Red Meat Monday: Good, not great receivers

Opinion is the best part about sports. It's what keeps us going during the offseason, sparking plenty to talk about. And who better to throw out a conversation-starter than CBS's own (and my personal favorite hack) Dennis Dodd. Take this little number he sang a few weeks ago. He was predicting the Big Ten order of finish for 2009, reluctantly putting Penn State in the top two, but had to add this quip about the departed Deon Butler, Jordan Norwood and Derrick Williams:

"A good, not great, group of receivers have to be replaced by what might be good, not great, group of receivers."

Ok, I get it, Dodd's job is to generate discussion and readership. That's fine, but doing it by really shoddy analysis is just being lazy.

If those three wide receivers were only "good," but not great, then why are they all signed to NFL teams right now? Before Dodd says it: We don't know if they'll be there in the fall. But that's irrelevant right now. Today, all three of those "good" wide receivers are in the NFL.

That was the rational, non-homeristic comeback against Dodd's claims. Now, for the partisan retort: REALLY?! GOOD? NOT GREAT?

Butler is the career receptions leader, No. 2 in yardage. Norwood is No. 4 in receptions, No. 3 in yardage. And Williams is No. 3 in receptions, No. 5 in all-purpose career yards.

Remember, that was with Anthony Morelli under center for two of their four seasons. Not to mention, there were THREE of them. Had there been one, or even just two of them, their individual numbers would have been through the roof. Maybe then they would have been better than "good."

More below the fold...

The first runner up is... Bobby Bowden

◊ Until this week, the argument between Joe Paterno and Bobby Bowden was just filler. Now, it's very much a relevant topic in college football. It's a perfect storm, really, for the conversation to jump to new heights.

Usually, we talk about the wins race during the season, when there's not much room for elaboration. Now, it's the offseason, when every little bit of news is magnified due to the lack of an active football season.

The wins race was also viewed as a close contest, one that would only be resolved by which one coach could make a late-career run, overtake the other, and hope for retirement.

Not anymore.

This week has been dominated by Florida State and the NCAA punishments, handed down for the cheating scandal. We all know that part of the story, and quite frankly, it's old now.

The conversation has taken a dramatic shift to the objective views towards each of the legends' coaching careers. This could be attributed to the fact that, if the 14 Bowden wins from 2006 and 2007 are scrubbed from the record books, this race is as good as over. Paterno would win.

So what do we discuss now? Well, besides the useless, burnt out tirades crying for Paterno and Bowden to retire, and that they're bad for college football (this argument isn't even worth a rebuttal), it's time to take a look at the two careers for their merits and flaws, to finally figure out which coach has the better on-paper career.

The first (usually the only sane) sportswriter to do so was Pete Fiutak, from CFN:

"Paterno finished up last season one win ahead of Bowden up 383 wins to 382. So while any lost wins off Bowden’s total might secure Paterno’s place in history, it could be argued that the Penn State head man deserves the title no matter what... While Paterno got all his wins at one school, Penn State, Bowden came up with 31 wins at Samford against several interesting opponents (to go along with a solid stint at West Virginia). Of course, no one would ever question Bowden’s all-timer status, but when taking a hard, objective look at the two careers, it’s not really that close."

Fiu then goes on to list the worst and best wins in each coach's career. I'll tell you, seeing them "on paper" right in front of you really drives the point home. Even if you take the two undefeated national championship seasons, 1986 for Penn State and 1999 for Florida State, the Lions' win over Miami was much more impressive, in terms of opponent relative quality, than the 'Noles' win over Virginia Tech.

It's unfortunate, really, that this is how it might end. No one expected it to be like this, especially those close to the schools and the teams.

But this is just another episode in college football, where nothing is determined "on the field." Rather, like the Mythical National Championship itself, the eternal argument Paterno v. Bowden will be forever tarnished with a sense of illegitimacy and doubt.

More below the fold...

USC 2008... Overrated

This week's ZN Top 25 has drawn some criticism from readers, particularly where I ranked USC, No. 8 behind No. 5 Penn State and No. 7 Ohio State. I'll try to explain, as best I can, why USC it ranked too high in the polls this year.

Let's begin with facts, shall we?

Team(Record)	Rank(BCS)	Opp.Record	Opp.Win%	Rank(1/119)
USC(10-1)	No. 5	62-63	0.492	No. 71
PSU(11-1)	No. 8	57-57	0.500	No. 68
OSU(10-2)	No. 10	66-45	0.594	No. 11
Iowa(8-4)	NR	57-54	0.513	No. 53
OrSU(8-4)	NR	69-53	0.565	No. 19

Ok, now that you've taken a good look at where the three teams are, think about it. What's one thing you've heard from every talking head: "Yeah, but who have they played?" For once, I agree with the main stream media's argument, that strength of schedule is very important towards ranking teams this late in the season. It's not like the preseason polls, or even when the BCS first come out in October. No, this is the final week of the college football season, and we know which teams are good, bad and fake. USC is one of those "fake" teams.

Outside of the pure SOS for each team (which USC is last of the five teams, at No. 71), let's look at a few other reasons why USC is currently ranked higher in the polls that it deserves.

USC beat a Beanie-less Ohio State, in the afternoon in Los Angeles on the second weekend of the season. Penn State beat a Beanie-ful Ohio State, at night in Columbus, almost two months into the season. Penn State had the better win.

Penn State lost 24-23 at Iowa, in very inclement weather. USC lost 27-21 at Oregon State, but the Trojans were down 21-0 to the Beavers at halftime, and never once led during the game. USC had the worse loss.

Comparing common opponents is relatively easy. However, you get bogged down in comparing which common opponents those common opponents played. Yeah, head spinning yet? But there's an easier way to compare how strong teams' schedules are. Let's take all of the teams on Penn State's, Ohio State's, and USC's schedule this year.

Penn State: Coastal Carolina (FCS-49), Oregon St., Syracuse, Temple, Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan State. Average SOS: 31

Ohio State: Youngstown St (FCS-27), Ohio, USC, Troy, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Purdue, Michigan St, Penn St, Northwestern, Illinois, MIchigan. Average SOS: 55

USC: Virginia, Ohio St, Oregon St, Oregon, Arizona St, Washington St, Arizona, Washington, California, Stanford, Notre Dame, UCLA. Average SOS: 57

Also to note, the two FCS teams played numerically-tougher and weaker schedules (in terms of opponent records) than the average. So even if you were to eliminate that number from the average, it would only raise Penn State's and lower Ohio State's opponents' average SOS. That would only widen the gap between Penn State, and Ohio State and USC.

So, looking at it from that way, one could say Penn State's opponents had overall tougher schedules, which mean they're most likely better than their records indicate. USC and Ohio State's opponents played about the same level of competition. If anything, Penn State should be above USC, while Ohio State should be a hair above USC.

That's why I ranked Penn State No. 5, Ohio State No. 7, and USC No. 8 in this week's ZN Top 25.

More below the fold...

Paterno or Bowden, yet again

It's about freaking time some preview (The Quad, to be exact) acknowledges the fact that Bobby Bowden is NOT the career I-A wins leader.

"Tidbit (coaching edition): As all loyal readers of the Countdown undoubtedly know, Paterno trails only Bobby Bowden on the career list for major college wins; Bowden has 373 victories, with Paterno on his heels with 372. However, if we discount Bowden’s 31 wins on the F.C.S. level (Samford, 1959-62), Paterno holds the edge in F.B.S. victories, 372-341."

The funny thing about this, since the conversion to FBS (former I-A) and FCS (former I-AA), who the hell knows which coach is the real leader? Are we now going by how many wins at the F-B-S level, or is it unchanged from when it was I-A football? Of course, it's unchanged. I don't care what you call it, but there's no comparison between Bowden's wins over Mississippi College, Furman, Troy and Delta State, and Paterno's wins over Pitt, Maryland, Syracuse and Texas. Even if you took away all wins over I-AA schools by both coaches, Paterno would still lead. So don't try to say 'Paterno played I-AA teams, too!' It doesn't work.

There's not much to worry about though, as Florida State doesn't look to contend for anything this season (even with all those I-AA/FCS schools on the 2008 schedule). Penn State, even with a decent record, should push Paterno back up and beyond Bowden's false record. I would just like to see more writers/sports fellas respect the fact that Paterno has won more games on a higher level than Bowden. And just because there was no I-A/AA designation before 1978, doesn't mean that ALL those 'Major College' wins count alongside the true I-A/FBS wins.

Completely off the Paterno/Bowden topic, but a great debate nonetheless: Say that again?

More below the fold...

Poll Results: Fans Say PSU Headed to Double-Digit Wins in '08

Penn State fans are expecting nothing less than a 10-win season in 2008. With more than 100 votes in, a small minority of fans (16%) said the Lions will finish the regular season with only nine wins. However, none of the other choices of 10 (38%), 11 (26%) and 12 (19%) wins received a majority of the votes. It's still encouraging so see the Penn State fanbase so optimistic about 2008. When was the last time Penn State had to replace a senior quarterback, a senior running back, and a senior All-American linebacker, yet fans are counting on 10 or more wins? This season could go a long way in proving if Penn State has truly fallen from the elite, and that 11-win 2005 season was a fluke. (Ed.- I stopped this week's poll short because I wanted to get the fans' reaction to ESPN's irresponsible, sensationalist "journalism." Not that I have an opinion on the issue or anything. (Cough, Bullshit! Cough)

More below the fold...

Article of the day

While you know my position on the SEC, this is rather interesting to read. I found today's article on SEC Sports Fan:

Ohio State vs. the SEC: 0-8

Ohio State is 0-8 vs the SEC in bowl games. Chalk up one for the SEC. Heck, chalk up eight for the SEC. 0-8 is 0-8. It can't be defended. But in this case it can be explained.

The mounting second number after the dash is brought to the forefront each year around bowl time when the Big Ten vs the SEC, which is the best conference, debate rages at its most fierce. That second number reached eight when Ohio State was unexpectedly humiliated by Florida in the National Championship game.

As a Buckeyes' fan it seemed as though 0-8 was plastered all over every ESPN family of networks' graphic for the ensuing 24 hours. My co-workers who love to debate college football picked up on the newly adjusted record and quickly used it as bullet number one in the battle over best conference.

For weeks we had been punching and counter-punching Big Ten vs SEC. Starting on January 9th, I would've thought the Buckeyes' lost eight games to the SEC this year. My pro-SEC debaters would boldly proclaim SEC superiority followed by their most convincing argument: Ohio State is 0-8 vs the SEC. It was used so many times against me I started to doubt what I'd seen for the past three months. I checked the Buckeyes' schedule for that shocking defeat to Vanderbilt at the Horseshoe and what about that embarrassment at Scott Field in Starkville, MS?

In reality, what I did was first explain in a most sarcastic tone that they could only use 0-1 as part of their argument for best conference. I took even great joy in asking them when this streak started. I knew no one had a clue.

The streak started under Woody Hayes. Most of my debaters know the name; know about the famous tantrums, but if they've ever seen the man stroll the sidelines it was on Zibrudor film quality on ESPN Classic.

On January 1, 1978, one year prior to winning their first of two consecutive national championships, Alabama whipped Ohio State 35-6. I watched that Sugar Bowl in horror. But my first two seasons as a Buckeyes' fan were also Woody Hayes' final two as Buckeyes' coach. Never a tactical genius, Woody had obviously lost the edge that drove his teams to outwork and out-will their opponents. Penn State, Oklahoma, Purdue, Michigan and Clemson in his last game. Woody lost all the big games in his final two seasons. That Alabama team finished 11-1 and # 2 in the country.

Earle Bruce succeeded Hayes and went 81-26-1 over nine seasons. He won four Big Ten Championships, finished in the Top Ten four times, went 5-4 vs Michigan and 5-3 in bowl games. Bruce never faced the SEC in a bowl game, losing to Alabama in the 1986 Kickoff Classic 16-10 and tying LSU in Baton Rouge in 1987. The Bama game was a hard fought clash between top ten teams. In '87 LSU and Ohio State faced as top five teams, but OSU stumbled to a 6-4-1 finish. LSU went 10-1-1.

Now we talk the John Cooper factor. Despite a number of accomplishments on paper, Buckeyes' fans look back on those 13 years with disappointment and disgust. Cooper coached 157 games in Columbus. Change the result of just a few of those contests and Cooper is now a legend. Despite winning 11 games three times and 10 games twice Cooper's legacy is losing the big game.

The SEC beat Cooper five times. But Cooper was an equal opportunity whipping boy. Michigan beat him 10 times out of 12 decisions and he lost 8 of 11 bowl games. Cooper lost the 1990 Liberty Bowl to Air Force as a 17 point favorite. He lost that game with Robert Smith in the backfield, three NFL receivers and a defense stocked with more pros. Some coaches know how to find a way to win. Cooper found a way to lose.

That said, Cooper's best teams didn't play the SEC in the postseason. The 1996 and '98 squads finished # 2 in the country after winning the Rose and Sugar Bowls against the Pac Ten and Big 12.

Before the current format of bowl slotting, prestigous programs like Ohio State were elevated to bowl games they didn't deserve. The 1989 Buckeyes finished 24th in the country, but played a top five Auburn team in the Hall of Fame Bowl. The '92 edition lost on a late touchdown to Georgia in the Citrus. UGA finished 8th. OSU finished 18th.

In 1994, 12-1 Alabama scored a touchdown in the closing minute to beat four times beaten Ohio State. Buckeyes' fans should credit Cooper with re-establishing OSU as a talent factory. But those teams routinely underachieved against everybody. Matching them up against higher rated SEC teams skews the equation greatly.

Following two paragraphs of Cooper bashing, I let the embattled coach exit this article with a blaze of glory. His first team at OSU; that terrible 4-6-1 group, beat a top five LSU team 36-33. Thank you Greg Frey and Bobby Olive. Go Bucks!

On the dawn of January 8th Jim Tressel was nearing sainthood. A few hours later such talk had been silenced. The Buckeyes were demolished. I've watched the game three times and each look makes it even less believable.

For as badly as the players were beaten, Tressel was outwitted ten times over. The man with a velvet touch in the big game served up a ragged game plan. He left his offensive tackles to fend for themselves well after it was proven that help was needed. He called three straight pass plays after his running game accounted for a touchdown to close the game to 21-14.

And worst of all, he refused to let the defense loose. He never challenged receivers and never forced Chris Leak to make a difficult throw. Florida's offense somehow thrived by running for 3.4 yards per carry and throwing the ball downfield once.

Buckeye defenders missed few tackles. It simply took an eternity to close on the ball. I never saw an OSU cornerback lineup on my TV screen. I begged Defensive Coordinator Jim Heacock to force Leak to make an NFL throw. Just one, please?

Tressel's glossy big game record has picked up two smudges courtesy the SEC. His first team lost on a last second field goal to South Carolina 31-28. That team lost five games. That game could've gone either way. Those two teams could've won or lost against forty other teams in American on any given day.

The next year the Buckeyes jelled, navigated a rugged schedule and beat the unbeatable Miami Hurricanes to win the national championship.

Even the most ardent SEC supporters can't tell me that their conference champion, Georgia, would've won that game. Same thing for the '05 season, Tressel's second best team finished 4th in the country. SEC champ Georgia was ripped for 38 points by West Virginia. Give OSU that matchup too.

Penn State is 5-2 vs the SEC since 1990. Michigan owns the same mark. OSU's 0-6 record against the Southeastern Conference during that time would point to disaster against its two most competitive conference rivals, but we know better. The Buckeyes own the Big Ten's best record during that time and have won 15 of 27 against Joe Pa and the Maize and Blue.

The SEC argument is simple. 8-0 means we're better. Careful examination shows that timing can distort the meaning of eight games spread over 30 years. Reasoning doesn't change results, but it should change rationale.

____________________________________________
This article was submitted by Mark Rogers. Mark has worked in television for 16 years...9 years as a sportscaster...6 years covering the SEC (mostly Alabama, MSU and Ole Miss). For the past five years he has worked at ESPN in Network Operations.

More below the fold...