Out of Bounds

I have a friend who can't stand college football.

He doesn't thinks the talent is there and with so many different teams (from vastly different conferences) flooding the television, he doesn't think it rises to the level of legitimate competition.

Typically I'd have to disagree, since there are plenty of exciting games to be watched, whether it's football, basketball or hockey.  (I draw the line on almost every other sport -- including baseball, gymnastics, wrestling, volleyball and soccer, which just don't draw the fans or money needed to make it worth watching).

So while I find watching college sports a terrific experience (who didn't enjoy the two Michigan State / Wisconsin football games this year?) there are three things that drive me crazy about college sports.  In particular, football.

 

Number one, the media's love affair with the SEC and traditional powers like Texas, Oklahoma and any team from Florida.  As an example, in an early pre-season poll, ESPN had eight SEC teams listed in the top 25, including Alabama and LSU.  When you start high in any poll, it makes it much easier to climb to the top (and stay there), attract better recruits, and garner attention that leads to winning individual awards.

Look at the comparison between Wisconsin and Alabama and what happened after each lost their first game:  Wisconsin started the season as #10, worked their way to #7, then lost to Michigan State.  They dropped seven spots (all the way to #14), despite losing on the road via a hail mail pass.  Alabama was ranked #2 when they lost to the LSU Tigers at home.  Instead of dropping like the Badgers, they drop two places to #4.

As further proof of this bias, the 2011 Heisman Trophy, awarded to the best college athlete,  attracted two candidates from the SEC in Trent Richardson (Alabama) and Tyrann Mathieu (LSU).  While they did not win the top award -- Robert Griffin III of Baylor took that honor -- some questioned why Mathieu was selected over other candidates like USC's Matt Barkley or Boise State's Kellen Moore.

If you need further proof, Trent Richardson of the SEC finished ahead of the BIG TEN's Monte Ball even though a quick look at the stats of both running backs shows Ball's superiority.

Ball 2,014 yards from scrimmage, Richardson 1,910 yards from scrimmage
Ball 38 touchdowns, Richardson 23 touchdowns
Ball 6.4 yards per carry, Richardson 6.0 yards per carry
Ball scored a touchdown every 7.8 touches, Richardson every 12.6 touches
Ball got 20% of his yards against non-conference, Richardson got 30% of his yards
Ball rushed for 1,759 yards, Richardson 1,583 yards

Plus, Monte Ball had 60 passing yards and a passing touchdown for Wisconsin (with a quarterback rating of 504.4).  Richardson did not even finish in the top 5 for rushing yards of all running backs for 2011.

So why did Richardson finish third in voting and Ball in fourth?  And why did Richardson win the 2011 Doak Walker award for best running back?  One reason:  SEC bias.  If you are the best running back in the best conference, you have to be the best running back in the country.  What a bunch of crap!  Monte Ball has had one of the greatest years as a running back and he gets invited to the Heisman at the last moment.  Richardson was pegged to be a Heisman candidate before the season even began, again showing the east coast's love affair with traditional power teams from east and southeastern conferences.

The media will say that Wisconsin's mammoth offensive line gave Monte Ball an unfair advantage, or that Russell Wilson (as quarterback) meant that defenses couldn't focus just on Ball.  What the hell?  Sounds like Wisconsin football should be rated higher than Alabama's if they have such "unfair" advantages.  This east coast bias will also point out that Wisconsin lost two games, which takes some of the luster off of Ball's accomplishments.  If that's the case, then why did Robert Griffin III win the Heisman award?  His team had a total of three losses this year.

Wisconsin is heading back to the Rose Bowl

My second complaint concerns the college bowl system.  When I checked last, there were 35 bowls this year.  Some of them are so obscure that I had to look twice to see if I read it right.

Take the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl (please) for example.  Or the Beef O' Brady's Bowl in St. Petersburg, Fl in which the Thundering Herd of Marshall takes on the mighty Panthers of Florida International University.  (Set the DVR for that one).

How's this for a brief rundown of the lesser known bowls --  San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl, MAACO Bowl, Sheraton Hawaii Bowl, AdvoCare V100 Independence Bowl, Belk Bowl, Bridgepoint Education Holiday Bowl, Franklin American Mortgage Mortgage Musci City Bowl, New Era Pinstripe Bowl and Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl.  And let's not forget to watch the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl and Taxslayer.com Gator Bowl.  I'm pretty knowledgeable about college football, and I've never heard of ANY of those.

Of the 35 bowls played between December 17th and January 9th, I have interest in maybe five.  This year's championship game, between Alabama and LSU isn't even intriguing because the two teams played a few weeks ago, with LSU winning 9-6.  Remember how boring that was?  Sports experts gushed over how outstanding the defense was in that game.  I'd like to think if you're going to gush about something, it should be offense.  Like the 42 - 39 win in the Big Ten Championship game.  Now that was exciting!

There should be a rule against two teams from the same conference playing each other in any bowl game.  Even the national championship game.  Bowls should be for match-ups of two teams that would never play each other during the regular season.  One of the reasons I will watch Oklahoma State and Stanford is to see the matchup between two contrasting teams -- the spread offense of OSU versuses the pro style of Andrew Luck and Coby Fleener.  For the most part, each team dominated their respective conferences which will lead to an interesting match-up.

The same with Oregon and Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.  A decided underdog, Wisconsin will have to find a way to stop the spread, slow down Oregon's quickness and score enough points to make it a close game.  Both bring exciting marquee players to the game, and the spotlight will be on them to perform.  If they do, it will be exciting to watch.

But let's be serious about the lesser bowls, and perhaps the biggest elephant in the college football game room -- lack of a playoff system.  The NCAA needs to find a way to scrap the bowl system for an equitable system that matches up the best teams (winners) of each conference.   That would include the ACC, PAC 12, BIG EAST, BIG TEN, SEC and BIG 12 battling it out, with the best two teams getting a bye the first week.  From there it's winner moves on until you get to the championship game.  It'll guarantee 1) more interest (fill the stadiums that are half empty), 2) more money (television deals in prime time) and 3) better results (there would be no disputing which team is better -- it's decided on the field).

Finally, college football -- contrary to what my friend thinks -- could be exciting and worth watching if teams scheduled tough games in the pre-season.  The poor quality of non-conference foes has made it difficult to watch some of these games.  Despite a Big Ten Conference title, an11-win season and a record-setting offense, the football team drew fewer than 80,000 fans for three of its seven home games.  And it happened twice each in 2009 and 2010.  Too many Woffords and Austin Peays in football have caused fans to be apathetic at games, avoid certain games, or even stop buying season tickets all together.  So while it may help Wisconsin win nine games a year, it isn't doing much to help my friend enjoy the sometimes-exciting game of college football.

It's time to change that.