the Huskers. I did not have a chance to listen to any sound bites due to my work schedule at my regular job. However, I did have a chance to read the quote transcription from Pelini.
There are four things that Pelini addressed that stood out to me:
“I think right now our football team now understands what it means to put a good hard day's work in.”
What I take out of that sound bite is that any time a new regeme comes in and asks players to work harder than they did under a previous coaching staff, there is going to be resistance at first. Pelini admitted as much. On the other hand, those that are not on board are thrown overboard rather quickly. Granted, no football coach is going to outright say to the media, “Our team is a bunch of lazy asses.” On the other hand, you just get the sense from Pelini that this team understands that to achieve success (short term or long term), there are no shortcuts.
“Zac Lee came out in the spring. No one's won a job yet. We still have a whole camp ahead of us before we play the first game. Zac came out as the clear-cut favorite. He'll go into fall camp as a starter.”
Pelini said this in reference to the starting quarterback job as the team looks to replace the graduated Joe Ganz. This approach is quite the departure of Bill Callahan in 2007 when Sam Keller transferred from Arizona State. Callahan said over and over that Ganz and Keller were competing for the job when everyone in their right mind knew that Keller would be the starter. After Keller got injured, Ganz showed why he should have the starter. I like the fact that Pelini stated explicitly that the job belongs to Lee until he proves he is not worthy of being the Huskers starting signal-caller. On the other hand, it’s good that Pelini said, “No one has won a job yet” if for no other reason than to not give Lee a false sense of security. The real question is how the No. 2 position shakes out between Kody Spano, LaTravis Washington and Cody Green.
“Our players don't feel Nebraska's back. Our expectations in the program are very, very high. I think (the team) is starting to feel the momentum from last season.”
While there is every reason to think the Huskers are “on their way back” after a 9-4 season in 2008 that included winning six of their last seven contests, there’s a difference between “being back” and “on your way back.” I’ve stated numerous times on this blog (some postings come with Kool-Aid sipping, others do not) that going from 5-7 in 2007 to 9-4 in 2008 was the easy part but going from 9-4 in 2008 to say 11-2 in 2009 will be the hard part. Since two of Nebraska’s four defeats came by less than seven points (a 35-30 loss to Virginia Tech and a 37-31 overtime loss to Texas Tech), an argument can be made that the Huskers could have been 11-2 last year. Well, coulda, woulda, shoulda but didn’t. Therein also lies the issue, the higher a team shoots up the ladder, the smaller that margin for error becomes.
“Well, I've only been back in the league for a year. But I don't – my expectations aren't going to change.”
Pelini said this in reference to the Big 12 offenses producing basketball like scores and the fact that he is a defensive minded coach. Pelini has coaching dominant defenses wherever he has been and is cocksure in his ability to do the same at Nebraska. The Huskers improved last year defensively from 112th to No. 55, enough to where they didn’t lead the world in crappy defense. With another year of seasoning under Pelini’s system, there’s every reason to think this team will get better. In 2007 when teams went through the Husker defense quicker than a pizza at a Weight Watchers convention, there was often a lack of passion, fire and purpose. Last year’s team played hard but not always smart. To that end, Pelini added: “Part of that is coaching. Part of that is players being accountable.” Even in the era of high scoring Big 12 offenses, part of slowing them down is executing assignments.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Huskers need to conquer road challenges to return to elite
With all the good things that the Nebraska football team did in 2008 under first-year head coach Bo Pelini, some people have their expectations tempered by the team having to break in a new starting quarterback (most likely Zac Lee) and losing wide receivers Nate Swift and Todd Petersen to graduation.
“Expectations” are certainly a word that will likely be uttered often as Big 12 Media Day begins Monday in Dallas. Defensive end Ndamukong Suh, running back Roy Helu and offensive guard Jacob Hickman will make the trip with Pelini.
The Huskers, who went 9-4 in 2008, are tabbed a slight favorite to win the Big 12 North with Kansas being the team’s biggest threat but I would not sleep on Colorado or Missouri just yet either, especially the former.
Omaha World Herald columnist Tom Shatel addressed in his recent column that the Huskers status as “favorite” to win the Big 12 North might be by default as much as anything based on the team’s aforementioned situation at quarterback and wide receiver. Shatel reasoned that Nebraska’s defense should continue to improve in Pelini’s second year along with the fact that the team should be a solid running team on offense. Shatel also added that every other Big 12 North team has its issues as well.
The biggest reason to hedge slightly on expectations for the 2009 Huskers is their recent history as a road team. Since the infamous Black Friday 62-36 loss at Colorado, the Huskers are 16-25 away from Memorial Stadium (neutral site games included) and 13-21 in non-neutral site games.
That stretch has included its share of decisive losses (two defeats by 40 or more points, six by 30 or more, 11 by 20 or more, and 16 by 10 or more). True the loss in 2006 at USC (28-10) was no disgrace. After all, the Trojans went 11-2 that year finished as the No. 4 rated team in the nation. However, the embarrassing defeats were not just against quality teams like the 2004 and 2008 Oklahoma Sooners, whom Nebraska suffered 30-3 and 62-28 defeats to in Norman. Both years, the Sooners reached the National Title game only to lose. In 2007, Nebraska losses 41-6 to a Missouri team that finished the season ranked No. 4 and 76-39 to a Kansas team that finished year rated No. 7. And we won’t even begin to address the 70-10 debacle at Texas Tech in 2004. The Red Raiders finished the 2004 season rated No. 18.
The Huskers also got their doors blown off by mediocre to crappy teams. In 2002, the Huskers lose 36-14 to an Iowa State team that went 7-7. In 2004, Nebraska loses 45-21 to a sorry ass Kansas State team that goes 4-7. In 2005, the Huskers lose 40-15 to a pretty average Kansas team that went 7-5. In 2006, the Huskers allow a 16-0 lead to an ordinary Oklahoma State to slip away into a 41-29 loss. To quote legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi, I say, “What the hell’s goin’ on out here!”
Very few of the 13 wins have come against quality foes. The Huskers scored come-from-behind wins at Texas A&M in 2002 (38-31) and 2006 (28-27). The former Aggies club went 6-6. The latter went 9-4, finishing the year ranked No. 24. There’s two ways to look at those wins. One, those Texas A&M teams were fairly ordinary but it also takes some moxie to go into College Station to win because the crowd noise creates a home field advantage that is among the best in the nation. There’s a reason why their crowd is referred to as “the 12th man.”
In 2004, the Huskers scored a 24-17 win at Pittsburgh against a Panther team that went 8-4 and finished ranked No. 24. In 2007, Nebraska went into Winston-Salem, North Carolina and beat eventual ACC champ Wake Forest 20-17. OK, two wins against good clubs but it’s not we went into Tuscaloosa and beat Alabama.
In 2005, Nebraska’s 30-3 win over Colorado in Boulder was a big win at the time in the Bill Callahan era because it was shocking and unexpected but the fact that the win was part of a four-game losing skid by Colorado took some of the shine out of that win.
Point being, as much as Nebraska improved last season, it still lacked a quality “true” road win. The Huskers went 2-2 on the road last season (3-2 away from Memorial stadium. Beating Clemson 26-21 in the Gator Bowl was impressive since Jacksonville, Fla., is near the Tigers home turf in Clemson, South Carolina but there were plenty of Husker fans in attendance.
Nebraska defeated Iowa State (which finished 2-10 in 2008) 35-7 and Kansas State (which finished 5-7) 56-28. The wins count, no doubt, but the Huskers should win those games whether they are played in Lincoln, Ames, Manhattan or the North Pole. You can make the argument that Nebraska was a play or two away in losing 37-31 in overtime against Texas Tech team that went 11-2. True but if Pelini won’t accept moral victories why should we? Also, losing 62-28 at Oklahoma is one thing but the Huskers need to at least look like they belong on the same field as the Sooners.
If the Huskers want to take a step forward and improve on the 2008 progress – it will have to gain no worse than a split in their road games at Virginia Tech, Missouri, Kansas, and Colorado. Even Baylor won’t be a sure thing.
Good teams win, period, no matter where they're playing. It's always a challenge to win consistently on the road. It's definitely one of the best feelings a team can have -- go into someone else's place and come out with a win, but that is what the good teams do. Being able to win on the road is what sets teams apart.
However, it isn't only intangibles that make for successful road teams. It also is not just a lack of character that accounts for bad road performances. There is a football element involved, too, and that should not be overlooked.
Good road teams that run the ball well tend to be success. Why? Because even in an era of highly sophisticated passing games and spread offenses, running the ball is the surest recipe for victory. On the road, it often takes the home crowd out of the game because, for fans, there is nothing more energy-sapping than watching the opposition's offense monopolize the ball. Teams that win on the road tend not to panic and abandon their game plan if they fall behind early, and they find a way to hang in against adversity. And they don't turn the ball over -- a transgression in any contest, but particularly in road games.
Generally, teams that succeed on the road are simply good teams but they are also teams with collective will, resilience and staying power, and those are traits only the best teams possess.
“Expectations” are certainly a word that will likely be uttered often as Big 12 Media Day begins Monday in Dallas. Defensive end Ndamukong Suh, running back Roy Helu and offensive guard Jacob Hickman will make the trip with Pelini.
The Huskers, who went 9-4 in 2008, are tabbed a slight favorite to win the Big 12 North with Kansas being the team’s biggest threat but I would not sleep on Colorado or Missouri just yet either, especially the former.
Omaha World Herald columnist Tom Shatel addressed in his recent column that the Huskers status as “favorite” to win the Big 12 North might be by default as much as anything based on the team’s aforementioned situation at quarterback and wide receiver. Shatel reasoned that Nebraska’s defense should continue to improve in Pelini’s second year along with the fact that the team should be a solid running team on offense. Shatel also added that every other Big 12 North team has its issues as well.
The biggest reason to hedge slightly on expectations for the 2009 Huskers is their recent history as a road team. Since the infamous Black Friday 62-36 loss at Colorado, the Huskers are 16-25 away from Memorial Stadium (neutral site games included) and 13-21 in non-neutral site games.
That stretch has included its share of decisive losses (two defeats by 40 or more points, six by 30 or more, 11 by 20 or more, and 16 by 10 or more). True the loss in 2006 at USC (28-10) was no disgrace. After all, the Trojans went 11-2 that year finished as the No. 4 rated team in the nation. However, the embarrassing defeats were not just against quality teams like the 2004 and 2008 Oklahoma Sooners, whom Nebraska suffered 30-3 and 62-28 defeats to in Norman. Both years, the Sooners reached the National Title game only to lose. In 2007, Nebraska losses 41-6 to a Missouri team that finished the season ranked No. 4 and 76-39 to a Kansas team that finished year rated No. 7. And we won’t even begin to address the 70-10 debacle at Texas Tech in 2004. The Red Raiders finished the 2004 season rated No. 18.
The Huskers also got their doors blown off by mediocre to crappy teams. In 2002, the Huskers lose 36-14 to an Iowa State team that went 7-7. In 2004, Nebraska loses 45-21 to a sorry ass Kansas State team that goes 4-7. In 2005, the Huskers lose 40-15 to a pretty average Kansas team that went 7-5. In 2006, the Huskers allow a 16-0 lead to an ordinary Oklahoma State to slip away into a 41-29 loss. To quote legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi, I say, “What the hell’s goin’ on out here!”
Very few of the 13 wins have come against quality foes. The Huskers scored come-from-behind wins at Texas A&M in 2002 (38-31) and 2006 (28-27). The former Aggies club went 6-6. The latter went 9-4, finishing the year ranked No. 24. There’s two ways to look at those wins. One, those Texas A&M teams were fairly ordinary but it also takes some moxie to go into College Station to win because the crowd noise creates a home field advantage that is among the best in the nation. There’s a reason why their crowd is referred to as “the 12th man.”
In 2004, the Huskers scored a 24-17 win at Pittsburgh against a Panther team that went 8-4 and finished ranked No. 24. In 2007, Nebraska went into Winston-Salem, North Carolina and beat eventual ACC champ Wake Forest 20-17. OK, two wins against good clubs but it’s not we went into Tuscaloosa and beat Alabama.
In 2005, Nebraska’s 30-3 win over Colorado in Boulder was a big win at the time in the Bill Callahan era because it was shocking and unexpected but the fact that the win was part of a four-game losing skid by Colorado took some of the shine out of that win.
Point being, as much as Nebraska improved last season, it still lacked a quality “true” road win. The Huskers went 2-2 on the road last season (3-2 away from Memorial stadium. Beating Clemson 26-21 in the Gator Bowl was impressive since Jacksonville, Fla., is near the Tigers home turf in Clemson, South Carolina but there were plenty of Husker fans in attendance.
Nebraska defeated Iowa State (which finished 2-10 in 2008) 35-7 and Kansas State (which finished 5-7) 56-28. The wins count, no doubt, but the Huskers should win those games whether they are played in Lincoln, Ames, Manhattan or the North Pole. You can make the argument that Nebraska was a play or two away in losing 37-31 in overtime against Texas Tech team that went 11-2. True but if Pelini won’t accept moral victories why should we? Also, losing 62-28 at Oklahoma is one thing but the Huskers need to at least look like they belong on the same field as the Sooners.
If the Huskers want to take a step forward and improve on the 2008 progress – it will have to gain no worse than a split in their road games at Virginia Tech, Missouri, Kansas, and Colorado. Even Baylor won’t be a sure thing.
Good teams win, period, no matter where they're playing. It's always a challenge to win consistently on the road. It's definitely one of the best feelings a team can have -- go into someone else's place and come out with a win, but that is what the good teams do. Being able to win on the road is what sets teams apart.
However, it isn't only intangibles that make for successful road teams. It also is not just a lack of character that accounts for bad road performances. There is a football element involved, too, and that should not be overlooked.
Good road teams that run the ball well tend to be success. Why? Because even in an era of highly sophisticated passing games and spread offenses, running the ball is the surest recipe for victory. On the road, it often takes the home crowd out of the game because, for fans, there is nothing more energy-sapping than watching the opposition's offense monopolize the ball. Teams that win on the road tend not to panic and abandon their game plan if they fall behind early, and they find a way to hang in against adversity. And they don't turn the ball over -- a transgression in any contest, but particularly in road games.
Generally, teams that succeed on the road are simply good teams but they are also teams with collective will, resilience and staying power, and those are traits only the best teams possess.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Mizzu, Texas Tech games are psychological hurdles
When breaking down the 2009 Nebraska football schedule, marquee games such as the Sept. 19 game at Virginia Tech and the Nov. 7 home game against Oklahoma are the ones that stand out as well as the Nov. 14 road game at Kansas.
After all, VaTech is a Top 15, and in some cases Top Ten, team in most preseason polls. The Huskers have home against Florida Atlantic and Arkansas State to precede the road game to Virginia Tech. Nebraska should beat both Sun Belt teams but don’t expect either to be a “name the score” type of win. The game at VaTech will be a tell-tale sign of how far the Huskers have come (or still need to go) under second-year head coach Bo Pelini. The Hokies outlasted Nebraska 35-30 in Lincoln a year ago.
If Nebraska wins at Blacksburg this season, I think a 10-2 season very likely. A respectable loss (say 7-14 points), I think 9-3 becomes a realistic expectation. A blowout loss, which I don’t believe will happen, then I think matching last year’s 8-4 regular season becomes a battle.
Oklahoma, meanwhile, is one of about four or five teams that you can make a legitimate argument for winning the National Championship. Although you never know, the Huskers will most likely fall to the Sooners. I don’t think OU is 44 points better than Nebraska despite outgunning the Huskers 62-28 in last year’s meeting but the Sooners are superior nonetheless. I just think that superiority is closer to three touchdowns than six.
As for Kansas, most preseason prognosticators are listing the Jayhawks as the co-favorites with Nebraska to win the Big 12 North. Though Colorado or Missouri might have something to say about that.
Speaking of Missouri. The two games that are not drawing huge conversations among Husker fans are the Oct. 8 road game at Missouri, which is a Thursday night ESPN telecast, and the Oct. 17 home game against Texas Tech.
Since 2003, Nebraska has gone a combined 2-7 against Missouri and Texas Tech. That stretch has included defeats of embarrassing proportions such as a 70-10 loss to Texas Tech in 2004 in Lubbock, a 41-6 loss to Missouri in 2007 and 52-17 defeat to the Tigers in 2008.
It is generally assumed that the Huskers will continue their ascension in Pelini’s second year in 2009. Nebraska went 9-4 in Pelini’s first year and would appear to be a solid bet to at least match that record.
It is also generally assumed that Texas Tech, which enjoyed an 11-2 season in 2008, will falter after losing numerous players including quarterback Graham Harrell and wide receiver Michael Crabtree.
It is also generally assumed that Missouri, which went 10-4 in 2008 and 12-2 in 2007 en route to winning Big 12 North titles, will slip after losing quarterback Chase Daniel, wide receiver Jeremy Maclin and tight end Chase Kauffman.
All three things are likely to happen in 2009 but that said despite last year’s improvements, Nebraska is not good enough to be counting victories just yet. While every win is important, beating Texas Tech and Missouri would be psychological hurdles. Plus, despite those losses in personnel, Gary Pinkel (Missouri) and Mike Leach (Texas Tech) are two flawed but bright offensive minds as coaches.
With Texas Tech, most Husker fans still have the 2004 debacle fresh in their mind. However, Nebraska was a fumbled LeKevin Smith interception away from winning in a 34-31 loss in 2005 and a desperation Joe Ganz interception away from winning in a 37-31 overtime loss in 2008.
With Missouri, they creamed two teams coached by Bill Callahan and another (the 2008 team) still had many Callahan remnants. They also lost to a 2002 Nebraska team that went 7-7 and a 2004 Husker club that went 5-6, making former defensive coordinators Craig Bohl and Kevin Cosgrove look like Charlie McBride.
In that respect, the 2009 games against Missouri and Texas Tech are similar to say the home game last season against Kansas. The Jayhawks obliterated Nebraska 76-39 in 2007 on the way to a 12-1 season. The Huskers won last year’s game 45-35 but outplayed the Jayhawks to a larger extent than the final score suggests. One KU touchdown came with the game out of reach in the fourth quarter and another was set by a Nate Swift muffed punt near the Huskers 25 yard line.
After the game, Lincoln Journal Star columnist Steve Sipple, whose work I respect greatly, referred to the game as a landmark win. I disagreed with that notion at the time and still do now because in going 8-5 in 2008, the Jayhawks (who beat Nebraska 40-15 in 2005 in Lawrence, Kansas) did not approach their 2007 success.
I viewed the 2008 Nebraska win as psychological not only based on the aforementioned defeats but Nebraska’s ugly 14-8 win in 2004 and its 32-25 overtime win in 2006 in which the Huskers let a 24-7 lead evaporate before prevailing.
Every win is big for the Huskers getting back to prominence but wins over Texas Tech and Missouri would be of the psychological kind.
After all, VaTech is a Top 15, and in some cases Top Ten, team in most preseason polls. The Huskers have home against Florida Atlantic and Arkansas State to precede the road game to Virginia Tech. Nebraska should beat both Sun Belt teams but don’t expect either to be a “name the score” type of win. The game at VaTech will be a tell-tale sign of how far the Huskers have come (or still need to go) under second-year head coach Bo Pelini. The Hokies outlasted Nebraska 35-30 in Lincoln a year ago.
If Nebraska wins at Blacksburg this season, I think a 10-2 season very likely. A respectable loss (say 7-14 points), I think 9-3 becomes a realistic expectation. A blowout loss, which I don’t believe will happen, then I think matching last year’s 8-4 regular season becomes a battle.
Oklahoma, meanwhile, is one of about four or five teams that you can make a legitimate argument for winning the National Championship. Although you never know, the Huskers will most likely fall to the Sooners. I don’t think OU is 44 points better than Nebraska despite outgunning the Huskers 62-28 in last year’s meeting but the Sooners are superior nonetheless. I just think that superiority is closer to three touchdowns than six.
As for Kansas, most preseason prognosticators are listing the Jayhawks as the co-favorites with Nebraska to win the Big 12 North. Though Colorado or Missouri might have something to say about that.
Speaking of Missouri. The two games that are not drawing huge conversations among Husker fans are the Oct. 8 road game at Missouri, which is a Thursday night ESPN telecast, and the Oct. 17 home game against Texas Tech.
Since 2003, Nebraska has gone a combined 2-7 against Missouri and Texas Tech. That stretch has included defeats of embarrassing proportions such as a 70-10 loss to Texas Tech in 2004 in Lubbock, a 41-6 loss to Missouri in 2007 and 52-17 defeat to the Tigers in 2008.
It is generally assumed that the Huskers will continue their ascension in Pelini’s second year in 2009. Nebraska went 9-4 in Pelini’s first year and would appear to be a solid bet to at least match that record.
It is also generally assumed that Texas Tech, which enjoyed an 11-2 season in 2008, will falter after losing numerous players including quarterback Graham Harrell and wide receiver Michael Crabtree.
It is also generally assumed that Missouri, which went 10-4 in 2008 and 12-2 in 2007 en route to winning Big 12 North titles, will slip after losing quarterback Chase Daniel, wide receiver Jeremy Maclin and tight end Chase Kauffman.
All three things are likely to happen in 2009 but that said despite last year’s improvements, Nebraska is not good enough to be counting victories just yet. While every win is important, beating Texas Tech and Missouri would be psychological hurdles. Plus, despite those losses in personnel, Gary Pinkel (Missouri) and Mike Leach (Texas Tech) are two flawed but bright offensive minds as coaches.
With Texas Tech, most Husker fans still have the 2004 debacle fresh in their mind. However, Nebraska was a fumbled LeKevin Smith interception away from winning in a 34-31 loss in 2005 and a desperation Joe Ganz interception away from winning in a 37-31 overtime loss in 2008.
With Missouri, they creamed two teams coached by Bill Callahan and another (the 2008 team) still had many Callahan remnants. They also lost to a 2002 Nebraska team that went 7-7 and a 2004 Husker club that went 5-6, making former defensive coordinators Craig Bohl and Kevin Cosgrove look like Charlie McBride.
In that respect, the 2009 games against Missouri and Texas Tech are similar to say the home game last season against Kansas. The Jayhawks obliterated Nebraska 76-39 in 2007 on the way to a 12-1 season. The Huskers won last year’s game 45-35 but outplayed the Jayhawks to a larger extent than the final score suggests. One KU touchdown came with the game out of reach in the fourth quarter and another was set by a Nate Swift muffed punt near the Huskers 25 yard line.
After the game, Lincoln Journal Star columnist Steve Sipple, whose work I respect greatly, referred to the game as a landmark win. I disagreed with that notion at the time and still do now because in going 8-5 in 2008, the Jayhawks (who beat Nebraska 40-15 in 2005 in Lawrence, Kansas) did not approach their 2007 success.
I viewed the 2008 Nebraska win as psychological not only based on the aforementioned defeats but Nebraska’s ugly 14-8 win in 2004 and its 32-25 overtime win in 2006 in which the Huskers let a 24-7 lead evaporate before prevailing.
Every win is big for the Huskers getting back to prominence but wins over Texas Tech and Missouri would be of the psychological kind.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Taking KC Star columnist to task
The dog days of summer continue before the start of fall practice. I can’t help but notice the continued Kool-Aid sipping of Missouri football fans and media.
About two months ago, here in this very same blog space on May 28, I Columbia Daily Tribune columnist Dave Matter to task for saying that the Tigers “reload” these days rather than rebuild.
Kansas City Star reporter Mike DeArmond has recently joined the ranks of blogging. Mr. DeArmond suggests that Husker fans are premature in their assessment of claiming the program is “back” one year after posting a 9-4 record under Bo Pelini in his first season.
DeArmond says: “Those people picking Nebraska to win the Big 12 North are abso-tooting-lutely nuts.”
“The Cornhuskers have an inexperienced quarterback, lost just as much as Missouri on offense, don’t have a running back of the caliber of MU’s Derrick Washington. Shouting The Blackshirts Are Back! seems based more on the hope that Bo Pelini is a defensive genius rather than a first-year college head coach that was simply better than Bill Callahan.”
I don’t disagree that one 9-4 season does not constitute the program being “back.” However, Mr. DeArmond’s assertion that Nebraska lost as much as Missouri in terms of offense is a bit of a stretch. Yes, the Huskers lost their leading receivers and starting quarterback but The Tigers lost two heisman candidates and a Mackey award winner.
To say that NEbraska does not have a running back he caliber of Derrick Washington is ridiculous. Yes, Roy Helu only had 800 rushing yards last year, but he also achieved those numbers on just 125 carries, that’s 6.4 yards per carry if you are scoring at home
Nebraska probably will lose to Oklahoma but don’t think for one minute that Kansas will not lose to them or Texas either.
Yes, the Tigers kicked Nebraska’s tail 52-17 last year but I would argue that they underachieved last season. No, 10-4 and a Big 12 North title is not a failure but considering the preseason hype plus a 5-0 start, the season was a disappointment.
That game was also played in Game Five when Missouri looked like a juggernaut and Nebraska was still finding its way. However, I’m convinced that if the game is played later in the season, Nebraska has a very good chance to win. I hate to play the comparative scored game but consider this. Oklahoma pounded Mizzu 66-21 on a neutral field and Nebraska 62-28 in Norman. Nebraska defeated Kansas 45-35 in Lincoln in a game the Huskers dominated more than the final score suggested. Kansas beat Mizzu 45-42 on a neutral field.
Bottom line. Missouri has never won a Big 12 championship and only won two divisional titles in the past two years. I think a lot of people in Columbia are going to be in for a rude awakening. Missouri fans and media also don’t seem to get that they owe as much to Nebraska being in the tank for their success as to the talent increase at their own school. Keep in mind, they creamed two teams coached by Bill Callahan and another (the 2008 team) still had many Callahan remnants. They also lost to a 2002 Nebraska team that went 7-7 and a 2004 Husker club that went 5-6.While the 2007 and 2008 teams were decent for Missouri, how would they have fared against Nebraska in its prime? From 1993 to 2001, how many games would either of those teams have won against Nebraska? My guess is that the 2007 Tigers would have won three games at the most (1998, 2000 and possibly 2001) and last year's team probably only would've been able to beat an injury-ravaged 1998 Husker team. In other words, the greatest Missouri teams ever would have still been hammered by Nebraska's average teams of the 90s.
About two months ago, here in this very same blog space on May 28, I Columbia Daily Tribune columnist Dave Matter to task for saying that the Tigers “reload” these days rather than rebuild.
Kansas City Star reporter Mike DeArmond has recently joined the ranks of blogging. Mr. DeArmond suggests that Husker fans are premature in their assessment of claiming the program is “back” one year after posting a 9-4 record under Bo Pelini in his first season.
DeArmond says: “Those people picking Nebraska to win the Big 12 North are abso-tooting-lutely nuts.”
“The Cornhuskers have an inexperienced quarterback, lost just as much as Missouri on offense, don’t have a running back of the caliber of MU’s Derrick Washington. Shouting The Blackshirts Are Back! seems based more on the hope that Bo Pelini is a defensive genius rather than a first-year college head coach that was simply better than Bill Callahan.”
I don’t disagree that one 9-4 season does not constitute the program being “back.” However, Mr. DeArmond’s assertion that Nebraska lost as much as Missouri in terms of offense is a bit of a stretch. Yes, the Huskers lost their leading receivers and starting quarterback but The Tigers lost two heisman candidates and a Mackey award winner.
To say that NEbraska does not have a running back he caliber of Derrick Washington is ridiculous. Yes, Roy Helu only had 800 rushing yards last year, but he also achieved those numbers on just 125 carries, that’s 6.4 yards per carry if you are scoring at home
Nebraska probably will lose to Oklahoma but don’t think for one minute that Kansas will not lose to them or Texas either.
Yes, the Tigers kicked Nebraska’s tail 52-17 last year but I would argue that they underachieved last season. No, 10-4 and a Big 12 North title is not a failure but considering the preseason hype plus a 5-0 start, the season was a disappointment.
That game was also played in Game Five when Missouri looked like a juggernaut and Nebraska was still finding its way. However, I’m convinced that if the game is played later in the season, Nebraska has a very good chance to win. I hate to play the comparative scored game but consider this. Oklahoma pounded Mizzu 66-21 on a neutral field and Nebraska 62-28 in Norman. Nebraska defeated Kansas 45-35 in Lincoln in a game the Huskers dominated more than the final score suggested. Kansas beat Mizzu 45-42 on a neutral field.
Bottom line. Missouri has never won a Big 12 championship and only won two divisional titles in the past two years. I think a lot of people in Columbia are going to be in for a rude awakening. Missouri fans and media also don’t seem to get that they owe as much to Nebraska being in the tank for their success as to the talent increase at their own school. Keep in mind, they creamed two teams coached by Bill Callahan and another (the 2008 team) still had many Callahan remnants. They also lost to a 2002 Nebraska team that went 7-7 and a 2004 Husker club that went 5-6.While the 2007 and 2008 teams were decent for Missouri, how would they have fared against Nebraska in its prime? From 1993 to 2001, how many games would either of those teams have won against Nebraska? My guess is that the 2007 Tigers would have won three games at the most (1998, 2000 and possibly 2001) and last year's team probably only would've been able to beat an injury-ravaged 1998 Husker team. In other words, the greatest Missouri teams ever would have still been hammered by Nebraska's average teams of the 90s.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Switzer's view about recruiting on target -- to a point
When I hear talk about the notion of “recruiting” for Nebraska football, I hearken back to a statement Bill Walsh made as an NBC commentator.
Though Walsh has been deceased for nearly two years, his influence on the game of football will always be remembered. Walsh led the San Francisco 49ers to three of their five Super Bowl championships and popularized the West Coast Offense, which used short passes to set up the running game. Many NFL and in some cases college teams use at least some variation of the offense.
Anyhow, I remember years ago in the Orange Bowl when Miami was beating us handily. Walsh said something to the effect of, “The problem Nebraska faces is that there are just not enough good athletes in the state.”
In an Omaha World Herald interview on July 16, former Oklahoma head coach Barry Switzer indicated somewhat similar views as he was in Omaha to speak at a Thursday banquet before the Boomer Esaison Foundation Nebraska Golf Classic. Switzer added that “recruiting is the key” for Nebraska in getting back to prominence.
“You got to recruit consistently well every year,” Switzer said. “You got to recruit skilled players, good players at all positions, both sides of the ball. Oklahoma and Texas (are) the only two teams in this league that have been able to do that, be as good on both sides of the ball. The Nebraska job, I've always said, is a tougher job, because of the proximity to talent. (Oklahoma coach Bob) Stoops is fortunate. He's got the Red River, which has got Texas south of there, 1,600 high schools that play football, great high school football.
You've got to import players. Nebraska doesn't produce enough players to compete every year consistently. Oklahoma doesn't; that's why they have to go to Texas.”
Switzer and Walsh’s statements might rankle some Huskers but their anger misses the point. They never said there were not good athletes in the state. Let’s face it, Ahman Green came from Omaha but you go to California, Texas, or Florida and they have 10-15 Ahman Greens. After all, there are only 1.5 million people in Nebraska and 15 million plus in the states I just mentioned. It’s no different than a public high school of 2,500 kids is going to have more viable options to start at quarterback than a public high school of 200 kids.Nebraska’s recruiting disadvantages have been well-documented, weather, lack of beaches and mountains and lack of a bustling night-life. Though I find the last of those two arguments compelling because we’ve had a few players get in trouble over the years at various downtown Lincoln establishments.Of the three enormously populated states, I think Texas would be the one for Nebraska to emphasize because there are four Texas schools in the Big 12 Conference. Plus, Nebraska has competed three times in the Alamo Bowl and once in the Cotton Bowl over the last ten years.
Regardless of who or where, we recruit it comes down to the notion that “the heart and soul of Nebraska football comes from the state of Nebraska. The arms and legs come from the other 49 states.”
It also comes down to how well the coaching staff develops talent.
Bill Callahan’s coaching staff knew how to acquire talent but they did a horrific job of developing and coaching it. The biggest hurdle Bo Pelini was going to face his first year was cultivating a winning attitude and desire amongst his players, but given his fire and ability to relate with players on a personal level and the fact that he is dealing with impressionable young men, the quick change in attitude is something that should not have come as a total shock to people.True, Nebraska very seldom had recruiting rankings that knocked people in the Bob Devaney/Tom Osborne/Frank Solich years but the Huskers have never had much of a talent deficiency. What we did have between 2004 and 2007 was a major coaching/leadership deficiency.
Nebraska has athletes; the coaches have just needed some time to turn them into football players; now I look for them to turn them into a great team. This team, in my opinion, is good enough to win nine games or more in the regular season on a regular basis. If they win more, great. If they win less, well that happens sometimes. We can definitely count on great effort, progressing each week, and doing things to make themselves better for future seasons.
Though Walsh has been deceased for nearly two years, his influence on the game of football will always be remembered. Walsh led the San Francisco 49ers to three of their five Super Bowl championships and popularized the West Coast Offense, which used short passes to set up the running game. Many NFL and in some cases college teams use at least some variation of the offense.
Anyhow, I remember years ago in the Orange Bowl when Miami was beating us handily. Walsh said something to the effect of, “The problem Nebraska faces is that there are just not enough good athletes in the state.”
In an Omaha World Herald interview on July 16, former Oklahoma head coach Barry Switzer indicated somewhat similar views as he was in Omaha to speak at a Thursday banquet before the Boomer Esaison Foundation Nebraska Golf Classic. Switzer added that “recruiting is the key” for Nebraska in getting back to prominence.
“You got to recruit consistently well every year,” Switzer said. “You got to recruit skilled players, good players at all positions, both sides of the ball. Oklahoma and Texas (are) the only two teams in this league that have been able to do that, be as good on both sides of the ball. The Nebraska job, I've always said, is a tougher job, because of the proximity to talent. (Oklahoma coach Bob) Stoops is fortunate. He's got the Red River, which has got Texas south of there, 1,600 high schools that play football, great high school football.
You've got to import players. Nebraska doesn't produce enough players to compete every year consistently. Oklahoma doesn't; that's why they have to go to Texas.”
Switzer and Walsh’s statements might rankle some Huskers but their anger misses the point. They never said there were not good athletes in the state. Let’s face it, Ahman Green came from Omaha but you go to California, Texas, or Florida and they have 10-15 Ahman Greens. After all, there are only 1.5 million people in Nebraska and 15 million plus in the states I just mentioned. It’s no different than a public high school of 2,500 kids is going to have more viable options to start at quarterback than a public high school of 200 kids.Nebraska’s recruiting disadvantages have been well-documented, weather, lack of beaches and mountains and lack of a bustling night-life. Though I find the last of those two arguments compelling because we’ve had a few players get in trouble over the years at various downtown Lincoln establishments.Of the three enormously populated states, I think Texas would be the one for Nebraska to emphasize because there are four Texas schools in the Big 12 Conference. Plus, Nebraska has competed three times in the Alamo Bowl and once in the Cotton Bowl over the last ten years.
Regardless of who or where, we recruit it comes down to the notion that “the heart and soul of Nebraska football comes from the state of Nebraska. The arms and legs come from the other 49 states.”
It also comes down to how well the coaching staff develops talent.
Bill Callahan’s coaching staff knew how to acquire talent but they did a horrific job of developing and coaching it. The biggest hurdle Bo Pelini was going to face his first year was cultivating a winning attitude and desire amongst his players, but given his fire and ability to relate with players on a personal level and the fact that he is dealing with impressionable young men, the quick change in attitude is something that should not have come as a total shock to people.True, Nebraska very seldom had recruiting rankings that knocked people in the Bob Devaney/Tom Osborne/Frank Solich years but the Huskers have never had much of a talent deficiency. What we did have between 2004 and 2007 was a major coaching/leadership deficiency.
Nebraska has athletes; the coaches have just needed some time to turn them into football players; now I look for them to turn them into a great team. This team, in my opinion, is good enough to win nine games or more in the regular season on a regular basis. If they win more, great. If they win less, well that happens sometimes. We can definitely count on great effort, progressing each week, and doing things to make themselves better for future seasons.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The rise and fall of Nebraska's rivalry games
The term “dog days of summer” is normally associated with Major League Baseball pennant races but it can apply to college football too.
Here we are in the second week of July. Most teams are a few weeks away from reporting for fall practice. You’ll get a smattering of games on Labor Day weekend and thereafter the schedule gets into full bloom.
For us Husker fans, Lincoln Journal Star columnist Steve Sipple had a palate-whetting blog entry pertaining to the notion of “rivalries” in sports but specifically college football. Sipple, who has done an outstanding job of covering Husker football for many years, addressed a statement that Kansas head coach Mark Mangino made on ESPN that answered the question of who is Kansas’ more heated rivalry, Kansas State or Missouri?
“We have a great rivalry in-state with Kansas State as well,” Mangino said. “But I think our fan base has made it pretty clear to me that the Missouri game is very important.”
When I think of rivalry, I mostly think of a few things: a) There is definite polarization as in there’s no way in hell you could root for the other team, b) The game usually means something when the two teams play, and c) Fans will watch the game even if they don’t care about either team.
Michigan-Ohio State, Alabama-Auburn, Texas-Oklahoma and others fit that description. OK, sure, you can say Harvard-Yale but how many people are going to drop whatever they are doing to watch that game? Since I have lived much of my life in Northern California (save for four years while attending the University of Nebraska), I have found it also comical how Cal-Stanford is called “The Big Game.”
Sure, there was the game in 1982. After Stanford had taken a 20-19 lead on a field goal with four seconds left in the game, the Golden Bears used five lateral passes on the ensuing kickoff return to score the winning touchdown and earn a 25-20 victory. Members of the Stanford Band had come onto the field midway through the return, believing that the game was over, which added to the ensuing confusion. The game might be a rivalry but it is hardly big because unless you live in Northern California and have a rooting interest in either team, you’re not going to watch it.
For years, Nebraska was rivals with Oklahoma. The interesting thing is that OU has generally considered Texas its biggest rival but Nebraska-Oklahoma was the traditional game that took place the day after Thanksgiving. Plus, both teams were good at the same time for many years, combining for 12 National Championship (OU has seven, NU has five) and dominated the Big Eight conference, which has since expanded to the Big 12.
With that expansion, both teams play each other two years out of every four since Nebraska is in the Big 12 North and Oklahoma is in the Big 12 South. Since 1993, the two clubs have only share two good seasons (2001 and to a lesser extent 2006). OU suffered some fallow years from 1994-1998 before Bob Stoops arrived to resurrect the program. Nebraska suffered mostly subpar years from 2002-2007 but appears to be on its way back to prominence under Bo Pelini.
Colorado, Kansas State and Missouri have had elements of the notion “rivalry” with Nebraska the last 15 or so years as the meetings have been testy at times. Bill McCartney was known for “red lettering” Nebraska on the schedule but a segment of Husker fans even to this day do not consider it a rivalry.
I would sort of disagree with that notion. Since 1993, the two teams have met 17 times with Nebraska winning 12 games but six by a touchdown or less and eight by ten points or fewer. To take it a step further, did you see CU’s 62-36 blowout over the unbeaten Huskers in 2001 or NU’s 30-3 blowout in 2005 coming?
Kansas State made a tremendous turnaround under Bill Snyder (now back for his second stint after replacing Ron Prince). The Wildcats defeated Nebraska 1998, 2000, 2003 and 2004. However, it should also be pointed out that the only one of those Husker teams that finished in the top ten was the 2000 club that went 11-2. The 2004 and 2007 Huskers went 5-6 and 5-7 respectively and were the worst in post Bob Devaney history. The 2007 Nebraska team trounced the Wildcats 73-31.
Missouri has been mostly fair-to-middlin before having a breakout 12-2 season in 2007. The 2008 campaign came with a lot of hype and while 10-4 and Big 12 North title is not a failure per se, it was not the enormous success most envisioned. Missouri beat Nebraska in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2008. Two of those wins were Bill Callahan teams (2005 and 2007) while the 2008 team had a lot of Callahan remnants. The timing of that game also came before Nebraska finished its season winning six of its final seven games.
As for Missouri, other than 1997, the Tigers were routinely hammered by the best of Nebraska. K-State was also routinely exposed by the best Nebraska teams as well.
Granted, getting blown out by the Huskers from 1993-1997 was hardly a disgrace but Colorado, Kansas State and Missouri’s success against Nebraska have almost as much to do with the Huskers fall as it does their rise.
Point being, of the three, Colorado is the closest thing to a rivalry because they have battled the Huskers close consistently when they were in their prime. Plus, the aforementioned 2001 game between the two teams sent Nebraska into a tailspin.
That said, I don't think Nebraska has a true rival. If they played Oklahoma every year like they did in the Big Eight, then I believe it'd be one of the best rivalry games in the country no matter if its one sided or not.The Huskers have had so much success over the years against the five other North teams, I don't consider them as a rival in the truest sense.
Here we are in the second week of July. Most teams are a few weeks away from reporting for fall practice. You’ll get a smattering of games on Labor Day weekend and thereafter the schedule gets into full bloom.
For us Husker fans, Lincoln Journal Star columnist Steve Sipple had a palate-whetting blog entry pertaining to the notion of “rivalries” in sports but specifically college football. Sipple, who has done an outstanding job of covering Husker football for many years, addressed a statement that Kansas head coach Mark Mangino made on ESPN that answered the question of who is Kansas’ more heated rivalry, Kansas State or Missouri?
“We have a great rivalry in-state with Kansas State as well,” Mangino said. “But I think our fan base has made it pretty clear to me that the Missouri game is very important.”
When I think of rivalry, I mostly think of a few things: a) There is definite polarization as in there’s no way in hell you could root for the other team, b) The game usually means something when the two teams play, and c) Fans will watch the game even if they don’t care about either team.
Michigan-Ohio State, Alabama-Auburn, Texas-Oklahoma and others fit that description. OK, sure, you can say Harvard-Yale but how many people are going to drop whatever they are doing to watch that game? Since I have lived much of my life in Northern California (save for four years while attending the University of Nebraska), I have found it also comical how Cal-Stanford is called “The Big Game.”
Sure, there was the game in 1982. After Stanford had taken a 20-19 lead on a field goal with four seconds left in the game, the Golden Bears used five lateral passes on the ensuing kickoff return to score the winning touchdown and earn a 25-20 victory. Members of the Stanford Band had come onto the field midway through the return, believing that the game was over, which added to the ensuing confusion. The game might be a rivalry but it is hardly big because unless you live in Northern California and have a rooting interest in either team, you’re not going to watch it.
For years, Nebraska was rivals with Oklahoma. The interesting thing is that OU has generally considered Texas its biggest rival but Nebraska-Oklahoma was the traditional game that took place the day after Thanksgiving. Plus, both teams were good at the same time for many years, combining for 12 National Championship (OU has seven, NU has five) and dominated the Big Eight conference, which has since expanded to the Big 12.
With that expansion, both teams play each other two years out of every four since Nebraska is in the Big 12 North and Oklahoma is in the Big 12 South. Since 1993, the two clubs have only share two good seasons (2001 and to a lesser extent 2006). OU suffered some fallow years from 1994-1998 before Bob Stoops arrived to resurrect the program. Nebraska suffered mostly subpar years from 2002-2007 but appears to be on its way back to prominence under Bo Pelini.
Colorado, Kansas State and Missouri have had elements of the notion “rivalry” with Nebraska the last 15 or so years as the meetings have been testy at times. Bill McCartney was known for “red lettering” Nebraska on the schedule but a segment of Husker fans even to this day do not consider it a rivalry.
I would sort of disagree with that notion. Since 1993, the two teams have met 17 times with Nebraska winning 12 games but six by a touchdown or less and eight by ten points or fewer. To take it a step further, did you see CU’s 62-36 blowout over the unbeaten Huskers in 2001 or NU’s 30-3 blowout in 2005 coming?
Kansas State made a tremendous turnaround under Bill Snyder (now back for his second stint after replacing Ron Prince). The Wildcats defeated Nebraska 1998, 2000, 2003 and 2004. However, it should also be pointed out that the only one of those Husker teams that finished in the top ten was the 2000 club that went 11-2. The 2004 and 2007 Huskers went 5-6 and 5-7 respectively and were the worst in post Bob Devaney history. The 2007 Nebraska team trounced the Wildcats 73-31.
Missouri has been mostly fair-to-middlin before having a breakout 12-2 season in 2007. The 2008 campaign came with a lot of hype and while 10-4 and Big 12 North title is not a failure per se, it was not the enormous success most envisioned. Missouri beat Nebraska in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2008. Two of those wins were Bill Callahan teams (2005 and 2007) while the 2008 team had a lot of Callahan remnants. The timing of that game also came before Nebraska finished its season winning six of its final seven games.
As for Missouri, other than 1997, the Tigers were routinely hammered by the best of Nebraska. K-State was also routinely exposed by the best Nebraska teams as well.
Granted, getting blown out by the Huskers from 1993-1997 was hardly a disgrace but Colorado, Kansas State and Missouri’s success against Nebraska have almost as much to do with the Huskers fall as it does their rise.
Point being, of the three, Colorado is the closest thing to a rivalry because they have battled the Huskers close consistently when they were in their prime. Plus, the aforementioned 2001 game between the two teams sent Nebraska into a tailspin.
That said, I don't think Nebraska has a true rival. If they played Oklahoma every year like they did in the Big Eight, then I believe it'd be one of the best rivalry games in the country no matter if its one sided or not.The Huskers have had so much success over the years against the five other North teams, I don't consider them as a rival in the truest sense.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Best conference another debate to hit full force
There are sure things in life like death and taxes. In college football, there are sure debates such as “let’s have a playoff instead of the BCS.”
Another discussion that is certain to come up is “which conference is the best?” Most people seem to be saying Big 12 or SEC. Pac-10 folks will argue that they are the best based on their 5-0 bowl game record last season. The Big Ten has taken plenty of hits based on Ohio State’s consecutive National Championship Game blowout losses (41-14 to Florida and 38-24 to LSU).
The truth of the matter is that the best conference changes every year or every few years. It’s cyclical. Right now, the perception is that the SEC and Big 12 are the best from top to bottom.
Pac 10 folks will argue their 5-0 bowl game record of last year and that USC could beat the best of either conference. For starters, the 5-0 bowl game record is a great achievement after a subpar out of conference season. However, let’s also remember that Oregon defeated an Oklahoma State team in a game where starting quarterback Zac Robinson got injured and while Oregon and/or California is legitimately the second best Pac-10 team, Oklahoma State was the fourth best team in the Big 12 South (a six team division). Cal defeated Miami in the Emerald Bowl but let’s face it, these are your brothers Hurricanes.
Individually, there’s no doubt that USC can beat the best of any conference on a given day but are you going to sit here and tell me that Cal is better than Georgia or Alabama, no I’m not buying it. Are you going to tell me that Washington would beat Vanderbilt, the two worst in the Pac 10 and SEC respective? No, not buying it. Baylor, which was tied with Texas A&M at 4-8 for the second worst Big 12 record, defeated Washington State 10-7 on its home field. Washington State was the second worst in the Pac 10.
The Big 10 has been a punching bag in the national media based on Ohio State’s aforementioned failures. However, keep in mind, the Buckeyes lost 24-20 to Texas (a team some feel got snubbed out of the National Title game). Yes, Ohio State lost but it’s not like they got outclassed.
Besides Ohio State, the Big 10 has had its moments with Michigan and Penn State winning New Year's Day games over the SEC a few years ago and Iowa beating up South Carolina last year. Wisconsin has always played the SEC tough and Michigan State wasn't horrible in last year's Capital One Bowl loss to a superior Georgia team.
Another discussion that is certain to come up is “which conference is the best?” Most people seem to be saying Big 12 or SEC. Pac-10 folks will argue that they are the best based on their 5-0 bowl game record last season. The Big Ten has taken plenty of hits based on Ohio State’s consecutive National Championship Game blowout losses (41-14 to Florida and 38-24 to LSU).
The truth of the matter is that the best conference changes every year or every few years. It’s cyclical. Right now, the perception is that the SEC and Big 12 are the best from top to bottom.
Pac 10 folks will argue their 5-0 bowl game record of last year and that USC could beat the best of either conference. For starters, the 5-0 bowl game record is a great achievement after a subpar out of conference season. However, let’s also remember that Oregon defeated an Oklahoma State team in a game where starting quarterback Zac Robinson got injured and while Oregon and/or California is legitimately the second best Pac-10 team, Oklahoma State was the fourth best team in the Big 12 South (a six team division). Cal defeated Miami in the Emerald Bowl but let’s face it, these are your brothers Hurricanes.
Individually, there’s no doubt that USC can beat the best of any conference on a given day but are you going to sit here and tell me that Cal is better than Georgia or Alabama, no I’m not buying it. Are you going to tell me that Washington would beat Vanderbilt, the two worst in the Pac 10 and SEC respective? No, not buying it. Baylor, which was tied with Texas A&M at 4-8 for the second worst Big 12 record, defeated Washington State 10-7 on its home field. Washington State was the second worst in the Pac 10.
The Big 10 has been a punching bag in the national media based on Ohio State’s aforementioned failures. However, keep in mind, the Buckeyes lost 24-20 to Texas (a team some feel got snubbed out of the National Title game). Yes, Ohio State lost but it’s not like they got outclassed.
Besides Ohio State, the Big 10 has had its moments with Michigan and Penn State winning New Year's Day games over the SEC a few years ago and Iowa beating up South Carolina last year. Wisconsin has always played the SEC tough and Michigan State wasn't horrible in last year's Capital One Bowl loss to a superior Georgia team.
Friday, July 3, 2009
BCS still better than March Sadness
I’m not into making guarantees but you can bet your life that at some point during the 2009 college football season, many people will grovel to no end about the BCS.
Heck, our own president – Barack Obama -- of the United States has gotten on his soapbox about wanting a playoff. Memo to Mr. President, worry about fixing our country first.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln chancellor Harvey Perlman was recently appointed chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee. In a nutshell, Perlman just assumed a pretty important seat of power, as head of the committee that looks at the viability of playoffs, TV contracts, and the like.
The BCS just shot down a Mountain West proposal for an eight-team playoff. It was the chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight committee, University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer, who delivered the vague statement explaining that any playoff suggestion “disrespect our academic calendars and they utterly lack a business plan.”
Collegefootballnews.com addressed the topic as well. I have one thing in common with CFN.com, I am not in favor of a playoff in college football. Yes, I said not in favor.
Yes, the BCS (Bowl Championship series) is not perfect but a playoff (a la NCAA March Madness in basketball) is the not the cure-all either. It would be “different” than the BCS but the only thing that change guarantees is that things will be “different,” but “different” does not necessarily mean “better.”
Yes, the bowl games are watered down in that more than half the teams in Div. I-A get to one. That’s bad enough but let’s not water it down anymore than the other sports have. Most people would argue that “every other sport has a playoff so college football should get one.”
The argument you hear most often is to take the six BCS league champions, the top non-BCS conference champion, and one wild-card. That idea sounds all well and good but what makes you think the powers that be would not get sucked in by money and expand the college football playoffs?
Major League Baseball, yes the sport with so many that spews out terms like “integrity,” “tradition,” and “purists,” expanded. It used to be that only division winners reached the postseason. Now, it’s four teams per league (three division winners and a wild card). I don’t have a huge problem with that because since MLB adopted the wild card format in 1995, numerous wild card teams have gone on to win the World Series. Why did MLB expand its postseason? Money. Owners of mediocre teams got sick of their teams being out of the pennant chase in late June and changed things to add more playoff teams and a wild-card.
I know many college football playoff advocates swear by the NCAA Tournament and call it “March Madness.” March Sadness is more like it. Back when only the conference champions were allowed in the tournament, it was much better. Now any team that can walk on to a bus and avoid tripping over the step gets in the tournament. What a joke.The other sports have screwed it up too. The NFL is borderline is not perfect but it’s acceptable in that 12 out of 32 teams make it to the postseason. The NBA and NHL, however, are brutally watered down in that over half the teams reach the postseason. The good news there is that it is a best-of-seven format where the better team usually wins. However, why are there so many playoff series – money!
As screwed up college football is as far getting two teams in the BCS title game, it gets it right more so than any other sport. True, teams like unbeaten 2008 Utah might be hard to convince, USC in 2007, Auburn in 2004, Oregon in 2001 or Miami in 2000 but it is also hard to argue with a team that went through the rigors of the regular season and then won a BCS championship.
The BCS has been tweaked over the years with things such as quality win points, computer rankings, strength of schedule, etc. The anti- BCS folks have been equally tweaked and want say a four-team or and eight-team playoff with the preservation of the bowl games. Unfortunately, they forget one thing.
The pro March Madness folks would then say but "at least it's played on the court." True but it doesn't stop teams that were "on the bubble" from complaining about not getting an NCAA tournament bid.The NCAA men's basketball tournament might be exciting but it's nothing more than a gimmick and de-emphasizes the regular season. Fans that love it say that a team can "get hot" all of the sudden. My argument is that any team can "get hot" all of the sudden but once they lose a game, the pressure is gone.
Whereas going undefeated is a bigger accomplishment. It's like pitching a perfect game in baseball. With each win, the laws of averages are not on your side because that team has a Bull's Eye right across its ever loving chest.Again, March Madness is exciting but the field of 64 teams is watered down worse than a flat Budweiser and please don't come at with the George Masons of the world either. I say cut the field to 16 teams and have truly the best teams.
If the idea is to find out which college basketball team is the best by having a tournament and having everyone play it off, then when play the regular season in the first place? The BCS might need its share of tweaking but I've always argued that it comes closer to crowning a true national champion than college basketball does. The best way to make a playoff in football a plausible situation is to make Notre Dame join a conference. I believe that’s as big of a reason as any why there is no playoff. Others have come up with a solution of matching up all conference winners. I like that scenario in that there is no ambiguity but some years one conference is appreciably strong while another is weak. I’d say just take the Top eight BCS teams, conference champ or not.Of course, for a playoff to work Notre Dame must get off its high chair and join a conference but given their elitist mentality that’ll never happen.
Heck, our own president – Barack Obama -- of the United States has gotten on his soapbox about wanting a playoff. Memo to Mr. President, worry about fixing our country first.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln chancellor Harvey Perlman was recently appointed chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee. In a nutshell, Perlman just assumed a pretty important seat of power, as head of the committee that looks at the viability of playoffs, TV contracts, and the like.
The BCS just shot down a Mountain West proposal for an eight-team playoff. It was the chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight committee, University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer, who delivered the vague statement explaining that any playoff suggestion “disrespect our academic calendars and they utterly lack a business plan.”
Collegefootballnews.com addressed the topic as well. I have one thing in common with CFN.com, I am not in favor of a playoff in college football. Yes, I said not in favor.
Yes, the BCS (Bowl Championship series) is not perfect but a playoff (a la NCAA March Madness in basketball) is the not the cure-all either. It would be “different” than the BCS but the only thing that change guarantees is that things will be “different,” but “different” does not necessarily mean “better.”
Yes, the bowl games are watered down in that more than half the teams in Div. I-A get to one. That’s bad enough but let’s not water it down anymore than the other sports have. Most people would argue that “every other sport has a playoff so college football should get one.”
The argument you hear most often is to take the six BCS league champions, the top non-BCS conference champion, and one wild-card. That idea sounds all well and good but what makes you think the powers that be would not get sucked in by money and expand the college football playoffs?
Major League Baseball, yes the sport with so many that spews out terms like “integrity,” “tradition,” and “purists,” expanded. It used to be that only division winners reached the postseason. Now, it’s four teams per league (three division winners and a wild card). I don’t have a huge problem with that because since MLB adopted the wild card format in 1995, numerous wild card teams have gone on to win the World Series. Why did MLB expand its postseason? Money. Owners of mediocre teams got sick of their teams being out of the pennant chase in late June and changed things to add more playoff teams and a wild-card.
I know many college football playoff advocates swear by the NCAA Tournament and call it “March Madness.” March Sadness is more like it. Back when only the conference champions were allowed in the tournament, it was much better. Now any team that can walk on to a bus and avoid tripping over the step gets in the tournament. What a joke.The other sports have screwed it up too. The NFL is borderline is not perfect but it’s acceptable in that 12 out of 32 teams make it to the postseason. The NBA and NHL, however, are brutally watered down in that over half the teams reach the postseason. The good news there is that it is a best-of-seven format where the better team usually wins. However, why are there so many playoff series – money!
As screwed up college football is as far getting two teams in the BCS title game, it gets it right more so than any other sport. True, teams like unbeaten 2008 Utah might be hard to convince, USC in 2007, Auburn in 2004, Oregon in 2001 or Miami in 2000 but it is also hard to argue with a team that went through the rigors of the regular season and then won a BCS championship.
The BCS has been tweaked over the years with things such as quality win points, computer rankings, strength of schedule, etc. The anti- BCS folks have been equally tweaked and want say a four-team or and eight-team playoff with the preservation of the bowl games. Unfortunately, they forget one thing.
The pro March Madness folks would then say but "at least it's played on the court." True but it doesn't stop teams that were "on the bubble" from complaining about not getting an NCAA tournament bid.The NCAA men's basketball tournament might be exciting but it's nothing more than a gimmick and de-emphasizes the regular season. Fans that love it say that a team can "get hot" all of the sudden. My argument is that any team can "get hot" all of the sudden but once they lose a game, the pressure is gone.
Whereas going undefeated is a bigger accomplishment. It's like pitching a perfect game in baseball. With each win, the laws of averages are not on your side because that team has a Bull's Eye right across its ever loving chest.Again, March Madness is exciting but the field of 64 teams is watered down worse than a flat Budweiser and please don't come at with the George Masons of the world either. I say cut the field to 16 teams and have truly the best teams.
If the idea is to find out which college basketball team is the best by having a tournament and having everyone play it off, then when play the regular season in the first place? The BCS might need its share of tweaking but I've always argued that it comes closer to crowning a true national champion than college basketball does. The best way to make a playoff in football a plausible situation is to make Notre Dame join a conference. I believe that’s as big of a reason as any why there is no playoff. Others have come up with a solution of matching up all conference winners. I like that scenario in that there is no ambiguity but some years one conference is appreciably strong while another is weak. I’d say just take the Top eight BCS teams, conference champ or not.Of course, for a playoff to work Notre Dame must get off its high chair and join a conference but given their elitist mentality that’ll never happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)