Preseason polls not worth the paper they are written on

The preseason college football polls are out for the 2012 season. Well, at least on the coaches’ side and Nebraska is tabbed No. 16 sandwiched between No. 15 Texas and No. 17 TCU.


What’s always interesting about preseason rankings is listening to talk shows, reading message boards, Twitter, Facebook, etc., is the reactions and banter that the rankings elicit. Just a gut feeling but No. 16 is perhaps the highest I would have imagined the Huskers being ranked and is not as surprising as one would think considering they went 9-4 last season. Though Husker head coach Bo Pelini has had a hot and cold relationship with local media and fans, he does have a lot of respect within the coaching profession. In addition, Nebraska has a third-year starter returning at quarterback in Taylor Martinez. Yes, he has been a polarizing figure among local media and fans but pollsters will normally boost a team higher if it returners experience at quarterback.  


The self-proclaimed gurus take into account who is coming back and how many upper classmen a team has for leadership purposes. Nebraska has more than it has had in a long time so such a rating is not unexpected. Running back Rex Burkhead and Martinez bring experience and there most likely won’t be any freshman starting this year. As for the coaches, it’s as much about tradition and respect as anything else at this juncture.


While everyone is entitled to think whether or not a team is ranked too low, too high or just about right, ratings at this time is nothing more than a popularity contest. It’s good to be rated and thought of highly, but it’s a matter of earning your keep when it’s all said and done. Playing the kind of schedule Nebraska has won’t hide any flaws and if the Huskers are worthy it won’t be a fluke come November. There is not a game on the schedule the Huskers cannot win but the slate also has its share of swing games. While the quality at the top of the Big 10 Conference is not presently as good as say the SEC, Big 12 or Pac 12, it could be argued that the quality in the middle is stronger than those conferences.


Preseason rankings should always be taken with a grain of salt and while college football will always have teams that surprise and disappoint, the college game is also much easier to predict before the season than the NFL. There is definitely more parity in the college game than in years past but not quite like the NFL. In college the 85-player scholarship limit works similarly to the NFL’s salary cap and while it’s not unusual to see college players transfer schools, you won’t see it happen within its own conference. It’s not like you would ever see Tim Tebow transfer from Florida to Alabama or Tommie Frazier go from Nebraska to Oklahoma. In the NFL, however, free agency runs rampant. Deion Sanders played for both the Cowboys and Redskins. Marcus Allen played for both the Raiders and Chiefs.


The last 15 or so years in the NFL, it is not uncommon for a team to go from 4-12 one year to say 13-3 the next. In college, however, such a turnaround is likely to be a 2-5 year process. That can also depend on the stature of your program. In 2007-2008, Nebraska went from 5-7 to 9-4. In 2010-2011, Michigan spiked from 7-6 to 11-2. Those are two programs that have enough name recognition that is such where they will have enough material to make a quick turnaround if they have a bad year. However, at a perennial loser program, going from 3-9 to 9-3 is more likely to take 2-5 years.


That said, college football preseason prognostications are more likely to be accurate than the NFL.

Proposed four-team playoff not perfect but it's a start

For several years, college football fans and media have wanted a playoff system. Now it appears they will be getting one.

I’m not even going to try to explain the parameters of the proposed four-team playoff. I’ll let collegefootballnews.com do the honors:

http://cfn.scout.com/2/1196749.html

I have long been in the minority, while the BCS (Bowl Championship series) is not perfect, I don't think NCAA March Madness in basketball is the cat's meow either like some people are inclined to believe. Like most people, I fill out my office pool but you’re not going to hear me say that March Madness is the greatest thing since the Great Wall of China.

You see, before the BCS came into being in the 1998 season, we frequently had two undefeated teams. The problem is that they seldom matched up against each either: 1991 Miami-Washington, 1994 Nebraska-Penn state, 1997 Nebraska-Michigan. Did those teams play each other on the field? No.

Why? Because the Pac-10 and Big 10 were so hell-bent on keeping their Rose Bowl tradition but when they had an unbeaten team, they'd whine about either getting a split National title (i.e. Michigan in 1997) or no National title (i.e. Penn State in 1994). I say, sorry folks. You can't have it both ways (i.e. keep your tradition and whine about a split National Title). The reality is that Penn State screwed itself out of the National title in 1994 by going from Independent to Big 10.

The BCS hasn't been without its controversies either. One loss Florida State instead of Miami (also a one loss team) played unbeaten Oklahoma in 2000. One loss Nebraska instead of Oregon (also a one loss team) played unbeaten Miami in 2001. One loss Oklahoma instead of one loss USC played LSU for the BCS title in 2003. One loss Florida instead of one loss Michigan played Ohio State in 2006. Of course, no one was complaining when in 2002 (Ohio State-Miami), 2004 (Oklahoma-USC) or 2005 (Texas-USC) were a battle of two unbeaten teams.

The 2006-2008 seasons, however, were jumbled beyond belief. In 2006, you had two one loss teams playing for the title as Florida met Ohio State, while one-loss Michigan and undefeated Boise State were left in the cold.

In 2007, you had a two-loss LSU team meeting a one-loss Ohio State team. In the process, many people lobbied for USC and/or Georgia (a pair of two loss teams) to play in the title game.

In 2008, two one-loss teams (Florida and Oklahoma) met for the title while unbeaten Utah and one loss teams USC, Texas, Penn state and Alabama were left in the cold.

Ohio State lost both of its title games (41-16 to Florida and 38-24 to LSU) as viewers of the game wasted four hours of their lives they will not get back. Florida defeated Oklahoma 24-14.

The interesting subplot to the whole matter was that Boise State and Utah (two nonBCS schools) made noise. Boise State defeated Oklahoma 32-31 in the Fiesta Bowl in 2006. Well, 2006 regular season/2007 bowl game. While Utah defeated Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl in a game that really wasn’t even that close.

I’m perhaps in the minority but I think Boise State and Utah should have been awarded a share of the National Title or been allowed to play in the title game. And please, don’t come at me with the strength of schedule argument or the notion of “they would have gotten blown out.” And if they do, so what, I don’t see how it’s any worse than watching Ohio State get its doors blown off by two SEC teams.

While you will never get a system that satisfies everyone, I’m all for the proposed four-team playoff. The problem is, I can see it morphing into a football version of March Madness, which would be a liability not an asset. Four teams (six maybe) is an ideal number. For one thing, the regular season still means something because a two-loss team is not normally going to be in the Top Four. Honestly, no team with two losses should be playing for a National Championship. I know the cynics would say that considering the BCS Title Game between Alabama and LSU was a rematch, the argument of “the regular season still matters in college football” was tainted.

The one example that I keep coming back for my case in favor of a four-team playoff to is the 2010 season. Oregon and Auburn went undefeated from the Pac 10 and SEC respectively. I say, well and good, they should play in the BCS Title Game because if you come out of those conferences undefeated, you have earned the right to play for the title.

However, there was one other problem. You had an unbeaten TCU team from the Mountain West. Of course, the cynics would ask, “well, who the hell are you playing in the Mountain West?” TCU defeated an 11-1 Wisconsin team from the Big 10 by the final of 21-19 in the Rose Bowl. Then you have an 11-1 Stanford team from the Pac 10 that smashed Virginia Tech 40-12 in the Rose Bowl. VaTech went 11-2 in the regular season. When the dust settled after all of the bowl games had been completed, most people believed that Stanford was the best remaining one-loss team. Keep in mind, Wisconsin’s aforementioned loss to TCU dropped them to 11-2. There’s one more argument, “well what about Ohio State?” The Buckeyes went 11-1 out of the Big 10 and defeated an 11-2 Arkansas team 31-26 in the Sugar Bowl.

Yes, Ohio State would have had a legitimate point. However, if you had a Final Four of Oregon, Auburn, TCU and Stanford, that would have sufficed for two reasons: 1) You have two teams from power conferences like Auburn and Oregon, 2) Your unbeaten TCU or Boise State or Utah would get their chance and 3) Your best remaining one-loss team like Stanford would also get its chance. I believe that’s the scenario most people want anyhow. So you leave out another deserving one-loss club like Ohio State or Wisconsin? Losing one game won’t dash their National Title hopes but you get a playoff, maintain your bowl games and make the regular season matter.

As for the bowl games, people would say “but they make money.” Your major bowls like the Orange, Rose, Fiesta, and Sugar are not going anywhere. Neither are other New Years Day bowl games. For that matter, neither are games like the Holiday Bowl. Start by getting rid of bowl games that are being occupied by 6-6 teams. They have no business even playing in a bowl game.

Ecomonic times need to be considered in bowl game ticket sales

According to a Lincoln Journal Star report on Monday morning, the Nebraska athletic department had sold 8,100 Capital One Bowl tickets out of its 12,500-ticket allotment.


The secondary market is probably taking a toll on UNL sales, among other reasons (prices of airline tickets, hotels, rental cars, etc.).

Ticket sales have slowed considerably since the first-day rush. The Husker athletic department sold about 6,500 tickets on Dec. 5; the day after the bowl matchup was announced.

South Carolina has sold about 10,000 tickets from its allotment, according to a school spokesman.

In reading that brief bit of information, I could only hearken back to the only two Husker bowl games I went to in person. For the record, I am a native of Northern California (Napa, CA to be exact), who graduated the University of Nebraska in 1997 with a BA in journalism. I moved back home in 1998 and have been to five Nebraska football games in person (1998 at California, 2000 Fiesta Bowl vs. Tennessee, 2001 vs. TCU in Lincoln, 2007 Cotton Bowl vs. Auburn and 2008 vs. Western Michigan in Lincoln).



For the first three games, I was single. For the last two, I was married. I went to the Cotton Bowl because at the time I viewed it as my last chance to go to a Husker game in person before my first child was born. Juliette was born in March 2007. Little did I know that the 2007 season would bring the horrendous wreckage of the end of the Bill Callahan years. Fast forward to August 2008 with my wife and me expecting twins (now 3-year old Tommy and Danielle), I decided, “Well, I haven’t been back to Lincoln in seven years and we have the start of the Bo Pelini era. Maybe I’ll buy tickets to see us play Western Michigan. I’ll be a while before I can travel to a Husker game.”



When you factor in game tickets, plane tickets, hotels, food and other entertainment, you’re looking at a trip that gets over one thousand dollars.



You see, us Husker fans are a very self-congratulatory lot about being the classiest and travelling well. However, does going to the game and buying tickets make you any more diehard fan than one who watches the game at home or a watering hole?



Another thing you have to take into account is the present state of the economy. I know that’s an oversimplification but it’s true. We are facing unprecedented lows in the United States, at least anyone of my generation (39 years old). You have people losing their homes, losing their jobs and living on reduced wages. Even if you don’t have these issues, bills are not going away.



I remember the aforementioned Cotton Bowl trip where tickets were $90 a piece and that was on the cheap end. The question then becomes, where do you draw the line? Granted, we are all going to budget some money for entertainment whether we have jobs or families or otherwise.



So before anyone casts aspersions about ticket sales, just remember the times we face.