SportsRatings: College Football

Ohio State busts into the bracket: what hath the Committee wrought?

Ohio State jumps into the bracket, sure to cause controversy in the Big Twelve world where TCU—#3 last week and a 55-3 winner over the weekend—fell three spots.

The Buckeyes beat Wisconsin 59-0, which is certainly impressive. The Committee apparently was impressed with the fact that Ohio State "lost two quarterbacks"—even though one of them didn't play a down this season, which is somewhat like a team losing its quarterback to graduation or the NFL.

The decision shows a lot of shortcomings of the Committee, mainly, releasing weekly rankings. Though their final rankings showed they didn't fall into one "trap" of weekly rankings—namely, moving teams up and down instead of re-evaluating—but they did fall into another trap: teams that lose early have a better chance of having that loss "excused." Ohio State's lose to Virginia Tech was by far the worst of the eligible teams, coming at home to a 6-6 team by 14 points.

If the Committee is going to release weekly rankings, they should release point totals to reflect how close the race is; that would have reflected how close the voting between #3 and #6 was. A better solution would be to not release weekly polls at all.

In the end, TCU and Baylor fell victim to not having a championship game, and therefore, in the Committee's mind, no conference championship. They also fell victim to another problem with the Committee: a school's name means a lot.

Let's not fool ourselves: Ohio State is a "name" football school and TCU and Baylor are not. It didn't matter that TCU beat Minnesota convincingly and Ohio State won by 7 points. It didn't matter that Baylor has the best win of any of the top six teams. It didn't matter that Ohio State won the Big Ten, which was pretty atrocious this year. In the end, it mattered that Ohio State was Ohio State, and they had a huge, convincing win at the end that allowed the Committee to say the Buckeyes passed the "eye test."

Here's a question: if TCU and Oklahoma's names were switched on their schedules, would Oklahoma have been dropped from #3 to #6 after beating Iowa State 55-3? And if Oklahoma and Baylor's names were switched, would Oklahoma ever have been ranked behind a TCU team that they beat?

People hated the BCS because of the computers, but mainly because there wasn't a Playoff. Now we're faced with a very arbitrary Committee, and still have teams that might be the best in the nation left out of the Playoff.

Committee member Barry Alvarez using margin-of-victory based power rating for College Football Playoff

When the new College Football Playoff was announced with great fanfare and a star-studded Committee was introduced, the college football world rejoiced: No more computers! And no more looking at the polls! But it's pretty clear that computers and polls are what the Committee is going to use to make its decisions, which will probably look a lot more like the BCS results than anyone wants to admit.

Let's take the polls. The AP and coaches poll are created by sportswriters and coaches. The Harris poll (used by the BCS) was a mix of former players, coaches, and media members. The College Football Playoff committee has the same makeup—current Athletic Directors mixed with ex-coaches and players. The names may be "bigger" but there's no reason to believe their choices will be more informed than the aggregate of sportswriters or coaches in the AP and USA poll.

Then there's the computers. While the six systems used by the BCS are gone, the Committee has signed up with a service that will provide a variety of statistics. They'll take those into consideration the same way the NCAA basketball selection committee uses the "Nitty-Gritty" report to select its 68 teams in March. The difference is there is no "RPI" equivalent supplied for the football committee.

But should there be? Tons of information with no way to digest it can be used to justify anything. A good power rating provides a way of digesting thousands of points of information. Case in point: Barry Alvarez describes a very basic and important kind of power rating when he talks about criteria he will use:

"In other words, let's say a team scores 50 points four games in a row, but the teams they're playing give up an average of 45," Alvarez said. "And then you've got someone who's played a very difficult schedule and they're averaging 21 points a game, but the teams they're playing only give up an average of 10 points. There's a huge difference there. That variation on both offense and defense are very telling statistics."

Hmm, let's see. Comparison of points scored to the opponent's average points yielded? And vice versa? And if we take that through multiple cycles until the numbers don't change? Then you have a margin-of-victory based power rating. Much like our Strength power rating, or Sagarin's predictor, or the SRS from pro-football-reference.com.

ESPN's article makes pains to distance what he's saying from margin of victory, which was verboten in the BCS era:

While Alvarez said he doesn't place much stock in margin of victory, he does pay close attention to a statistic on relative offensive and defensive performance.

Which of course is impossible. If you are paying "close attention" to relative offensive and defensive performance, you are ultimately paying close attention to margin of victory. You are just adjusting it for strength of schedule, which is what a power rating does.

And this is what is going to happen as the Committee becomes more versed in how to rank college football teams. There's no doubt the Committee has tons of college football expertise, but there's no indication at all that they have any expertise in ranking college football teams. The two are not nearly the same thing.

Right now their focus is on information, and deciding what information is relevant. Perhaps each member will have "pet" statistics to use. They might each use a different method to decide what "strength of schedule" means, and it's important since that's pretty much all we've heard them talk about since the committee was formed.

Maybe as the committee members think about the problem more—what constitutes quality?—then they will replicate some of the solutions that have already been used to rank teams in the past. Alvarez took the first step in replicating a Strength/Predictor/SRS power rating. Others might come up with MOV-free descriptions. They might have programmers implement some of these systems. If, say, half of the committee members do so, then there will be six computer programs that will be part of the Playoff decision process.

Add those six computer programs to the Harris/USA-like mix of coaches and football players on the decision Committee, and it will be like the BCS never went away!

1-loss Notre Dame would play on New Year's Day, could make playoff

Not sure what Dennis Dodd is smoking when he says that only an undefeated Notre Dame team would play on New Year's Day. The headline is a little less strict, claiming that Notre Dame needs to be undefeated to make the 4-team playoff, but even that's not true. A 1-loss Notre Dame has an excellent chance of being in the playoff.

This year there's no doubt a 1-loss Notre Dame team would play on New Year's Day, and even a 2-loss Irish team might make it this year. Dodd notes that in the future, due to Power Five conference committments to the rotating bowl schedule there will only be one "at-large" slot open among the six New Year's Day bowls in 2016. But assuming a 1-loss Notre Dame doesn't make the playoff, then 11 slots will be filled with Power Five conference teams. That's certain to wipe out all of the Power Five teams will zero losses or 1 loss, as well as several 2-loss teams. Notre Dame would be competing for that 12th spot with 3-loss teams; they would get it.

Dodd's discussion applies to BYU, not Notre Dame. A 1-loss BYU, if they continue to schedule the way they did this year, won't likely make a New Year's Day bowl now or in the future. Going undefeated is the only way they'll get there. So everything Dodd says applies to the Cougars but not the Irish, whose schedule he lumps in with the Cougars' schedule, even though they're not even close.

Notre Dame plays 10 Power Five conference teams while BYU plays just three. Notre Dame plays Florida State as well as Stanford, USC, and Arizona State from the Pac-12, all currently ranked teams. Dodd mentions that Notre Dame's schedule ranks 38th in the nation while the SEC teams are at the top, but that's for the three games played so far. Most SEC teams have played a conference game already so their SOS is high for the early season when most teams haven't played a conference game. Notre Dame's SOS for the full year is #4 according to the NCAA; that may change, but by the time the College Football Committee sets the New Year's bowl games the Irish will not be #38 in SOS.

College Football Playoff: Michigan State, Big Ten still alive; Penn State back from dead

The reports you've heard about Michigan State and the Big Ten being eliminated from the College Football Playoff are woefully premature.

The Spartans and indeed, every other team from the Big Ten are all still alive. Most of the conference's teams' chances took a hit last Saturday, but the real mistake was thinking that the Big Ten had a good chance to be in the Playoff in the first place.

In our most recent College Football Playoff odds chart Michigan State took only a small dent from their loss to Oregon, falling from 7th most likely to 8th-most likely to make the CFP. Almost all of this loss was already factored in; the game was a bit worse than expected for MSU, and the rest of the conference was weakened by all the losses, but it also made the Spartans' path to a 1-loss finish easier.

Let's be clear: the Playoff Committee, which includes field-stormer Pat Haden, is portrayed as a paragon of college football wisdom and impartiality, but in reality it's likely they will evaluate teams exactly the way the AP sportswriters do: primarily by overall wins and losses and whether that team is from a power conference or not. The Big Ten may have taken a hit but it is still a power conference.

Power conference teams with 1-loss will ALL be in major contention come December. Even power conference teams with 2 losses will have a chance depending on how many 0- and 1-loss teams are out there. Only Northwestern has 2 losses, and if they run the table they could still have a chance. No one from the Big Ten is eliminated yet.

Sure, they took a step back on Saturday, which means that a 2-loss team from the Big Ten is likely to take a backseat to a 2-loss team from the SEC. But that was the case before Saturday already; not as much changed as people seem to think.

While Michigan State's odds fell by just 2.8 percentage points, other teams were hurt more. Michigan's 31-0 loss sent their odds from 0.4% to almost (but not quite) 0%; Nebraska's near-loss dropped their odds from 0.6% to 0.5%; Maryland fell from 1.1% to 0.6%; and Ohio State's dropped from 8.8% to 0.4%. The latter three teams all fell from the Playoff odds chart top 25. Indiana and Minnesota actually gained a bit, helped by the weakness of their future competition.

Overall the Big Ten's summed odds dropped from 41.3% to 28.8%. So even before Saturday the Big Ten didn't appear likely to have a representative in the 4-team field. And this week's odds are essentially the same as their pre-season odds of 28.6%.

College Football Playoff total odds by conference:

Rank	Conference	Summed odds (all teams >0.5%)	No. of teams w/odds >0.5%	Week 1 odds	week 0 odds
1	ACC	94.8%	5	88.2%	84.2%
2	SEC	89.2%	7	89.9%	93.5%
3	Big Twelve	82.2%	3	80.9%	87.1%
4	Pac-12	73.9%	3	64.9%	69.7%
5	Big Ten	28.6%	3	41.3%	28.8%
6	Ind.	20.6%	2	17.0%	13.4%
7	CUSA	3.8%	1	13.1%	16.1%
8	MAC	3.4%	1	--	--
	Total	396.5%	25

The ACC is the most likely team to have a rep, mostly due to Florida State (64.3%) but Virginia Tech's upset of Ohio State made the Hokies a contender with a pretty easy path in the ACC until they'd hit FSU in the title game. The SEC is #2 and have the most teams (7) with a reasonable chance. Their odds have been, and will remain, pretty constant as the pecking order there is established. At #3, the Big Twelve. Again, someone is going to emerge the champ of that conference, and they'll probably be in the playoff. The same goes for the Pac-12 whose teams will knock each other off as the weeks pass.

The Big Ten has been a constant #5 from the pre-season. The highest-ranked Big Ten team in our Pre-season Top 128 was Michigan State at #15—hardly the sign of a conference expected to make the 4-team playoff. Ohio State was #17, and even before losing Braxton Miller was had them just 8th. But as a power conference, the Big Ten winner is always going to be in the hunt, even if they're expected to be the odd-conference-out.

Who is really "out" of the College Football Playoff?

So how many teams are really "out" completely? First off, three teams are ineligible for the post-season due to being new to the FBS (Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, and Old Dominion), while Idaho and Penn State were banned for other reasons. With Penn State's ban being lifted, that means 124 teams are in contention for the 4-team playoff.

Major conference teams with 0, 1, or 2 losses have a shot at being in the "final four" based on previous years. Non-power conference teams that go undefeated also have a shot, and even 1-loss teams could have a prayer under the right circumstances. So in week two the only teams eliminated are those non-power-conference teams that are 0-2 (along with the ineligible teams above). So here is the complete list of teams that have an absolute 0% shot at making the playoff:

• Appalachian State (1-1)
• Florida Atlantic (0-2)
• Fresno State (0-2)
• Georgia Southern (1-1)
• Hawaii (0-2)
• Idaho (0-1)
• Kent State (0-2)
• Massachusetts (0-2)
• Miami (Ohio) (0-2)
• New Mexico (0-2)
• Old Dominion (1-1)
• SMU (0-2)
• Troy (0-2)
• Tulane (0-2)

With 14 teams out of the race, that makes 114 other teams still in the hunt, even if only 25 teams have a more than 1 in 200 shot.

Penn State's Bowl Eligibility odds: From 0% to 82% in one day

In other Big Ten news, Penn State's bowl ban was lifted, making the Nittany Lions bowl "eligible" in the sense that they are now eligible to be eligible. In the pre-season we calculated their theoretical bowl odds as 40%, meaning we didn't think they'd make it even if they were allowed to.

But we've changed our tune since, for two reasons.

One, Penn State has been much better than we expected (our expectations were low). We had the Lions favored in just four games and projected to finish 5-7. After their upset win over Central Florida and a strong defensive performance in beating Akron 21-3, the Lions are up from #73 pre-season to #63.

Two, the Big Ten is hurting. Across the board almost every team did poorly on Saturday, and now Penn State looks like a 7-5 team. We favor them against Rutgers and Northwestern, the latter due largely to the Wildcats' poor play. Overall we put their bowl odds at 82%.

That could increase if they continue to play better, which is possible because team morale will get a huge boost from the ban being lifted. We still don't think they'll be showing up on our playoff odds chart, but with the rest of the Big Ten faltering, you never know...

Auburn should fire Athletic Director Jay Jacobs

"You can't get left out of the BCS after you beat the No. 1 team." Jacobs told USA Today. "We have a better argument because we beat the No. 1 team. ... It would be a disservice to the nation if we got left out."

That's what Auburn AD Jay Jacobs said after the Tigers beat Alabama in stunning fashion to finish 11-1 on the season.

Wait, did we say finish?

Unless we missed something, Auburn still has another game to play. And don't think that Missouri's locker room isn't going to be wallpapered with Jacobs' quote before they take on Auburn for the SEC championship.

This isn't a gimme game for Auburn by any means. Missouri is also 11-1—they just beat Texas A&M 28-21, a team that gave both Auburn and Alabama all they could handle before losing. And Missouri ranks higher in our Strength power rating than Auburn.

In all, we'd say Missouri ought to be about a 3-point favorite to win. Auburn has no margin for error here—meaning they shouldn't be giving their opponent any extra help.

That includes boneheaded statements by the athletic director, whose job it is to bolster athletics at the school.

He can argue Auburn's résumé when it is complete. But to put the cart before the horse in a situation like this? Stupid.

There's a slim chance that a 1-loss Auburn, after winning the SEC, could be #2 in the BCS ahead of an undefeated Ohio State—but it's pretty unlikely. So arguing their merits at this point is...well, pointless.

If Ohio State loses to Michigan State, and Auburn beats Missouri, there's no need to even make the point.

But by making it now, Jacobs could actually affect the outcome of the SEC title game, and not in the way he wants.

Bottom line, he should have closed his mouth until Auburn has played Missouri. Then he can put forth the argument and see if it sticks. In any case, when did it become the AD's job to talk up the team? It seems comments from an AD can only backfire—with opponents and sportswriters alike.

But he went ahead and put his foot in his mouth. And Missouri was undoubtedly listening.

Okay, maybe firing him would be a little harsh. He did hire Gus Malzahn after all. But that was a no-brainer—he also hired Gene Chizik. Surely there's someone out there who can make the obvious hires, avoid the bad ones, and keep his mouth shut when necessary?

Northern Illinois in the BCS? Don't blame the computers, OR the pollsters

A few days ago we defended the "BCS Computers" against accusations that they were going to erroneously put Kent State in the BCS.

Instead, it's Northern Illinois in the BCS, and on the BCS Selection show the announcers have a big problem with it and seem to be struggling for someone to blame.

While they made it clear they don't blame Northern Illinois (how kind of them!) they ask the genius question, do you blame the voters or computers more?

Of course, they would NEVER ask this question if Northern Illinois were ranked higher in the computers, because the answer would be obvious: blame the computers. In this case the voters have them at #16 in both relevant polls, and the computers at #19, but the question still has to be asked...just to make sure there isn't some way we can manage to blame the computers.

The conclusion was that the voters shouldn't have Northern Illinois as high as #16. "They're saying they think Northern Illinois could beat Michigan, or UCLA, or some of these other teams..."

No, they're not. That's not what the rankings necessarily mean. Otherwise you wouldn't find Notre Dame at the top—it would be Alabama. And Oregon would probably be #2.

But teams are often ranked—properly—based on their body of work. Who they beat, and who beat them. And on that score, Northern Illinois is a legit #16. At 12-1, we have them #15. They lost to Iowa by a point in their first game of the season—the kind of loss AQ schools are excused for routinely—then won 12 straight games in a MAC conference that's at least as good as the AQ Big East this year.

Then they lamented about the teams that could have gone to a BCS bowl instead: Oklahoma, or Clemson. But those team are ranked higher than Northern Illinois in both polls. If the pollsters had their druthers Oklahoma would be in the BCS (or one of the SEC teams ranked ahead of them).

And if Northern Illinois hadn't made the BCS, no one would be making a big deal about their ranking in the polls. No matter where Northern Illinois needed to be to qualify, if they made it, you can argue they should have been one spot lower. But take away the BCS bowl issue, and no one really cares if NIU is #16 or #30, or if Michigan is ahead of them or behind them.

As we said before, there are only two possible places to assign blame: to the BCS for making the rule that let Northern Illinois qualify, or B) the Big East for sucking so bad that the MAC was able to slip into a BCS bowl.

For the former, the BCS shut out the smaller conferences completely at first, and when they added a 5th BCS bowl it was only fair that they make some provision where a smaller conference could get in. The problem was it didn't provide for the right "victim." Which brings us to point #2: the Big East.

Since the Big East was the league whose poor play put NIU in the Orange Bowl, shouldn't they—rather than the Big Twelve—give up a slot? The MAC's best teams took on the Big East's best and won, Toledo beating Cincinnati and Kent State beating Rutgers. Two other MAC teams beat Big East teams. They earned their spot a lot more than the Big East did theirs.

So here's who to blame: the BCS. But not for giving smaller conferences a fighting chance to be in the mix. That was proper. No, they deserve blame for not making the rules work to kick out the conference whose team doesn't make the top 16.

We should have FSU vs. Northern Illinois, that's not the problem. But Florida vs. Oklahoma should have happened, not Florida vs. Louisville.

Kent State in the BCS? Don't blame the computers

In an op ed of sorts on Sports Illustrated's site, Ed Feng laments Kent State's presence in the BCS bowl race:

"Kent State...lost 47-14 to a Kentucky team that didn't win a single SEC game. How can it be in a position for a BCS berth?"

Well, some would argue because they beat all the rest of their opponents, including Rutgers on the road, and will finish 12-1 if they win on Friday night. Others would agree that their MAC schedule isn't tough enough for a valid BCS team. But undeniably, by the rules of the BCS, they might actually qualify.

Feng blames the computers, then narrows the problem to a specific computer ranking:

"...the Colley Matrix, the one fully transparent computer poll, does not use...game-specific information. The system considers a team's win-loss record and strength of schedule; yet, the results of each individual game are not counted as an input. The method doesn't care whether Kent State's loss came against Kentucky or against Rutgers."

Sounds like a valid complaint; this lack of game-by-game cognizance is one of the (many) things that makes the RPI so frustrating for its use as a March Madness tool. But Colley is only one of six computers used in the BCS. Shouldn't there be some diversity of method among the six? They're already fairly highly correlated due to the lack of use of margin of victory—another of his complaints, which also has validity but can't really be held against the computer algorithm creators. Why enforce more rules that make them even more similar?

Still, apparently it's the ugly loss to Kentucky that should ban Kent State:

"Losing to 2-10 Kentucky would presumably hurt the Flashes' ranking. If they had lost to 9-2 Rutgers instead, the computer poll could assign Kent State a different, and presumably higher, ranking."

That's a good point, but tell me why a team should be ranked higher after it dispenses with its best win by far? Sure, dropping the Kentucky loss should help Kent State's ranking in any reasonable system. But dumping the win over Rutgers should hurt Kent State's ranking in any reasonable system. Who is to say what the balance of those two is?

"If Kent State loses to Rutgers (25th in Colley's rankings) but beats Kentucky (98th), common sense indicates its rank should improve."

Oh, common sense. I see.

He confirms that, in the game-switching scenario, Kent State drops a spot in Colley's method. Or rather, Rutgers moves ahead of them, thereby pushing Kent State down a spot.

"the Flashes actually drop one place. In this scenario, Rutgers has a 10-1 record instead of a 9-2 mark and therefore moves ahead of Kent State."

So basically, trading the loss of their best win for dropping their worst loss results in a wash. But Rutgers is now ahead of Kent State which changes things drastically—Kent State is no longer up for a BCS bowl as things stand.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees. The problem of Rutgers being behind Kent State—which may cause Kent State to go to a BCS bowl—could have been rectified easily if Rutgers hadn't lost to Kent State. The Flashes would be 10-2, with no potential to be in the top 16.

Bottom line is, if you don't want Kent State in a BCS bowl because they're ahead of Rutgers, either a) don't make a rule that Kent State will be in a BCS bowl if it's ahead of Rutgers, or b) make sure Rutgers beats Kent State in their head-to-head matchup.

Don't blame one computer program, ignoring the other five computer programs. Colley ranks Kent State 15th, just like Billingsley and Peter Wolfe. For each team, the top (and bottom) computer ranking are discarded. So it wouldn't matter if Colley ranked Kent State 50th, the composite score would be the same.

And attacking the computer programs as a whole? Still not valid. Kent State's computer composite (18th) is very close to their poll rankings (18th and 19th). The computers would have to downgrade Kent State well below where the pollsters are putting them to make a real difference in their BCS bowl aspirations come Sunday. In other words, he's blaming the computers for not acting as gatekeepers for what the human pollsters want to do—which is, rank Kent State near the top 16.

Instead, it looks as thought the computers are going to rubber stamp a "bad" decision by the humans, which he says would "cost" the Big 12 millions of dollars by pushing Oklahoma out of the BCS.

And that gets to the real issue. Both the pollsters and computers rank Oklahoma higher than Kent State. So it's not even the pollsters' fault, let alone computers' fault, that Kent State could get to a BCS bowl.

Blame the BCS rules, or blame the Big East for sucking so bad, or more specifically blame Rutgers for not taking care of the "problem" when they could have.

Why on earth did the coaches pop Boise State up to #15 ???

The AP and Coaches polls pretty much move in lock-step. There are differences, particularly in that the AP will rank ineligible teams such as Ohio State, and sometimes teams will differ in the rankings between the two polls by a few spots. A 5-spot difference is fairly unusual.

So today's coaches poll was a shock when Boise State came in at #15, a full 10 spots higher than the Broncos rank in the AP poll. Call it 9 spots difference after accounting for Ohio State's presence in the AP, but still, that's huge.

It's not hard to see how it happened: the dreaded "rung" effect where a team, already in the rankings, wins its game while a number of teams ahead of it lose. The winner (in this case Boise State) gets pushed up as the other teams fall below. Certainly, beating Colorado State wasn't considered that impressive; Boise was just in the right place at the right time.

Not so in the AP poll, as the Broncos weren't in the rankings last week so they didn't get pushed up. If they had been outside of the top 25 last week in the coaches' poll, they'd probably be entering this week in the 20s.

In any case, the AP has it right. Boise State does not deserve to be #15 in the nation. #25 is about right for a team that has beat nobody and has two losses to unranked teams.

But because of the high Coaches poll ranking, the Broncos are ridiculously knocking on the door for an automatic BCS berth, which they'll get if they can finish in the top 16. They just have to beat Nevada next Saturday to win a share of the Mountain West crown, and hope that they make the top 16.

What stands in their way? Well, the Harris poll followed suit, but not quite as bad, putting Boise State at #17. The real roadblock for Boise is going to be the computer composite, where they were #30 last week and probably won't be in the top 25 this week. In fact, around #25 might be what they can expect if they beat Nevada. So even if they gain a couple spots in the polls next week, they'll probably still come up short of the top 16.

Interestingly the coaches rank Boise ahead of Kent State and Northern Illinois, both of whom are 11-1. Kent State even has a quality win—over Rutgers, another team possibly headed for a BCS bowl. Clearly, Boise State's name recognition is helping it here. Unlike in previous years when the Broncos got too little respect, this year they are getting too much respect, due to their reputation.

Kent State and Northern Illinois play each other next weekend for the MAC title, and the winner could conceivably make the top 16, perhaps finishing ahead of Boise which would steal the Broncos' automatic BCS bowl bid. To do that they'd need a UCLA loss, probably a Nebraska loss, and a Boise loss wouldn't hurt, either.

Where should 12-0 Ohio State be ranked?

Ohio State just finished their year 12-0. Banned from the post-season, their last game was a 26-21 victory over Michigan.

That begs the question: where should the Buckeyes be ranked? They aren't going to the Big Ten title game nor to a bowl game, meaning they don't have to "back up" their 12-0 record. But what do they have to prove, since only one other team finished unbeaten? Should Ohio State be #2, with a chance to be #1 if Notre Dame loses?

In most years, the answer would be yes. If the Big Ten were at normal strength, and the Buckeyes had played any semblance of a top team during the non-conference schedule, they would have made a convincing case for being considered national champ, probation or not. But this wasn't a normal Big Ten season; the league is as weak this year as its ever been, with only Nebraska joining the Buckeyes in our top 25—and no teams in our Strength power rating top 20. And the Buckeye pre-conference slate of Miami Ohio (4-8), Central Florida (9-3), California (3-9), and UAB (3-9) doesn't cut it.

The UCF win isn't bad, but the Knights aren't a great team by any measure. Ohio State's best win by far was a 63-38 defeat of Nebraska, who finished 10-2 and is playing for the Big Ten title that the Buckeyes are ineligible for.

Other than the Cornhuskers and UCF, however, the Buckeyes had trouble with every bowl-eligible team they faced. They edged 6-6 Michigan State by a point, 17-16; needed overtime to beat 6-6 Purdue 29-22; needed overtime again to beat 7-5 Wisconsin 21-14; and narrowly defeated 8-4 Michigan on Saturday, 26-21.They also beat ineligible 8-4 Penn State 35-23.

The Buckeyes even had trouble with 4-8 Indiana, escaping 52-49. Some might compare this team's "will to win" with the 2002 national championship team, which had several narrow escapes throughout the year en route to beating Miami. If this year's team got the chance, couldn't they beat Notre Dame or Alabama? After all, almost no one gave them a chance against the Hurricanes in 2002.

But that's a poor comparison. The 2002 team was great when they had Maurice Clarett, and they struggled when he was injured or gone, which was much of the year. That was a much better team than this year's model; though they ranked outside the top 10 without Clarett, they were among the top teams with him, which they showed early on by beating Washington State 25-7. And when they didn't have him, they won close games due to defense.

This year's team won close games due to a very poor Big Ten, and luck. They don't even rank in the top 20 in our Strength power rating, sitting at #22 in our All-Division Strength ratings currently.

No, the correct comparison for this Ohio State team isn't the 2002 model; it's actually the 1993 Auburn Tigers.

That Auburn team finished 11-0, winning three games by four points or less, and playing only two teams with winning records. They ranked #19 in our Strength power rating, and were banned from post-season play and therefore didn't face a final test, though they beat rival Alabama (8-3-1) on the season's last weekend, 22-14. The Tigers finished at #4 in the final AP poll, behind 1-loss teams Florida State, Notre Dame, and Nebraska.

That's a fair indication of where Ohio State should finish, too. Currently they sit at #4 in the AP poll, behind Notre Dame, Alabama, and Georgia. They're also #4 in the SportsRatings Top 25, behind Notre Dame, Georgia, and Florida. If #5 Alabama beats Georgia, the Tide will jump ahead of the Buckeyes while the Bulldogs fall behind. We certainly disagree with the Buckeyes being ahead of Florida as they are in the AP, since Florida holds wins over the #9, #10, #11, and #13 teams in the AP poll.

If several of the top teams finish with 2 losses, the Buckeyes could finish as high as #2, but there's no scenario where I think they should be ranked #1. I'd consider any team that finishes with a) one loss to a top 25 team and b) two or more wins over top 25 teams, to be ahead of the Buckeyes in terms of achievement this year. Those teams could include any of Notre Dame, Georgia/Alabama, Florida, and Oregon, so Ohio State will end up anywhere from #2 to #5, but probably #3 or #4.

That's fair for a team that is very good, but not great, and certainly not one of the great Ohio State teams like Urban Meyer asserted yesterday. They haven't faced a top team and won't get the chance to, so we have to judge them on what they've done, not what they might do. And based on what they've done—which is to struggle to beat almost everyone on their mediocre schedule—we have no reason to conclude they'd compete with this year's very best teams.

Coach of the Year: Georgia's Mark Richt

There were many candidates for Coach of the Year in college football: Just today, Les Miles won the award from the AP. Mike Gundy of Oklahoma State has been mentioned, and Kansas State's Bill Snyder has done an incredible job at Kansas State. Louisiana-Lafayette's Mark Hudspeth helped the Ragin' Cajuns turn their team around from 3-9 to 9-3 in his first year.

But we're going with Mark Richt of Georgia.

It's not just because he led the team to a 10-3 record after a disappointing 6-7 season last year. That required some talent and perseverance, sure, but turnarounds are fairly common in prominent programs.

He certainly faced adversity, and most if it came from within—the fans and boosters that put him on the "hot seat" after last year's season, and kept him on it as Georgia started the season 0-2.

It was an indictment of modern college football and fan idiocy that Richt was ever in doubt. His record over the previous decade was incredible. Georgia had six 10+ win seasons in 10 years starting in 2001; the others were 8-4, 8-5, and 9-4, then last year's losing record where the Bulldogs were 6-6 before losing their bowl game.

That was enough for some fans to say Richt should be gone. A decade of prosperity, for them, could be wiped out by one disappointing season—a bowl season, even.

The team finished #22, #3, #7, #7, #10, #23, #2, and #23 from 2001 to 2008 in the final AP polls. Apparently two years outside the top 25 offsets eight straight top 25 finishes, including 5 top-10 finishes and two top-5 finishes.

Worse, the Bulldogs started this season 0-2. Never mind that the losses were to Boise State, who finished 11-1, and South Carolina, who ended up 10-2. Both opponents were top 12 teams at the time, and both finished in the top ten. Idiots don't take that kind of thing into consideration; they just see losses, get mad, and demand that someone lose their job for it.

When Georgia was 0-2, we wrote that we saw better times ahead and that Richt would keep his job after proving the haters wrong. We had Georgia favored in 9 of the 10 remaining games, and showed that there was a good chance the team would go 10-2, though 8-4 was probably most likely. Either way, a good season was still expected.

As it turned out, the Bulldogs won 10 straight games and even won their division in the SEC. They lost to LSU in the SEC title game, something I'm sure his detractors will use against him. There is no pleasing some people.

But Richt proved his worth to Georgia, as if he should have had anything to prove after a decade of consistent winning in the toughest conference in college football. The thing that prompted us to give him our blessing as Coach of the Year is the following, off-the-field story:

Richt was paying his assistants supplemental salary money out of his own pocket.

Yes, that is a minor NCAA violation. It also shows how much he cares about his staff and made sure they were fairly compensated. The details are interesting: Richt gave money to 15 coaches or non-coach staff members totalling around $64,000. Several times he did it when the University refused to give the person a raise. Many of them were refused bowl game bonuses by the University. He gave one fired coach $6,000 when his severance pay ran out.

The $64,000 question is, are we supposed to think these are real NCAA violations? Or do they speak for the coach's character? The latter makes more sense. I can't even start to have any indignation about this. NCAA violations deal with paying players, not coaches. The latter are professionals and are paid. Georgia didn't gain any advantage.

Perhaps Richt should have negotiated with the University a salary reduction with the difference going to the coaches in question, but given that Georgia was so stingy with those men, who's to say they would have followed through in distributing the money? That sounds like a red tape nightmare to me.

So he did what he thought he should do. He played Robin Hood with his own money. I think this is a refreshing story: a coach who thinks his own salary is too high relative to his coaching staff!

I wonder what the Richt haters will say about this one. While they were demanding his ouster for winning 10 games only 60% of the time, he was making sure his assistants were treated fairly, and he did so at his own expense.

Mark Richt is Coach of the Year for doing what was right even in the face of an idiotic outcry over his job performance. The fact that he turned the team around just seals the deal.

WTF: Michigan vs. Virginia Tech??? in the Sugar Bowl

Michigan fans have spent the past few days trying to figure out if their team would get into a BCS bowl and if so, which one? and who would their opponent be?

Before the weekend it looked like the answers were Yes, Sugar, and TCU.

During Saturday it looked like Yes, then Maybe, then possibly No, and then back to Yes again.

And on Sunday before the BCS standings were released it was: Yes, Sugar (maybe Fiesta), and Kansas State (maybe Boise State, maybe West Virginia).

Now the actual answers are in: Yes, they're in. The Sugar Bowl. Against Virginia Tech.

Virginia Tech?

The team that just lost to Clemson by 20+ points for the second time this season?

The question is, why? What do they offer—other than being a southern team—that Kansas State or Boise State doesn't? Do they travel better than Kansas State? (I doubt it). Are TV viewers going to be any more excited about this game than Michigan-Boise State? (Probably less, I would wager).

The worst thing is, if they were going to go "off the board" they should have gone for Baylor, who finished #12 in the BCS standings. Denard Robinson vs. Robert Griffin III? That could have been a classic. Now it's just Michigan against Virginia Tech—exciting for fans of those two teams but not really anyone else. The Wolverines had a good, but not great, season. So did the Hokies.

If the Sugar had chosen Baylor, some (including me) would have complained that they skipped over Kansas State. But at least I would have seen why they did it. There would have been very good reasons: the quarterback matchup, and the fact that Baylor is also pretty close by in Waco, and they are a Southern team, too.

It also would have given the Big 12 two teams in the BCS bowls, which they deserved. Now there are two ACC teams among the ten BCS bowl teams—how ridiculous is that?

The bottom line is, having picked Michigan just for their fan base, their second pick could have been a) Boise State, the fairest pick as far as the standings go, b) Kansas State, the fairest pick for conference representation, or c) Baylor, the best pick for hype and fan interest.

An opportunity missed, and for no good reason.

Normally I get sick of people complaining about the BCS, but it's the secondary bowls—not the national championship game—that make for terrible matchups most of the time. This Sugar Bowl is a perfect example of why the system sucks. I hope the BCS's proposal to get out of the non-championship bowl games comes to pass.

Rivals Experts Week 2: Where We Agree/Disagree: Richt Should Stay; Auburn Won't Win The SEC West

SportsRatings' take on Rivals.com "What We Learned in Week 2"

Olin Buchanan

• "Garrett Gilbert no longer is Texas' quarterback": Agree
  We almost jokingly suggested that maybe the McCoy-Shipley connection would be back in effect this season, and it happened on Saturday with Case McCoy and Jaxon Shipley. Gilbert had a full season to get used to the starting role and it doesn't look like he's much better so far.
• "A game against Washington State no longer can be considered an easy win": Agree
  We picked Washington State #60 in our pre-season top 120, so we figured they'd no longer be a doormat in the FBS. And they definitely exceeded those expectations in their first two games. But note that those are the only two games we favored them to win. The cumulative estimate was for a 5-7 year, putting them within striking distance of a bowl game. Not that Stanford and Oregon have to worry about the Cougars, but Oregon State, Colorado, and Utah should.

Tom Dienhart

• "Mark Richt is done": Disagree
  As usual I disagree with Tom Dienhart. Richt is 0-2 against two top ten teams. Dienhart says that "Georgia is an average team" average as in, #60 in the FBS? More like about #30. He points out that the schedule has Mississippi State, Tennessee, Florida, Auburn and Georgia Tech left. True, and I think they should be the favorite in every game except Florida, with Mississippi State and Auburn very close. The Bulldogs should be 7-5 without a problem, and 9-3 is a real possibility. Whether that's enough to save Richt's job I don't know, but it should be after a solid decade of great success.
• "Don't count out Auburn in the SEC West race": Disagree
  Are you kidding me? One upset and suddenly they might win the toughest division in college football (maybe in college football history)? Auburn has NO DEFENSE. You can't win the SEC West without at least a semblance of defense. Dienhart rattles off Georgia's tough games but look at Auburn's schedule: AT South Carolina, AT Arkansas, Florida, AT LSU, Mississippi, AT Georgia, Alabama. I see two wins there, making them 3-5 in the division. They have FOUR ROAD GAMES LEFT! Three against top 25 teams, and the other against Georgia, who could beat them in Athens. Accounting for upsets our guess is Auburn goes 4-4 in the SEC, with zero chance of being in the title game. Dienhart says the team has "forgotten how to lose" but they will be reminded, again and again this year.

David Fox

• "West Virginia and USF will carry the banner for the Big East": Agree
  West Virginia was our top pick in the league, and South Florida has looked pretty decent so far, though Notre Dame gifted them a win. Possibly add in Pitt; we'll see after they play Iowa in Iowa City. They could have been overlooking Maine.
• "Mark Richt shouldn't be the nation's most under-pressure coach": Agree
  Fox does say "Georgia fans have good reasons to grumble" no they don't. Talk about spoiled brat fans. Six 10+ win seasons in 9 years, then one losing season (still went to a bowl) and an 0-2 start against two top ten teams is no reason to grumble. He should stay regardless of what happens this year. The other coaches Fox names Neuheisal at UCLA and Swinney at Clemson haven't really been at their jobs long enough to be fired for early-season disappointment, either.

Mike Huguenin

• Saturday night's Michigan-Notre Dame game was an instant classic: Agree
• "South Carolina's secondary is going to cost the Gamecocks a game or two -- or three": Disagree
  Obviously the Gamecocks' pass defense is worse than their rush defense, but I just don't see the teams on their schedule that are going to shred them with the pass while at the same time having the defense to stop their offense. Arkansas, maybe, and perhaps Florida? South Carolina looks like a 10-2 team right now, so I guess we disagree with "or three", agree with "a game" and are split on "or two."

Steve Megargee

• "Virginia Tech's defense is back": Agree
  As expected it looks improved from last year even with just 5 starters returning.
• "Alabama has its quarterback": Agree
  Sure, why not.

Wetzel's bias ruins potentially informative BCS article, book

It would be nice to see an in-depth article about the computer ratings used in the BCS. Most people are very curious as to how they work, and since each computer rating is as important as roughly 14 pollsters, it would give some insight into what factors rank one team ahead of another. This is something that most college football fans know very little about. A large organization like Yahoo! Sports would be capable of doing a quality, comprehensive job with such an article.

They tried, but of course since Dan Wetzel was involved, what little insight we get is lost in the haze of vitriol directed at the BCS, and indirectly at the computer ratings and the men who created them. 'Death to the BCS: Nonsense Rules is one long, anti-BCS rant, pretty much the same as everything Wetzel writes on the subject, interspersed with interesting snapshots of the people who created several of the computer rating systems.

A further look reveals that the article is an excerpt from a full-length book, one which I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would read. The few who love the BCS (is there anyone?) wouldn't want to read it; the majority who hate the BCS already know why they hate it. What possible insight is there in a book whose objective is to slam the BCS?

The excerpted article shows how painful a read the book must be. Every time an objective, interesting fact tries to get in the way, the authors storm in with opinion and more BCS denigration. Along the way there are a few bizarre moments:

• They say that it is "hypocrisy" for the computer algorithms to be forbidden to use margin of victory, while allowing the voters to consider it. Come again? Does Wetzel favor sequestering the voters, and feeding them only win/loss information? Criticize the BCS for crippling the computers, sure, but to compare what they can use vs. what the humans are "allowed" to use is beyond silly. If anything, non-biased look at the situation would see that since the pollsters are almost certain to notice margin of victory, it's already accounted for in 2/3 of the system, and that human intelligence has the ability to know when to value a large margin of victory and when to dismiss it. But if your goal is to slam the BCS, you can turn anything into another trashing point.
• They cite an analysis of the computer rankings' predictive ability, which concluded it was low. Of course, the purpose of rankings is not necessarily to be predictive. That's only one facet of a rating system. Any year-end rating system should be based on how well teams in fact performed, not a guess as to how they would do if the games were played again.
• They take quite some time to slam Richard Billingsley, who has the rating algorithm most different from the others. Particularly interesting is how much hatred they have for his "carry-over" over ratings from one year to the next. Apparently they think this is foolish and stupid. Perhaps it lacks intellectual rigor, but by the end of the season the starting points are almost meaningless. And even if starting point did make a difference...has Wetzel looked at the pre-season AP poll, and how close it resembles the final AP poll from last season? Teams move up or down a few spots here and there, and that's it. Alabama was #1, they remain #1. Boise State moved just from #4 to #3, despite having 20 starters back. Texas fell only a few spots despite losing a 4-year starting quarterback. So where is the disdain for their fellow sportswriters?
• They mis-identify the problem with allowing the use of margin of victory, saying it was about "sportsmanship." That's not the whole truth. The real problem is that the system could be "gamed" by teams running up the score, and thereby put the focus on how much a team wins by. Which in turn could jeopardize players' health and allow less participation by the reserves. It's a legitimate point: do we really want to see teams trying to win by as much as they possibly can, against even the worst of competition? And most "solutions" to the M.O.V. problem create an unfortunate side effect whereby even playing a weak team will cause a team's rating to fall; it's better to not play the game at all. (For the record I'm in favor of using margin of victory; I think there should be ratings that use it and ratings that don't.)
• Wetzel hates the computers mainly because all he knows about them is their association with the BCS. The truth is that the computer ratings have made pollsters far more intelligent. Teams that would have been rated too high before the computer rating era are now left closer to where they belong. And vice versa. But writing an article or book that gave credit to the computer ratings for increasing insight into college football, and as a worthwhile tool to consider when evaluating teams and their schedules? That would give tangential credit to the BCS, which is verboten.

A few years ago Wetzel showed off his 16-team playoff brackets, and the 2nd round had something very telling: an expected matchup between Oklahoma and Texas Tech. Of course, the teams had played just weeks earlier, resulting in a 65-21 Oklahoma win. So Texas Tech gets a second chance? And if they win by a point, that's ok?

It's results like that which make a playoff system potentially worse—yes, even worse—than the BCS itself. What Wetzel is saying by presenting that matchup with a straight face is: the regular season does not matter at all. A 44 point win? Thrown in the trash heap. Play it again.

A well-constructed playoff would be great. But what are the odds that we'll get that? When even professional BCS-haters like Wetzel come up with horrifically stupid systems to replace it, imagine what the real powers that be will construct. And don't say making a playoff system is easy and obvious. So is making a BCS system, and look how they messed that up. Given a very simple job—determine the top two teams—they ignored the obvious: use the AP and Coaches poll only, like we'd been doing for decades. Instead they made a convoluted system with all sorts of extraneous variables, and got weird results that didn't match what everyone wanted: the top two teams in the polls.

They tweaked the system by simplifying it, and today's formula is the best one so far (which doesn't say much). The next logical step would be to get rid of the computers except in case of a tie. It's taken them 12 years and they aren't even at the obvious place they should have been in 1998. How long will it take them to whip a playoff system into shape?

Hate it, slam it, wish it would go away, but the BCS is what we've got right now, and I and many others would like to read interesting, informative, unbiased, and non-vitriolic articles about how the system works. We'll have to wait for those articles, though, because they aren't being written. Instead we get full-length books that preach to the choir about hating the BCS. It's a shame, because reading between the glut of bias there are some intriguing moments even in the short article. The reader is doomed, however, to only getting one viewpoint on the subject, one that colors everything written within.

Get Ready for the Big Ten - M.A.C. Challenge

Every year in college basketball the Big Ten and ACC conferences hold the Big Ten-ACC Challenge, where each team plays a team from the other conference. While the ACC has won the lion's share of games, there are always good teams and good matchups from both powerhouse basketball leagues, and the pairings give a boost to everyone's pre-season schedule strength and fan interest is created.

Now let's look at college football. Though I've not seen it officially declared, there is a de facto Big Ten-M.A.C. Challenge this weekend (you have to say it like you would say ACC, not as "Mac") as a total of eight Big Ten teams take on Mid-American (MAC) conference foes on Saturday.

The MAC is no ACC, even in football and despite how troubled the ACC is this year. This weekend is either designed to be, or by coincidence just is, a bye week for the Big Ten, a weekend where every team in the conference should pad their record with a win. Two Big Ten teams that don't play MAC squads instead play teams from the FCS (Division I-AA), and one other, Illinois, has an actual bye week. And unlike the Big Ten-ACC clashes, in which home court is fairly distributed between the leagues, this one's a dead giveaway: the MAC team will be the visitor in every single matchup.

Big Ten vs. the MAC on 9/25/2010: The Run-down

Big Ten team	09 Success	Opponent	Conf	09 Success	Spread	Forecast
Ohio State	#5	Eastern Mich	MAC	#120	-44	54-0
Iowa	8	Ball State	MAC	115	-28	38-10
Penn State	11	Temple	MAC	50	-14	29-14
Northwestern	28	Central Mich	MAC	18	-7	27-25
Purdue	48	Toledo	MAC	99	-12	33-16
Minnesota	58	N. Illinois	MAC	76	-4	27-21
Michigan	80	Bowling Green	MAC	66	-25	40-14
Indiana	94	Akron	MAC	105	-22.5	34-17
Wisconsin	17	Austin Peay	FCS	n/a	n/a	52-6
Michigan St	61	N. Colorado	FCS	n/a	n/a	42-6
Illinois	93	idle	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a

The chart above shows the Big Ten's week four schedule, listing their opponent's conference and both team's Success ratings from last year. The Vegas line (spread) and our rudimentary forecast for the game are included.

As if things needed to be made maximally lopsided, the Big Ten's best team, Ohio State, is paired against last season's worst FBS team, Eastern Michigan. Iowa vs. Ball State is only marginally more competitive. While those are the only games with 100 ranking positions difference, Purdue is over 50 slots better than Toledo.

In two cases the MAC team actually did better than the Big Ten team last year, but those are illusory. Michigan with Denard Robinson is a lot better than last year's team while Bowling Green is 1-2 so far; the Wolverines are a 25 point favorite. And Central Michigan was 12-2 last year but lost star QB Dan LeFevour and is no longer a top 25 team. Still, it could be a close game with Northwestern. Among eight games, the MAC stands a good chance to pick up a win, maybe two, but more than that would be a surprise.

Other good matchups? Penn State vs. Temple might be a much better game than last year's rankings would indicate, but we won't know for sure until they hit the field. Minnesota vs. Northern Illinois should be tight, as the Gophers lost to an FCS team this year. But while Indiana-Akron pairs two equally hapless teams from last year, Indiana is 2-0 and Akron 0-3 so far and the Zips aren't expected to compete.

In the FCS games, Wisconsin against I-AA Austin Peay should be a bit better than Ohio State-Eastern Michigan, and Michigan State vs. Northern Colorado could be closer still—if five touchdowns is "close." With coach Mark Dantonio recovering from a heart attack, the Spartans could be fired up to bury the Bears.

Some will blame "The BCS" for weekends like this, but basically this is what happens when you expand the college football schedule from 11 to 12 games: the pre-season has more fluff. As conference play gets tougher for the bigger and better leagues, the non-conference schedule can't be too difficult or destructive. Athletic directors used to scheduling 11 games know that to have a winning season six wins are necessary, and a cupcake win is as good as a tough opponent. So it's not the BCS: it's the 12-game season and requirement to have a winning season and get to a bowl game, coupled with the allowance of one FCS win, that has diluted schedules recently.

This year has been a lot better than in the past in the first few weeks. But the fourth week is...pretty weak. And the Big Ten is leading the charge in that respect. What if there were a Big Ten-ACC Challenge in football as well as basketball? The Big Ten should push for that as they could expect to do a lot better than they do in basketball, and next season they'll have 12 teams and could match all of them up. It would be great for fans but, alas, it might mean that someone would miss a bowl game. And who would the MAC teams play that weekend?

Opening Day: USC's defense doesn't impress; Utah pops Pitt; Mid-majors NIU and MTSU fall

Baseball fans make a big deal of "Opening Day" so why can't we for college football? It was a Thursday evening which doesn't do the most for build-up, but there were a lof of games and some of them didn't even involve FCS (I-AA) teams.

What we learned (or, What was reinforced): USC's defense is, again, not very good.

Most of the media accounts of the USC's 49-36 win focused on Matt Barkley passing for five touchdowns and not the elephant in the room, that Hawaii managed to score 36 points against Southern Cal, hardly the kind of lock-down effort that Lane Kiffin wants from the team. While I concentrated on the more important (and competitive) Utah/Pitt game and admit I didn't bother to watch any of the 2nd half of Kiffin's coaching debut, there are a few disturbing moments in the box score:

Bryant Moniz passed to Kealoha Pilares down the middle for 56 yard gain (Scott Enos made PAT)

Shane Austin passed to Kealoha Pilares down the middle for 65 yard gain (Scott Enos made PAT)

Shane Austin passed to Kealoha Pilares down the middle for 30 yard gain (2pt attempt failed, Shane Austin pass to Alex Green)

Wow, USC is getting burned deep a lot (and always by Kealoha Pilares). Here was our take on USC's secondary from our 2010 preview:

The secondary is in shambles as all four starters depart, including of course Taylor Mays (#1 tackler last year) as well as Will Harris (4 int.), Josh Pinkard, and Kevin Thomas who combined for 24 pass breakups. Freshman Byron Moore was slated to start but he, like several others, transferred.

However we should point out that:

• only the first of the 3 plays occurred before the fourth quarter
• the game was essentially over at 20-3 early in the second quarter
• Hawaii had the #4 passing offense in the nation last year (adjusted for competition)

Still, it's troubling that USC is letting that happen regardless of opponent, game importance, or circumstance. Maybe because it happened three times last year no one blinks any more when a team scores more than 35 on USC? Before 2009, it happened in 2005 (both Fresno State and Texas) but before then you have to go back to the year 2000.

That's right: in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2008 nobody scored more than 35 points on the Trojans. Now Hawaii is doing it in the opening game. That's not good, and it reinforces our opinion that USC is not a Top 25 team this year.

Biggest Early-Season Disappointment: Once again, the Pitt Panthers, losing 20-17 to Utah in overtime.

Every year Pitt fans are cautiously optimistic that this might be THE season. Each season keeps getting a little bit better under Dave Wannstedt, but the common thread is that the Panthers lose a game early and Pitt never has a chance to ride a wave of excitement. This year they didn't even make it to the showdown with Miami in game three. Win that and they would have had a big game at Notre Dame, which would have been HUGE if the Irish also were undefeated.

Pitt hasn't been 4-0 since 2000, and even having records of 9-4 and 10-3 haven't allowed them a fair winning streak to start the year: they were 3-0 last year before being upset, and lost the opener in 2008.

What should them hope, I guess, is that those teams rallied to have a good year. And it was Utah that beat them, not N.C. State or Bowling Green. But now not only is the Miami game going to be a tough task, but one wonders if Notre Dame will be too much for them. With their tough preconference schedule there was the risk that the Panthers would start 2-3; now it looks like it might happen (they have New Hampshire and Florida International too).

I'm not writing off Pitt year due to an overtime game against a tough team, though. If Utah can upset them, then they can upset Miami. And they can still run the table in the Big East. But not if they don't get some better red zone play.

Tests that failed: Northern Illinois, Middle Tennessee lose against BCS opponents

Two game I was watching closely (not literally as they were on at the same time last night, but in the sense of "paying attention to") were Northern Illinois vs. Iowa State, and Middle Tennesse State vs. Minnesota.

SportsRatings has Northern Illinois the favorite to win the MAC and MTSU the top team in the Sun Belt. Both of these games were designated as basically "toss-ups" that would tell a lot about whether these teams could beat mid-to-low-level representatives from major conferences. Both failed.

The first was not a surprise, as Minnesota beat Middle Tennessee who was without Dwight Dasher, 24-17. Though the game was played in Murfreesboro the team isn't the same without Dasher. Still, they made a good game of it and didn't embarrass themselves, suggesting that they could still win the Sun Belt particularly if Dasher is really only out four games (which is an open question).

The other was less competitive. Northern Illinois visited Iowa State and came back 27-10 losers. NIU might not be the team we thought they could be. Or maybe they just had a bad game. Or perhaps Iowa State is better than we think they are.

Anyway, hats off to Minnesota and Iowa State for being willing to schedule top teams from the non-major conferences instead of playing FCS opponents on the first weekend.

Conference Realignment Cancelled: Texas A&M's SEC end-around saves the Big 12

Dan Beebe has been working fervently to save his conference, the Big 12, which has only 10 members left and was in danger of having only 5, or zero. Today Texas announced it would be staying put instead of bolting for the Pac-10. But the real credit goes to Texas A&M.

The teams that were to become Pac-10 members were like dominoes waiting to fall. 

Texas Tech was ready to go if the others went.

Oklahoma State was sure to go wherever Oklahoma went.

Oklahoma had committed to going wherever Texas went.

Texas was ready to go to the Pac-10, as long as Texas A&M came along, too.

But the Aggies didn't want to go to the Pac-10. They even made overtures to the SEC, since they would need a home if the Big 12 dissolved. And that was enough to kill the whole deal.

Without A&M along, Texas wouldn't go; to kill any possible SEC deal with Texas A&M, they decided to stay in the Big 12, and A&M quickly agreed. Since Texas stayed, Oklahoma stays. Since Oklahoma stays, Oklahoma State stays. And Texas Tech, too, of course.

Of course Beebe offerred Texas a great deal—he had to. And of course he did his best to sugar-coat the league's revenue numbers as much as possible to reassure everyone involved that the Big 12 will be generating a lot of money for those staying. All of these things were what any commissioner would do.

In the end, though, it was the Aggie end-around that saved the conference. There should be a lot of (temporary) A&M fans at Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State, and Baylor.

Now, the Pac-10 (with 11 members, to the Big 12's 10 and the Big Ten's 12), is almost certainly going to add another team, probably Utah, whom they were supposed to be going after in the first place before they got Colorado.

With Utah, they'll have 12 teams and have a conference championship game, which is probably the exact amount of financial transfer that will go from the Big 12 to the Pac-10. Per school, the difference will probably be a wash.

The Mountain West would end up roughly the same, gaining Boise State while losing Utah. The only league that definitely comes out ahead financially is the Big Ten, who will have a championship game, which are evidently the most coveted thing in college football today, at least as far as the league commissioners are concerned. Will the Big Ten court more members? I doubt it. It feels like it's time to stop.

The era of mega-conferences may have to wait. And Notre Dame—perhaps having dodged the conference bullet once again—remains safely independent until the next round of insanity strikes. 

Losing teams shouldn't be in bowl games

On the same day that the NCAA made a great decision for basketball, they've just allowed two more bowl games to be added to the bowl season, creating a glut that could see teams with 5-7 records eligible.

With 35 bowl games, 70 of 120 teams would be needed to fill the bowls. Already that's a mistake; there should be no more than 30 bowl games, so that the teams selected could reasonably claim to be a "better than average" team.

Currently, teams must be 6-6 or better, with only one of those wins coming against an FBS (I-AA) team. With 35 bowl games on the slate, it's possible that the criteria will have to be loosened.

The better solution is to scale back on the bowl games, not allow continued expansion.

McCoy lost the Heisman in final game, final play

I haven't followed the Heisman race as closely as usual this year, as it didn't interest me as much for some reason. But coming down to the wire, it looks like Mark Ingram of Alabama will win, with Toby Gerhart of Stanford and Ndamukong Suh of Nebraska breathing down his neck and all with a shot at the upset.

In fact, it appears that Suh might actually get the most first place votes while placing third, if the data gathering/analysis at StiffArmTrophy pans out like it does most years.

How could this have happened? Suh was not a serious threat to win the trophy before the Nebraska-Texas game. And Ingram was counted out after his poor performance at Auburn. Tebow was still in the mix, too, and now he's a distant fifth.

The answer is that everyone seems to have done what I did: make up their mind on the final day of college football, December 5th. That's when four of the five played their final game. The other one, Gerhart, finished strong against Notre Dame and ended with more rushing yards than anyone, Ingram included. Here's how I think the voter mindset went:

First, the season was a mess, with frontrunners Bradford, Tebow, and McCoy either injured or not performing to expectations. Tebow and McCoy eventually started doing well enough to earn the consideration they'd been expected to have all along, and their teams were undefeated. So that's two candidates, but they'd had some up and down performances.

Alabama was another undefeated team and all of a sudden Mark Ingram was the top candidate mid-way through the season. But he had problems, too: he nearly fumbled away the Tennessee game and had only 30 yards against Auburn in a scare. But he was the main reason Alabama had a shot at the top, so he was still up there.

Suh of Nebraska was the token defensive player all year. People heard of him, some planned to vote him 3rd which would give him the usual 7th-9th slot allotted to a defensive player. But as the other candidates struggled week to week, more people jumped on the Suh bandwagon, and the cry of "why not a defensive player?" rang out. He was soon an established top 5 pick, meaning he'd get a trip to New York as his reward but have no chance of winning.

Going into the December 5 weekend, Gerhart was making ground as the top running back, as Ingram had slipped due to Auburn; McCoy was the overall front-runner, though Tebow was always in the running if he could perform heroics against Alabama. Suh was waiting for his token New York trip.

Alabama vs. Florida was most likely to give Tebow a boost, but it ended up re-energizing Ingram's candidacy with his great performance. The Tide dominated the Gators like few expected, and Tebow couldn't muster the comeback. His candidacy was shot; he already has his Heisman, and Florida was 12-1—there were two other undefeated teams. Alabama's Ingram took his spot behind McCoy as #2 before the Nebraska-Texas game.

That game was a defensive struggle, and McCoy had a terrible game with three interceptions. On the other hand, Suh had an incredible highlight-reel game with 4 1/2 sacks. McCoy actually rallied the team into position for the winning field goal, and Texas remained unbeaten. But clearly, many voters jumped directly from supporting McCoy to supporting Suh.

I really think that the last play before the field goal destroyed any hope McCoy had of winning the Heisman. Seeing him run a needless play and very carelessly almost throw his team's season away nonchalantly was unbelievable. If his pass had held in the air a half-second longer, time simply would have run out, on a play where Texas didn't even have to take a snap. That play will be forgotten, but if time had run out it would be counted among the biggest blunders ever in sports, because of the ramifications. Texas would have thrown away a shot at the national championship.

I know after I saw that play I hoped McCoy would not get the Heisman. All year I had assumed it would eventually come back to him, and I thought he deserved it last season. But even though it may be silly to base something like that on one play, I think he blew it. It doesn't matter that "it didn't matter in the end." I can forgive him for having a bad final game, but there's no reason that final play should have come so close to disaster. Unbelievably, McCoy says he thought the clocked stopped on a pass out of bounds as soon as it crossed the first down marker. He could very easily have thrown it a bit higher, and Texas would be playing in a different BCS bowl which they would have lost due to utter disappointment at themselves.

So with McCoy essentially out of the running for a number of reasons, who should one support? Well, the other undefeated team has a candidate who really won the big game for them. So some people switched to Mark Ingram. Others thought, why Ingram when Gerhart has more yards? And many clearly thought, I'm going to support the guy that made McCoy look so bad that night.

That's how the vote ended up completely different from how it would have gone on November 28. Tebow's stock fell due to the loss; McCoy's bad game and gaffe opened up the door to everyone else; Ingram and Suh got the benefit; and those still unsure about Ingram went with Gerhart.

Tonight we'll find out which of the three will win for real. If it's Suh, I think it's a bit artificial, and based on the one performance most people saw. If it's Ingram, I'd say that's more justified, since he came through in the biggest game. If it's Gerhart, people are basing that a lot on one game, too (Notre Dame) and stats rather than "making your team great" which is sometimes cited as a reason for ignoring players on teams with more than a few losses.

McCoy is looking like a distant fourth, and he has that last pass to blame. Without it, he'd probably be right in the mix, which would affect the balance of votes and he might have a chance. If he'd had a good game against Nebraska then he'd win in a walk, and Suh wouldn't have registered in the top three. More than any year I can remember, the last weekend changed the complexion of the Heisman race, and a lot of that is because people weren't too engaged by the race this season.

Dan Wetzel Nails Brandon Spikes

I often don't agree with Dan Wetzel's commentaries on the BCS and the need for a playoff, but he nailed it right on the head in regards to Brandon Spikes' slap on the wrist punishment for eye-gouging.

In case you didn't know, when the Ultimate Fighting Championship began in 1993, there were only two rules:

1. No biting
2. No eye-gouging

In 1997 Mike Tyson was suspended for life (re-instated 2 years later) for violating Rule #1 in a boxing match against Evander Holyfield.

Now Brandon Spikes has violated Rule #2 and was suspended for the first half of one game.

Urban Meyer, where is your shame?

Seriously, Meyer has my vote for worst coach of the year. He's presiding over a team that should be one of the best of all time and so far they've been sloppy and mediocre, probably not the best team of even this year. He endangered his star quarterback by leaving him in with a 31 point lead even though he was slowed by the flu. After Tebow's injury, and in the face of growing evidence that concussions following concussions cause great damage, he seemed to push for Tebow to return as soon as possible. Tebow was clearly not himself until the Georgia game, which should have raised a red flag. Both got lucky nothing else happened.

Now we have the Brandon Spikes slap on the wrist.

Big wins by Oregon, Texas demonstrate how USC, Oklahoma State were overrated

Here's the conventional wisdom after Saturday's big games: Texas "proved" themselves by whipping a tough Oklahoma State team 41-14, and Oregon shocked the world by destroying #4 USC 47-20.

Here's my take: Oklahoma State and USC were both exposed by blowout losses. Oklahoma State as a team who'd been having success despite not being of top 25 quality, and USC because they were staggeringly overrated at #4 by whatever measure you use.

USC: The Trojans were overrated

They struggled to beat marginal top 25 teams Ohio State and Notre Dame. Yet they were placed ahead of several undefeated teams.That USC was #4 in the AP poll shows ridiculous favoritism to the Trojans based on what they've done in past years, not for this year's play. They had a loss to Washington, a tough team but one with a losing record, and commentators decried the BCS system that dared to have them lower.

The pro-USC contingent went as far as to prop of Matt Barkley, a decent quarterback but certainly nothing special, for the Heisman Trophy. True, he's doing fantastic for a true freshman, and the Heisman race is wide open. But for commentators after the Oregon State game try to sell him as a true candidate—when he was 15 of 25 for 202 yards, 2 TDs and 2 interceptions—was laughable. Do these guys even look at the stats? He wasn't even in the top 50 in pass efficiency.

This phenomenon happens with USC every year. They win a few big games, are declared the best team in the country (perhaps best college football team of all time), then they lose a game. After a few weeks of "what's wrong with the Trojans?" articles, they blow out a few more opponents and again are called the best team despite having a loss on their record. The BCS system is blamed again for the fact that the Trojans aren't number one on the list.

What's different this year is that USC wasn't close to being the best team, and they ran into a better team on Saturday. By any measure, Oregon should have been ranked ahead of USC going into the game. The Ducks' only loss was to an undefeated team, not 3-5 Washington, whom they destroyed the previous week. They beat Cal just as bad as USC did, and held a win over ranked Utah. So in an AP-style poll, the Ducks deserved to be in front. What about true strength? In a basic score-margin-based power rating, the Ducks were slightly ahead, ranking 8th to USC's 11th. And as the BCS computer rankings demonstrate, Oregon had accomplished more in their season than USC so far, averaging 6th to USC's 9th. It was only the biased human observers who had USC ahead.

The USC mystique is pervasive; I even picked the Trojans to win the game despite it being at Oregon. USC has consistently done well against ranked opponents and I figured they'd win again. But seeing Oregon win didn't shock me, though the 27 -point margin was unexpected.

Oregon: Soon to be overrated themselves at Boise State's expense

Now the commentators are falling over themselves about Oregon. After all, if they beat the great Trojans, they must be incredible! Talking heads are putting the Ducks ahead of Boise State, who beat them fair and square. The excuses for not counting this game include: it was the first game of the season, it was in Boise, that was before Oregon "hit their stride." How about the real excuse: we don't think of Boise State as a real team, but USC is a real team. Tell me, if they'd lost the first game to USC under the same circumstances, who would disregard that game? No one.

One commentator (Craig James?) said he was moving the Ducks ahead of Boise, "not to take anything away from Boise State." Well, you are taking something away from Boise State. It's ridiculous and inexcusable to move a 7-1 team ahead of the 8-0 team that beat them, and it should never be done. Since we don't have a playoff, every game of the season has to be counted. Boise State 19, Oregon 8 was their playoff, and the Ducks lost. I guess losing a 1,000 yard rusher was a boon for the Ducks?

Oklahoma State: Exposed

The Oklahoma State Cowboys should have been a great team this year. And if you just look at wins and losses, they were doing pretty well. Fairly high in the Success rankings (#16) and the BCS computer rankings (average #17), they'd lost only to 7-1 Houston. But dig a little deeper and they weren't doing that well at all, ranking just 40th in Strength. They weren't winning convincingly, and it showed up in power ratings. And with Dez Bryant out for the year, the test they were able to give Texas was minimal, even though this game was supposed to tell us a lot about the Longhorns.

Now, after winning 41-17, instead of questioning whether Oklahoma State is even a top 25 quality team, everyone is talking about how Texas is finally playing good football.

Texas: They were already playing fantastic football

I'm not sure why Texas was getting so little respect all year. Most of it probably had to do with Colt McCoy's occasional interception, and not having as spectacular a year as last season. Some of it had to do with Texas' easy schedule. But the complaints peaked after they beat Oklahoma 16-13.

Think of how ludicrous that is: Texas wasn't a good team because they only beat Oklahoma by 3 points. Of course, the Sooners could easily have come into that game undefeated. While Oklahoma had two losses, they were still one of the best teams in the country, at least the equal of USC. And 16 points was the most they'd allowed except for Miami's 21. The game was played on a neutral field. If anything, Texas was a bit sloppy in that game, and they'd played sloppy football before. But the end result was always impressive.

Texas has consistently been in the top three in the Strength power rating and even before the Oklahoma State game they were #1 in both versions (I-A only, and the 726-team all-division version). It's strange that with Florida and Alabama struggling it was Texas who caught the most flak. The last few weeks (road wins over Missouri and Oklahoma State) should help nudge perception of Texas back into reality: they are—at least—the equal of Florida and Alabama at this point.

Wetzel's latest anti-BCS screed filled with bias

We all know that Dan Wetzel hates the BCS. He has a column every week or so where he comes up with another reason that we need a playoff. This week's broken-record is about scheduling. As usual, though, his bias shows through with the use of selective information.

On Sept. 5, while Florida feasted on Charleston Southern and Texas opened with Louisiana-Monroe, the Oklahoma Sooners played a strong BYU team on a neutral field.

First, the Oklahoma-BYU game in Arlington, Texas, was neutral field in name only. It's neutral-field when they play Texas, but not BYU. Ask the Cougars if that was a friendly atmosphere.

Second, you could use a given date as a condemnation of any team. On September 12, when Oklahoma was crushing I-AA Idaho State, Michigan faced Notre Dame and UCLA travelled to Tennessee. Does that make Oklahoma a patsy-scheduler?

A week later, while Florida annihilated Troy and Texas blew out Wyoming, Southern California played at Ohio State.

These are bad games? Troy is the perennial winner of the Sun Belt conference. This is the exact type of game that would happen all the time if Wetzel's playoff system were introduced. And Texas played at Wyoming—we can only hope more BCS conference schools follow that example. Later he castigates teams for "staying home," yet ignores Texas' road trip because it would soften his criticism.

despite the BCS’ claim that it, unlike a playoff, protects the “sanctity of the regular season,” it has actually cut down on the exciting games the sport was built on.

I disagree—I think it's the 12-game season that has diluted the excitement of the pre-season. And how would a playoff system solve this? Teams would still want to be seeded higher, by being ranked higher, by winning games. This has always been the modus operandi in college football: win games.

The Horns’ future opponents are only modestly more challenging than this season. UT will play three weaker teams and add a single major conference opponent per season, none of them true heavyweights – UCLA, Mississippi and Cal.

Amazingly, after touting Oklahoma's game vs. BYU and USC's game at Ohio State, he dismisses Texas' future scheduling of UCLA, Mississippi, and Cal. The latter two were pre-season top 10 teams this year. BYU is not a "true heavyweight" and Ohio State is the butt of many jokes because they don't win the big game...should we dismiss them, too?

UF hasn’t played a non-conference game outside the state of Florida since the BCS was created

Of course by stating it that way he can ignore games vs. Miami and Florida State (while mentioning that the latter is faltering, of course), as well as South Florida.

In the 1980s, pre-BCS, there were annually between 15-20 non-conference games featuring two preseason ranked teams. This year there were just four.

I'd like to see the math on that, but assuming it's correct, it's still misleading. Remember that in the '80s, FSU, Miami, and Penn State were all independents. Along with Notre Dame, they'd schedule three or four top teams each. I wouldn't be surprised if that accounts for all of the difference between 80s matchups and this year's.

There was a time when scheduling a Football Championship Subdivision team (formerly I-AA) was unheard of; now teams regularly play two of them.

That's clearly not the fault of the BCS system, but the bowl system and the 12-game schedule. With 12 games to fill and the ability to count an FCS win toward the 6-game goal, almost every team added an FCS opponent. A simple change—not allowing these games to count for bowl eligibility—would improve schedules dramatically.

Also, it's completely untrue that playing two FCS teams in a season is a "regular" occurrence. Seven teams play two FCS teams: Duke, Kansas State, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Rutgers and South Florida. All are from BCS conferences and should be ashamed of themselves. That should be the real push of Wetzel's article: getting rid of counting an FCS win toward the six game bowl-eligibility mark.

Now we get to his favorite team, Pete Carroll's USC Trojans, and how they deserve to be national champions every year despite losing to unranked teams:

Carroll, whose team took two long trips to the Midwest this season, has future series with Notre Dame, Virginia, Boston College, Texas A&M, Syracuse and Hawaii and is looking for more.

How can he seriously even list A&M, Syracuse, and Hawaii after scoffing at UCLA, Mississippi, and Cal? That's because that was about Texas, a team he doesn't want in the national title game. USC is lauded for traveling to those places, but Texas got no props for traveling to Wyoming. This is bias, pure and simple. Wetzel wants to see USC in the national title game every year, and when they don't make it? It's playoff time so they get a second, or third, chance.

Apparently Pete Carroll and Bob Stoops still believe in the sanctity of the regular season. It’s the BCS that doesn’t.

Oh give me a break. The playoff system wouldn't solve a thing regarding scheduling. Getting rid of the 12-game season would help, and not counting FCS wins would go even further. There are plenty of good arguments for having a playoff, and many good arguments against the current BCS system, but this isn't one of them.

SportsRatings Opinion: Consider Jake Locker for Heisman

The Heisman race is fairly muddled right now, with no candidate having taken charge. While normally at this point there are three or four very solid leaders, I'm not sure that can be said at this point.

Several of the top candidates have suffered setbacks:

• Sam Bradford suffered an injury that caused him to miss several games, taking him out of the race.
• Tim Tebow's injury still could help his "story" but it likely hurt him in the all-important stats line.
• Jahvid Best of Cal was irreparably harmed by the two blowout losses Cal faced back-to-back
• Case Keenum's chances went down with the Cougars' loss to UTEP
• Dez Bryant's slim chances disappeared when he was declared ineligible

There isn't much excitement for the other candidates, either. Colt McCoy of Texas, one of the remaining front-runners with Tebow, has been doing well but not as well as last year, and beating Oklahoma won't be a big deal. Losing to them would hurt him a lot, though. Jacory Harris of Miami seems like a longshot even if Miami continues to do well, and Jimmy Clausen would be an unsatisfying winner unless he can guide the Irish to a win over Notre Dame.

So who does that leave? I think it's time to do something that hasn't been done in a long time: throw out stats and win-loss record and look for an exciting player who is really the most valuable to his team. That player is Jake Locker of Washington.

Look at the difference in Washington: 0-12 last year, 3-3 this season already. They're an improved team, sure, but the main improvement as that they have Locker back. Last season wasn't that bad when he was playing: they nearly beat BYU and Stanford in their first four games. Without Locker they were a disaster.

This year he's back and look what they've done: a narrow loss to LSU, followed by a win over Idaho (Idaho's only loss so far, remarkably), an amazing win over USC, a game they should have won against Notre Dame, and a miracle comeback against Arizona.

Throughout the season Locker has been keeping them in games, almost single-handedly at times. His stats aren't incredible: 57% completions, a 10:4 TD to interception ratio. But he's come up with big plays when they've needed them. The huge 3rd down play against USC put them in field goal range to win the game. Last night against Arizona his late TD pass drew the team within 5 points, and while it still looked like a longshot it's Locker's never-quit attitude that kept hope alive with the team. The defense came up with the miraculous interception TD that put them ahead, but Locker's leadership deserves as much credit.

If Washington has any more losses, Locker's already miniscule chances are probably gone. There hasn't been a Heisman winner from a 4-loss team (not counting bowl games, which are player after the award is presented) since 1969. And if they do worse? Only Paul Hornung has won the Heisman Trophy as a member of a losing team, when Notre Dame went 2-8 in 1956.

Locker can't really be compared to Hornung, one of the great players of all time (even if he already has three times as many TD passes). But for my money he's as deserving as any other player on the current "short list." 

I'll be rooting for him to pick up traction as the season progresses. But assuming he doesn't factor into this year's race, the Huskies might be good enough for him to start as a front-runner next season as a senior, when the race should be pretty much wide open. It would be nice, though, if the unspoken "Heisman criteria" were flexible enough to consider him this year, when the college game seems to need  an injection of excitement.

AP thinks Arkansas State is an FCS team

Poor Arkansas State. Though 1-3, they aren't that bad of a team. Just ask 5-0 Iowa, the team they nearly shocked last Saturday, falling 24-21. They lost to Troy by a field goal, too, and their third loss was to Nebraska.

Still, they're from the Sun Belt, and that means the Red Wolves have to work to earn any respect...or even acknowledgement that they're in the same college football subdivision as Penn State, apparently.

In an AP article about Penn State's upcoming game with FCS (formerly Division I-AA) Eastern Illinois, Genaro C. Armas writes

The Nittany Lions have had other games against FCS teams in recent seasons against Youngstown State and Coastal Carolina. Another contest against Arkansas State was canceled last season in favor of a made-for-TV matchup against Pac-10 team Oregon State.

Though he could try to weasel out of it, the above paragraph implies, either by mistaken knowledge or clumsy writing, that Arkansas State is one of the FCS teams that Penn State has played (or in Arkansas State's case, was going to play).

What's the difference between Arkansas State and a Division I-AA team? Maybe not much. There are certainly some FCS teams that could beat the Red Wolves, but not that many. And when Arkansas State hosted an actual FCS team—Mississippi Valley State—in their opener, the result was a 61-0 win. Add that to last year's 83-10 demolition of Texas Southern and at least in these two examples the distinction is clear.

Not that either of those teams is a great representative of the FCS—they were a combined 7-16 last year—but the point is that there's a world of difference between a lower-rung FBS team and a lower-rung FCS team.

The sadder thing is, no one in the comments section seems to have noticed the slight. If the Red Wolves continue to play like they have this year, though, they may find themselves in their second-ever bowl game, and then at least people will realize, for that day, that the team is one of the 120 in the highest college football division.

Sorry Charlie, Notre Dame should NOT be ranked

Charlie Weis seems to think his Irish are getting a raw deal by not being ranked at 4-1. He thinks they've accomplished as much as many of the other ranked teams. The voters disagree, and so do I.

While the Irish may be good enough to be a top 25 team and will probably end up there this season—they're a decent team and their schedule is easy—they don't belong there right now.

Their current résumé isn't bad: 4-1, with three wins over BCS conference teams and only a loss to Michigan. This puts them at #12 in the SportsRatings Success rankings, which don't take margin of victory into account. Even in the Strength ratings, which do, they're #23, and in the Overall power rating (which combines the two) they're #24. So from these objective measures they're worthy.

But there's one problem: they could so easily be 1-4 right now that what they've accomplished means little. In fact they probably should be 2-3; we'll give them the Purdue comeback win. You can argue they should have won the Michigan game, but nothing unusual happened there, just Weis throwing the ball instead of draining the clock at the end.

Michigan State should have beaten the Irish; Kirk Cousins overthrew a wide open receiver in the end zone for a gimme touchdown. Washington should have beaten the Irish: a score that would have been a touchdown at any time before instant replay, and was called a touchdown on the field, was reversed even though the ball appeared to be so close to the line that "incontrovertable evidence" was not present.

Notre Dame gets the "W" in both those games and therefore is 4-1. That's the reality. But it's a joke to say that these could-have-been losses shouldn't affect where they stand—or don't—in the polls. They're a borderline top 25 team without the close calls; with them, they're just outside, looking in. It didn't help that Michigan lost on Saturday. With the Wolverines out of the poll, Notre Dame shouldn't get back in ahead of them.

So the question is, why is Weis complaining about the polls? It's not like his team is undefeated and getting the shaft. Isn't complaining about being ranked too low considered assinine? Coaches are supposed to complain that their team is ranked too high. When coaches complain about their low ranking, it usually means they're going to lose within a few weeks and prove the pollsters correct.

But Weis is campaigning for poll position to set up run at a BCS bowl. With only one loss—and one more expected against USC—the Irish could go 10-2 and be in the BCS bowl mix. Some have said it's a requirement in order for Weis to keep his job. I don't think it is but it sure would help.

Facing an off week before USC, Notre Dame needed to be ranked this week. That way they move up on their bye week without doing a thing. That didn't happen though. So the next best thing would be to sneak into the polls on their off week, hope they have a good showing against USC even if they lose, and stay in the polls, ready to march up as the (hopefully) sweep the rest of their schedule.

Weis is looking at the schedule and he knows there are no impressive wins on it, past or future, unless they beat USC which he isn't counting on. So the only way to get to the BCS is to be overranked, essentially, and count on Fighting Irish favoritism to get him to one of the primo bowl games.

Let's face it, a 10-2 Irish don't deserve a BCS bowl with the schedule they play this year. Depending on what other teams do, it's a possibility though. It's up to the pollsters to not overrank the Irish and make them do one of two things: beat USC, or beat the rest of their opponents in an impressive manner. 

That's what Weis should be focusing on, not whining about the polls.

Urban Meyer an idiot for playing Tebow too long

Urban Meyer made it clear before the game: no pansies allowed.

Asked if he would hold players with the flu out of Saturday's game with Kentucky, he said "absolutely not" and that it would be "one of the major errors in coaching history" if he did so.

It's now looking like one of the season's major blunders to leave an obviously ailing Tim Tebow in the game when the outcome was already decided.

Not that playing Tebow in the first place was wrong. He clearly wasn't suffering on the field and wanted to play. Tebow wasn't listed among those with swine flu, even though he took the same plane as those with the ailment. Tebow had a "respiratory illness" of undisclosed nature. But Florida took a 31-0 lead in the first quarter, and that should have been enough for Meyer. Especially since backup Johnathan Brantley needs experience for next year, and Meyer had talked about ways to lessen the burden on Tebow. What better way than to let an obviously sick player get some rest after doing his job?

Apparently that isn't in tough-guy Meyer's philosophy any more. "Got to get better and go play," he said about the sick players. "You go as hard as you can."

It's that kind of attitude that has college players dying in fall camp almost every year. The idea that players are slacking and have to be kicked into shape is popular among coaching because, in a lot of cases, it's true. Coaches are there to push players to their maximum performance, and if it happens to be in the heat of summer, how are they to know that it's because of heat stroke? But because they can't know, they shouldn't assume there isn't a real problem.

Meyer's attitude didn't cause Tebow's injury, but it may have blinded him to doing what he should have done: be very conservative with Tebow. Getting him out on the field was the right move, but getting him off the field soon would have been even better; it was well known before the game that Kentucky was an overmatched foe with or without Tebow's presence. Although he could just as easily have been hurt in the first quarter, there was no reason to play him more than was necessary, and 31-0 and a full quarter of playing was the perfect time to pull him.

Now after Tebow suffered a proven concussion and hospital stay, how will Meyer approach his recovery? With the same cavalier attitude he took toward sick players before? Is Tebow expected to "get better and play" and "go as hard as he can" next week against LSU?

For Tebow's sake, let's hope Meyer is listening to the team's doctors and if Tebow needs to sit, he should sit. Florida should be able to beat LSU with its defense alone, and the rest of the offense is no slouch. If they can't, then so be it; even one loss won't prevent Florida from being in the national championship as we saw last year, especially if it comes in a game Tebow doesn't play. But if he's hurt again it could cost the Gators a lot, and perhaps Tebow even more. There's no certain way to avoid injury in football but taking a conservative approach to the health of your players is not the bad thing that Meyer paints it to be.