5 years ago
Friday, September 28, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
UL Vs. UK - PostGame Analysis
It would have been a much more entertaining game for me if UL had won. As an uninterested party, I would have really enjoyed it. Football weather. Under the lights (I love night games). Dance team right in front of my section. Maybe not that great in the stands. I guess I'm spoiled because my seat at Cardinal Stadium is a chairback (all the seats at Cardinal Stadium are chairbacks) which is a lot more comfortable than the metal bleachers of death at Commonwealth Stadium. Side note: I followed UL to Kansas State last year, and KSU still uses wooden bleachers which are also more comfortable than metal ones. Upkeep is probably harder is the reason people don't use them. One nice thing being in the visitor's section of Commonwealth is that they are on the end zone, and the bathrooms don't have long lines. Actually, I always find it humorous being in that section of Commonwealth. Visitors get tickets in the NW corner of the stadium, because those aren't seen as premium seats. Yet, we get the same angle view as the people who paid a lot of money to get a luxury suite since UK put those in the corners.
Unfortunately, my concern over UL's defense was greatly justified. As I mentioned in my preview, the players and coaches haven't changed much, but something is different. There has to be something in the scheme, because UL should not have dropped off this much in that area. There's little things like the defensive line shot the gaps to get penetration last year. Now, they initiate contact with the offensive line. That style can work if your linebackers are penetrating the line. It doesn't work if you don't blitz on pass plays or your back seven are routinely out of position. That's the most irritating problem with this defense - guys not seeming to know where they are supposed to be. Last week, Middle Tennessee had a 52 yard pass play because no UL defensive back went with the wide receiver who split out wide. MTSU didn't even have a passing play, but switched to one because there was no one within 30 yards of the guy. This week, UK wins the game on a 57 yard pass to a receiver who was 10 yards beyond a prevent defense. I have no idea how the Hell that could happen.
As to the rest of the game, my worst fear came through. I don't think UL's new coach, Steve Kragthorpe, is very good. To put it in perspective, I thought UK coach Rich Brooks made some stunningly bad decisions. When the option is not your base offense, you should never run it on a 4th and one because you're putting your running back too far behind the line of scrimmage. UK scored a touchdown with less than a minute left to take a five point lead. UK kicked a meaningless extra point instead of going for two for a seven point lead. I haven't seen the tape yet, but apparently UK kept switching their kickoff return men which kills consistency. Yet, even with all that, Brooks clearly outcoached Kragthorpe.
The smartest thing that Brooks did was having Andre Woodson take a three step drop and throw quickly. Since UL wasn't blitzing or trying to shoot gaps, it made for a quick play so that that UK's inexperience on the offensive line was negated. UL never adjusted their defense to that. I'm not sure they ever blitzed. For some reason, UL also kept their cornerbacks well off the receivers at the line of scrimmage (about 10 yards). UK receivers simply went downfield 8 yards and caught a pass. This means Woodson only averaged 9 yards per completion (by contrast Brian Brohm had 13) even with that 57 yard touchdown pass. In fact, outside of that pass, I'm not sure Woodson had another completion more than 15 yards. Why would he since UL was going to let him throw 7 and 8 yard passes to wide open receivers? An average quarterback could do that, so why was UL giving that opportunity to an above average one?
I might have been OK with the poor defensive coaching, because Kragthorpe's specialty is offense. Supposedly. Let's see how that went. UK gave up 124 yards to Kent State's running back last week. In the first half. UL made no real effort to establish the run. Even though Anthony Allen had two rushes that went for less than 4 yards in the first half, he only got 9 carries. UL had a 2 to 1 pass ration against a poor run defense. That's insane. Even when passing, they kept calling deep passes. To begin with, that puts your quarterback in danger because he's holding the ball too long waiting for the receiver to get separation. Secondly, it's low percentage. Add to it some really dumb decisions. Going for the touchdown on 4th and goal from the one makes sense. Going for it from the six when you're only down five with over nine minutes left is flat stupid. However, the worst was using two timeouts on UL's last touchdown and the follow up two point try. UL had a two yard run right up the gut for the touchdown and tried a fade pass for the conversion attempt. Not exactly the type plays you need to use a timeout to set up. Timeouts that would have certainly been handy when they got the ball back at the end.
Let's see how well I did on the preview. Obviously had the winner wrong. I was right when it came to my concern about coaching. As expected, both quarterbacks played well. Anthony Allen and Rafael Little actually averaged about the same yards per carry, but UK was smart enough to establish the run. What a concept. You have a good running back. Use him. I wonder if UL would have done different if Brock Bolen and Sergio Spencer had played. At receiver, Harry Douglas was clearly the best receiver on the field. Mario Urrutia was not. He doesn't drop three (at least) passes (including one on the two yard line), it's a different game. Ironically, Keenan Burton wasn't the big play receiver I feared. He did a good job moving the ball, but Steve Johnson was the big play guy (although it's easy to get open when no one actually guards you). Tough to tell on offensive line. UL's was actually fine. They gave up three sacks, but it was usually Brohm holding the ball too long. On most plays, he had all day. Woodson got the ball out so quickly, the UK line wasn't tested.
What does it mean for the future? UK should be in good shape for the rest of the year. LSU and Florida look out of reach. I guarantee that Arkansas will run the ball against UK, so that could be a problem. Georgia and South Carolina are on the road so that could be an issue. However, Mississippi State, Vandy and even Tennessee look beatable. Win those, take care of Florida Atlantic, and pull off one more upset, you've got 8 wins. As for UL, I have no idea. If I had just seen the box score of the game, I wouldn't be bothered so much. UK played well. They got turnovers while UL didn't. Turnovers are game changers. Yet, watching the game, I cannot get over how unorganized UL's team looks this year compared to last year's. The defense was actually better compared to MTSU even with the last blown coverage. Still, I don't think UK is as good as West Virginia, Rutgers or even South Florida. Hell, Cincinnati even looks tough. If UL doesn't fix some of their game management problems, they could be in trouble.
Unfortunately, my concern over UL's defense was greatly justified. As I mentioned in my preview, the players and coaches haven't changed much, but something is different. There has to be something in the scheme, because UL should not have dropped off this much in that area. There's little things like the defensive line shot the gaps to get penetration last year. Now, they initiate contact with the offensive line. That style can work if your linebackers are penetrating the line. It doesn't work if you don't blitz on pass plays or your back seven are routinely out of position. That's the most irritating problem with this defense - guys not seeming to know where they are supposed to be. Last week, Middle Tennessee had a 52 yard pass play because no UL defensive back went with the wide receiver who split out wide. MTSU didn't even have a passing play, but switched to one because there was no one within 30 yards of the guy. This week, UK wins the game on a 57 yard pass to a receiver who was 10 yards beyond a prevent defense. I have no idea how the Hell that could happen.
As to the rest of the game, my worst fear came through. I don't think UL's new coach, Steve Kragthorpe, is very good. To put it in perspective, I thought UK coach Rich Brooks made some stunningly bad decisions. When the option is not your base offense, you should never run it on a 4th and one because you're putting your running back too far behind the line of scrimmage. UK scored a touchdown with less than a minute left to take a five point lead. UK kicked a meaningless extra point instead of going for two for a seven point lead. I haven't seen the tape yet, but apparently UK kept switching their kickoff return men which kills consistency. Yet, even with all that, Brooks clearly outcoached Kragthorpe.
The smartest thing that Brooks did was having Andre Woodson take a three step drop and throw quickly. Since UL wasn't blitzing or trying to shoot gaps, it made for a quick play so that that UK's inexperience on the offensive line was negated. UL never adjusted their defense to that. I'm not sure they ever blitzed. For some reason, UL also kept their cornerbacks well off the receivers at the line of scrimmage (about 10 yards). UK receivers simply went downfield 8 yards and caught a pass. This means Woodson only averaged 9 yards per completion (by contrast Brian Brohm had 13) even with that 57 yard touchdown pass. In fact, outside of that pass, I'm not sure Woodson had another completion more than 15 yards. Why would he since UL was going to let him throw 7 and 8 yard passes to wide open receivers? An average quarterback could do that, so why was UL giving that opportunity to an above average one?
I might have been OK with the poor defensive coaching, because Kragthorpe's specialty is offense. Supposedly. Let's see how that went. UK gave up 124 yards to Kent State's running back last week. In the first half. UL made no real effort to establish the run. Even though Anthony Allen had two rushes that went for less than 4 yards in the first half, he only got 9 carries. UL had a 2 to 1 pass ration against a poor run defense. That's insane. Even when passing, they kept calling deep passes. To begin with, that puts your quarterback in danger because he's holding the ball too long waiting for the receiver to get separation. Secondly, it's low percentage. Add to it some really dumb decisions. Going for the touchdown on 4th and goal from the one makes sense. Going for it from the six when you're only down five with over nine minutes left is flat stupid. However, the worst was using two timeouts on UL's last touchdown and the follow up two point try. UL had a two yard run right up the gut for the touchdown and tried a fade pass for the conversion attempt. Not exactly the type plays you need to use a timeout to set up. Timeouts that would have certainly been handy when they got the ball back at the end.
Let's see how well I did on the preview. Obviously had the winner wrong. I was right when it came to my concern about coaching. As expected, both quarterbacks played well. Anthony Allen and Rafael Little actually averaged about the same yards per carry, but UK was smart enough to establish the run. What a concept. You have a good running back. Use him. I wonder if UL would have done different if Brock Bolen and Sergio Spencer had played. At receiver, Harry Douglas was clearly the best receiver on the field. Mario Urrutia was not. He doesn't drop three (at least) passes (including one on the two yard line), it's a different game. Ironically, Keenan Burton wasn't the big play receiver I feared. He did a good job moving the ball, but Steve Johnson was the big play guy (although it's easy to get open when no one actually guards you). Tough to tell on offensive line. UL's was actually fine. They gave up three sacks, but it was usually Brohm holding the ball too long. On most plays, he had all day. Woodson got the ball out so quickly, the UK line wasn't tested.
What does it mean for the future? UK should be in good shape for the rest of the year. LSU and Florida look out of reach. I guarantee that Arkansas will run the ball against UK, so that could be a problem. Georgia and South Carolina are on the road so that could be an issue. However, Mississippi State, Vandy and even Tennessee look beatable. Win those, take care of Florida Atlantic, and pull off one more upset, you've got 8 wins. As for UL, I have no idea. If I had just seen the box score of the game, I wouldn't be bothered so much. UK played well. They got turnovers while UL didn't. Turnovers are game changers. Yet, watching the game, I cannot get over how unorganized UL's team looks this year compared to last year's. The defense was actually better compared to MTSU even with the last blown coverage. Still, I don't think UK is as good as West Virginia, Rutgers or even South Florida. Hell, Cincinnati even looks tough. If UL doesn't fix some of their game management problems, they could be in trouble.
Friday, September 14, 2007
UL Vs. UK
Well, I guess I have to make a prediction on the UL/UK football game. Past few years it has been pretty easy as UL was clearly the more talented team. Plus, they had the edge in coaching. A lot of people (even a lot of UL fans) didn’t like Bobby Petrino because he could be an ass. I liked him because he was shark. He was there to win, and that’s what he did. Even better, when we’d lose (only 9 times in four years), he didn’t make excuses. He just fixed the problem. Unfortunately, I’m not sure the new guy has that type of killer instinct. His record indicates that he’s a good coach, but I’m not sure he has that extra edge.
And as I said, the talent level isn’t as far apart as it has been in the past, especially in the offensive backfield. Mainly because Andre Woodson got good last year. I still think Brian Brohm is better than Woodson, but it’s not like night and day as it was two years ago. Woodson actually had the higher stats last year, but that was because UK was throwing a lot. UL had 35 rushing touchdowns (57 total) which wasn’t much fewer than UK’s 43 total (31 passing, 12 rushing). Still, a hot Woodson is definitely dangerous. Running backs are pretty even, just different. For UK, Rafael Little, Tony Dixon and Alfonso Smith are good. I think the one drawback to them is they are essentially the same type of runner. With UL, they’ve got pounders in Anthony Allen and Brock Bolen, and then speed backs in Sergio Spencer and George Stripling. Ironically, it was big back Allen who ran for 275 yards this past week. After that 275 yards, I would normally give UL the edge. However, Bolen and Spencer got dinged against MTSU, and UL’s new coach is highly secretive about injuries. If they don’t play, that gives the edge to UK.
Also on offense are the receivers. Another area that UK got better at last year. Keenan Burton is a stud, while Dicky Lyons has become pretty good. For UL, Mario Urrutia is like Burton. Tall and fast. Unlike Burton, the jump ball isn’t his forte. He gets the most press because of his pro potential, but Harry Douglas is actually the best receiver out of the four. He averaged over 18 yards per reception while going for 1265 yards. He can go deep or across the middle. UK has a preseason all-SEC tight end in Jacob Tamme, but I still give UL the edge with Gary Barnidge. Last year, he was in an offense that didn’t emphasize tight ends, yet he was only one reception behind Tamme but had 125 more yards and twice as many touchdowns (4-2). Now, he’s in an offense that does go to the tight end more, and he’s got 4 touchdowns already.
Then there is the offensive line. I give a huge edge to Louisville’s offensive line. They’ve got three full time starters returned from last year’s strong offensive line. Another player was last year’s top reserve and a part time starter. They’ve allowed no sacks this year while blowing open holes so that Allen gained 275 yards. On the other side is UK’s line. It wasn’t that good last year (gave up 39 sacks). The other problem is the five combined for 16 starts before this season. However, 12 were by Garry Williams. Guard Jason Leger had three last year, but he started the season as a defensive tackle. New tackle Justin Jefferies was playing defensive line last year, and Zipp Duncan was a tight end. Starting center Eric Scott got one start last year, but the year before, he was a tight end. That’s not to say they won’t be good, because plenty of good offensive linemen started at other positions. However, getting good with such a quick change isn’t going to be easy. They’ve already given up six sacks in two games.
Now, defense has suddenly become interesting. Before the season, I would have clearly listed UL. UK had a terrible defense last year, while UL’s was their best in years. UL did lose some people (Amobi Okoye was a first round pick), but all of their starters and many of their reserves played last year. The defensive coordinator stayed, so I rationally thought defense wouldn’t be an issue. Then Middle Tenn. rolled up 555 yards on them in week 2. Not exactly the performance I was expecting. On the other hand, UK gave up over 300 yards rushing to Kent State. If not for poor clock management, a dumb interception and an unforced fumble by Kent, UK could have easily been down three touchdowns in the first half. Now, both teams regrouped in the second half and allowed only one more touchdown, but it does raise the issue of 77-73 shootout. As a UL fan, I do have one thing to hold onto. These guys have performed well defensively in the past, so the problems could be correctable. UK struggled defensively last year, and while they may have improved, how much?
It is an interesting game. With it being the third game of the year, I should have more information before making a prediction, but the defensive turds from week two actually make it harder. UK’s offensive improvement last year and UL’s defensive regression this year add to the problem. The fact that it’s played at Commonwealth Stadium certainly makes a UK win more possible. However, I still think UL is going to pull it out. Unlike a lot of rapid Louisville fans, I’m not going to predict a four touchdown win, but I would certainly feel comfortable taking UL and give the 6 ½ point spread.
And as I said, the talent level isn’t as far apart as it has been in the past, especially in the offensive backfield. Mainly because Andre Woodson got good last year. I still think Brian Brohm is better than Woodson, but it’s not like night and day as it was two years ago. Woodson actually had the higher stats last year, but that was because UK was throwing a lot. UL had 35 rushing touchdowns (57 total) which wasn’t much fewer than UK’s 43 total (31 passing, 12 rushing). Still, a hot Woodson is definitely dangerous. Running backs are pretty even, just different. For UK, Rafael Little, Tony Dixon and Alfonso Smith are good. I think the one drawback to them is they are essentially the same type of runner. With UL, they’ve got pounders in Anthony Allen and Brock Bolen, and then speed backs in Sergio Spencer and George Stripling. Ironically, it was big back Allen who ran for 275 yards this past week. After that 275 yards, I would normally give UL the edge. However, Bolen and Spencer got dinged against MTSU, and UL’s new coach is highly secretive about injuries. If they don’t play, that gives the edge to UK.
Also on offense are the receivers. Another area that UK got better at last year. Keenan Burton is a stud, while Dicky Lyons has become pretty good. For UL, Mario Urrutia is like Burton. Tall and fast. Unlike Burton, the jump ball isn’t his forte. He gets the most press because of his pro potential, but Harry Douglas is actually the best receiver out of the four. He averaged over 18 yards per reception while going for 1265 yards. He can go deep or across the middle. UK has a preseason all-SEC tight end in Jacob Tamme, but I still give UL the edge with Gary Barnidge. Last year, he was in an offense that didn’t emphasize tight ends, yet he was only one reception behind Tamme but had 125 more yards and twice as many touchdowns (4-2). Now, he’s in an offense that does go to the tight end more, and he’s got 4 touchdowns already.
Then there is the offensive line. I give a huge edge to Louisville’s offensive line. They’ve got three full time starters returned from last year’s strong offensive line. Another player was last year’s top reserve and a part time starter. They’ve allowed no sacks this year while blowing open holes so that Allen gained 275 yards. On the other side is UK’s line. It wasn’t that good last year (gave up 39 sacks). The other problem is the five combined for 16 starts before this season. However, 12 were by Garry Williams. Guard Jason Leger had three last year, but he started the season as a defensive tackle. New tackle Justin Jefferies was playing defensive line last year, and Zipp Duncan was a tight end. Starting center Eric Scott got one start last year, but the year before, he was a tight end. That’s not to say they won’t be good, because plenty of good offensive linemen started at other positions. However, getting good with such a quick change isn’t going to be easy. They’ve already given up six sacks in two games.
Now, defense has suddenly become interesting. Before the season, I would have clearly listed UL. UK had a terrible defense last year, while UL’s was their best in years. UL did lose some people (Amobi Okoye was a first round pick), but all of their starters and many of their reserves played last year. The defensive coordinator stayed, so I rationally thought defense wouldn’t be an issue. Then Middle Tenn. rolled up 555 yards on them in week 2. Not exactly the performance I was expecting. On the other hand, UK gave up over 300 yards rushing to Kent State. If not for poor clock management, a dumb interception and an unforced fumble by Kent, UK could have easily been down three touchdowns in the first half. Now, both teams regrouped in the second half and allowed only one more touchdown, but it does raise the issue of 77-73 shootout. As a UL fan, I do have one thing to hold onto. These guys have performed well defensively in the past, so the problems could be correctable. UK struggled defensively last year, and while they may have improved, how much?
It is an interesting game. With it being the third game of the year, I should have more information before making a prediction, but the defensive turds from week two actually make it harder. UK’s offensive improvement last year and UL’s defensive regression this year add to the problem. The fact that it’s played at Commonwealth Stadium certainly makes a UK win more possible. However, I still think UL is going to pull it out. Unlike a lot of rapid Louisville fans, I’m not going to predict a four touchdown win, but I would certainly feel comfortable taking UL and give the 6 ½ point spread.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
College Football
After watching UL hang 73 points on Murray State (it could easily have been 100), I was originally going to say that you can't take away much info when a BCS level team beats a I-AA team (now stupidly called Football Championship Subdivision by the NCAA). UL and UK fans were going to have to wait until next week when they play Middle Tenn and Kent State respectively to really begin to get an idea how good they can be. Then division I-AA Appalachian State goes to the University of Michigan and beats the fifth ranked Wolverines in front of 110,000 people. I'm sure soon-to-be-ex-head-coach Lloyd Carr is bitching at his athletic director wanting to know why they traded an opening game with Vanderbilt to one with Appalachian State. In fact, if I was App. State, I would cash that $400,000 check that Michigan paid them for the game before Michigan puts a stop payment for it. In theory, big teams pay small teams to come play them so they can get an easy win. Sounds like App. State breached the unwritten language. So, I have to change my opinion. You can tell something when a "top" I-A team loses to any I-AA team. Michigan sucks.
I remember Appalachian State from when my father was in the military science department at Tenn-Chattanooga which was a Southern Conference rival of App. State. They always had good teams, but that was for a I-AA squad. Schools in I-AA can only give 63 scholarships (I-A can give up to 85) and just don't have the exposure to get the top quality players. This was a point completely lost on Lou Holtz who is without a doubt the worst commentator in college football. He tried to say Michigan shouldn't be dropped in the polls because they were just having a bad day and there's lots of parity in college football. I would have dropped Michigan out of the top 25 even if they had pulled out a last second win. There's a certain amount of parity among conferences, but there is no parity between Division I-A and I-AA. Michigan has more money, better recruits and more players. While I wouldn't bet on Appalachian State beating Michigan in more than two out of ten games, it was really strange to see that App. State simply looked faster than Michigan. The Wolverines just lost and it shows that deep down, Michigan sucks.
Even stupider was Holtz and some others I heard on the radio or TV who weren't sure if this was the biggest upset they'd ever seen. One radio guy referred to it as "the upset of the day and possibly the season". Way to go out on a limb. No I-AA team had ever beaten a ranked I-A team. Ever. This was the fifth ranked team that had a bunch of top players returning because they wanted to win a national championship. Fortunately, even with the bizarre BCS system in college football, a suck ass team doesn't play for the national championship. Except Ohio State last year which lends credence to my theory that the Big 10 is consistently the most overrated conference in football. Still, they shouldn't be losing to the Appalachian State's of the world. So, yes, it was certainly the biggest upset of my lifetime.
I didn't see what Holtz had to say about another traditional "power", Notre Dame, getting their asses handed to them by a supposedly inferior team like Georgia Tech. I can't stand his voice or the stupidity that often emanates from it. I think the fact that Notre Dame scored only 3 points (at home) with an "offensive genius" as a head coach can only mean one thing: Notre Dame sucks, too. That Michigan-Notre Dame game in two weeks is looking like must-miss TV.
Some might call me heartless (although that wouldn't explain the stabbing chest pains when I eat a Grand Slam breakfast), but I kind of got sick of the whole healing powers of Virginia Tech football after that shooting last spring. I understand big group events can be cathartic, and Tech football is a major campus institution. However, the shooting was almost five months ago and there were massive campus rallies after that. I guess my biggest problem was ESPN beating the story to death. They made it seem like not rooting for a Virginia Tech win would just plain mean. The trouble with rooting for Virginia Tech is that another major sports story involved Tech's most famous football alumni, Michael Vick. Plus, Viriginia Tech served as a long time enabler to multiple offender Marcus Vick for quite some time.
Tennessee's success in getting blown out by Cal shows why SEC teams really don't like to go on the road against good teams. Actually, it explains why they don't go on the road against good teams too often. Outside of Tennessee and LSU, the only SEC teams who routinely face good teams on the road are UK, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, but only because they are practically forced to play in-state, out-of-conference rivals every year. It makes it easier to claim your conference is as strong as the NFC South when you only play each other and a bunch of scrubs then get confused when you go 3-3 in bowl games like 2005.
The fact that Auburn had to reach down to escape Kansas State at home probably means SEC teams are going to also try to get out of playing home games against even decent teams. They needed the crowd noise and home town officiating (if Florida can't get a call at Auburn, Kansas State certainly can't) to squeak out this win. Of course, Auburn has a rep for not going on the road to face tough teams. Not surprising, they've only had four out-of-conference road games in the past 10 years. The only game out of those four that they won was at Virginia in 1997. Auburn also has a rep for scheduling good teams (ie Fla St, Miami) and canceling later. UL called about Auburn having an opening on their schedule this year, but Auburn refused to agree to a return trip to Louisville so we passed on it. I've watched Tennessee, Miami, Florida State, Penn State, Texas, Texas A&M and other big programs play in Louisville (some at the old crappy fairgrounds stadium), but Auburn is "too good" to play at Louisville. Maybe I would be more impressed with them if they had won more than one SEC title since I graduated from high school. Ironically, that year they went undefeated, but missed out on playing for the BCS Championship because their out-of-conference cupcakes hurt their strength of schedule so they were behind other undefeated teams.
Even though Michigan lost to a I-AA team, I still don't think much can be learned from UL and UK beating up Murray and EKU. To begin with, EKU is decent, but they haven't even won their conference since 1997. Murray won it in 2002, but have been in a slide since. So, neither is near as good as App. State. Some have tried to find issues with both squads based on their first game. Reporters have made the point that Murray used short passes on their only two drives that went anywhere, so if UK (who likes those passes) had played them, they would have eaten that up. Well, is anyone stupid enough to think that UL would have played the same defense against UK? I didn't see a single blitz or even much stunting. Coaches don't just shut the offensive playbook when they face an overmatched opponent. They don't show much on defense either. By the same token, UK's biggest offensive concern is the inexperience on offensive line. Giving up a couple of sacks early like they did against EKU could indicate a season long problem. However, while I think the line is a big question mark for them, I can't say lack of ability was a bigger problem than overlooking a lesser opponent. So, I'll wait until after next week's game before doing any analysis of these two teams.
I remember Appalachian State from when my father was in the military science department at Tenn-Chattanooga which was a Southern Conference rival of App. State. They always had good teams, but that was for a I-AA squad. Schools in I-AA can only give 63 scholarships (I-A can give up to 85) and just don't have the exposure to get the top quality players. This was a point completely lost on Lou Holtz who is without a doubt the worst commentator in college football. He tried to say Michigan shouldn't be dropped in the polls because they were just having a bad day and there's lots of parity in college football. I would have dropped Michigan out of the top 25 even if they had pulled out a last second win. There's a certain amount of parity among conferences, but there is no parity between Division I-A and I-AA. Michigan has more money, better recruits and more players. While I wouldn't bet on Appalachian State beating Michigan in more than two out of ten games, it was really strange to see that App. State simply looked faster than Michigan. The Wolverines just lost and it shows that deep down, Michigan sucks.
Even stupider was Holtz and some others I heard on the radio or TV who weren't sure if this was the biggest upset they'd ever seen. One radio guy referred to it as "the upset of the day and possibly the season". Way to go out on a limb. No I-AA team had ever beaten a ranked I-A team. Ever. This was the fifth ranked team that had a bunch of top players returning because they wanted to win a national championship. Fortunately, even with the bizarre BCS system in college football, a suck ass team doesn't play for the national championship. Except Ohio State last year which lends credence to my theory that the Big 10 is consistently the most overrated conference in football. Still, they shouldn't be losing to the Appalachian State's of the world. So, yes, it was certainly the biggest upset of my lifetime.
I didn't see what Holtz had to say about another traditional "power", Notre Dame, getting their asses handed to them by a supposedly inferior team like Georgia Tech. I can't stand his voice or the stupidity that often emanates from it. I think the fact that Notre Dame scored only 3 points (at home) with an "offensive genius" as a head coach can only mean one thing: Notre Dame sucks, too. That Michigan-Notre Dame game in two weeks is looking like must-miss TV.
Some might call me heartless (although that wouldn't explain the stabbing chest pains when I eat a Grand Slam breakfast), but I kind of got sick of the whole healing powers of Virginia Tech football after that shooting last spring. I understand big group events can be cathartic, and Tech football is a major campus institution. However, the shooting was almost five months ago and there were massive campus rallies after that. I guess my biggest problem was ESPN beating the story to death. They made it seem like not rooting for a Virginia Tech win would just plain mean. The trouble with rooting for Virginia Tech is that another major sports story involved Tech's most famous football alumni, Michael Vick. Plus, Viriginia Tech served as a long time enabler to multiple offender Marcus Vick for quite some time.
Tennessee's success in getting blown out by Cal shows why SEC teams really don't like to go on the road against good teams. Actually, it explains why they don't go on the road against good teams too often. Outside of Tennessee and LSU, the only SEC teams who routinely face good teams on the road are UK, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, but only because they are practically forced to play in-state, out-of-conference rivals every year. It makes it easier to claim your conference is as strong as the NFC South when you only play each other and a bunch of scrubs then get confused when you go 3-3 in bowl games like 2005.
The fact that Auburn had to reach down to escape Kansas State at home probably means SEC teams are going to also try to get out of playing home games against even decent teams. They needed the crowd noise and home town officiating (if Florida can't get a call at Auburn, Kansas State certainly can't) to squeak out this win. Of course, Auburn has a rep for not going on the road to face tough teams. Not surprising, they've only had four out-of-conference road games in the past 10 years. The only game out of those four that they won was at Virginia in 1997. Auburn also has a rep for scheduling good teams (ie Fla St, Miami) and canceling later. UL called about Auburn having an opening on their schedule this year, but Auburn refused to agree to a return trip to Louisville so we passed on it. I've watched Tennessee, Miami, Florida State, Penn State, Texas, Texas A&M and other big programs play in Louisville (some at the old crappy fairgrounds stadium), but Auburn is "too good" to play at Louisville. Maybe I would be more impressed with them if they had won more than one SEC title since I graduated from high school. Ironically, that year they went undefeated, but missed out on playing for the BCS Championship because their out-of-conference cupcakes hurt their strength of schedule so they were behind other undefeated teams.
Even though Michigan lost to a I-AA team, I still don't think much can be learned from UL and UK beating up Murray and EKU. To begin with, EKU is decent, but they haven't even won their conference since 1997. Murray won it in 2002, but have been in a slide since. So, neither is near as good as App. State. Some have tried to find issues with both squads based on their first game. Reporters have made the point that Murray used short passes on their only two drives that went anywhere, so if UK (who likes those passes) had played them, they would have eaten that up. Well, is anyone stupid enough to think that UL would have played the same defense against UK? I didn't see a single blitz or even much stunting. Coaches don't just shut the offensive playbook when they face an overmatched opponent. They don't show much on defense either. By the same token, UK's biggest offensive concern is the inexperience on offensive line. Giving up a couple of sacks early like they did against EKU could indicate a season long problem. However, while I think the line is a big question mark for them, I can't say lack of ability was a bigger problem than overlooking a lesser opponent. So, I'll wait until after next week's game before doing any analysis of these two teams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)