Hang in there, Broncos.

First Boise State surged ahead. Then Nevada fought back. Then it looked like it was all over with a miracle catch, only to have the victory snatched away with too-short goalposts. And then in overtime, a kick that split the goalposts ended the Broncos’ season.

There will be no national championship. There will be no BCS bowl game. In all likelihood, the Broncos will play in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl as the WAC champion with an 11-1 record (assuming they beat Utah State next weekend).

All of this is fair why, exactly?

There are now seven other FBS teams with just one loss: LSU, Stanford, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Oklahoma State, Michigan State, and Nevada. Out of those seven, six of them are possible at-large BCS teams. Nevada, despite obliterating teams all year (except for potent Hawaii), doesn’t have a realistic chance. Nor does Boise State, which has looked like the most complete team in the nation and will only have a loss to a Nevada team that will likely be ranked in the top 12 by the end of the year.

The reason why can be found in three little words that have been tearing apart college football for decades: strength of schedule.

It’s a battle teams outside the power six conferences have been fighting for years to no avail. Boise State has tried for years to schedule the toughest non-conference games they could in order to balance out a weak conference slate. This year, they scheduled Virginia Tech, Wyoming, Oregon State, and Toledo. The Hokies sound strong, certainly, but the rest of those teams are hardly a murderers’ row.

But if you’re Boise, what do you do? Teams like Texas and Florida aren’t exactly itching to play you when a loss could eliminate them from the title discussion early. So all you can do is schedule tough non-AQ teams like Toledo and hope it’s enough to get you noticed. Meanwhile, teams like Texas and Florida chastise you for not playing anyone serious. But you aren’t playing anyone serious because they won’t agree to play you!

But for all their blustering, are Texas and Florida playing schedules that are any tougher? Boise’s strength of schedule is actually the 8^th toughest in the country. Meanwhile, Florida comes in at no. 37, while Texas is a dismal 75^th. Granted, neither the Longhorns nor the Gators are exactly tearing it up this season, but it’s interesting to note that traditional power schools aren’t quite playing the vicious schedules we think they are.

So how do Boise and Nevada stack up against the likely BCS teams this year? Assuming those are teams with just one or no losses, let’s take a look.

Even with Nevada’s big win last night, they still play a weaker schedule than the BCS top 10. But Boise has actually played a tougher slate than all but two of these teams. Are we sure WAC football is as bad as we keep saying it is?

One of the biggest complaints thrown at teams like Boise (and TCU, of course) is that they couldn’t survive the grind of a conference slate like the SEC offers. There’s probably something to that, too. In terms of strength of schedule, the SEC has five teams in the top 10 and seven in the top 25. They play tough football in the South. No one can dispute that. What’s worth pointing out, however, is that the other five auto-qualifying conference also couldn’t survive the grind. Does anyone think that Oklahoma State or Nebraska (the two likely Big 12 championship game contenders) would skirt through the SEC undefeated? What about Ohio State, or Stanford?

For teams outside the BCS aristocracy, there’s just no way to win. When they lose even a single game – a luxury afforded six other teams in the top ten – they’re told they aren’t good enough. If they win all of their games, they’re told they didn’t play any good teams – even when the numbers show they played better teams than the aristocracy.

All the Broncos can do is keep fighting for relevancy outside the sport’s elite. Maybe someday, they’ll be welcomed in as a brother and an equal. Maybe someday we’ll have a sensible, rational way to determine the national champion. Maybe someday, every team will be allowed to play on a level playing field.

It just probably won’t be any time soon.

Ah, the college football playoff controversy.

If we put it to a vote, what percentage of college football fans would vote for a playoff? 90%? 95%? Everyone except those directly in charge of the BCS?

I tend to be in favor of a playoff, too. And I’ve certained voiced my opinion about the problems with the BCS. But the Bowls vs. Playoff conundrum isn’t as cut-and-dried as we tend to make it, and while it still may not change your mind, there’s one major plus of the traditional setup of bowl games that we tend to ignore. Hear me out.

The popular thing to say is that a playoff should be put in place, with the quarter- and semi-final games (depending on the size of the playoff) replacing the current bowls. For example, the semi-final games might be in Pasadena and Glendale and be called the Rose Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl, with the winners going head-to-head in the BCS Championship Game.

The problem with this is that the bowls then stop being an end in themselves, and become simply a means to end.

I’ll explain with an example. Remember when Boise State upset Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl? Of course you do. The hook-and-ladder, the touchdown pass thrown by a wide receiver in overtime, and the Statue of Liberty for the winning two-point conversion. Classic college football, and one of the all-time great bowl games.

Now, do you also remember in that same year, how UNLV toppled #2 Wisconsin in the NCAA basketball tournament? Remember how Kammron Taylor scored 24 points for the Badgers? Or how Kevin Kruger hit three 3-pointers late, to seal up the upset for the Rebels?

Yeah. Not nearly as memorable.

My fear is that, with the institution of a college football playoffs, we’ll lose the coolness of some of the great college football bowl matchups. Would we have been half as interested in BSU-over-Oklahoma if, instead of it being the Fiesta Bowl, it was just a run-of-the-mill first-round upset?

While we remember the great Cinderella stories of March Madness (George Mason in 2006, Davidson in 2008, Butler in 2010), the focus is on how far they advanced in the tournament and less on individual games. Basic one-game upsets, no matter how masterful the performance, tend to be forgotten. Why? Because they’re common. We’ll remember as soon as a #16 team topples a #1, but even 15-2 upsets get lost in history because they generally have no affect on the eventual championship game.

This all leads to a concept set forth previously by HTWS analyst Sam Orme. He suggests that a college football playoff would nearly ensure that a team from a non-AQ conference will never disrupt the system and win the BCS championship. The reasoning is simple: to do so, an underdog team like a Boise State or a Utah would have to put together not only one unlikely upset, but several. A playoff is not a good situation for scrappy teams overmatched against bigger, faster powerhouses—even if they can pull the shocking upset in the first game, they still have to get up and do it a few more times.

It all adds up to a situation where mid-majors should oppose a playoff as loudly as they can. As it is now, a mid-major team is fully able to make a splash by sneaking into a BCS bowl game and scoring the upset (which Utah and Boise State have done)—and this year we have TCU knocking on the door of legitimately being invited to the BCS Championship game.

A playoff, however, would make it much more difficult to get there. Using March Madness as an example again, we have to go back to 1990 to find a mid-major team that won the championship (that was UNLV, coached by Jerry Tarkanian), and the last one before that was Don Haskins’s “Glory Road” Texas Western team in 1966.

Knowing all this, it’s easy to see how organizing the bowls into a playoff would really take away from the significance of each game. Instead of having a selection of games that may stick as all-time greats, we instead hone in on just one. The flip side , obviously, is that with a playoff we get all the good a playoff brings. Like a postseason system that makes sense. And a clear champion, decided on the field.

Ultimately, it may not change your mind. I’m still in the pro-playoff camp. But if the bowls changed, and all the focus went on the last two teams standings, I think I might miss the bowls.

At least the upsets.

Ever read 1984?

If you haven’t, or if it’s been since high school, you might want to check out a copy from your friendly local library. On one hand, it’s George Orwell’s dystopian novel about a futuristic society under absolute totalitarian rule and constant surveillance. On the other, it says a lot more about the BCS and college football than you might imagine.

In the middle of 1984, the main character comes across and reads a banned book, supposedly written by the state’s biggest enemy. It’s in this book-within-a-book, called The Theory and Practice of Oligarchial Collectivism, that Orwell lays out his ideas unencumbered by plot—and in the process, nails down the gaping, underlying flaw with the BCS.

“Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low… the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself…”

College football is, in many respects, a game of tradition. Notre Dame has worn the same uniforms since way before they went out of style, the Michigan Wolverines have had the same fight song for somewhere around a century, and fans nationwide have always assumed that “Nittany” is a type of lion.

Just as ingrained into the NCAA’s most lucrative sport, however, is class stratification. A look down the list of national champions over the last hundred years gets repetitive fast, with the usual suspects holding the most titles: Alabama has a baker’s dozen, Michigan and USC each have eleven, Oklahoma and Ohio State each have seven, and the list goes on. This is college football’s upper class.

This group, like Orwell’s political upper class, is after one thing—they want to stay where they are. They sponsor the BCS because it keeps their conferences, and in turn their teams, on top. In Orwell’s words: “…the need for a hierarchical form of society [is] the doctrine specifically of the High.”

There are plenty of other teams, in turn, that don’t speak out against the BCS, and in fact can benefit respectably from the current system that allows many teams, some only marginally-deserving, to play in bowl games. Teams with names like Southern Mississipi, or Northern Illinois. The sport’s lower class. They keep their heads down, and their mouths shut.

But the problem class, for both Orwell and college football, is the middle class. This is TCU, Utah, and Boise State, for sure, but also Hawaii, BYU, Houston, Nevada, and all the mid-major teams that have knocked on the BCS’s door but can’t get an automatic invite based on their conference affiliation.

In Orwell’s model, the middle class enlists the lower class’s support in overthrowing the upper class, enticing them on board with promises of equality and shared power. But the middle class doesn’t want equality, they just want to be on the sweeter side of that inequality—so once the upper class is deposed the middle class simply takes their place. The former upper class becomes the new middle class, and the lower class stays where it’s at. The net effect is a cycle where the upper and middle classes swap places, and the lower class stays put.

It’s the same thing in college football. There’s a tough middle class clawing at the upper class’s spot. Most of these teams are whole-heartedly behind obliterating the BCS and replacing it with a much-more-democratic playoff system. The difference is that these teams—from the Mountain West, the WAC, and anywhere else these strong mid-majors hang out—aren’t really interested in evening the playing field. They just want to be on top.

We couldn’t possibly see this any clearer than Utah’s leaving the Mountain West for the Pac-10. There’s more money in it, a better conference affiliation, and (of course) the automatic BCS bid for the conference champion. For a Utes team that has put together a couple of undefeated seasons just since the BCS’s inception in 1998, there may be no other ticket to the BCS championship game (short of purchasing an actual ticket, of course).

“…the new High group, unlike all its forerunners, did not act upon instinct but knew what was needed to safeguard its position. It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly.”

Orwell’s term is oligarchial collectivism. An oligarchy is a power structure where the power is held in the hands of a few. Collectivism can mean a number of things—in this case it’s referring to a philosophy that puts the group ahead of the individual.

There is no team that’s able to hold its position alone atop college football without proving it on the field, but it is possible with some collaboration. The six BCS conferences together wield the power to keep themselves on top, with automatic bids for each one. As long as they get the necessary subservience from the rest of college football, which is contractually enforced, the oligarchy stands.

Without the BCS, the up-and-down nature of college football would have gotten the better of many teams. Once a team drops from national prominence it runs the risk that its revenue will fall, its recruiting will drop off, and it will take the team years, if not decades, to rise again.

The BCS, then, serves those conferences that were prominent at the time of its formation (1998) to the exclusion of those that were not. The MWC has been on the same competitive level (or better) as the ACC and (especially) the Big East for years, but the BCS isn’t built to reward performance—it rewards those conferences that were tops in ’98.

And since the payouts to the conferences of BCS bowl teams are substantial, teams in BCS conferences benefit from just being there—not for winning.

And therein is the problem with the BCS. The problem isn’t the algorithm that decides the rankings—human rankings are just as flawed as computer rankings, and combining the two isn’t a terrible idea. The problem is the preferential treatment to the top 6 conferences. The BCS doesn’t reward performance, it rewards royal birth.

The BCS takes the champions of its six conferences every year, no matter where those teams fall in the BCS rankings. That means placing lower-ranked teams in BCS bowls because they won their conference—to the exclusion of teams the BCS itself has ranked higher.

Consider how Pittsburgh played in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl while ranked a dismal #21 (remember, only 10 teams play in BCS bowls each year) by the BCS. Or how Standford played in the 2000 Rose Bowl ranked #22 in the country. Or how Florida State played in the 2006 Orange Bowl ranked #22, again, by the BCS’s own rankings. When the algorithm recommends a non-BCS team but the system insists that a top-6 conference winner get an automatic bid instead, then it gets really hard to continue to back it up as a meritocracy.

And isn’t that what sports are supposed to be? A meritocracy? The BCS is the only league where the team with the highest score when the buzzer sounds doesn’t necessarily win. It openly excludes teams that have, by its own standards, more merit.

“But there is one question which until this moment we have almost ignored. It is; why should human equality be averted? Supposing that the mechanics of the process have been rightly described, what is the motive for this huge, accurately planned effort to freeze history at a particular moment of time?”

Money. Of course the answer is money. The backbone of the BCS has always been money, and none of us can pretend for a minute that we would have—as commissioner of a top-6 conference, or school athletic director, or stakeholder in any sense—disagreed with the BCS plan in the slightest when it was introduced. Because in the end, if it’s our team we’re talking about, we don’t want equality—we just want to be on top.

A playoff would certainly silence many of the critics, and add some common sense to an atypical championship system, but it’s still not getting at the root of the problem. The flaw is in the very premise of the BCS—that teams should be rewarded for who they are, not what they’ve done—and seems unlikely to change soon. As long as the BCS exists, as long as they decline to respond to the winds of change, and as long as the BCS perpetuates class stratification in college football, then teams won’t have any recourse but to love Big Brother.

]]> http://howtowatchsports.com/2010/11/the-bcss-fatal-flaw-college-football-and-oligarchial-collectivism/feed/ 2 http://howtowatchsports.com/2010/08/for-byu-football-going-independent-is-a-no-brainer/ http://howtowatchsports.com/2010/08/for-byu-football-going-independent-is-a-no-brainer/#comments Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:45:42 +0000 Sam Orme http://howtowatchsports.com/?p=3569

Just when you thought you were out, conference realignment pulls you back in again.

The BYU Cougars dropped a bombshell on college football yesterday by letting slip that they’re considering abandoning the Mountain West Conference and becoming an independent school, similar to Notre Dame. The announcement had a ripple effect throughout the sport. The MWC immediately invited two other WAC schools to join the conference in an effort to balance out the potential loss of the Cougars. The WAC responded by announcing that all of its schools have a $5 million buyout to prevent other conferences from raiding their ranks. And on top of that, pundits are debating whether BYU could receive an agreement with the BCS similar to Notre Dame’s, and whether this is a good or really foolish move on the part of the Cougars.

Admittedly, I’m biased to see only the best for BYU (since it’s my alma mater and all), but the more I think about it, the more I think this is a really smart move for the Cougars. Financially, it makes a lot of sense. Right now, as a member of the MWC they share in any BCS money brought in by any members of their conference. This means even though they weren’t selected to play in a BCS game last season, they received some money because TCU played in the Fiesta Bowl.

However, not only do they have to share that money with the rest of the conference, under the terms of the current BCS agreement they have to share that money with every other school outside of an automatically qualifying conference. That means not only is that money split among the 9 MWC schools, but the MAC, WAC, C-USA, and Sun Belt schools also get a piece of the pie. Suddenly that $17 million payout becomes closer to $1 million, tops.

As an independent, BYU would be entitled to keep all of the payout if they were selected to play. That’s about a $16 million difference.

Of course, that’s assuming they play in a BCS bowl game, which they have yet to do. But there’s every reason to think that their road to the BCS would be much clearer than it is in the MWC. Now that they are no longer required to schedule the likes of New Mexico and Colorado State, they can give themselves a much tougher slate and have an easier time climbing the polls.

Who would they schedule? To figure that out, let’s consider the case of Notre Dame, the school (now) most similar to BYU. Every year, the Fighting Irish regularly schedule some combination of Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, USC, Stanford, Boston College, and Navy. Certainly the fact that these are storied rivalries and the Notre Dame name help in getting these schools on the schedule, but the fact is that this is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Both schools get to strengthen their schedules by putting each other on the slate.

Clearly, no one is mistaking BYU for the celebrated history of Notre Dame, but there’s no denying the Cougars are a national power. BYU is a perennial 10-win team and a mainstay in the top 25. They shouldn’t have any problem getting tough schools on their schedule. In fact, since both teams would be independents and have played each other in the past, it’s reasonable to assume that both BYU and Notre Dame would be happy to schedule each other in the future.

Notre Dame bases its schedule on teams from the Big Ten and Big East, but also incorporates teams from the Pac-10, ACC, and other independents. Since some of those conferences are chosen based on geography, let’s switch those for conferences based in the west. (Rumor has it that BYU would join the WAC for all other non-football sports and would be asked to schedule 3-4 WAC teams each year, so we’ll include them, too.) Here’s a best-case scenario of what BYU could come up with for a schedule in 2011.

@ Washington
San Diego State
Fresno State
@ Utah State
Air Force
Notre Dame
TCU
@ UCLA
Nevada
@ Navy
Tulsa
@ Utah

Not too shabby, right? This assumes they would try to continue existing MWC and WAC rivalries, but also add in Pac-10 powers and some independents, and that’s without considering the Big 12. (One could easily switch teams like Tulsa and Navy for Missouri and Kansas State.) BYU could probably do as well as 10-2 against this kind of schedule, which would certainly put them in the top 25. After a couple of years of playing a schedule like this, they would build up some national cred, earn themselves a top-14 ranking, and be eligible for an at-large selection.

But that’s assuming they can schedule tough teams. What if they have a hard time finding decent schools to play against (unlikely, since their 66,000-seat stadium would be a draw for most any school looking for a cut of the gate) and end up playing the dregs of these conferences? Let’s take a look at what such a schedule would look like.

@ Washington State
San Diego State
@ Idaho
@ Utah State
New Mexico
San Jose State
Colorado State
@ Arizona State
Hawaii
@ Army
Southern Methodist
@ Utah

That’s a pretty terrible schedule at first glance, but take a closer look. How many of those games do you realistically see BYU losing? Other than the season finale at Utah and possibly the Arizona State game, those are all easy wins for the Cougars. They could roll through that schedule and cruise to a top-10 ranking, even potentially cracking the top 5 if they were 12-0. If you don’t believe me, just think about Boise State, who routinely plays a schedule like this and is a regular presence in the top 10.

So even if BYU ends up with a horrible schedule, they can rack up wins and demand national attention, if not respect. Sooner or later, just like Boise State, big names start to schedule them (like Oregon and Virginia Tech), and they develop into a national power. Really, this looks like a win-win scenario for the Cougars.

Of course, it creates chaos for the MWC and WAC, but you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs, right?

Ralphie knocks over opponents. Could Colorado be knocking over the structure of college football as we know it?

Rumors have abounded this spring about conferences expanding and major universities jumping ship. The status quo – largely unchanged for years – was threatening to be turned on its head. Instead of six power conferences, we could be looking at five or even four super conferences dominating the sport. But for all the predictions of doom and gloom, such talk was just that – talk.

That is, until yesterday.

The University of Colorado accepted an invitation to join the Pac-10 yesterday morning, serving as the first domino to be knocked over in a move that will scramble the existing structure in college football. With the Buffaloes leaving the Big 12, it’s likely that the University of Nebraska will head to the Big Ten. (In fact, if those were the only two teams switching conferences, the Big Ten would have 12 members and the Big 12 only ten. Seems like they could just switch names and call it good.) Consistent rumors have most of the rest of the Big 12 South – Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State – following the Buffs to what would become the Pac-16. That would create a superconference out west that could potentially demand two berths in BCS bowls, while leaving the once-mighty Big 12 in shambles.

It’s a big deal, to be sure, and one still in its early stages. No one is quite sure how it’s going to play out. That doesn’t mean we have any shortage of pundits willing to guess, though. Some have the scraps of the Big 12 scuttling to the Mountain West, a conference widely seen as on the verge of becoming an auto-qualifying conference in the BCS. Others see the Big Ten picking up the pieces and becoming a second superconference to rival the Pac-16. Still others see the SEC slipping in and enticing teams like Texas and Texas A&M to join their ranks.

What’s clear, however, is that college football orthodoxy as we know it is going to undergo serious changes over the coming weeks and months. So what should we expect coming into the 2010 season?

Actually, you can probably expect things to be more or less the same. While Colorado has accepted an invitation to join the Pac-10, it won’t take effect until 2012. The Buffaloes are still obligated to play a Big 12 schedule until that time. That shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, since they (as well as most other teams) already have a schedule in place for the 2012 season. The Huskers will be in a similar situation if they choose to join the Big Ten (which seems almost a certainty at this point).

That said, they will clearly be on their way out the door, which could make for an awkward two years. Colorado’s move is likely to be the catalyst for other major teams to make their moves, which could result in the end of the Big 12 conference. If that happens, expect them to receive unfriendly welcomes in places like Kansas and Missouri, teams expected to be left in the cold during realignment.

If those schools have trouble finding a home, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the Mountain West, major up-and-comers in the football world, welcoming them with open arms. This is doubly advantageous for the MWC. Not only would they receive celebrated programs that would bolster their credentials as a football conference, but adding the likes of Kansas and Kansas State would do wonders for them as a basketball conference. The more these schools are ignored, the happier the MWC will be.

Assuming the MWC is successful in picking up the pieces from the Big 12 (which would probably be Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and possibly even Boise State from the WAC), they can realistically expect to be given an auto bid to the BCS starting in 2012. What is less clear is the form the BCS will take after realignment.

Currently, six conferences (the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10, and SEC) receive auto bids to BCS bowls. If the Big 12 goes under and the MWC takes its place, we could see a similar setup with six power conferences. But if the Pac-10 or Big Ten succeed in becoming 16-team superconferences, they might demand a second bid to the BCS, one for each 8-team division. If that happens, conferences without an automatic spot for their champions will be extremely upset. Complaints that the BCS excludes non-traditional schools will become even louder as at-large spots dry up.

It’s an interesting situation. Rising powers like TCU, Utah, and BYU have to be ecstatic about the future. However, other rising powers like Missouri and Baylor could find themselves out in the cold if things don’t shake their way.

Ultimately, there’s little that can be done at this point but waiting to see how things unfold. One thing is sure, though – the summer of 2010 will long be remembered as the summer that changed college football for years to come.

History, however, is not on his side.

There is a long tradition of successful college coaches making the leap to the NFL, only to find themselves not enjoying the same level of success. Recently, Louisville coach Bobby Petrino left the college ranks to coach the Atlanta Falcons. As coach of the Cardinals, he put up a 41-9 record and a BCS bowl victory (2007 Orange Bowl).

As coach of the Falcons? He lasted just 16 games before fleeing town with a 3-13 record.

Nick Saban, who just won a national championship with Alabama, left his old school, LSU, to coach the Miami Dolphins. His record with the Tigers was 48-16; his record with the Dolphins, just 15-17.

Pete Carroll has had tremendous success at USC. But will it follow him to Seattle?

In fact, the last six college coaches to make the leap (Petrino, Saban, Dennis Erickson, Steve Spurrier, Butch Davis, and Mike Riley) combined to post an NFL record of 108-172 (.385).

Their combined college record beforehand? 301-103-1 (.743).

In fact, Carroll is no stranger to the NFL game. He has been the head coach of two NFL franchises (New York Jets and New England Patriots), posting a combined record of 33-31 in four seasons.

So what gives? Why have so many successful coaches found nothing but mediocrity and failure in the NFL?

Simply put? It’s a very different game. The formations are different, the competition is higher, and the players themselves are different. Tactics that work without a hitch at the college level might not work in the pros. In fact, they might make the situation even worse.

At the college level, the spread offense is common. Teams at the level of USC are generally unafraid to run plays with four or five wide receivers because they know that they have more talent on offense than they are likely to see on defense. Even if they end up turning over the ball, they know that their defense is potent enough to make up for any mistakes.

In the NFL, such is not the case. The spread offense is uncommon because although the potential for scoring is high, the potential for a turnover is also high. Turnovers in the high-scoring college game, while undesirable, are far from devastating. In the NFL, where low-scoring contests are the norm, losing the ball can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

NFL teams can’t simply rely on superior talent, either. A team like Alabama faces difficult competition during the year, but they also play teams like Chattanooga and Coastal Carolina. In the NFL, even when a team like the Colts plays a team like the Lions, the talent gap isn’t as high as you might think. Both teams have numerous players that have won all-conference and all-American honors. If you aren’t one of the best players in the nation in college, you don’t make the NFL.

The fact that there are only 32 NFL teams as compared to 119 FBS schools helps to concentrate talent, too. There aren’t any guaranteed wins in the NFL, even when you play against the 1-15 St. Louis Rams.

The players themselves are a significant difference. In college, players are generally between 18-22 years old. They’re still young, so they respond to older authority figures (well, usually).

Screaming at a 30 year-old multimillionaire isn’t likely to have much impact, especially when they make more than you do. In college, coaches are the franchise; in the NFL, players are.

That leads into my next point: coaches are treated like near-deities at the college level, which is nearly unheard of in the NFL.

Sure, there are exceptions (Bill Belichick and Tony Dungy come to mind), but coaches usually tend to stay on the sidelines and let their star players do their thing. Teams like the Colts and Saints have excelled this year, and Peyton Manning and Drew Brees receive the lion’s share of the credit.

On the other hand, teams like Alabama and Florida have excelled at the college level, but despite a wealth of star players, coaches Nick Saban and Urban Meyer receive the credit.

Essentially, a larger-than-life personality can be a huge success in college (think Mike Leach), but a huge flop in the pros (think Bobby Petrino). Which brings us back to Pete Carroll.

Carroll knows what it takes to succeed in college. He also knows what doesn’t work in the pros. Will his success translate over to the Seahawks?

There’s a chance it will. Carroll has a better NFL record than any of the past six college-to-pro coaches. His teams qualified for the playoffs in two of his four seasons. And while he’s a colorful personality, he’s done a good job of holding his ego in check in favor of the program he’s built.

So it’s possible we could see a resurgent Seahawks team. But is it likely?

Let me put it this way: if I lived in Seattle, I wouldn’t be buying playoff tickets just yet.

Though it looks dark for TCU now, the future is bright.

TCU carried the Mountain West banner all the way to the BCS promised land this season. Their powerful defense was supposed to dominate the Boise State offense. Instead, the Broncos, aided by a trick play (which everyone in America was waiting for) edged the Horned Frogs, 17-10.

You know what? I like this turnout a lot better.

A down to the wire finish was probably the best thing that could have happened to either of these teams. A blowout for either side would have meant the loser would have been “exposed” as a BCS pretender.

Had TCU won by 40, we would have been talking about how they only played overrated mid-major teams and were never really tested. Had Boise State won by 40, you’d have heard the same thing. Instead, the game came down to the closing seconds and was an instant classic. A last second interception saved the game for Boise in dramatic fashion.

Closing seconds. Instant classic. Dramatic. These aren’t words you throw around with overrated mid-majors.

Boise will probably end up ranked third when the final polls come out on Friday. TCU probably only falls to sixth or seventh. Most programs would kill to finish ranked that high with only a loss to the no. 3 team in the country.

Obviously, this is a major success for the WAC, but it has to be a step forward for the Mountain West, too. The MWC has fielded a BCS team in three of the last six years. That’s without an automatic berth.

For comparison, that’s more at-large teams in that span than the ACC, Big 12, Big East, and Pac-10 have fielded combined.

And while the BCS busters have largely held their weight (2-1 so far), it’s not as though the rest of the conference hasn’t done their part. MWC teams posted a perfect 4-0 record before the Fiesta Bowl. The opposition has been solid, too; their victims include Fresno State, Oregon State, California, and Houston.

That dominance isn’t just limited to this year, either. Over the last three years, the MWC has posted a 9-4 record in bowl games.

Bowl games provide an excellent chance to measure conferences against each other, since they’re in direct competition, unlike most of the year. The Mountain West’s 4-1 record (.800) is better than the following BCS conferences this year: the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10, and SEC.

That’s right. All of them.

One can only make so many excuses for keeping the Mountain West out of the BCS before they start to sound old. Last year, the MWC complained loudly that they were being excluded. This year, they’re letting their play speak for itself.

So far, they have four impressive wins and one heartbreaking loss in what will probably be remembered as the best bowl game of the year.

Next year, they’ll probably start again with three teams in the top 25 (TCU, BYU, and Utah). TCU can probably expect to be a top-10 team. Though they’re on the outside for now, the Mountain West is knocking at the door of the BCS.

Only time will tell it’s opened to them.

It's the big one - don't risk sounding like an idiot.

The 2009 bowl season is upon us, and it’s time to be confronted with a fact you’ve worked all year to cover up: you don’t know as much as you should about college football.

You know Texas and Alabama, sure, but smaller teams like  Ohio, Middle Tennessee, and Fresno State are beyond you. You live your life in fear that you’ll be caught in an in-depth football conversation and exposed when you let slip that you’ve always thought that TCU is the name of the organization Jack Bauer worked for on 24.

Don’t worry, we’re here to help.

The following is a guide to understanding the teams and matchups in the bowl games to come over the next few weeks, starting with the smaller, more obscure bowls. If nothing else, it will give you a few sound bites to make it sound like you know what you’re talking about.

If you missed it, check out Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Admittedly, these picks haven’t been the best (10-8, yikes), but I stand by my quotes. If you want to sound like you know what you’re talking about (or if you want to sound like an idiot), stick with the analysis.

Fiesta Bowl, Boise State vs. TCU (Jan. 4)

There have been a lot of angry people about this matchup, feeling that the two non-AQ teams were banished to sit at the kids’ table while the grownups played in the real games. There might be something to that, but that’s no reason to think this won’t be one of the best games of the bowl season. Boise State brings the nation’s #1 scoring offense. TCU brings the nation’s #1 defense in terms of yards allowed. The Horned Frogs have held some powerful offenses in check this year (BYU, Utah, Clemson), but haven’t seen anything like Kellen Moore and the Broncos. That said, the Broncos haven’t faced a defense that comes close to TCU’s. This one could come down to the final moments – and if it does, you just know Boise will have a trick play or two up their sleeve.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Kellen Moore is the nation’s most proficient quarterback, sure, but Andy Dalton is no slouch – he’s no. 4.”

Sound like an idiot: “This game is a joke. If they’re not from a BCS conference, they aren’t worth watching.”

The pick: TCU 24, Boise State 21.

Orange Bowl, Iowa vs. Georgia Tech (Jan. 5)

This game has the reputation of the “boring” BCS game, but these two teams are anything but boring. Georgia Tech runs a devastating triple option attack that drives opposing defenses crazy. Iowa has been incredibly entertaining this year, falling behind early and pulling off improbable comebacks behind QB Ricky Stanzi. Both have been tested and have impressive wins (over Penn State and Virginia Tech, respectively). So who has the edge? Normally I’d say the Yellow Jackets, but with Stanzi healthy and ready for action, all bets are off. Expect this game to come down to the final seconds.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “If a couple of plays had broken differently against Georgia, we’d be talking about Georgia Tech as a championship contender.”

Sound like an idiot: “Ugh, the Big Ten and the ACC. This game is always a dud.”

The pick: Iowa 21, Georgia 20.

GMAC Bowl, Central Michigan vs. Troy (Jan. 6)

Wait, what? Right in the middle of BCS Week we get a lower-tier bowl between the MAC and (shudder) Sun Belt? It’s tempting to write this game off, but don’t be so quick to change the channel. Troy has been the class of the Sun Belt for the last few years, dominating the rest of the conference. (Think Boise State in the WAC.) Central Michigan has been impressive as well, led by talented quarterback Dan LeFevour, who has passed for a staggering 12,510 yards over his college career. Both teams have been great against subpar competition, but I think this comes down to the face that Troy just doesn’t have an answer for LeFevour. Frankly, who does?

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Before building up the Cincinnati football program, Brian Kelly built up Central Michigan – and it shows.”

Sound like an idiot: “I thought the USC Trojans already played their bowl game. Can teams play two bowl games in one year?”

The pick: Central Michigan 42, Troy 21.

BCS National Championship Game, Texas vs. Alabama (Jan. 7)

By now, you’ve heard it all. Alabama cruised through the SEC, blowing out #1 Florida in the championship game. Texas struggled through a relatively weak Big 12, being bailed out by a video review and a last-second field goal to win their conference championship. Seems like the Tide would be a lock, right? You’d think, but recent years have taught us never to count out the Longhorns in big games. Since losing to Oklahoma in the 2007 Red River Rivalry game, Texas has only lost twice (to Texas A&M and #5 Texas Tech on a last-second miracle play). The Longhorns’ offense has looked anemic recently, true, and that doesn’t bode well against the Crimson Tide’s ferocious defense, but what happened last time Alabama came into a BCS game heavily favored? Utah not only beat them, but embarrassed them. Could the same thing happen this Thursday? It certainly could, but based on the results of each team’s conference championship, I wouldn’t count on it.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Remember what happened last time Texas came into a national championship game as an underdog? Vince Young, anyone?”

Sound like an idiot: “It’s a good thing Texas made that field goal. No one would have wanted to see a Mountain West team play for the championship.”

The pick: Alabama 31, Texas 17.

You know it's the New Year when you see this.

The 2009 bowl season is upon us, and it’s time to be confronted with a fact you’ve worked all year to cover up: you don’t know as much as you should about college football.

You know Texas and Alabama, sure, but smaller teams like  Ohio, Middle Tennessee, and Fresno State are beyond you. You live your life in fear that you’ll be caught in an in-depth football conversation and exposed when you let slip that you’ve always thought that TCU is the name of the organization Jack Bauer worked for on 24.

Don’t worry, we’re here to help.

The following is a guide to understanding the teams and matchups in the bowl games to come over the next few weeks, starting with the smaller, more obscure bowls. If nothing else, it will give you a few sound bites to make it sound like you know what you’re talking about.

If you missed it, check out Part I and Part II.

Outback Bowl, Northwestern vs. Auburn (Jan. 1)

Get ready for a parade of mediocrity – both teams struggled to stay above water all year, finishing 8-4 and 7-5, respectively. Northwestern has the better wins over ranked teams, owning victories over Iowa and Wisconsin compared to Auburn’s win over Ole Miss. Ultimately, it comes down to whether you think the Big Ten or the SEC is capable of producing a better middling team. I think the Big Ten is overrated, but the SEC even more so. Edge to Northwestern.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Since starting 5-0, Auburn’s only wins came over an overrated Ole Miss team and Furman. Yikes.”

Sound like an idiot: “Sure, they played Furman, but remember, Furman beat Georgia Southern this year.”

The pick: Northwestern 33, Auburn 17.

Capital One Bowl, Penn State vs. LSU (Jan. 1)

This is the biggest bowl game outside the BCS, or at least the most-hyped. Both teams strike me as pretenders; Penn State’s biggest win came over Northwestern, and LSU’s biggest came over Auburn. Both solid teams (they’re playing in the Outback Bowl, after all), but for those to be your biggest wins if you’re top-15 teams? Yikes. LSU at least kept games against top teams (like Florida and Alabama) close, while Penn State laid a huge egg in their big games (Iowa and Ohio State). I expect that trend to continue.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “LSU might be primed to strike in the SEC next year now that Urban Meyer’s…well, whatever he is.”

Sound like an idiot: “Geaux Lions. I mean, Tigers.”

The pick: LSU 21, Penn State 7.

Gator Bowl, West Virginia vs. Florida State (Jan. 1)

Much has been made out of this being Bobby Bowden’s last game and how he’ll have the team playing out of their minds for him. Yeah, I don’t buy it. If the team were capable of pushing it to another level, don’t you think we would have seen that by now? 6-6 in a mediocre ACC speaks for itself. I expect West Virginia to roll here.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Christian Ponder can destroy you with his arm and with his legs – he’s like Vince Young 2.0.”

Sound like an idiot: “The Gator Bowl? How can that be – Florida isn’t even playing in it!”

The pick: West Virginia 31, Florida State 6.

Rose Bowl, Ohio State vs. Oregon (Jan. 1)

The conventional wisdom is that Oregon’s speed and versatility will be too much for conservative Ohio State. We’ve heard it so much that Oregon is probably starting to believe it. Maybe they’re getting a little complacent. Maybe Ohio State is getting fired up and living off the underdog label. Or maybe it’s legit and we’re looking for Ohio State to lose their fourth straight BCS bowl game. Which do you think is more likely?

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Jacquizz Rodgers gets all the hype, but LaMichael James might be the best running back in the state of Oregon.”

Sound like an idiot: “What kind of Mickey Mouse organization would name a team the Ducks?”

The pick: Oregon 34, Ohio State 21.

Sugar Bowl, Cincinnati vs. Florida (Jan. 1)

Both of these teams saw a shot at the national championship slip through their fingers. Both of them have watched their coach abandon them before their bowl game. And, you know, they’re playing in New Orleans. With all these distractions, the game is a complete tossup. In a situation like this, the team that has played better down the stretch probably has the best shot. The one that wasn’t almost blowing games to huge underdogs repeatedly. Yes, that would be the Gators. It’ll be close, but expect Florida to come out on top.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “With neither coach returning next year, both Cincy and Florida could take a huge step backward in 2010.”

Sound like an idiot: “Please, there’s no way a Big East team could hang with an SEC team.”

The pick: Florida 24, Cincinnati 21.

International Bowl, Northern Illinois vs. South Florida (Jan. 2)

Both teams come in with 7-5 marks and middling conference records. They look pretty even, so it basically comes down to which team has a better history of showing up in big games. Or at least not choking in them. (Brace yourself, Bulls fans.)

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Northern Illinois is one of the best mid-major schools you never hear about.”

Sound like an idiot: “The game is in Toronto? Don’t they call football soccer up there, or something?”

The pick: Northern Illinois 20, South Florida 19.

Papajohns.com Bowl, South Carolina vs. UConn (Jan. 2)

Two teams headed in different directions. South Carolina started hot before falling on their face, losing 4 of their last 6. UConn looked horrible to start, but the death of teammate Jasper Howard galvanized them and inspired them to win their last 3 games. Not only does South Carolina excel in disappearing in big games, but if you don’t think the Huskies are going to win this one for Howard, you’re crazy.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “The Gamecocks beat both North Carolina State and South Carolina State this year. Real impressive, guys.”

Sound like an idiot: “It’s still the Big East. Like a team from the Big East could ever hang with an SEC team.”

Stay tuned for Part IV.

The Chick-Fil-A Bowl? Or the Insight Bowl?

The 2009 bowl season is upon us, and it’s time to be confronted with a fact you’ve worked all year to cover up: you don’t know as much as you should about college football.

You know Texas and Alabama, sure, but smaller teams like  Ohio, Middle Tennessee, and Fresno State are beyond you. You live your life in fear that you’ll be caught in an in-depth football conversation and exposed when you let slip that you’ve always thought that TCU is the name of the organization Jack Bauer worked for on 24.

Don’t worry, we’re here to help.

The following is a guide to understanding the teams and matchups in the bowl games to come over the next few weeks, starting with the smaller, more obscure bowls. If nothing else, it will give you a few sound bites to make it sound like you know what you’re talking about.

If you missed it, check out Part I.

Music City Bowl, Kentucky vs. Clemson (Dec. 27)

It’s tempting to simplify this to SEC vs. ACC, but remember, Clemson was nearly in the Orange Bowl this year. Both teams had nearly identical records, and both have an impressive list of schools they lost to (Alabama, Florida, TCU, and Georgia Tech). Clemson’s fear of the big stage probably doesn’t play a factor here because, well, it’s Nashville.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Both teams lost to South Carolina this year, but only one played them close. Go ‘Cats!”

Sound like an idiot: “I expect John Wall to be the difference maker here. Go ‘Cats!”

The pick: Clemson 30, Kentucky 17

Independence Bowl, Texas A&M vs. Georgia (Dec. 28)

If defense really isn’t your thing, then this is the game to watch. Both the Aggies and the Bulldogs can roll up the points, and to make things better, both have paper-thin defenses. Ultimately, this game probably comes down to who has the ball last, but it ought to be an entertaining ride.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “A&M nearly knocked off Texas. Georgia shouldn’t be nearly as tough.”

Sound like an idiot: “Total mismatch for Georgia. SEC supremacy!”

The pick: Georgia 45, Texas A&M 42

Eaglebank Bowl, UCLA vs. Temple (Dec. 29)

Temple is playing in a bowl game for just the second time ever, so you know they’re a little excited. UCLA wasn’t great this year, but they’ve been tested in the brutal Pac-10. Temple ought to make a game out of it, but expect them to fall short in the end.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Nine straight wins is nine straight wins, even if they’re in the MAC. Temple is a legit team.”

Sound like an idiot: “A bruin could eat an owl.”

The pick: UCLA 20, Temple 6

Champs Sports Bowl, Miami (FL) vs. Wisconsin (Dec. 29)

Miami is a program on the rise, but their biggest wins this season (besides Georgia Tech) came over dramatically overrated Oklahoma and Florida State teams. Wisconsin is also on the rise, but their best win was an overtime nail-biter over Fresno State. The bottom line? I’ll take the team with one quality win over the team with none, thanks.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Playing in Orlando in December is nice, but next year the ‘Canes will be playing in Miami in January. You know, the Orange Bowl.”

Sound like an idiot: “Big Ten teams have historically done well against Florida teams in bowl games. Right?”

The pick: Miami 31, Wisconsin 17

Humanitarian Bowl, Bowling Green vs. Idaho (Dec. 30)

Both teams posted a 7-5 record in 2009, but Bowling Green rang up six wins against the MAC, while Idaho only went 4-4 in WAC play. I don’t know what that tells us, since both conferences are atrocious, so I’ll take Idaho, a team amped to be playing in a bowl for the first time since the Stone Age and in front of a home crowd to boot.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Even when they lose, the Vandals can still light up the scoreboard. Good luck, Bowling Green.”

Sound like an idiot: “Don’t forget, Bowling Green beat Sun Belt champion Troy this year. So there’s something.”

The pick: Idaho 45, Bowling Green 20

Holiday Bowl, Arizona vs. Nebraska (Dec. 30)

If a couple of plays had broken differently (against Oregon and Texas), this could easily have been a BCS game. The matchup is the classic case of the irresistible force versus the immovable object. The Huskers’ defense, anchored by Ndamukong Suh, allows just over 11 points per game. The Wildcats’ offense scores just under 30 a game. Something has to give.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Ndamukong Suh would have won the Heisman this year if it weren’t so biased toward offensive players.”

Sound like an idiot: “Ndomokung…Ndamikeng, Ndamu…Donkey Kong?”

The pick: Nebraska 13, Arizona 12

Armed Forces Bowl, Houston vs. Air Force (Dec. 31)

These two teams ought to be pretty familiar with each other by now – it’s the third time they’ve faced each other in the last two years. Houston’s offense, led by QB Case Keenum, knows how to score, having hung 73 on Rice, but Air Force is no slouch either, having dropped 72 on Nicholls State. Here’s hoping the scoreboard operators brought some extra light bulbs.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Air Force has consistently exceeded expectations in the Mountain West for the last few years.”

Sound like an idiot: “You just know those crooked Armed Forces Bowl refs are going to favor Air Force.”

The pick: Houston 55, Air Force 31

Sun Bowl, Oklahoma vs. Stanford (Dec. 31)

The Sun Bowl features two teams headed in dramatically different directions. Two years ago, Stanford was a bottom-feeder in the Pac-10 until their dramatic upset over USC as a 42-point underdog. Oklahoma was a national juggernaut until Sam Bradford suffered a season-ending injury against BYU in an upset loss. The Sooners’ defense is still stout, but Toby Gerhart will probably prove too much for them.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Stanford has the chops to challenge for the Pac-10 crown next year.”

Sound like an idiot: “Oklahoma might not be the Big 12 champion, but at least they won their divi… no… well, at least they won their state championship!”

The pick: Stanford 21, Oklahoma 17

Texas Bowl, Navy vs. Missouri (Dec. 31)

Both teams posted 8-4 records this year, but it might surprise you to hear that Navy actually had the tougher schedule. The fact that Navy’s win over Notre Dame was better than any of Missouri’s wins tells you all you need to know. Wins over Iowa State, Illinois, and Furman don’t exactly fill me with confidence.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Everyone talks about Georgia Tech’s triple option, but Navy’s been running that scheme for years.”

Sound like an idiot: “If you cheer for Missouri, the terrorists win. Support our troops!”

The pick: Navy 27, Missouri 20

Insight Bowl, Minnesota vs. Iowa State (Dec. 31)

Both teams are 6-6. Both teams went 3-5 in conference play. Both teams laid a huge egg against ranked opponents. Your guess is as good as mine. When in doubt, go with the team that’s excited to be there, which is Iowa State, headed to a bowl game for the first time since 2005.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “The Cyclones may just be 6-6 this year, but they’re a program on the rise in the Big 12.”

Sound like an idiot: “Minnesota and Iowa State? Shouldn’t this be a hockey game?”

The pick: Iowa State 21, Minnesota 20

Chick-Fil-A Bowl, Virginia Tech vs. Tennessee (Dec. 31)

These two teams combined have four losses to teams appearing in BCS games (Florida, Alabama x2, and Georgia Tech). However, Virginia Tech only has one other loss, while Tennessee also lost to Ole Miss and UCLA. The Vols are headed in the right direction under new head coach Lane Kiffin, but they still have a little way to go before they can hang with the Hokies.

Sound like you know what you’re talking about: “Tennessee QB Johnathan Crompton is worlds better than he was last year.”

Sound like an idiot: “They’ll be singing ‘Rocky Top’ all night long after beating Florida. Er, I mean, Virginia Tech.”

The pick: Virginia Tech 34, Tennessee 10.

Part III to come.