It's almost been a week since the NFL draft happened. The Lions scored He-who's-name-cannot-be-pronounced Suh, the player that I was really hoping that they would get. I don't know too much about the rest of their draft- I was surprised to see them draft a running back in the first round (I think Kevin Smith is a pretty good back), but then again I don't really know what's going on with the Lions.
Besides, I'm a college football man. The only reason I really care about the draft is that it's kind of like the Bifrost bridge between college and the NFL- the adolescence between childhood and adulthood. If you think I have a dizzying intellect now, just wait til I get going.
And really, I don't even want to talk about the draft right now. That's so cliche'- giving draft grades (which, if you think about it, is ridiculous), analyzing picks, and slotting depth charts. I want to rant on some issues with college football that I have been burning on for a while.
I realize that this would be far more appropriate and timely if it was closer to college football season...or at least in the calender season that is approximately close to football season. But obviously I am too busy to do that. Or too forgetful. Or I just don't care enough. Regardless, here we go.
First off, the bowl system is flawed. Well, let me elaborate. I don't mind the fact of having bowls- I think that the tradition is great- I have great memories of the Rose Bowl, and Michigan...well, maybe 'great memories' is a stretch. I don't even think that 'marginally good' would be an accurate adjective. But hey, at least they are memories.
How many people have memories of such longstanding games as the New Mexico Bowl? Or the Seattle Bowl? Or even the Papajohns.com bowl? There are 34- yes, 34 bowl games. Over half of the teams in Division 1-A (or FBS, as it is now known as) play in bowl games. To put that in perspective, imagine if the NCAA tournament was not a 64-team affair, but rather a 180 team affair. The NCAA proposed a 96 team NCAA tournament- and that's still only about half of the 180 mark!
To be eligible for a bowl, a team merely needs to be 6-6. A win percentage of .500. Mediocre. Now, there are seasons in which a .500 team does not go to a bowl...because there were enough teams that "excelled" at 7-5 to leave the 6-6ers at home. But really, why should we be celebrating this mediocrity? Why should a team that could not even win more games than it loses get rewarded with a postseason appearance?
And take this one step further- I don't believe that a team that has a losing conference record should be rewarded with a bowl game. Because to me, that just means that you beat up on weaker opponents. It's like you're a 5th grader beating up on kindergartners- sure, your win/loss record is pretty good- but did you actually beat up any other 5th graders?
It's pretty bad when you look at the list of teams that played in Bowl games, and you see such stalwarts of excellence as Texas A&M (6-7, 3-5 in conference), UCLA (3-6 in the PAC-10), Minnesota (6-7, 3-5 in the Big 10), and South Carolina (3-5 in the SEC).
How did those beacons of brilliance fare in their bowl games? Georgia walloped A&M. UCLA won- beating Temple. If the crowning achievement of your football season is a victory over Temple, then you need to reevaluate things. Minnesota lost a 14-13 "thriller" to Iowa State- a team that finished with a 7-6 record (and- yup, you guessed it- a 3-5 Big 12 record). South Carolina racked up 7 points in their bowl game loss.
I just feel like there should be less bowl games, so that teams that really don't deserve to get rewarded for their seasons-don't get rewarded for their seasons. Unfortunately, they bring in money- lots of money, and so bowl games will continue to be a part of the college football landscape.
Speaking of things that are a part of the college football landscape that shouldn't be- preseason polls. I like the idea of ranking things- it helps me bring order to my chaos. I can look at things on paper, and being able to say that team A should beat team B because they are 'ranked higher'.
But the kicker is that those meaningless preseason rankings become meaningful simply because of the way that the system is set up. If a team starts the season ranked highly (which is, in all reality, a very arbitrary process), then the chances that it will stay ranked highly increase.
So you run into situations where a team like Utah or Boise State will run the table- and not get a sniff for a national title. And a big part of that is that they don't start the season ranked as highly as the big name schools, so it takes them longer to work their way up to the top. And they also don't work their way up as quickly. Capitalism-1, The way things should be-0.
You know what? I honestly wouldn't be opposed to keeping the current bowl system, and forsaking a playoff, if there were a couple changes. Less bowls, and don't start ranking teams until like, maybe mid-season. Will those things happen? No. Did I still suggest them in blog-form, so that if they do happen, I can take credit for them? Absolutely.
Final beef- the Heisman. The Heisman is supposed to be awarded to the most outstanding college football player in a given season. And I believe that has definitely happened before. Barry Sanders- great example of a Heisman winner. Tim Tebow- his sophomore year is one of, if not the, top individual performances by a college football EVER.
But lately, it seems that the award is becoming the 'Most Outstanding Player On The Best Team Or A Team That Is Near The Top' award. This years Heisman winner, to me, really embodies that whole concept.
Mark Ingram had a great season. Really, he did. Over 1,600 yards in the SEC...17 rushing scores...32 catches for over 300 yards. Great season.
But how can you tell me that his season is better than Toby Gerhart? Gerhard, in case you were wondering, racked up over 1,800 yards and 27 touchdowns. He had 3 200+ yard games, and was only held under 100 yards twice (82 yards and 96 yards). Ingram? He had 1 200+ yard game and was held under 100 yards 5 times (including a 30 yard effort against Auburn the week before the SEC Championship game).
I'm not saying that Gerhart was a better player (although the numbers would probably say that). But the fact is that the Heisman voting was the closest that its ever been. No one really stepped up and took the award by the balls- at least, in the eyes of the media. So Ingram very much had a captive audience when he exploded on the Gators in Atlanta.
If the award had been voted on the weekend of 11/28? I don't think Ingram gets it. He had 30 yards on 16 carries versus Auburn. Meanwhile, Gerhart was putting up 205 yards (3 rushing scores and a passing score for crying out loud) against Notre Dame.
The problem is that the voting took place the next weekend- the weekend that the SEC title game took place. And Mark Ingram, fresh in voters minds, put up 113 yards and 3 touchdowns against the best defense (Florida) in the country. Gerhart put up...13 kills in a big multi-player Halo-online skirmish (I made that up). He didn't play. No game. Voters got to watch Mark Ingram win the Heisman voting in the college football equivalent of taxation-without-representation.
I don't think that conference championship games should count for the Heisman. I think all the ballots should be in the last week of the regular season. Not everyone has a conference championship game, so that means that a certain few players have a chance to get that last ditch campaign "speech" in.
You could say that Ingram deserved the Heisman because of that championship game effort. That the best players show up in big ways when the spotlight is the brightest. I'll give you that. But then, would you be willing to concede his sub-par effort in the game against 'Bama's biggest rival the week before? Maybe he was hurt, maybe he wasn't- that's not the point. The point is that the stinker game didn't matter because Ingram had a chance to redeem himself during a week when his biggest competitor was just hanging out.
One of the reasons that I'm excited that we got Suh is because he was seriously considered by many to be the actual best player in the college game last season. Of course, as a defensive lineman, he never ever had a shot at even sniffing the Heisman (well, he was invited to the ceremony, so I'm sure that he at least got to smell the trophy- even if it was just because odor from the trophy diffused throughout the air and found its way into his nose)...but that's another blog for another time.
So, while I have your undivided attention, lets make some predictions- who is going to be the first pick in the draft...of 2014? Or the Heisman trophy finalists...for 2020? That may be a little bit extreme...but just wait a few years. If you can.
No comments:
Post a Comment