Book Report: Death to the BCS

I just finished Death to the BCS by Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter, and Jeff Pasan and--spoiler alert!--it was awesome.

I thought that I hated the BCS and had a lot of reasons to back it up; then I read this book and discovered I needed to hate the BCS waaayyyy more than I already did.

The way this book is written can be a little unpolished and repetitive at times, but that doesn't really matter in light of the fact that it does exactly what it sets out to do. It presents an argument (the BCS is a terrible way to run college football; a playoff would be better in every conceivable aspect). Then it devotes each chapter to a different pillar of the argument and backs up each point with clear evidence. The authors don't just say "a playoff would make more money." They interviewed television executives and scholars of sports broadcasting/marketing so they could come up with an educated estimate of how much more money a playoff would make.

Here's an excerpt from what I think is the book's strongest section, about how the BCS and the bowl system actually drain money from the teams they are supposed to support:

The University of Florida's appearance in the 2009 BCS title game came with an advertised payout of $17.5 million. That may have sounded good. It's actually a case study in how the Cartel [the group conference commissioners and other semi-shadowy figures that run the BCS] plays financial three-card monte to make the bowls look better. The SEC took the money, along with the payouts from seven other bowls in which conference teams participated. It then divided that money up thirteen ways (one for each of the league's twelve teams and one for the conference office). It also provided extra to Florida since it reached the title game, giving the Gators a total payout of $2.467 million.

Between coaches' bonuses ($960,000), travel costs ($681,000), tickets ($320,000), band and cheerleaders ($190,000), and other expense, the total to travel across the state to Miami Gardens was $2.42 million, according to a South Florida Sun-Sentinel report. For winning the BCS championship game, Florida made $47,000.

. . . No college football team, let alone one the stature of FLorida, would ever play a regular-season game for $47,000. Gators home games gross an estimated $5 million. In 2009, Florida paid lowly Charleston Southern $450,000--or nearly ten times what it made on the BCS title game--to play in Gainesville. . . . When your team deserves at least $2.3 million and winds up with about $47,000, you lost money. Like $2.253 million of it.

Part of the reason that a national championship team effectively brings in so little money is that most bowls cost more to participate in than they pay out. Even though almost all bowls are organized as not-for-profit organizations, lower-level bowls in particular squeeze as much money from the teams that play in them as they can, making them pay for tickets that may go unsold and in some cases, inviting the team that agrees to take the smallest payout.

As the authors point out, the difference between the amount of money that college football brings in is no joke. A football program can fund an athletic program, which can help fund a university. If the football program instead drains money from an athletic program, then the athletic department may have to lean on funds from the university, and when a public university doesn't have enough money, it has to increase tuition and, in all likelihood, get more from taxpayers. What's good for college football is good for education and for America. I'm not joking, not even a little.

I've only touched on one prong of the multi-faceted argument against the BCS. The other fronts on which the authors attack the system are just as well-researched and -argued. (They of course address my biggest anti-playoff propanganda pet peeve: a playoff would devalue the regular season. No, the BCS devalues the regular season by discouraging major-conference teams from playing any other major-conference teams outside of conference play.) The only major question the authors leave unanswered is how the BCS can be killed. They unfortunately offer only a very vague "maybe politicians can do it, or maybe fans will get angry enough that it will go away or something?" However, the rest of their arguments are great enough that this is still a five-star book. I kind of want to buy one to send to Bill Byrne.

Finally, the authors point out that the BCS cartel exploits the fact that, while everybody thinks the current system stinks, nobody can agree on an alternative. To combat this, the authors argue specifically for a sixteen-game playoff that involves all eleven FBS/I-A conference champions and five at-large teams (chosen by a selection committee like that which sets the NCAA basketball tournament). Before reading this book, I would have settled for an eight-team playoff or even a plus-one, but they really brought me around on the sixteen-team idea. It sounds awesome. For funsies, here's roughly how this year's bracket would look:

*I don't really know how the WAC championship works, but I used a Big Ten model and broke the three-way tie with BCS standings.

Sure, I'm looking forward to watching Oregon play Auburn, but how much more satisfying would it be if they had to battle through other powerhouses first? What if UCF knocked off Stanford and then got a crack at Wisconsin? What if the regular season ended and we didn't have to wait through five weeks of nothing to get to only one game that decides the championship? It would be great, that's what.

Death to the BCS, indeed.

This Week's Ballot

As I did last week, I decided to make a college football top 25 ballot, as if anyone had--or ever would--ask me to vote for a poll.

A brief recap of my rules: all undefeated teams get ranked higher than all one-loss teams (who get ranked higher than all two-loss teams, etc). If two teams have the same record and have played each other, the team that won head-to-head gets ranked higher (barring three-team "circle of death" situations, which have yet to matter this year). New rule this week: this week's ballot is not based on last week's. One of my biggest complaints about the real polls is their overwhelming reliance on inertia. I still have many of the same opinions, but I didn't move anybody "up" or "down" based on this week's games; I just put them where I thought they should go based on their entire body of work. I didn't even look at last week's ballot before I made this week's.

1. Oregon

They are just frighteningly good.

2. Boise State

They're very good at offense and at defense, and they've done everything they've needed to do.

3. TCU

Their offense, like Boise's, can put up big numbers on weak opponents, but their defense is even more impressive. I would love to see this team play Oregon.

4. Auburn

Fourth may seem to low for the last undefeated SEC team, but almost all of their games have still been in question going into the fourth quarter, and they have yet to be tested on the road. Out of Auburn, Oregon, Boise, and TCU, Auburn has looked the most beatable.

5. Missouri

They looked fantastic against Oklahoma on both (or, considering their kicker, all three) sides of the ball. The question has now been answered: yes, they are the real deal.

6. Utah

It's hard to defend having them lower than TCU and Boise, when their resume is similar, but at least we get to see them play TCU in two weeks and settle some questions.

7. Michigan State

After having to come from behind at Northwestern and, on reflection, struggling to beat a not-very-good Notre Dame team, MSU looks like the weakest of the undefeated teams.

8. Alabama

And maybe it's just habit, but it seems that Alabama is the strongest of the one-loss teams.

9. Wisconsin

Wisconsin has had two top-notch weeks in a row, convincingly thumping Ohio State at home and then winning a thriller at Iowa. Bret Bielema may finally have his team playing up to their potential.

10. Ohio State

Like the non-AQ teams, OSU unquestionably has the ability to throttle the life out of inferior opponents. Unfortunately, we don't get to see how they fare against a good team until they visit Iowa on November 20th.

11. Nebraska

After the (inexplicable?) loss to texas, they've gotten back on track with a win over Oklahoma State. They're no longer favorites to with the Big 12 North, but they can be again if they beat Missouri at home next week.

12. Stanford

Their only loss is to Oregon.

13. LSU

LSU is a deeply, even wildly flawed team, but it's still not easy to beat them.

14. Arizona

Beating up on the teams from Washington doesn't prove much, but their schedule is about to get more interesting.

15. Oklahoma

If the computers got to factor in margin of victory, OU wouldn't have been #1 last week. I had them pretty high because sure, their losses were close, but at least they scheduled hard. Now that they have lost a game, their fragile mystique is gone.

16. Florida State

Still a mystery to me. They're a one-loss team whose loss was to Oklahoma, so that's why they're here.

17. Oklahoma State

Very good offense (which can be shut down for at least short stretches), very little defense. I expect their loss total to go up.

18. Nevada

I really wanted to like Nevada, but I'm finally accepting that they're a bit of a sham. The one thing they've done is kill Cal, but it turns out that every time Cal goes on the road, they get killed.

19. Arkansas

There are three two-loss SEC teams, and while it's South Carolina that has the best win, Arkansas has the best losses. That's right; I'll take the team that lost to Alabama and Auburn over the team that beat Alabama and lost to Auburn and Kentucky. It's a judgment call.

20. Iowa

Despite the time-zone-influenced loss to Arizona, and the atrocious clock management against Wisconsin, I still think Iowa is very good.

21. South Carolina

I don't want to rank them (because I don't like them), but it's the responsible thing to do.

22. Virginia Tech

They keep trying to make people forget about James Madison, although it isn't easy.

23. Miami (you know which one)

I don't think Miami is great by any means, but they're decent, and their two losses are to quality teams.

24. Mississippi State

Oh, why not throw the third two-loss SEC team in here? They certainly don't put up big numbers, but they've won every game except at LSU and against Auburn. I maintain that they are scrappy.

25. East Carolina

They continue to make me smile.

The team I wanted to rank, but couldn't without breaking (or altering) my rules: Navy. I only saw bits and pieces of their game yesterday, but every time I flipped over there, they looked really good. However, they lost to Maryland, who lost to West Virginia, who lost to Syracuse, so I couldn't--within the rules as currently formulated--rank Navy without ranking those three teams in front of them.

The team I'm glad to see that professional voters ranked, but declined to rank myself: Baylor. I'm happy for them that they're bowl-eligible, that they beat K-State, and that they look to have more than a fighting chance against t.u. next week, but they got killed by TCU (as you do), and couldn't get it done against Texas Tech on a neutral field. Sorry, Baylor; maybe next week.

Things I Enjoyed Today

1. Iowa State wins in Austin for the first time ever! Longhorns, you have been Cycl-OWNED!

I watched almost all of that game, and I'll tell you this--it wasn't even close. Iowa State didn't look great, for the most part, and I kept assuming that texas would snap out of it and come back eventually, but that just never happened. Iowa State didn't have great defense, but t.u.'s was worse. ISU was a little spotty on offense, but had way more good spots than texas. They won fair and square, and it was hilarious.

2. Texas A&M beats KU handily, as they absolutely had to.

Also, I guess I should be happy that Sherman was finally willing to give backup QB Ryan Tannehill lots of meaningful snaps . . . but it was weird that he waited to pull Jerrod until Jerrod was having a good game. His plan must have been to give Tannehill practice in a game situation, but not a risky game situation, so Tannehill will be more prepared if he ever has to go in and save a game that's going badly. It was still weird, though.

3. Wisconsin is good, you guys. They really are.

Of course, it helped that Iowa completely fouled up their clock management in the last minute of the game. You can't play fast and loose with your timeouts unless you've made Les Miles' deal with the devil. Anyway, the doubts I had about Wisconsin are pretty much gone after two consecutive impressive wins. They do still need help to win the Big Ten, though.

4. Because Mark Dantonio keeps fake-punting his way into my heart.

I know that, as a Badgers fan ("fan," rounding up from "well-wisher," anyway), I need to be rooting against Michigan State, the one conference team that has beaten Wisconsin. But . . . they're just so loveable! Dantonio calls a fake punt to beat Notre Dame, then he has a heart attack which he perseveres through, and then he fake punts again today to complete the comeback against Northwestern! (And besides, they weren't going to lose to Northwestern, the Big Ten master of the choke-job, even when they did go down 17-0.)

5. Navy keeps beating Notre Dame, which is nice.

Now if they can just keep beating them consecutively until 2051, they'll finally be even with 'em. Oh, and let's not forget how fun it is to say "Ken Niumatalolo."

6. LSU is no longer undefeated!

And the world makes just a little more sense.

7. Baylor's win over K-State puts them alone at the top of the Big 12 South.

They're probably more stoked about getting bowl-eligible for the first time since 1995, but the standings thing makes me smile. (Well, the Baylor part. Can we all agree to ignore the very bottom of the division standings?)

8. And now Missouri has taken down Oklahoma!

I can't really articulate why I was rooting for Missouri there, but here are some ideas:

a. I like when OU loses.

b. Mizzou was the underdog, and I generally like underdogs.

c. I would like there to be a team in the Big 12 North who can take the division from Nebraska (I don't really harbor any ill-will toward Nebraska for leaving the conference, but I really don't want them to win it on their way out the door).

d. It's comforting that the team that beat A&M 30-9 is legitimately good.

e. As always, it's fun when there are upsets at the top of the polls. It reminds me of good ol', crazy ol' 2007.

LeachWatch 2010: Gopher Time?

Yesterday, as pretty much everyone was expecting after he lost to an injury-devasted Purdue team, Minnesota's Tim Brewster became the first coaching fire of the season. Congratulations, Tim! I really thought Mike Locksley might beat you, but you prevailed!

So now there's all-out speculation about who will be Minnesota's next coach, and where there's coaching speculation, there's Mike Leach.

He's not the first name that gets thrown out there; that's Tony Dungy. He's not biting, though. (Although, according to this damning article by Sports by Brooks, Minnesota's hack of an AD might hide behind Dungy's recommendations so he will not get fired himself.) There are more names floating around, including the coach Dungy recommended the last time Minnesota needed a head coach, Vikings' defensive coordinator Leslie Frazier. Also, there's Houston's Kevin Sumlin (who I still kind of wish A&M had hired when we finally ditched Coach Fran).

I don't know how good Leach's chances are. Do I think he'd take it if offered? Very yes. He's been asked about it, and while he was a little noncommittal, it's clear he wants to get back into coaching. (I think we all want him back in coaching, for the comedy.) Surely there will be other job openings by the end of the season, but maybe none as inviting as Minnesota. BCS conference + relatively low expectations = Leach-a-palooza!

Ultimately, I think that--as with all the other jobs Leach has been rumored to be considered for over the years--it's likelier that Leach would want Minnesota than that Minnesota would want Leach. I don't know if Leslie Frazier would be a better choice, because we already know that Head Coach Mike Leach can build a team that's greater than the sum of its parts, but he or almost anybody else on the list would be a safer choice. Minnesota students and fans might get excited about hiring college football's most famous pirate fetishist, but Minnesota brass and big-money alums? Maybe not so much.

My Ballot

As you may have heard, the first BCS standings come out tonight. As you may have guessed, no one involved with the BCS in any capacity has asked me to submit a ballot. But why not be prepared?

The Ballot I Would Submit, If Anybody Asked:

1. Boise State

2. Oregon

3. Oklahoma

4. TCU

5. Auburn

6. Utah

7. Michigan State

8. LSU

9. Missouri

10. Oklahoma State

11. Arizona

12. Alabama

13. Iowa

14. Stanford

15. Florida State

16. Wisconsin

17. Ohio State

18. Nebraska

19. West Virginia

20. Nevada

21. K-State

22. Northwestern

23. South Carolina

24. Virginia Tech

25. East Carolina

My Method:

First Principle: Ability to get into the championship game, as determined by number of losses.

Exactly one two-loss team has made it to the BCS championship game, and that was a weird, weird year (LSU, 2007). And I'm still kind of annoyed about it. So I decided to include every unbeaten and one-loss team, regardless of conference. There are only 22 of them, so I did go ahead and try to pick the best three two-loss teams to round the ballot out to 25. (That was possibly the hardest part of the whole thing; more on that later.) I realized as I was ranking the teams that, as a corollary to this principle, all unbeaten teams should be ranked ahead of all one-loss teams. This makes some parts of the poll look a little wonky (do I believe that Oke State would beat Alabama on a neutral field? Not particularly). However, all that an unbeaten team has to do at this point is win all the rest of their games; one-loss teams have to do that and root for unbeatens to lose.

Second Principle: Head-to-head matchups.

If a team has beaten another team on the ballot, they are above the team they beat, end of story. That's the one nice thing about a ballot that comes out this early--there are not yet any "circles of death" where within a group of three or four, each team has beaten one of the others and lost to another one. I know that Wisconsin might not beat Ohio State six times if they played ten times on a neutral field or whatever, but they did win the one time they did play, and that's that. (Again, later in the season, this would get more muddied due to larger bodies of work, but it's still pretty straightforward right now.)

The answer to any complicated research problem: 3X5 notecards!

Third Principle: Body of work, so far

This is where it gets really muddy and subjective. Being a fake pollster isn't easy, y'all. I'll just say this: people like to kill Boise for their weak schedule, but it hasn't gotten weak yet. The combined record of Boise State's opponents is 16-22; Oregon's is 13-23 . . . and they've played an FCS opponent (2-3 Portland State), and Boise hasn't (and won't, ever). Yes, by the end of the season, Oregon will have played higher-quality opponents than Boise gets to, but they haven't yet.

This principle would have been a lot easier if I factored in margin of victory (particularly when comparing the non-AQs), but since that's not kosher, I tried to avoid it.

Fourth Principle: so, um, who would win on a neutral field?

AKA the eyeball test. I've seen West Virginia play, and I don't feel like they'd beat most the other teams on the list. Even though this principle sounds the sketchiest, it's theoretically my favorite--if only I could watch every game. My kingdom for a DVR and a ruinously expensive cable package!

Until then, I'll take comfort in my 'cards.

Fifth Principle: Wait, all these two-loss teams suck . . .

Principles 1-4 got me through the top 22, but then I had to come up with someone, anyone, to round out the 25. And none of them look that great. I was tempted to slap all three two-loss SEC teams in there, but I worried that was the media's pro-SEC bias talking. So I took what I considered the best of the SEC teams, the best of all the others (Va Tech has actually acquitted itself very nicely since the James Madison disaster, have you noticed?), and then East Carolina because they make me smile. I know that's a terrible reason, but that's why nobody asked me to submit a ballot.

College Football: Week 6

It was a good one.

The number one story was number one ranked Alabama losing to one-loss South Carolina. And it wasn't close. South Carolina earned it. The best thing about this is that we get to stop hearing and reading ecstatic, breathless praises of how great Alabama is. I also thought they were very good, but that was getting old fast.

So our new #1 team is Ohio State (out with the old guard, in with the old guard). tOSU's win over Indiana was actually its third-biggest triumph of the weekend. Its biggest victory was South Carolina's loss, and its second-biggest victory was Penn State's loss. We all know by now that Penn State is not a good football team this year. However, it is still good on Illinois that they beat Penn State (and that they won in Happy Valley for the first time ever. As in ever), and may mean that they are not terrible, which means that Ohio State's non-blowout of them last week no longer makes tOSU look bad.

Now, as you know, I like Tony Barnhart, but he is a huge, unapologetic SEC homer. Today's evidence: his hand-wringing article "Will the SEC be shut out of the BCS championship game?" And the answer to his question is, if tOSU and Oregon keep winning, yes. And duh. Leave aside potential one-loss championship candidates--I don't think either SEC team that could finish the season undefeated (LSU or Auburn) will jump either tOSU or Oregon. Ohio State is Ohio State--maybe the only team this season with an SEC-like level of clout. (The rest of the Big Ten doesn't have it, the Big 12 South doesn't have it, even Nebraska--which we'll discuss soon--doesn't have it.) As for Oregon, they are crazy, man. That's just the kind of team you want to watch; they're so exciting. If they keep winning, the pollsters will want to see them in the title game.

It was, overall, not a great week for the Big 12. The brightest spot was Nebraska's victory over K-State, because A) people got to see it (since it was nationally broadcast on a Thursday night) and B) they, and specifically their freshman QB Taylor Martinez, looked wicked good. When you start getting tagged as Denard Robinson-esque, and your team can play defense, you're in a good place.

But let us not forget the Aggie loss to Arkansas. OK, here's the thing: that was not a game I expected the Ags to win. They actually kept the score closer than I would have predicted. And the defense continued to look surprisingly good. However. With the troubles that the defense gave Ryan Mallett, just imagine how easy it would have been for the Ags to pull the upset, if only the offense had shown up. I'm glad that this wasn't another five-turnover game, but Jerrod and the Jerrodettes did not do their job. I don't get this team.

It's a good thing for Texas Tech that they beat Baylor, because (as Angela pointed out) Iowa State didn't do anything to help Tech's dignity. I know Utah is good, but giving up 68 points (at home, no less)? What are you doing, Iowa State? What are you doing?

In Big Ten news, Wisconsin continued to keep Paul Bunyan's axe by stepping on Minnesota's throat. Much has been made of the fact that Tim Brewster got all snippy about Bret Bielema going for a two-point conversion when Wisconsin was already up by 25 points. Bielema has been criticized for his explanation that "the card" that tells you when to go for two told him to go for it. Much derision has been heaped on "the card." I seem to be the only person who remembers that this happened before, to card-owner Dennis Franchione. Apparently it's a thing college coaches do, and for reasons unknown to all of us who don't get paid millions of dollars, they think they should go for two when already winning by a whole lot.

Elsewhere:

Les Miles got super, super lucky again. Again. The unlikeliest thing: think of how a football is shaped. Then think about how likely it is that it would happen to land on a part of its surface that would cause it to bounce up perfectly, like a basketball. Not. Very. Likely.

Florida State murdered Miami. The ACC continues to perplex and confound. We should really just quarantine those guys so their games won't wreak havoc on everybody else's strengths of schedule.

Say what you will, but Auburn keeps winning. I don't know how comfortable I am with Auburn being good (mostly because I have Opinions about Gene Chizik). I do like this quote from their (very good) quarterback, though: "You can't go to Walmart and buy team chemisty." And even if you could, how would you figure out which aisle it was on?

Michigan State OF COURSE beat Michigan. Michigan was favored by Vegas to win that game, which just goes to show you that Vegas doesn't know everything.

Notre Dame beat Pittsburgh, for whatever that's worth. (Read: not much.) In related news, Kirk Herbstreit said on GameDay that he now expects Notre Dame (current record: 3-3) to go 9-3 on the season. To that I say, calm down, Herbie. Calm down.

0-5 New Mexico played 0-4 New Mexico State and one of them managed to win. I suppose that should be obvious, but I thought I should point it out just in case. They're both quite, quite bad. (But now 0-6 New Mexico is worse.)

In a less-sad (but still by no means gleeful) matchup, Georgia finally won a conference game by mercilessly smothering Tennessee. It's going to be a long season in Knoxville. And already has been, really.

Finally, besides there being postseason baseball in town (so I am told), the DFW area also hosted five college football games on Saturday. One crazy dude and his friend went to all of them. Even though he takes shots at Aggie fans, I'm still going to label that awesome.

Texas A&M: Rest-of-the-Season Outlook

Um.

Well . . .

Hmm.

Let's start here: I believed in my heart of hearts that A&M was going to beat Oklahoma State. That first half, where A&M looked good on both sides of the ball and Oke State's offense looked like it had been wildly oversold, was what I truly thought--despite trying to keep my expectations realistic--that game was going to look like.

Then the second half . . . I can't call it "a nightmare" because A&M managed to come back after all should have been lost. I can't say that it lived down to my worst expectations, because I never expected, not even after the FIU game, that Jerrod would be this team's problem.

That's where we need to go next: Jerrod Johnson. After watching the OSU game, I now have to retract all the things I said about him being the Big 12's elite quarterback. I think he's a very good QB, but he not a great QB. I don't know if it's his shoulder, or his shoulder affecting his confidence, or what, but a great quarterback doesn't throw eight interceptions in two games. Even more so, a great quarterback doesn't allow a ball to just fall out of his hand where the other team can pick it up. It's hard to emphasize how disgusted I was with that fumble. He wasn't even touched. He just fumbled it.

Jerrod did some great stuff in that game and he did some horrible stuff. Now, the offensive line could have played better, and the defense clearly dropped off quite a bit in the second half. But Jerrod pretty much lost the game. The one person who, coming into the season, looked like the most promising thing about the entire team, now looks to be its biggest liability.

Do you want some good news? That's super easy: coming into this season, I believed that this had to be the year if the Ags wanted to win the division. There were two reasons: that OU and t.u. were going to have down years, and that Jerrod is a senior. Now, since most of the team is looking good and is still, for the most part, very young, it looks like the team ought to be better next year. I'm not saying that Jerrod isn't going to be a loss, but if Ryan Tannehill can do 75% of the good that Jerrod does without the bad that Jerrod has done in the last two games, the Ags would be in good shape. The t.u./OU rebuilding thing is still a concern, but I feel pretty good going forward with a team with several promising players on both sides of the ball and, of course, a coach that might actually know what he's doing.

Oh, were you looking for good news that amounted to something other than "wait 'til next year"? (I don't blame you.) Here's what I've come up with: maybe Oklahoma State is really good. And maybe the Ags will eliminate some of the mistakes. That first half, and flashes of goodness in the second half, make me think that this team could beat anybody left on the schedule. They don't have the ability to run the rest of the table, certainly, but each game is a possible win.

I truly believe that, in my heart of hearts.

Although we know how that can go.

The remaining schedule

10/9, vs. Arkansas: Toughest game on the slate. I think I just lied a few paragraphs ago, because I find it hard to imagine the Ags winning this one, if only because Arky has had a week off (to brood over their loss to Alabama and get super-ready to take it out of somebody). But who knows? I just want the Ags to look OK on TV, basically. Loss.

10/16, Missouri: Mizzou looks pretty similar to A&M so far. They've beaten up a couple weak teams, but almost lost to another weak team. They beat Illinois, but not as badly as they should have. The Ags have home field advantage, but on the other hand, it's going to be shown on TV. It's probably either my hopeless optimism or my contempt for the Big 12 North, but I like the Ags in this one. Win.

10/23, at Kansas: A&M lost last year to Colorado, which was an inferior team. That's the only reason why I might worry about this game against the worst team in the conference. I can't let that worry guide this pick, though. Win.

10/30, Texas Tech: Well, I don't think Tech is very good, do you? Win.

11/6, Oklahoma: This is one of the games I was thinking of, where the Ags could win (with excellent execution, luck, and opponent complacency). And yet, loss.

11/13, at Baylor: If you think I've been too big a Pollyanna in this post, try this prediction on for size: Baylor's not bad this year. They've got a good, exciting quarterback. They might have enough fans show up to the game, for once, so that Floyd Casey Stadium is not Kyle Field North. To top it off, the Ags have been terrible in November for years. Loss.

11/20, Nebraska: I guess Nebraska is pretty good, although it's hard to say since they haven't played anybody. Probably a loss.

11/25, at t.u.: Ew, I don't like that five-day turnaround. (The 'horns technically have one, too, but they'll be playing Florida Atlantic while the Ags take on Nebraska.) But over the last six years except for 2008, the Ags have either beaten t.u. or made them work much harder than expected for a win. This year, they really aren't that good and, if I'm right (as I hope I'm not) about the previous three weeks, the Ags will really need a win here. So, what the hey, win.

That would make the Aggies 7-5 on the season, which will be a disappointment but (depending on how the losses look) not grounds for firing Sherman. I'm still hoping they scrape up eight, but I was kind of counting on them beating Oke State.

Some Things I Think about This Week's AP Poll

For reference, here it is.

1. LSU didn't move down?!? At all?!? I don't know why they aren't being punished for having the worst coach in college football.

2. Oregon leapfrogged Boise, which I suppose was inevitable. When that will happen in the coaches' poll, I wonder? I hope this means they'll be able to move past Ohio State if Oregon keeps looking awesome and OSU keeps looking pretty good.

3. There are three non-AQ teams in the top ten. The people who give out BCS bowl bids must be incredibly relieved that Utah and TCU play each other.

4. Notable fall-outs: t.u., USC, and Penn State. Good thing, too, since none of those teams is particularly good at football.

5. When will Michigan hurry up and lose already so we can stop pretending they're a ranking-worthy team? Oh wait, they play Michigan State next week. That should do it.

6. Oke State is in at #22. Beating the Aggies is good enough to get a team ranked! Fig leaf of dignity!!

7. And rounding out the last three spots, we've got Florida State (got beat down by OU), Missouri (almost lost to San Diego State), and Air Force (barely got beat by OU, woo!). Yeah, they totally ran out of good teams to rank.

Get Excited!

Next weekend looks to be a good one in college football, so I put together viewing recommendations. You're welcome!

Thursday, 6:30 CDT, ESPN (and ESPN 3, for those without cable and with the right internet provider): Texas A&M at Oklahoma State

The Aggies are finally televised, you guys! (Of course, we know how badly that has gone in recent history, but I'm stubbornly excited anyway.) Both of these teams have been tough to figure out. Each one has a potentially explosive offense, but each also has had a too-close win over a poor opponent. This game is important not just for both teams, but for the Big 12 South as a whole. As I will gleefully expand upon below, the division's pecking order is more uncertain than usual. The winner of this game will become the best darkhorse candidate to go to the conference championship game.

I still like the Ags in this one. My hope is that the offense will recovery from the temporary insanity displayed in the FIU game, and I have an unaccustomed faith in the A&M defense.

Saturday, 11:00 AM CDT, ESPN2: Miami at Clemson

By default, the most interesting morning game is between teams that are, by default, two of the favorites to win the ACC. (My personal favorite, NC State, plays an intriguing game against Va Tech in the afternoon.)

2:30 PM CDT, ABC/ESPN (depending on region): texas vs. Oklahoma

It's the Red River Shootout, suckas! Which of these teams is better? Is either really good? One of these questions will be answered on Saturday. The second question will remain open, because we'll be watching a one-loss team (that lost to UCLA--and pray remember that K-State beat them) playing an undefeated team with exactly one impressive win. The winner of this game will still be the favorite to win the Big 12 South, but unless that team does well in the eyeball test, will not be the favorite to win the Big 12.

Now, the mirror game (ABC/ESPN, depending on region) is Wisconsin-Michigan State, which will go a long way to showing how good Wisconsin is. As a UW fan, I'm bracing myself for a loss.

7:00 PM CDT, ABC: Stanford at Oregon

The more obvious answer at 7:00 may be Florida at Alabama on CBS, but I expect that to be a much less interesting game. Alabama ought to take care of business against Florida. Meanwhile, with Stanford and Oregon, who knows? They're two teams that are better than almost anybody thought they'd be, they have very different styles, and the Pac-10 championship may well be on the line. I predict craziness.

Post-Mortem: Texas A&M vs. Florida International

One of the many articles I read about last Saturday's Aggie game included the observation that "Aggie fans [are] seemingly in a perpetual state of angst about football." Now, while that sentence is a little rich from someone who covers life-or-death Cornhusker football, I'm not going to argue with it. I know I'm perpetually angsty about Aggie football. So about Saturday . . .

Glass Half Full (GHF): Hey, they won, right? 3-0, right on schedule.

Glass Half Empty (GHE): Why, WHY did Texas A&M ever get down 20-6 to a team that's only played Division 1 football for five years?!?

There's one easy answer to this, although there are two ways to put it. The nice way is "turnovers." The mean way is "Jerrod sucked."

Let's look at ESPN's handy scoring summary:

Now with my handy annotations:

I have not turned on Jerrod. However, it's impossible to put a positive spin on an 11-completion (out of 31 passes), six sack, 1 TD/4INT outing.

I forgive you, sweetie. I forgive you.

GHF: Jerrod just had a bad game. That happens to everybody sometimes, right? From the same article I quoted at top: '"I was trying to do too much,'' Johnson said. "I don't really know what I was doing."' He was just in a bad head space--nothing permanent.

GHE: That quote is followed by, "Wow! That's not what you want to hear from a fifth-year senior who is in his third year as a starter" and preceded by, "So much for the Heisman Trophy talk." Maybe Jerrod is not who we thought he was. Or maybe he's not who he actually was last year--it can't be a good sign that he threw half the number of interceptions he threw all of last year in one quarter last week. Maybe, despite what he says, his shoulder isn't fully recovered from surgery.

GHF: But despite Jerrod playing so badly, the Aggies still won. The defense was genuinely good--Robert Cessna gave them an A, for goodness' sake! Check it: "A&M bailed out the offense time after time. Because of turnovers, FIU had to go only 51 yards to score its 13 points on offense, but the Golden Panthers needed 16 plays to accomplish that against the improving Aggie defense." Nice, right? (Also, Cessna clearly has a mad man-crush on Tim DeRuyter, which I find encouraging.)

GHE: Yet last season's sack leader--of the country, not the team--Von Miller hasn't recorded a sack (depending who you ask--Richard Croome credits him with one). When is his sprained ankle going to get better?

GHF: It wasn't just the defense that came through; the run game also came up big. Jerrod is not the Ags' only offensive weapon. Thanks, Christine and Cyrus!

GHE: So why didn't they turn it on until the fourth quarter? Three quarters of nightmarishly awful play will not cut it in conference play, not even against Baylor.

GHF: Theoretically, they--the entire team--will learn from that fourth quarter. In David Ubben's opinion, "The Aggies seem to know what went wrong and managed to fix it in time to salvage an ugly win. They're willing to chalk it up to a bad day when a lot went wrong and they had too many 2nd and 3rd-and-longs. But until a Thursday night date with the Cowboys on Sept. 30, they won't be able to prove it." Aggie receiver Terrance McCoy thinks the team played so badly because they were overconfident. Those first three quarters have assuredly cured them of that.

And . . . believe it or not, I'm going to end on that glass-half-full note. I won't give you the gory details, but I was pretty distraught about the Aggies' performance while the game was going on. (All right, fine. I cried some. Look, it had been a long day and I thought my team's possible at-long-last-maybe-good-season was going down the toilet.) However, after the game and after doing this post-mortem, I am, to my surprise, feeling OK (not great, but OK) about the Ags going forward.

I'm looking at the FIU game like I looked at the K-State game last year--really, really, really horrible, but with much of the horribleness caused by one-off hideous performances and some plain old bad luck. As you may recall, the Ags came back from the jaw-droppingly bad K-State loss with their first win in Lubbock since the mid-90's. I believe they can--can--come back from the FIU near-loss with a win over Oke State next Thursday.

I've still got angst, though. I'm extremely worried that I'm not worried enough.

Some Picks: CFB Week 3

How badly did I do in my picks last week? Joke answer: so badly that President Obama is considering declaring them a federal disaster area. Real answer: so badly that I got fewer points than the person who forgot to pick the first twelve games.

The real one is sadder, isn't it?

In more Real Testimonials, here's a screenshot of my early-Saturday picks:

It got a little better later in the day, but things still aren't looking good for the returning champion. I'll just have to come roaring back! COMEBACK STARTS NOW!

Kansas (+5.5) over Southern Miss

Of course, the problems are A) that I'm doubting myself left and right and B) that a lot of the teams have been giving me mixed signals. Who's going to Southern Miss? Is it the KU team that lost to a team from a Dakota, or is it the one that beat Georgia Tech? I'm picking the second one, barely, because if Turner Gill could get his team over the North Dakota State loss, he can get them to accomplish this, too.

Probably.

North Carolina (-1.5) over Georgia Tech

I was all set to pick Georgia Tech, but then I started my little write-up in defense of it and realized I didn't believe myself. UNC has lost an assistant coach since they played LSU close, but they're gaining back at least one of their players. And it's at home. It looks like things are going to get worse for UNC before they get better, but I think they've still got some fight left in them.

Probably.

(OK, I'll stop.)

Maryland (+10) over West Virginia

I think West Virginia stinks, so Maryland should at least give them a close game.

Kansas State (-4) over Iowa State

Farmageddon! (No, they really call it that.) In the opening game of Big 12 conference play, I'll take the team that's won twice this season.

Georgia (-2.5) over Arkansas

Make that 12th-ranked Arkansas. But I don't think they'll hang onto that ranking after visiting the Bulldogs.

East Carolina (+19.5) over Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech: now there's a team that might not have fight left in them. It's good that they actually got a whole week off between games this time, but Ruffin McNeil's squad has the goods to keep it closer than three touchdowns.

BYU (+9) over Florida State

In a battle of confusing 1-1 teams, I feel like I should like the home team, but I don't.

Hawaii (+11) over Colorado

Hawaii played much better than expected against USC and Army; meanwhile, Colorado continues to be coached by Dan Hawkins.

Oklahoma (-17) over Air Force

OU's pantsing of Florida State has temporarily silenced this critic. Landry Jones is apparently good at passing the football and stuff.

USC (-12.5) over Minnesota

Both teams have underachieved, but Minnesota's expectations were already very, very low.

Wisconsin (-14) over Arizona State

The Badgers have had sloppy play at times, but they're a good football team. I doubt Arizona State is.

Nebraska (-3) over Washington

I can't see the Huskers losing this game (despite the travel/time zone difference), and I doubt they'd win by just one or two.

Florida (-14) over Tennessee

Well, when I said Florida would be in trouble in conference play, I didn't mean this game specifically. (Or the Vandy game. Or the Kentucky game. And we all know that South Carolina is prone to late-season swoons. So, basically, Florida should cruise to the conference championship game. But boy then they'll be in trouble.) As in last week's UT game (one that I picked correctly), there just couldn't be a spread high enough for me to pick them. Sorry, Mr. Football Gal.

TCU (-21.5) over Baylor

I do think Baylor is better than usual this year, but I have a rule that has in the past served me well when doing college picks: when picking games where a non-AQ team is involved and is favored, always take the over. When a team isn't in a BCS conference but wants to get to a BCS bowl, they can't just win their games, they have to throttle their opponents. Look for TCU to do so to Baylor.

Louisville (+19.5) over Oregon State

Because the universe hates Boise State.

Missouri (-14) over San Diego State

Yeah, I feel pretty good about this one.

Oklahoma State (-7) over Tulsa

After Oke State's too-close win over Troy last week, I do not feel that good about this one. What's your deal, Oke State?

Clemson (+7) over Auburn

It's the stank of the ACC vs. the stank of Gene Chizik. This is my "I know it's wrong, but I'm going with it" pick of the week, because I know in my heart that Auburn's poor choice of coach will win out eventually, even while I realize it probably won't be this week.

Mississippi State (+8) over LSU

I think I'm just going to keep picking against LSU. In my defense, Mississippi State is scrappy.

Texas A&M (off) over Florida International

And once it's over, the Aggies will finally start playing games that might be worth broadcasting!

Michigan State (-3.5) over Notre Dame

I don't know anything about MSU yet, but they're at home and Notre Dame still has some work to do, so why not?

Texas Tech (+3) over texas

I know I'm going out on a limb, but hear me out: Lubbock is a tough place to play. The 'Horns have shown some weakness so far. And can't you just see Tommy Tuberville all over ESPN, etc. on Monday, getting lauded for his first big upset at Tech? Can't you just see it? I can.

Iowa (-1.5) over Arizona

I think Iowa is a very good team this year.

Houston (-3) over UCLA

And it shouldn't even be close. I wonder how long Rick Neuheisel will have that job. 'Til December?

Last week's record: 10-15-1

Season so far: 20-31-2

College Football: Week 2

There's lots to say about the most recent weekend of college football, but let's see if I can round this up in three main points.

The ACC and the Terrible Horrible No Good Very Bad Saturday

In the preseason coaches' poll, Florida State was ranked #20. On Saturday, they lost to Oklahoma (a team that struggled against Utah State--not Utah, Utah State--in Week 1) by a score of 47-17. And seven of FSU's points came in garbage time. They are now "receiving votes" in the polls.

In preseason, North Carolina was ranked #18, and it seemed like this might really be Butch Davis's year. UNC is now under very serious investigation by the NCAA, and it might really be Butch Davis's year to get fired. They're 0-1 and receiving fewer votes than FSU.

In preseason, Georgia Tech was ranked #17. Then they got beaten by a KU team that had opened the season getting beaten by a team from a Dakota. They're now receiving three more votes than UNC.

In preseason, Miami was ranked #13. They just got beaten by Ohio State, although to be fair, OSU is regarded as the second-best team in the country, and Miami was expected to lose. They probably weren't expected to have their QB throw four interceptions or to score over half their points on kick returns, though. They've only dropped to #17.

In preseason, Virginia Tech was ranked #6. In Week 1, they lost a great game to Boise State, which dropped them a bit, but hey, Boise State is good. This week, they lost to James Madison, an FCS team, and became only the second ranked team ever to lose to an opponent from that level (the first was of course Michigan losing to Appalachian State in 2007). It's an utter disaster for A) Virginia Tech, which is now 0-2 to start the season and totally embarrassed B) the ACC, which has seen its most likely national title contender go down in flames and C) Boise State, whose supposed "quality" win might now count for very little. Virginia Tech is now receiving exactly four votes in the coaches' poll (none in the AP), and keep in mind that Frank Beamer gets to vote and may well have put his team at #22 on his ballot.

I'm not even joking. I sincerely think that's what happened.

"Monster" Saturday: the Wrong Kind of Monster

ESPN promoted Saturday heavily as a day of clashes between titans (and presumably, good, close games). But Florida State got stomped by Oklahoma. Miami-Ohio State wasn't as close as the final score would make you think. Alabama throttled Penn State and perhaps would have throttled harder if not for Nick Saban's respect for Joe Pa. In other blowout news, I was pleasantly surprised when Tennessee and Oregon were tied at the end of the first half, and then unpleasantly unsurprised when UT did nothing in the second half, unless you count allowing Oregon to score 35 points "something." (Fun* fact: Oregon has scored 120 points in 120 minutes of play.)

*Fun, depending whether your team of choice plays Oregon or not.

On the other hand, there were plenty of games that should have been blow-outs that were not. I already told you my feelings about West Virginia's near-loss to Marshall, so suffice it to say it's ridiculous that they climbed a spot in both polls, regardless of who else lost this week. Florida's final score against South Florida looks OK, but they looked bad in the first half. Conference play will not be kind. Similarly, Wisconsin's victory margin over San Jose State doesn't seem too bad, but the Badgers had some sloppy play that would not go unpunished in Big Ten games.

This was another week with two FCS upsets over BCS-conference opponents, for besides the James Madison takedown of Va Tech, Minnesota managed to lose to a team from a Dakota. This is the second time Tim Brewster has done that, so don't expect him to keep his job for long. Oh, and speaking of coaches who will soon be fired, with a 52-7 (fifty-two to seven!) loss to Cal, Dan Hawkins. Per usual.

How 'bout them Aggies?

Apparently, the Ags started sloppy, but I'm not going to complain about a score of 48-16. (If I were going to complain, I'd ask why La Tech scored double digits, or why the Ags turned it over so many times, but I'm not going to.)

And in an interesting development, as Stuart Mandel has pointed out, Arkansas is now WILDLY overrated. They've beaten Tennessee Tech and Louisiana-Monroe by 41 and 24, which is absolutely nothing to get excited about, considering it was Tennessee Tech and Louisiana-Monroe. Considering their mediocre performance last year, rankings in the low teens are just stupid. It's really too bad they play Georgia and Alabama before they play the Aggies, because if you lose to a highly ranked team, oh well, they were highly ranked. If you beat them, which is easier if they shouldn't be ranked, it gets you ranked. Hopefully, enough luster will stay on Arkansas through Week 5 that the Ags can benefit from it.

LeachWatch 2010: Mike Leach, Analyst

As I warned you, Mike Leach made his broadcast debut on Saturday--although I thought for some reason he'd be a pre-game studio analyst, he actually gave color commentary throughout the NC State-UCF game. Unfortunately, I didn't get to watch the whole game (it's kind of hard to justify keeping the TV on the UCF game when you've invited people over to watch Alabama-Penn State), but the parts I saw were pretty great.

Here's the thing: he didn't say anything particularly crazy. Really, he gave some pretty good insights. But he says fairly normal, intelligent things while sounding like he's drunk and looking like he's blind. (I hate to make it sound like I'm ragging on the blind here. That's not my intention. It's just that, instead of looking at the camera or his broadcast partner, Leach consistently looked at nothing. Nothing at all.)

For posterity, I'll post a screencap of the tweets I tweeted re: Mike Leach (and also one about my picks this week which, believe me, I'll elaborate on later.)

I will also refer you to this nice write-up from Sports by Brooks, which also includes a highlight video. Again, it's certainly not wacky, laugh-a-minute stuff, but it is authentic, unmistakeable Mike Leach.

Thoughts On: West Virginia at Marshall

By way of breaking in my brand new cable, I watched the West Virginia-Marshall game tonight. I didn't expect to enjoy it as much more than background noise, but it sucked me in. I can't resist a scrappy underdog.

For those of you who didn't watch the game, the final score (West Virginia 24, Marshall 21 in OT) belies just how much Marshall dominated their in-state rivals. Well, not rivals since (as the announcers told us somewhere between 13 and 400,000 times) they've played 10 times and Marshall has never won. But you know what I mean.

The weird thing was that when I say Marshall dominated West Virginia, I mean they physically dominated them. The Mountaineer offensive line kept getting ploughed over by the Herd's defensive line. For three quarters, West Virginia looked totally inept.

Unfortunately, by the fourth quarter, Marshall was just plain tired. They got up to a 21-6 lead, but that's not enough for a rebuilding C-USA team to be safe against a fairly consistently successful BCS conference team. A team with smaller, less talented recruits; lower-paid coaches; and shabbier facilities can fight just as hard as a team with all the advatages, but it's hard to keep it up for four quarters.

This is why we should cherish college football upsets. My heart broke a little when I watched a team and a school get tantalizingly close to a landmark victory and then watch that lovely dream disappear. I guess this near-miss will make them appreciate victory over West Virginia even more when it finally does happen . . . although that's probably not much of a silver lining for them right now.

In other Marshall news, their coach is named Doc Holliday. And that's a victory for everyone.

Oh, and in other West Virginia news, they looked awful (except for their one good running back, Noel Devine). Dear poll-voters: do not keep them ranked. There's no way they're one of the 25 best teams in the country.

Some Picks: CFB Week 2

Again picking against the spread because it's more fun; again using Yahoo's numbers. I'm also relying on the Yahoo picks contest for the slate. My contest commissioner chose Yahoo standard + Big 12, since we're all a bunch of Kansans. Home team in italics.

Duke (+5.5) over Wake Forest

Look, I don't know anything about the ACC except that Duke is even more terrible than the rest of them, but I like their coach, David Cutcliffe. (This is the first of this week's "Why not?" picks.)

Georgia Tech (-14) over Kansas

After last week's performance by KU, this point spread could be 35 and I'd still take Georgia Tech.

Georgia (+3) over South Carolina

South Carolina under Steve Spurrier disappoints every year. Every year. (I know the same applies to Georgia under Mark Richt, but to a lesser extent.)

Army (-2.5) over Hawaii

It'll be hard for Hawaii's players to pull it out, considering the jet lag.

South Florida (+15.5) over Florida

I know, I know--I'm buying too much into Florida's Keystone Kops-like performance in Week 1. But I'm not picking USF to win, just to beat the spread. Although it would be hilarious if they also won.

Nebraska (-28.5) over Idaho

I picked Nebraska not to overcome the spread against Western Kentucky, since I have little faith in the Huskers' offense. I'm not making that mistake in any more of their games against The Weak Sisters of the Poor.

Florida State (+7.5) over Oklahoma

Sure, Florida State has a new coach, but I don't think Oklahoma has the chops this season. Even if Oklahoma's home field magic holds up, I could see FSU playing them close.

Iowa State (+13.5) over Iowa

Again, I'm picturing this as a close game, not an upset. Iowa State will want this pretty bad, and Iowa isn't a scoring machine.

Miami (+9) over Ohio State

Broken record time here, but I think Miami will play them closer than that. Ohio State should win, but by more than a touchdown? I don't see it.

Cal (-9) over Colorado

I will bet against Dan Hawkins at all opportunities.

Notre Dame (-4) over Michigan

If the Fighting Brian Kellys can stop shiny new Michigan QB Denard Robinson (idea 1: hit 'im), they're set. I don't think Michigan has anything else.

BYU (+1) over Air Force

Because.

Missouri (off) over McNeese State

Because duh.

Oklahoma State (-13.5) over Troy

The Lesser Okies proved last week that they can score some points. They should do so again.

Washington (-13.5) over Syracuse

Wait, Syracuse is still in a major conference? . . . Wait, the Big East is still a "major" conference? Wonders never cease. Also, can someone explain to me why Jake Locker is a Heisman candidate? It's fine if NFL scouts want to lose their minds over some lackluster QB, just because he's big and has a strong arm. That's their business. But a college award ought to be based on college performance.

Oregon (-12) over Tennessee

This is another one where the spread just couldn't be high enough for me to pick against Oregon. This should be the week that the horrors begin for the Vols.

Vanderbilt (+9.5) over LSU

This pick is wrong. I know that. It's just that I love Robbie Caldwell (who is, by the way, on Twitter (@RobbieCaldwell, fittingly) and is adorable) and I can't stand Les Miles and I want to believe! When (and if?) Vandy gets blown out on Saturday, I will start picking their games sensibly, I promise.

Alabama (-12) over Penn State

I went back and forth on this one. On the one hand, Alabama isn't really a blow-out kind of team. Will they really beat a Big Ten opponent by two touchdowns? On the other hand, Penn State looked a little shaky against Youngstown State, which is never good. In the end, I let 'Bama's homefield advantage swing it for me.

Baylor (+16.5) over Buffalo

Baylor should really let Robert Griffin go nuts on as many teams as possible. Buffalo's a nice soft target.

Wyoming (+29.5) over texas

Wyoming played texas tough last year and, while I don't want to trivialize the death of Wyoming player Ruben Narcisse, but I feel like his teammates will play harder to honor his memory. Tragedy seems to galvanize teams.

Texas A&M (-19.5) over Louisiana Tech

If Jerrod and co. can't hang 30 or 40 points on La Tech, then they're not who I thought they were.

Kansas State (off) over Missouri State

A classic Bill Snyder matchup!

UCF (-3.5) over N. C. State

I have no strong feelings about this. (Does anyone?)

New Mexico (+24.5) over Texas Tech

Not only does Tech have a couple of kinks in their offense to work out, but New Mexico will be playing with Hurt Feelings. They should take those out on Tech (to the tune of losing by only a touchdown or two).

Ole Miss (-20.5) over Tulane

Speaking of taking out Hurt Feelings . . . .

USC (-19.5) over Virginia

Because it's Virginia.

Stanford (-6) over UCLA

If Stanford can't beat a team that K-State beat, they don't deserve to be ranked #25, that's for sure.

Record to date (in my picks contest, even though I didn't post them here): 10-15-1. (Week 1 was not good to me.)

Linktastic!

Is it the world's most incisive NFL pre-season analysis? Perhaps. It's The Onion's NFL Preview, and it's hilarious. I especially recommend the team-by-team guide.

I really wish George Lucas had let Ole Miss use Admiral Ackbar as their new Rebel mascot. That would have been delightful. Also, do you think Ackbar would have let them lose to Jacksonville State? Of course not.

Bromance: The Talk Show is coming soon to a low-rent cable station near you! I just worry that filming a show together will put a strain on their relationship.

College Football: Week 1

For the most part, Week 1 went the way Week 1 is supposed to go: cupcakes got smashed. My teams did what they needed to do: A&M crushed Stephen F. Austin 48-7 (as broken down in Robert Cessna's ever-essential grading of the Aggies), Wisconsin went to UNLV and beat them 41-21 (which would have been more lopsided if not for some opening-night mistakes by the Badgers) and Tennessee walloped Tennessee-Martin by the extremely fake-sounding score of 50-0. Oh, and Minnesota defied my expectations and did not lose to Middle Tennessee State . . . although they were trailing MTSU as late as the fourth quarter.

Some cupcakes got smashed beyond all recognition, as in Oregon's 72-0 murder of New Mexico; some cupcakes got smashed not as much as expected--both texas and especially Oklahoma turned in surprisingly small margins of victory. This increases my suspicion that they haven't reloaded as easily as the pollsters think. Florida, which apparently looked clumsy and ridiculous against Miami Ohio, also falls into this category.

There were two embarrassing upsets, one funnier than the other. The unlikeable Houston Nutt and his Ole Miss Rebels got taken down in double overtime by Jacksonville State. The nice little story you'll find in the recaps of the game: Jacksonville State's head coach was ignominiously fired as head coach of Arkansas after losing his season opener to the Citadel, a I-AA team. Now, as the coach of FCS (ex-I-AA) Jacksonville State, he embarrassed somebody else in their opener! Aww. It's the circle of life.

A bigger downer is Kansas's loss to North Dakota State, 6-3. Leaving aside how it was Turner Gill's first game as head coach and how he seems like a very nice man who wants to run a nice program . . . what a horrible game that must have been to watch. Imagine being in the stands for three or four hours and not just watching your team lose to what should have been a far inferior opponent, but only seeing three field goals scored all game. Ugh. Well, I guess everybody in Lawrence can just go back to pretending football doesn't exist.

Meanwhile, some teams played real teams this weekend. Daring!

The Big East should maybe start scheduling themselves easier games on opening weekend. After all, it's hard to keep up the facade that you deserve an automatic BCS bid when you collectively lose to Utah, Fresno State, Kentucky, and Rich Rod's Michigan team, right off the bat. (Seriously, can somebody explain to me why the Big East is a BCS conference?)

LSU managed to barely beat a severely depleted UNC (as Pat Forde dubs them, the University of Non-Compliance), because, as always, Les Miles is a bad coach. Also, those of you who watched this game, who were you rooting for? I like an underdog (and dislike Les Miles), but UNC only was one because so many of their guys are apparently rule-breakers. I don't see the feel-good story here that I'm apparently supposed to.

TCU, getting their BCS-buster-bid off to a good start, beat Oregon State (and by doing so proved what good luck it is to have Lee Corso pick against you). This is bad news for Boise State's own BCS-buster-bid, since they also play Oregon State. When you're an outsider team, your few insider opponents need to have as much luster as possible.

Of course, the weekend isn't over yet. We still get to get a glimpse of whether Tommy Tuberville can mesh with Texas Tech's players at all. And of course, the biggest game of the week doesn't happen until tomorrow, when Boise State takes on Virginia Tech. Get--or, at least in my case, continue to be--excited!

The Big Ten, Divided

OK, I lied about not having anymore off-season posts. There's more to say about the Big Ten divisions than I anticipated.

They're a little different than was speculated:

I can't say I'm a fan. I don't like that they split up the Illinois schools and Wisconsin/Minnesota, and beyond that, I just don't get it. It bothers me that Wisconsin and Michigan aren't switched--the divisions are just barely not geographically contiguous. It's the almost-but-not-quite that gets me.

Related to the not-getting why these groups make sense: what are they possibly going to call these things? They can't do directions or Lakes vs. Plains. Maybe they should keep with the conference's numbers that don't make sense policy and call them Five and Seven. Or Nine and One. Or Eighteen and Pi. Next suggestion: acronyms by state name. The one I put in yellow would be NIMM and the blue would be WIIPO! The preceding exclamation point is not a sign of enthusiasm, but rather an acknowledgement that you'd have to say WIIPO! like a happy sound effect. WIIPO!

The other dimension to this whole thing is that each school will have precisely one "protected rivalry;" a game they play each year against an opponent in the other division. Presented visually:

My first question was whether Michigan State-Indiana is a real rivalry, or whether those two are just the sad leftovers. For the answer, I turned to your friend and mine, Wikipedia. The game does have a traveling trophy, The Old Brass Spittoon. (Awesome?) That being said, there are lots of traveling trophies in the Big Ten, and judging by nothing else but the length of the Wikipedia entry, The Old Brass Spittoon is not particularly storied. However, the one I should have questioned was Iowa-Purdue. It seemed plausible to me that it was a thing, but it turns out that one has nothing to recommend it. Sorry, Iowa, Purdue, Indiana, and Michigan State--your real rivals all love somebody else more than you.

The one thing the Big Ten front office did that I can't argue with: they left the Michigan-Ohio State game in the same place on the calendar. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can avoid all of the people getting super, super angry at you. . . .Some of the time.

The Final Off-Season Post

College football starts tomorrow, you guys! Tomorrow!

Admittedly, I won't be watching any powerhouse matchups such as North Dakota at Idaho, Towson at Indiana, or perennial favorite Florida Atlantic at UAB. In all seriousness, the most interesting game on the opening night docket is Minnesota at Middle Tennessee. I stand by my prediction that Middle Tennessee will triumph.

A few more thoughts to chew on before we actually get to watch some games:

Stewart Mandel at SI wonders why Texas A&M is getting all the dark horse attention in the Big 12 instead of Texas Tech. Now, I stand by my optimism about A&M's upcoming season; however, I have to concede his point that Tommy Tuberville being better than Mike Sherman. I think the jury's still out on Sherman, but that's probably the optimism talking again.

It may be that official word on future Big Ten divisions comes down today. It will probably be stupid.

People can't stop talking about Boise State's national title merits. I still think all of the attention is going to jinx them, and they'll lose this weekend to Virginia Tech. Not because they're a worse team. Just because it's the universe's little joke to immediately make all this summer's speculation pointless.

I forgot to share this when it came out, but apparently Dan "Ten Wins and No Excuses" Hawkins (who went 3-9 last year and only avoided being fired because the University of Colorado has no money to buy out his contract) wants a contract extension. If I may share my gut reaction to this story: BWAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA [gasp] HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Finally, Jerrod Johnson isn't just probably the best quarterback in the Big 12, he's probably the best singing quarterback in the Big 12 (or perhaps all major conferences):

Dividing the Big Ten

Official word is supposed to come down in a few weeks about how the Big Ten will split into divisions come next year, when Nebraska joins and makes them the Really Big Ten. Different opinions on how this should shake out have, of course, been spouted since before Nebraska even joined, but the one thing everybody seemed to agree on was that they shouldn't split up that conference's showpiece rivals, Ohio State and Michigan.

But that's what they're (apparently) deciding to do.

Here's the Really Big Ten (map modified to include Nebraska by yours truly):

And, according to reports and rumors, here's how they want to cut it up:

I'm not a big fan, but it does have some merits. It's good that they don't split any of the pairs of schools that are in the same state. (And they don't split up the schools Wisconsin and Minnesota, which is basically the same state repeated, right next to itself.) And I suppose, although I haven't done the math, that the population breakdowns of the states that are put together aren't very disparate. (One argument for not splitting the conference east vs. west that I actually sort of buy is that the eastern states just have way more people(and therefore fans and TV sets) in them than the western states.) And there's not going to be any breakdown that satisfies everybody.

But messing with Ohio State-Michigan is really making people angry.

It's not that they won't play every year; of course they will. It's that a premium is being put on the conference championship game over all other considerations. This is short-sighted (read: dumb). They'll move the OSU-Michigan game, which has been played in the last week of the season for 75 years, up to the middle of the season. So if they meet in the championship game, it won't be two weekends in a row. They're being put in different divisions so they can meet in the championship game. The speculation is that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany is negotiating a separate TV contract for the championship game so that there will be a bigger payout if the participants are OSU and Michigan.

Here's the thing: the Big Ten is learning the wrong lessons from the Big 12. The thing they have learned that they shouldn't have: geographic splits don't work. It's true that the disparity in divisions in the Big 12 contributed to its instability--but the North wasn't always so much weaker than the South, and it wouldn't have continued forever. College football doesn't work that way. Also, if you look at the sport's undisputed most successful conference, the SEC, you see a geographic split that works just fine. That's why I still think this

would be the best way to divide the Big Ten. Nothing is permanent in college sports--except geography.

This is what the Big Ten should have learned from the Big 12 but didn't: a game does not have to directly decide the conference championship to be a Big Deal. If they left the OSU-Michigan game as it was, and left the two schools in the same division, it would be the Big Ten's Red River Shootout. It gets tense enough when the game (probably) decides the division winner. Besides, no game involving Michigan is likely to decide anything important for the foreseeable future. There's no reason to think Michigan is going anywhere under Rich Rod, and no reason to think they can't whiff again the next time they hire a coach. And if they do get back on top, it certainly isn't a given Ohio State will still be up there. By planning everything around an OSU-Michigan title game, the Big Ten brass are planning around something that may not even come to pass for years and years and years.

Like I said, short-sighted. Which is to say, dumb.