Fresno State coach full of bravado but not much else

Fresno State head coach Pat Hill is definitely a refreshing personality in a profession that features many dud-like sayings like "one game at a time" or "if we don't make mistakes, we'll win." All of that jazz.


Hill brings his Bulldogs into Lincoln, Nebraska Saturday for a matchup against the No. 10 rated Cornhuskers. Much has been made of Hill's infamous statement years ago of "we'll play anyone, anywhere, anytime." So much so that Hill has been lauded to the point where people point out that in an age where more and more coaches are afraid to take non-conference risks out of fear they might ruin their shot at a .500 season and a precious bowl bid, Hill spits in the face of that strategy and wants to take on any team that will have him. Hill does it because he has to do it. Let's face it, how much respect is a team from the Western Athletic Conference going to get by going in beaten in that conference. On the other hand, conferences like the SEC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac 12 and so on are loaded with tests so how can one blame those coaches for scheduling "easy games."

OK, I get the idea of praising Hill for having a personality many coaches do not have. Yes, he is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise timid coaching environment. However, has his way been successful? That depends on your idea of success.

Fresno State is 16-17 against BCS Conference opponents since 2001, which is more wins than any other non-BCS school during that time. More applicable to gamblers, though, is Hill’s "against the spread" record against those schools, which is 23-10. OK, that's fine. Puff your chest with this "anywhere, anytime" stuff all you want but beat them. If you're satisfied with simply losing by less than Las Vegas bookies thought you would, why take the field?

So, given the tremendous against the spread success against stronger competition, the same has to be true of the Bulldogs in WAC play, right? His record against the WAC is 75-36. He has never been below 4-4 but never above 6-2.

Fresno State has won just one WAC title (a share in 1999) since Hill took over in 1997. The problem seems to be that Hill puts so much emphasis on the “big games” — most of which come on the road at places hundreds or thousands of miles away — that his players often suffer a letdown when they get into winnable conference games.

In 2001, Fresno State had early season wins against Colorado, Oregon State and Wisconsin that allowed them to jump to No. 8 in the rankings. The tough schedule caught up with them. They lost to Boise State and Hawaii early in WAC play.

In 2004, the Bulldogs scored a big win at 13th-ranked Kansas State was followed quickly by losses to Louisiana Tech, UTEP and Boise State. Fresno State finished 10-3 overall.

In 2005, the Bulldogs started 8-1 and almost won at USC, losing 50-42. That was the same USC team that lost to Texas in the BCS Title Game. While the narrow loss put them on the national map, losses in winnable games against Nevada and Louisiana Tech ended all hopes of a conference championship.

So, has Hill’s strategy been successful? True, his program is more relevant than before his tenure but it should be dually noted that Boise State and Hawaii have both made it to BCS bowls out of the WAC by taking a different approach. Fresno State’s best bowl game during that time is hard to even figure out. The MPC Computers Bowl? The New Mexico Bowl?

Yes, Hill routinely gets his teams up to play against big-time opponents and he routinely fails at preventing a hangover effect in the following conference games. True, Hill could care less what you, I or the man on the moon think. He’s going to keep scheduling the toughest possible opponents at the toughest venues in the country.

Look, there's a lot to like about Hill even more than his refreshing personality that media types and fans espouse. Under Hill's leadership, Fresno State has greatly improved the academic performance of its football players. During Hill's tenure the team has produced (as of 2005) 65 Academic All-WAC players, compared to a total of nine in the entire history of the program before Hill's arrival.

His Bulldog teams have reached a bowl game in eight of the last nine seasons to being on national television as much as any team this decade, the Bulldog program is regularly recognized for its success. That success transcends to the classroom, where once again the Fresno State team has posted a very strong Academic Progress Rate score. Fresno State's APR score ranks fourth in the western United States among public institutions, and second among California public schools.

As for how Hill's approach plays into the concern of Husker fans that post on message boards and call talk radio, well, let's just say that a segment of Nebraska fans were less than impressed with the team's 40-7 win over Tennessee-Chattanooga. Of course, those same perspective-lacking schnooks fail to realize that had starting quarterback Taylor Martinez played the entire game AND if starting cornerback Alfonzo Dennard played, the Huskers probably win 56-0. Then again, it is more prudent to play backups in a blowout game. Seriously, for you "statement win" wonks, is 56-0 THAT much more impressive than 40-7? Secondly why play Dennard if you win the game without him anyhow?

Nebraska is favored by 24.5 points. Fresno State lost 36-21 last week to the California Golden Bears at Candlestick Park in San Francisco. The Bulldogs led 7-0 in the first quarter and 19-14 at halftime. Midway through the fourth quarter it was 36-14. So, the Bulldogs started strong and faded as the game progressed.

I expect them to learn their lesson and play hard for all four quarters this week. Nebraska will also learn from their mistakes, mainly in communications between players on the field, and post an even stronger effort at Memorial Stadium than last week.

The Bulldogs will bark and show their teeth, but I don’t believe they’ll bite enough of the Huskers to score more than 20 points. Huskers will win say 38-14.

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.

BCS not perfect but give it an edge over March Madness

I know many purists swear by the NCAA Tournament in college basketball and swear at the BCS in college football.

You can bet the deed to your house that people will go gaga for the next few weeks during March Madness and cries of a playoff in football will be in full bloom by early-to-mid October.

Heck, our president Barack Obama has already gotten on his soapbox about college football needing a playoff system. Don’t you think our country has more pressing needs at the moment? Like fixing the economy. Like addressing the war in Iraq.

I'm in the minority, while the BCS (Bowl Championship series) is not perfect, I don't think a playoff (a la NCAA March Madness in basketball) is the cat's meow either like some people are inclined to believe. OK, I know what you’re thinking. “Lay of the bong, Vince.”

For the record, I do enjoy March Madness. Like most people, I fill out my office pool but I refrained from asking Rick Neuheisul for any advice. Sorry, I could not resist. However, 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 two 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 32-21 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.

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.
For example, suppose we have one undefeated team and four one-loss teams. How are you then going to justify leaving out one of the one-loss teams? Some would say make it eight teams. OK. Let's say you have two unbeaten teams, four one-loss teams and three two loss teams? How then do you justify leaving out one of the two loss teams.

I find it almost comical how fans, media and talk show hosts whine and complain about the BCS just like they whined and complained about Nebraska (2001) and Oklahoma (2003) not winning its conference but yet still playing for the title. Yet they don't say boo, yeah or neah about a team finishing seventh in its basketball conference and getting an NCAA tournament bid.

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.