The "Best Kicker in the Big East" Conor Lee, just missed from 43 out. Pitt's down by 10 with 4 minutes left. How many times is Pitt going to take long shots down field, get into 3rd and Long, then drop the 4th down pass attempt? However many times it will take to blow it.
It seems that the New York Post is trying its hand at college football. Sure, they've done it in the past, but now that Rutgers is a player, the Post must feel obligated to devote more than a fraction of its attention to college football. According to a story run this morning, the Big East is stable enough to explore stronger relations with the conference's closest allies next to Notre Dame--the two service academies, Army and Navy. What's really interesting about this is how Big East Commish Mike Tranghese envisions the early stages of a deal. "...Army would play Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville and Pittsburgh. Navy would face Rutgers, South Florida, Syracuse and West Virginia," the Post article said, reasoning that the Big East and the academies are just falling victim to the 12th-game crisis happening across college football. You know, how it's now "impossible" to find opponents for that 12th game? Puh'lease. "A ninth member, even limited partners such as Army and Navy (both have a significant TV following) would give league members eight league games. That would allow the flexibility of four non-conference games so teams could pursue non-conference rivals such as Pittsburgh and Penn State."
If I'm not mistaken, Pitt is already in the Big East. Papers like the Post should stick to covering A-Rod's next bowel movement. College football to them is just a gambling sport, nothing more.
Dennis “Douche” Dodd over at CBS(EC) joined our good buddy Stewart Mandel, in choosing Pittsburgh over Penn State in the really early rankings. I just don’t get it. These guys get paid?
What they’re saying, through ranking Pitt over PSU, is that Dave Wannstedt’s three non-winning seasons will translate into a higher ranking than Penn State’s three nine-plus winning seasons, a conference title, a BCS Bowl win, and three straight bowl wins against the ACC, SEC and Big XII in that same timeframe. Unbelievable.
I really don’t want to go through this whole thing again. So, I’ll just refer you back to my original Pitt/PSU rankings argument I posted just after Stewie released his back in January.
Email: ZombieNationPSU@gmail.com
3/4.
Part 2/4.
Part 1/4.
Everyone argues that strength of schedule should mean everything in college football, until someone calls their team out on scheduling Directional Community College...
As promised, here's the top five weakest schedules BCS bowl teams have played from 2003 through 2007. Here’s my criteria for selection:
-I-AA schools! Like in Schedules, Part 2 the addition of I-AA schools has a huge impact on the relative ease of a team’s schedule. Most of the teams on this list have at least one I-AA opponent on there. While some of those I-AAs are very good teams, and others are a close step up from high school ball, they are all a detriment to any pro-strength of schedule argument. Face it, if you want to get respect for your team’s schedule, then play teams in your own classification.
-Opponent records, looking back. Was a team hyped in the beginning of the year, only to fall flat on its face? Sure, beating Michigan State in September looks good, but how good is it when they’re in one of those patented late-season meltdowns. Even in the bowl games, beating a team that was thought to be unstoppable all year, then was blown out in its last regular-season game, seriously diminishes the significance of playing them in the bowl.
-Opponent conference affiliations. Think of this as a two-parter. If a team plays in the MAC or the Sun Belt, do you think its schedule is nearly as difficult as one from the Big Ten or SEC? I don’t care if a team plays five strong OOC games; if it doesn’t play more than half its schedule against strong competition, it’s not a strong schedule.
So here's what I came up with. THIS IS ALL IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER!
Just missed the cut. Close, but not easy enough...
Boise State started out 2006 with a real bang, playing a I-AA with a losing record. Oregon State was a nice win, but nothing real special. The Beavers are middle-of-the-pack Pac-10, so any decent team has a shot at beating them. Outside of the Fiesta bowl win over Oklahoma, the only other team with double digit wins was Hawai’i. Also playing seven teams with non-winning records won’t win any points with me. 
If it wasn’t for the Red River Shootout against Oklahoma, this schedule would have been a complete joke. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a thousand times better than the Mid-Majors’ schedules, but to only play three ranked teams the entire season isn’t very good. To top that off, only one of them finished with more than nine wins, and Oklahoma was blown out in the BCS national championship game. The second best regular season game was against Texas Tech, which won eight games. 
So now that the SEC fans are laughing at the rest of the BCS teams, here it goes. In 2003, LSU won the BCS national championship, but didn’t have to work that hard to get there. It was a down year in the SEC, and LSU jumped at the opportunity. The first three wins were near automatic, and outside of the Georgia game, any good team should beat all of the remaining opponents. I know there are three games against top-10 opponents, but the two wins against Georgia is a glaring smudge on LSU’s credibility. This schedule is much less spectacular than the SEC fans want to think.
Now, for the top five easiest schedules among BCS bowl teams from 2003-2007...
I do love Kansas State. They usually follow right along with the other Big XII folks by telling I-AA “Come on down! We’ll give you lots of money to lose to us!” I know KSU played mostly teams with winning records, but when you have those two glaring I-AAs on there, you can’t expect to be taken seriously. The only reason this isn’t the clear-cut most horrible schedule is due to the two top-ten teams played late in 2003. 
It must be a Kansas thing. Right on the heels of its state rival, the Jayhawks could sum up the 2007 schedule as nothing less than The Mediocre Express. I’ve never seen so many teams hovering around .500 in my life. Throw in Florida International—the Panthers won their last game of the year over North Texas to avoid going winless—and this schedule has a hard time using Missouri and Virginia Tech to compensate for the top 11 teams. 
If I were to actually rank these schedules, I think this one would go right to the top. When the best team played is only ranked No. 25 at the end of the year, you’re in trouble. Utah’s 2004 schedule featured no teams with 10 wins or more. That’s rough, especially since the Ute’s BCS opponent lost four games. There’s not much more to say about this one. It’s pretty clear cut. 
On the flip side, however, look at Pittsburgh’s 2004 schedule. Playing in a Virginia Tech and Miami-less Big East really killed all possible chances for this schedule to be considered tough. But then again, if those two were still in the league, Pitt wouldn’t have won the conference. Boston College was the best team on the schedule until the bowl, and the only other team to win more than nine games was I-AA Furman. The I-AAs strike again!
Hawaii was a good team in 2007, but its schedule cloaked the fact that the Warriors were still a far way off from competing at the BCS level. I’m still not really sure how people (I’ll admit it, I thought they had a change against Georgia) just looked past Hawaii’s schedule. I mean, for God’s sake people, more teams lost 10 games than won ten games. A MAC team could have gone undefeated playing Hawaii’s 2007 schedule.
Check out Schedules, Part 4, which should be out by next week. In that, I’ll go over which premier games I’m looking forward to in the next five seasons. Hope you enjoyed the “bests and worsts” of BCS bowl team schedules. Well, actually I don't really care if you enjoyed it. But thanks for reading anyway.
Look, it’s not that bad. This is hardly a killer class, but what did you expect? There were three—3—classes in Scout.com’s top 25, and three—3—in Rivals.com’s top 25 for 2008, which signed fewer than 20 players. Ohio State, USC and Washington (Rivals.com only) and Pittsburgh (Scout.com only) all signed 19. 
In the Scout.com rankings, PSU is an underachieving No. 41, but is that really lower than it should be? Outside of the top 25, No. 35 Tennessee and No. 30 North Carolina both signed 18. No. 43 Stanford is the only other top-50 class—excluding PSU—to sign 18 or fewer to its 2008 class. Just to put that into perspective, PSU signed 14 players. The next highest class, after PSU, to sign fewer than 18 is Texas Tech (15 signed), at No. 59.
And what about Rivals.com’s rankings? Not far off, as they ranked PSU No. 42, tied with Texas Tech. As for teams in the No. 26-50 range signing fewer than 20 players, Rivals.com has No. 29 Pitt, No. 32 Maryland, No. 34 UNC, No. 36 Tennessee, and No. 50 Stanford, which signed the lowest (17 signed) next to PSU and TTU.
I don’t want to hear it, that PSU is now on the same level as Texas Tech. That’s just not true. Had PSU been able to hand out more scholarships in 2008, you bet your ass that the class would have been better. What was PSU supposed to do, put all its efforts into signing four and five-star players and forget about the threes and twos? That’s just not good recruiting. Just to remind people, Jordan Norwood was a one-star, Deon Butler a two-star, Paul Pozluszny a three-star, Tony Hunt a three-star. For some weird reason, PSU is actually good at developing lower-ranked recruits into top-notch players. Too bad they can’t develop those blue-chippers more often.
Yes, a new season is beginning, and SI.com's resident overlord of college football has bestowed his wisdom onto us once again. In his early preseason top-10, he is not that far off:
Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, USC, Missouri, West Virginia, Florida, Kansas, LSU and Wisconsin.They all have good chances to reach or remain in the top-10 come August. I have no beef with Mandel on that. But, then take a look at his teams on the cusp. Remember, this is the TOP-10 we're talking about:
Auburn, Clemson, Illinois, Texas Tech and Pittsburgh.Yes, you read that correctly, PITTSBURGH. My oh my how the world changes. Not too long ago, Penn State was mired in the worst stretch of football in its history, while Pitt was playing in the Fiesta Bowl. Then the tables turned, with the Nittany Lions roaring towards an Orange Bowl victory, while Pitt was struggling to win five games. Now, things are finally evening out. Sure, Pitt is on the rise with guys like Pat Bostick and LeSean McCoy, but are they really a top-10 possibility? Are they, in the warped mind of Mandel, better than Penn State right now? Let's find out, shall we? (Try opening the stats in a new window for size's sake)
Probably the most telling stat is the number of returning starters on both teams. Had there been fewer starters coming back, most of the statistics would have been useless; if a team is senior-laden, the following season is usually very different, statistically. But in this case, both squads return key players on both sides of the ball, which means each team should improve next season.
PSU is sucking right now. If there was one thing they had to do, it was protect the football. They haven't, mainly Scott. If PSU wants to contend this year, fumbling the ball will not get them there. It's too bad I can't watch the game. Actually, I'm not sure it would be much better. There's no excuse for this performance so far. Kinlaw has been a nice surprise. 3-3.
Also, watching the MSU/Pitt game. Dave Pasch and Andre Ware don't exactly make a dynamic team. Pasch just said "there's no dominant team in the Big Ten." Bullshit! I know, I try not to curse here. But that was bad. Just because UM sucks, does NOT mean there's not dominant team. If they need a good broadcaster, I'm free next weekend.
OK, so PSU scored since I started writing this. Pass to Quarless. Paterno knows when it's time to forget about punishments and go to the play makers. 10-3 PSU.
© Blogger template 'Grease' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008 - Edited by Mike 2 for Zombie Nation
Back to TOP
