Gregg Doyel: Sophist

I’d kind of like to see Notre Dame join the Big 10. It would certainly be more interesting than Missouri or Cincinnati joining, and it wouldn’t cause a bunch of other conferences to reallign. However, I completely understand why they don’t want to, even it would net them more money on average. Gregg Doyel, well, he doesn’t get it.

Independence isn’t free — just ask Notre Dame

No, there’s a hefty fuckin’ fee.

When the Big Ten came calling in 1999, Notre Dame put its arrogant ideal of independence ahead of all else. Let’s see how that worked out:

They are pretty much the only major program who can afford to do that. So, I don’t know if they were arrogant so much as, well, rational, all things considered.

Since 1999, Notre Dame football has fallen off the cliff.

“Off the cliff” is a gross overstatement, Gregg.

The school with 11 national championships and seven Heisman winners has added zilch to those totals. Notre Dame has finished in the top 10 just once, way up there at No. 9 in 2005, and although it strong-armed a private door for itself into the BCS, it has used that door just three times — and gone 0-3 in those bowl games.

All of this, of course, happened because they did not sign on with the Big 10. It has nothing to do with the fact they have been coached by the imbecilic Bob Davie, the sub-.500 Ty Willingham or Ol’ Frontbutt himself, Charlie Weis. Nope, it was because they remained an independent.

Since 1999 Notre Dame has fired three or four coaches, depending on whether you count George O’Leary [For the purposes of this argument, I don't], and has failed to land the coach (Urban Meyer) [Who has a dream job at Florida] of its dreams (Bob Stoops) [Who has a dream job at Oklahoma]. It has lost eight consecutive years to Southern California, which is understandable, and twice in a row at home to Navy, which is not.

Those losses to Navy? They were brought about by a clandestine organization of former Big Ten players led by Bob Griese.

Financially, its BCS payout has been reduced nearly 75 percent since the BCS was created in 1998, from $17 million then to $4.5 million now. That’s the same as Boise State gets, with one big difference: Boise State football is better. And the Fighting Irish’s exclusive network television deal? Notre Dame makes barely half as much from NBC as each Big Ten school — even Northwestern — makes from the Big Ten’s deals with ESPN, ABC and the Big Ten Network.

I suspect he’s only half-right or something here, but I don’t feel like digging up financial numbers, so I’ll just say: Whatever.

Read that sentence again.

Don’t tell me what to fucking do, Gregg. I got it the first time.

Independence isn’t the primary reason for the erosion of Notre Dame football — Lou Holtz is the primary reason — but it has been a contributing factor. Without a conference title to play for, Notre Dame stops being relevant every year in which it falls out of the national title picture, which since 1999 has usually been mid-October. NBC still shows its games, but on the other six days a week Notre Dame is in the news only when its coach is about to be fired. That kind of irrelevance cripples recruiting, and you only have to watch the Notre Dame defense get out-athleted by Navy to know what crippled recruiting can do to a program.

I guess Holtz deserves some blame for getting them on their minor probation, but you know who deserves the bulk of the credit? The guys who couldn’t coach worth a shit after he left! Yes that irrelevance has just crippled their recruiting. Let me start by acknowledging that recruiting rankings are imperfect at best, but that’s all I can really use here. Rivals only goes back to 2002, but here are their rankings under Willingham and Weis, keeping in mind that Willingham is/was kind of a shitty recruiter:

• 2002 Rank: 24 – Willingham had about a month to put this class together.
• 2003 Rank: 12 – Following a BCS bid in 2002.
• 2004 Rank: 32 – Dipped to 5-7 in 2003, and Willingham’s status was up in the air.
• 2005 Rank: 40 – Willingham fired after going 6-5. Weis had to scramble.
• 2006 Rank: 8 – BCS bid and Weis shows he can at least recruit.
• 2007 Rank: 8 – Another BCS bid and another good recruiting year.
• 2008 Rank: 2 – Things were still looking pretty stable even after a horrible year, including a 1-9 start.
• 2009 Rank: 21 – After following up a 3-9 with a 6-6, Weis’ job status wasn’t so secure anymore. He would eventually be fired after another disappointing 6-6 in ‘09.

So, their recruiting has been so poor that when things were looking up under coaches they had an average ranking of about seventh. When there was turnover or questions about the future of the current coach their recruiting slipped, just like everywhere else in the country. If you would prefer the number of draft picks, they’ve produced 42 from 2000-2009, averaging about 4-5 a season. Not bad either. Point being, they’ve had talent. Enough talent that they shouldn’t lose to Navy, ever. The other point being, Gregg is 100% wrong about their recruiting being affected by “irrelevance.”

Back to my Holtz position: He started great at Notre Dame, but he started great everywhere he coached, then checked out. Look at his career for yourself. His year-by-year results at North Carolina State, Arkansas, Notre Dame and South Carolina share the same bell curve. Holtz was brilliant, then indifferent at Notre Dame — national title in 1988, 65 victories in six years; then 23-11-1 with zero bowl wins in his final three years — and then, for a parting gift, his tenure put Notre Dame in NCAA purgatory for successor Bob Davie. Notre Dame, as we knew it, was finished.

Feel free to look it up. Gregg is somewhat correct, I suppose. He didn’t have another year as good as ‘93 in those final three. However, five of the losses and the tie came in ‘94. Holtz got them to 9-3 and 8-3 in his final two years, which I think most people would think of as respectable. Notre Dame, under Holtz, was cheating, so…good riddance, I guess?

But Notre Dame didn’t know it. So when the Big Ten extended an invitation in 1999, Notre Dame predictably declined. The Rev. Edward A. Malloy, the school president, noted haughtily in 1999, “Notre Dame has a core identity, and at that core are these characteristics — Catholic, private, independent.”

What an arrogant fuckface. Catholic? Private?! Independent?! Oh, wait, that doesn’t seem all that haughty. I’d call it, I don’t know, factual.

Add a fourth core characteristic: Hypocrites. [sic] Remember, Notre Dame is a member of the Big East in all sports but football.

Where they are independent, as they were in all sports at the time of said quote. So, it wasn’t hypocritical. Even if it was, is there anything more boring than bullshit about hypocrisy?

And let’s add a fifth core characteristic: Mediocre. Since turning down the Big Ten in 1999, Notre Dame football has gone 75-59.

All because they didn’t join the Big 10! Did you know that Ty Willingham’s career record is 76-88-1? Did you also know he coached at two schools belonging to conferences where, at each school, he compiled a worse winning percentage than he had at Notre Dame? I’m just rambling though, because the Big 10 refusal is to blame for everything.

Joining the Big Ten for football wouldn’t automatically change that,

Wha-huh?! You have just blown my mind, sir.

but it would give Notre Dame the chance to turn itself around, including games against three or four Big Ten bottom-feeders every year and the benefit of playing for a spot in its league title game, which would keep even mediocre Irish teams relevant deep into most seasons.

They played Michigan (tied for last), Michigan State and Purdue (who tied for 6th). They went 2-1 in these games, losing to the worst of the three and eking out a win over the other two. I mean, unless they get to play Indiana and Illinois every single season, I don’t see the big easing of their schedule.

And as an added bonus, history shows that it’s three times as easy to get into a BCS bowl as the second team from the Big Ten — nine Big Ten runners-up have done it since 1998 — than it is to get into a BCS bowl as Notre Dame (three times since ‘98).

And this has nothing to do with the fact that Notre Dame has been kind of crappy. They didn’t deserve to go to any of those three BCS games, but they got there because they are Notre Fucking Dame and worked out a special deal where all they have to do is finish in the top 12 to get one.

The money is demonstrably better and the football would probably be better as well, but Notre Dame refuses to join a conference. Why? For the same reason a stubborn child refuses to wear a jacket in the cold — because.

I thought the whole core thing was an okay reason. Better than your made-up reason, anyway.

So there.

Who’s the child here, Gregg? You just made up a thing  that nobody has said or thought and then, like, emphasized it with the most childish paragraph (to use the term loosely) possible.

If that’s not good enough, I’ll give you the reasoning of Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick, but I have to warn you: It’s not good enough, either.

Well, it would have to be better than your made-up non-reason.

“All of this has a lot more to do with our priorities than it does with business issues,” Swarbrick told the Chicago Tribune. “Our independence is tied up in a lot of the rivalries we have. We play Navy every year and have the tradition of USC weekends. Frankly, it works pretty well to play USC in October at home and in November at their place.”

That sounds reasonable. Not the greatest reason ever, but I would say it is, to just pull a phrase out of the ether, good enough.

Let me get this straight. Notre Dame is staying independent so it can play USC in October instead of September? Is that what he just said?

Well, there’s the possibility the series would be dropped entirely with an 8-team conference schedule, or they’d have to drop Navy in all likelihood. And I think moreso than playing USC at home in October they would prefer to go to California in November. Because it is fucking cold in South Bend, Indiana that time of year.

I’ll be damned, that is what he said. No shock, really. The people in charge come and go, but Notre Dame remains Notre Dame. If Notre Dame were a historical figure, it would be snobby airhead Marie Antoinette — wasting away on a diet of sponge cake.

I guess one could think of Notre Dame as snobby, but airhead? You want to go with airhead, for a school that tries to hold its players to higher academic standards than the other major colleges? Marie Antoinette also said, “Let them eat cake.” Not, “Mm. I could live on cake.” You unfunny dipshit.

The Big Ten is offering a fresh supply of fruit and vegetables, but Notre Dame being Notre Dame, it’ll go Biblical and treat the conference like the forbidden tree. Notre Dame is big on fairy tales — like the one about the greatness of Fighting Irish football.

So, they will partake of the Big 10 and get kicked out of Eden? That metaphor makes the opposite of your point, you ignorant fuckwad.

Okay, I hate Notre Dame and like that they’re bad, but holy shit people (who might agree with Gregg). Notre Dame’s problem is not that they are not in a conference. I don’t even think it is atrributable to their slightly higher academic standards. As I demonstrated earlier, their recruiting has not suffered much. What their problem is is they have hired a string of bad to mediocre coaches. That’s it. If Kelly turns out to be good, they’ll win again. If not, he’ll be fired in a couple of years and they’ll go hire some other dude. Eventually they will hire a good coach and win again. Because contrary to what excuse-makers for various coaches say, it is not hard to recruit to Notre Dame. They are a marketable program with oodles of tradition and lore, and some players like that kind of thing. They are also highly publicized, so if you go there and do well, you’ll be featured on Sportscenter constantly and maybe win a Heisman or something.

Fuck, I hate arguing in favor of Notre Dame being a big-time program.

10 Reasons to Hate Pete Fiutak

I guess the five-reasons rule is doubled for national title games, which is why Pete came up with 10 “non-X-and-O reasons” why Texas will beat Alabama here. And when you see “non-X-and-O” you can be assured you’re about to get a giant helping of nonsense. Pete didn’t let us down.

Reasons number 10 and 9?

10. The Alabama pass defense

9. The Texas run defense

Those seem a little X-and-O-y to me, a non-professional sports analyst. The reasoning for 10 is where the real insanity comes in:

The Tide finished seventh in the nation against the pass allowing just 164 yards per game while it led the nation in pass efficiency defense.

This is the first sentence under the 10th reason, the Alabama pass defense, that the Texas Longhorns will beat the Alabama Crimson Tide. How many mushrooms must one consume before the idea that Alabama possessing the number one pass efficiency defense in the country is a reason that Texas will win seems like a good one? (Answer: There aren’t enough mushrooms on the planet.)

While that sounds impressive, the defense only faced one bomber of a quarterback, Ryan Mallett of Arkansas.

Who they completely shut down.

While the Hog sophomore started out the season with two great games, this was only his third game with the team (he completed 12-of-35 passes for 160 yards and a touchdown with a pick).

Like so. And what does his third game starting have to do with anything? He torched Georgia (who has a bad defense, not coincidentally) in only his second start.

South Carolina’s Stephen Garcia had some success, but he couldn’t get his Gamecocks into the end zone,

Some success in this case being a line of 20/46, 214 yards, 0TDs and 1 INT. Alabama turned the ball over four times and allowed 6 points. Do you know how good your defense has to be for that to happen?

Ole Miss QB Jevan Snead had a lousy year (‘Bama doesn’t deserve too much credit for shutting him down),

No, they shouldn’t, but they shut basically everybody down, you nitwit.

and Tim Tebow threw for 247 yards.

He also completed passes at a lower than usual rate (57% compared to a career completion percentage of about 65%), had only one TD and one INT. Tim Tebow is also, arguably, the greatest college QB to ever play.

While the Tide secondary is talented, Arkansas was the only team on the schedule ranked in the top 43 among passing teams (the Hogs were ranked tenth).

Yes, they played one really great passing team, and, I hate to keep stressing this, they fucking stifled them.

Florida is fifth in the nation in passing efficiency (and Tebow had a decent 120.1 rating in the title game) and Auburn 18th (Chris Todd’s rating was 139.2), but the rest of the SEC teams are ranked 40th or lower.

Tebow’s season rating was 155.6. Todd’s: 146.45. So, you have a point with Todd, not so much Tebow. I will counter that point on Todd by pointing out that it was probably their worst defensive performance of the season by a fair margin. Which is especially relevant since you close with this:

Colt McCoy didn’t have his most efficient season, and he struggled against Nebraska throwing three picks, but he’s too good to come up with another clunker.

So, Alabama’s awesome pass defense is a weakness because McCoy came up with a clunker last game, and presumably, used up his allotment of bad games for the season? Make sense to everyone? Cool.

The reasoning for 9 is fine. However, skipping down we get:

7. Utah

What? You don’t see the relevance of a team not even participating in the game? All will be made clear.

Yes, it’s a different year and there are different circumstances, but the ‘Horns can learn a lot from the 2009 Sugar Bowl. Alabama was down after the loss to Florida in last year’s SEC Championship, didn’t have Andre Smith at tackle, and didn’t appear to be interested from moment one, but Utah had a lot to do with the butt-kicking. The Utes came out with an up-tempo offense, was in a great rhythm from the start, and sold out on defense to get into the backfield.

So there you go Texas, just emulate the model that Utah followed last year:

• Have Alabama’s national title hopes dashed a month prior to the game, thus ensuring:
• They come out flat.
• Get into rhythm (I suggest having the team reenact the dance training montage from Dirty Dancing).
• Be agressive.

6. The Heisman Factor

This popular myth - ”Heisman = Bad Performance in Bowl Games” - is everywhere, so it pleases me to have a chance to refute it here.

Teams full of 18-to-22-year-old kids always go for the easy motivation, and when they have a prize of a Heisman winner to stop, and with weeks to prepare, they tend to shut down the star and/or get the win in the bowl. The trend doesn’t lie. 2008 Heisman winner – Sam Bradford, Oklahoma. Loss to Florida.

Bradford: 26/41, 256, 2 TDs, 2 INTs. Not outstanding, but not “shut down.”

2007 Heisman winner – Tim Tebow, Florida. Loss to Michigan.

Tebow: 17/33, 154 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, 16 carries, 57 yards, 1 TD. Not “shut down.”

2006 Heisman winner – Troy Smith, Ohio State. Loss to Florida.

Okay, he was famously shut down.

2005 Heisman winner – Reggie Bush, USC. Loss to Texas.

Bush: 13 carries, 82 yards, 1 TD, 6 catches, 95 yards, 5 kick returns, 102 yards. I guess you could argue they shut down his kick returns. Otherwise, not “shut down.”

2004 Heisman winner – Matt Leinart, USC. Win over Oklahoma.

A direct refutation since his team won, but to keep up the stat thing, Leinart: 18/35, 332 yards, 5 TDs.

2003 Heisman winner – Jason White, Oklahoma. Loss to LSU.

Shut down.

2002 Heisman winner – Carson Palmer, USC. Win over Iowa.

Palmer: 21/31, 303 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT

2001 Heisman winner – Eric Crouch, Nebraska. Loss to Miami.

Shut down.

2000 Heisman winner – Chris Weinke, Florida State. Loss to Oklahoma.

Shut down.

The point of all of this is that there is no trend, you numbskull.

Going back further, the Heisman winners rocked in the 1990s, but in this decade they’re just 2-7 in bowl games and 1-6 in national championships.

And two of those six national title game losses involved good performances by the Heisman winner, three of the seven total losses. More important, the “Heisman winners rocked in the 1990s” completely refutes this entire point. Sometimes players perform well in bowl games and sometimes they don’t. There is no magical Heisman effect.

Of course, Alabama knows this and Mark Ingram should be ready, but that doesn’t mean he’s not going to be a marked man.

I think it would behoove Texas to ignore the best offensive player Alabama has, myself.

There’s more, but I’m tired of taking this apart. Here are 5-1:

5. “Nobody Respects Us” (Teams never lose when they are disrespected.)
4. Colt McCoy is better than Greg McElroy (So was Tebow, but fair point.)
3. Air Travel (The entire Alabama team suffers from aviaphobia.)
2. The No. 2 vs. No. 1 thing (2 always wins, except when they don’t.)
1. Texas really is good (Well, you’ve got me there.)

Look, I think Texas has a chance to win this game. They play good defense, and they have a great QB. The ball bounces funny sometimes. Bowl games are inherently unpredictable (well, I guess all games are, technically) due to the month off. The point is that the reasons listed in this article are nearly all stupid, stupid reasons to assert that Texas will win. Come back next week when I take apart Pete’s “10 Reasons Alabama Will Win” article (seriously: he’s doing that).

Gregg Doyel: Self-Loather

There’s nothing quite like a media member criticizing his own profession, especially over things for which he is partially responsible. It’s a bizarre combination of self-loathing and a total lack of self-awareness. If it were done tongue-in-cheek in a self-deprecating way I guess I could understand it, but when it’s angry and strident, like this, I’m just left shaking my head. So here’s the beginning of this shit storm:

Heisman race, BCS matchup products of media’s self-fulfilling prophecy

It’s like he isn’t responsible for hyping up teams or players. He doesn’t even give a nod to his own culpability in the hypefest anywhere in the column. It’s stunning really. You’d think he was a blogger ripping on shitty journalism, when he is in fact part of the shitty journalism problem. A big part. Anyway, let’s get going with the article.

These past four months were a complete waste of time. The 2009 college football season? It was superfluous. Unnecessary.

I suppose in a big-picture thinking sort of way this is true, but since this is not how you mean it Gregg, I’m going to ask you to defend this nonsense.

Back in August, if not earlier, the media foretold the 2009 season. We told you who would play for the national championship, and we told you who would be the serious candidates for the Heisman Trophy, and then — dammit — we made it happen.

To some extent this is true. Predicting that SEC Champion would play the Big 12 Champion was kind of a no-brainer in the world of predictions. A Big 12 team has played in five BCS Title Games this decade. The SEC has won the last three. So way to go media. You predicted something sort of correctly. As for the Heisman, was anyone pimping Mark Ingram, Toby Gerhart or Suh (I’m not fucking up his first name) before the season? Those are three of your five finalists. Also, you all probably don’t know this, but the media has willed every outcome of every game for the past seven seasons. This was immediately after the R&D team at ESPN produced the Willamatronic T930. It’s housed in a secret mountain laboratory in the Catskills and serviced by gnomes.

Never mind that we were wrong in August. Never mind that we didn’t see Cincinnati coming, or Texas Christian, or Boise State. We saw Texas or Oklahoma playing Alabama or Florida in the BCS title game. So it was written, and so it was.

Preseason polls are dumb, but TCU and Boise State started the year at 17 and 14, respectively, in the AP, which is voted on by the media. Cincy was so off-the-radar they were 26th. Sure, none of those teams were considered likely to go undefeated, but they were thought of as quality football teams who could potentially make runs at a BCS bid. Texas, Alabama and Florida, all playing tougher schedules than the three “overlooked” teams went undefeated leading up to their conference championship games. The media thought they would be good. They were good. They are not good because the media has some sort of supernatural power to affect the outcomes of games.

The same goes for the Heisman. As soon as all three finalists from last season announced they were coming back for 2009, we decided they would be the most serious contenders again. It was obvious, after all. Oklahoma’s Sam Bradford won, and he was back. Florida’s Tim Tebow and Texas’ Colt McCoy almost won, and they were also back. That would be your top three this season, and if anyone insisted on injecting a slice of fresh meat into the conversation, fine. We’d scan the roster of the other best team in the country — like we told you, that team was Alabama — and we’d pick someone from the Crimson Tide. We settled on Mark Ingram. If he had a good season, he’d be a finalist, too.

So it was written, and so it was.

And the media in their collective wisdom decided to will Sam Bradford to be injured, because Fuck Sam Bradford, they thought. Nobody thought Ingram would be a serious Heisman candidate heading into the season. Then he had some monster days in nationally televised games and people thought, Hey, this guy is pretty f-ing good and plays for a title contender. Maybe we should consider him. Because that’s the way the Heisman shit works. Tony Pike of the little-known Cincinnati Bearcats was climbing the Heisman ranks too, and then he was hurt. If he’d played in those four games he missed he’d probably have another 1,200 yards and 10 TDs or something, and he’d probably have won the Heisman. He certainly would have nudged Tebow off the finalist list. But the media didn’t want that, so they willed his injury too. The media are assholes.

It’s embarrassing. We turned the 2009 football season into a self-fulfilling prophecy by determining before the season began who should get the biggest team and individual awards, and then by refusing to consider other alternatives as the season unfolded.

And this is why your national title game features preseason number 1, Florida and preseason number 2, Texas. Colt McCoy won his Heisman, based in part on his gritty performance against a one-loss Oklahoma team that saw Texas win 56-54 as McCoy’s desperate heave to the end zone as time expired was caught by Jordan Shipley. It will be known in Texas history as “The Play.” Now, Ingram won the Heisman, but seeing as Doyel is lying about him being a front-runner before the season I’ll call him an alternative to the Big Three. Toby Gerhart, who nobody considered at all before the season finished second, barely. A God damned defensive tackle was one of the five players invited to New York. That’s two out of five alternative cnadidates by Gregg’s own logic. Three out of five in reality.

I don’t know why I’m so angry,

I’m a little baffled too, seeing as you’re a media member and everything.

but I am. It’s not like this is news. The gaseous media likes the smell of its own hot air? Good Lord, I already knew that.

Take this article, for example…

Most people, and sportswriters are no different, prefer not to think outside the box. They don’t want to even consider the possibility of life outside the box.

You’re all sheep! Sheep, Gregg says!

Put me in a box and I feel claustrophobic, but put them in a box and they feel safe. Protected. There is structure inside that box, and structure matters for a group of people who see possibilities in only one shade — the same shade as the slacks most of these people wear: beige.

Are sportswriters known for wearing beige slacks? That sounds like a made-up stereotype. That’s just the kind of antiauthoritarian rebel Gregg is though. He thinks outside the box and invents his own stereotypical attire. “Why can’t Dutch people drive?!,” he might wonder…angrily.

That’s the 2009 BCS national title game. It’s beige. Alabama clearly belongs, and I won’t suggest otherwise, but you know what Texas is? Texas is a boring pair of khaki pants.

So it’s more like a pair of beige slacks with an ironic t-shirt.

Texas Christian beat the crap out of everybody it played, and Cincinnati beat more Top 25 teams than Texas, and Boise State beat the highest-ranked opponent of the bunch (No. 7 Oregon), but those teams are unconventional. TCU is a pair of horn-rimmed eyeglasses, and Cincinnati is a funky shirt with a wide lapel, and Boise State is a camel-hair blazer that’s just out there –

And Florida is one of those crazy island shirts with bright colors and parrots and shit. And Georgia Tech is a pair of Wrangler jeans. And Oregon is a pair of Lennon-style glasses. And Oklahoma is a pair of old ratty underwear. And what are we talking about?

and the media doesn’t relate to things that are out there. So the media will stick with what it knows. And the media knows Texas, which is why Texas is in the BCS title game despite having probably the fifth-best résumé in the country.

Well, perhaps they don’t go for things that are out there as a rule, but you know, I’m betting a lot of them would like to have seen TCU play for the title. I mean, your counterpart in shitty college football writing on CBS Sportsline is mocked a little ways down this page for not really feeling Texas.

And when the Heisman is awarded this weekend, the anointed quartet, minus the injured Bradford, will be there. Colt McCoy was pretty good this season, then absolutely horrific in the Big 12 title game, and somehow pretty good plus absolutely horrific equals a Heisman finalist. Tim Tebow was nothing special in more than half of his team’s 13 games. Check out his stats. They’re nothing special. But he’ll be in New York as well. And Mark Ingram? He’s not the best running back in the South (that would be C.J. Spiller of Clemson), or even the SEC (Dexter McCluster of Ole Miss). But he’s going because he’s the most famous player on the most famous team. He’s Gino Torretta.

McCoy was not as good as last year, when he should have won the award. However, even with his bad performance in the championship game, he completed 70% of his passes for over 3,500 yards and threw 27 TDs to 12 INTs. He added another 300+ yards on the ground and three more TDs. I don’t think he deserved to win (and he didn’t), but he certainly belonged in New York. Tim Tebow accounted for 31 TDs, and over 3,200 total yards in his worst season. He also protected the ball for the most part. From purely a running back perspective Ingram is obviously better than Spiller. He outrushed him by 400 yards, scored four more rushing TDs, averaged .5 more yards per carry and had similar receiving stats. You could make an argument that Spiller’s return stats make him a better Heisman candidate, but they don’t make him a better running back. McCluster was awesome the second half of the season, but that’s the problem. He wasn’t a running back for half of it. Are you going to give him the nod as best running back when he has 600 fewer yards and nine fewer TDs? Do you really think he could have taken the pounding over the course of a full season as a running back? He’s like 4′8″ 140 lbs. However, the worst part of this paragraph is comparing Ingram to Toretta. There should be a new word to describe that kind of stupidity. I’m going with “asininipidity.”

Neither Spiller nor McCluster is going to New York, of course. Ingram will go, and probably even win, because voters are idiots.

Or because he’s been really good for one of the best teams in the country.

Simple as that. Mark Ingram’s serious Heisman candidacy confirms that voters are idiots. Hell, Mark Ingram wasn’t as good this season as the true freshman running back at Pittsburgh, Dion Lewis, who had more carries, yards and touchdowns. And Lewis won’t finish in the Heisman Top 10. If he’s in the top 20, I’ll be shocked.

Well, sure. He also played fewer good defenses. When you consider that, the fact that he outrushed him by about 100 yards and scored one more TD is not quite as impressive. There’s also the fact that he averaged .7 yards less per carry and caught six fewer passes for more than 100 fewer yards and two fewer TDs. So, I do not buy your argument that Ingram is worse than Lewis.

Maybe you think I’m giving the media too much credit for the scummy residue on this college football season, but I’m not. The media poll doesn’t contribute to the BCS formula, true, but the media poll sets the tone, and the BCS-approved coaches poll mostly follows it. The media poll went into this season with Florida first, followed by No. 2 Texas and No. 5 Alabama. Boise State was No. 14. TCU was No. 17. Cincinnati was unranked. Assuming all six teams went undefeated — which they did, until the SEC title game — the bottom three had no chance of surpassing the top three. Sad but true, and I offer the coaches’ poll as proof.

As proof of something that everyone already knows? Really, you could have left this whole paragraph out. I will also add that Oklahoma was no. 3 and finished behind TCU, Cincy and Boise State, because they lost. I only include that because he made a big deal out of Oklahoma earlier and chose to leave them out when they weren’t useful to his argument.

The Heisman situation is even worse. Week by week, McCoy and Tebow and Ingram put up modest numbers, and week by week that trio stayed near the top of most of the most prominent Heisman lists online. And you can imagine where the typical voter goes for Heisman information: to the most prominent Heisman lists online. Maybe a maverick voter here or there will substitute a new name into the Chosen Trio — They have Ingram, McCoy and Tebow; I’ll put McCoy ahead of Ingram, and add Toby Gerhart — but by and large, the names are the same. And we have the NYC invitation list to prove it.

I think there is an argument to be made that Spiller should have gone over Tebow, but Spiller finished sixth and Tebow fifth so I don’t see much of an injustice. Ingram and McCoy put up awesome numbers most weeks. Tebow was a little spottier, but he pretty much was the Florida offense. Toby Gerhart barely lost to Ingram. All things considered the two players were almost the same. I’d have gone with Gerhart because of his larger TD total. That said, it is not a huge injustice that Ingram won.

Prediction: Lots of college football voter-types will read this story, and a bunch of them will look up Dion Lewis or Dexter McCluster, because until I wrote those names, lots of voters had no idea how good those guys were this season. You’ve already looked, voters, haven’t you? Good. And look up Boise State quarterback Kellen Moore while you’re at it. He had a better year than one Colt McCoy, and he had a better year than two of Tim Tebow.

That’s nice and smug. I’ve already refuted your Dion Lewis/Dexter McCluster nonsense. Boise played the 98th toughest schedule in the country. There are only 21 teams out of 119 who played lesser competition. You might want to factor that into your votes people who read Gregg’s column and actually take his argument seriously.

But Kellen Moore didn’t fit into the media’s narrative for 2009. We knew how the season would start, and we knew how it would end.

All that stuff in the middle? Details. Pointless details.

Details like Texas and Alabama going undefeated while playing tougher schedules overall than TCU, Boise State, and Cincinnati. Pointless.

Stewart Mandel Still Likes Arguing with Himself

Look, predicting games is iffy, which is why you probably shouldn’t do it. It makes you look kind of dumb as an “analyst.” However, if you’re going to undertake this task don’t undercut your own fucking reason for the prediction like this:

No. 1 Alabama vs. No. 2 Texas — the first-ever BCS Championship clash of 13-0 teams — seems to warrant some grandiose, hyperbolic, “Game of the Century”-type nickname.

How about the Anticlimax Bowl? Or The Granddaddy of All Mismatches? Perhaps you prefer “Pointless in Pasadena?”

While it’s true one should never assume anything when predicting a national championship matchup (see Ohio State-Miami, Texas-USC and Florida-Ohio State), it’s hard to imagine two teams entering a title game having inspired such disparate degrees of confidence in their final regular-season games.

While it’s true one should never assume that Mandel will not refute his own point, it’s hard to imagine he would follow that up with this:

The Crimson Tide come in having annihilated defending national champion and top-ranked Florida in what was supposed to be an epic SEC Championship Game. The Longhorns, on the other hand, needed the Mother of all Miracles to survive the same Nebraska team that once lost 9-7 to Iowa State in what was supposed to be a Big 12 Championship blowout.

You see the problem? Do I need to spell it out? I’ll give you a hint: neither one of those games went the way they were supposed to.

Basing my pick on the outcome of those two games I predict that Texas will win 123-4.

Breaking Barriers

Remember when Obama was elected? David Whitley of AOL sure does. He wrote a Heisman column. It’s awesome! And funny!

Heisman Change We Can Vote For

“Heisman Change We Can Believe In” is actually what this should be titled. Oh yeah, it’s chock full of lame political reference “jokes.” You’re gonna love it.

The Heisman Trophy votes were due Monday. To borrow a phrase from the last major U.S. election, it was time to hit the reset button.

Lame reference joke one right off the bat. Good start. Also, “time to hit the reset button” makes no fucking sense in this context.

No, I didn’t vote for Barack Obama. He hasn’t been nearly as dominant lately as the players on my ballot.

Keep ‘em coming David. This is comedy gold! I don’t understand not voting for Obama though. Did you know he has a TD/INT ratio of 6:1 in 500+ attempts? Unreal.

They represent true hope and change. Hope that a Heisman win will change the way people think about white running backs and grunts of all color.

Oh no. You just sort of did that “great white hope” thing there. I don’t understand white people or black women who think like this.

I pulled the lever for Ndamukong Suh. Sorry, Colt McCoy fans. I double-checked Suh’s birth certificate and he was born in the United States.

Did you know that being a native citizen is a requirement for the Heisman? Well, it is. I need to see some sort of proof that Suh was born here though, Dave. I’m not just taking your word for it. Bring me the original so I can have it analyzed by my team of experts. This is the fucking Heisman Trophy we’re talking about here. You don’t take chances with something so important.

OutSports’ thumbs-up is not why Toby Gerhart got my second-place vote. He was simply the best player out there except for the monster at defensive tackle for Nebraska. My third-place vote went to Clemson’s C.J. Spiller, the only truly breathtaking player in the land.

I had never heard of OutSports until now. This is the site. I pulled it up briefly and saw a lot of shirtless men. I would probably go with whatever that site says. I tend to agree with the Gerhardt thing. I’d probably give him the award since defensive players are essentially excluded from winning it. C.J. Spiller as the only breathtaking player though? That is batshit. Did you watch what Gilyard of Cincinnati did against Pitt. That was pretty damn breathtaking. Have you watched AJ Green of Georgia play receiver? He’s insanely breathtaking. I could go on and on with examples of “truly breathtaking” players. The point is, that sentence is nonsense.

Here is how one might argue in favor of C.J. Spiller. He has carried 201 times this year for 1,145 yards and 11 TDs. He’s added 33 catches for 445 yards and 4 more TDs. He has had a phenomenal return year with 210 punt return yards on 13 attempts with 1 TD and 708 yards on 21 kickoff returns and 4 touchdowns. He’s a great player, though he’s not as good an inside runner as I’d like. I’d have him in my Heisman top 5. 3 is fine.

If for any reason Suh is unable to fulfill his duties as Heisman winner, I’d have no problem with Gerhart assuming the stiff-arm position. Both break stereotypes that need shattering.

I don’t think Suh is breaking “stereotypes.” Unless you mean the stereotype that defensive tackles who can stuff the run and get pressure are only sort of okay. Which is not a real thing.

According to Heisman stats, a defensive player is allowed to win every 62 years. Charles Woodson did in 1997, but he was a glamour-boy cornerback/punt returner. Suh spent his Saturdays slogging about the trenches, and those guys are supposed to win every 6,200 years.

Well, that’s kind of true, the Woodson part, but there were like 20 winners who played both ways before that went out of style. A few of those trench sloggers have finished reasonably high in the balloting, and according to the Heisman bylaws they are supposed to win one every 3,437 years. Do some research!

I’ll admit I went into last Saturday thinking inside the Heisman box. I wanted to vote for Tim Tebow, if for no other reason than I wanted the first two-time virgin winner. Alas, Timmy was deflowered by Alabama.

Virginity is an undervalued asset in football. You’ve got me there. Also, ew.

I turned my gaze to McCoy. The Heisman’s not supposed to be a lifetime achievement award, but McCoy’s college lifetime has been so good he deserves at least a stiff elbow, if not the entire arm.

He probably deserved the award over Bradford last year. This year, however, not so much.

But the more I watched Nebraska-Texas, the more obvious it became that Suh was by far the best player on the field. It also didn’t help that McCoy had as many interceptions in that game (three) as Boise State’s Kellen Moore has had all year.

Suh probably was the best player on the field. I wouldn’t mind him winning the thing. He’s awesome. He won’t win though, because the Heisman is basically awarded to the best offensive player.

I’ll also admit I never thought I’d vote for a Stanford player unless Tiger Woods paid me off. Then I started watching Gerhart and realized just how great he is. I also realized he is — how do I put this nicely? — caucasian.

It’s nice to know you can be bribed. How do we know Tiger didn’t pay you off. If he’ll commit adultery he’s capable of anything.

According the NCAA, NFL, CFL and ACORN, white guys can’t run. Who was the last white tailback anyone heard of, Brian Piccolo?

I don’t think those organizations say that all white guys can’t run, but in general, black guys are faster than white guys.

I’m thinking back on white running backs, and I seem to remember a plucky little guy in a Boise State uniform scoring a game-winning touchdown and after the play, going to a knee and proposing to his cheerleader girlfriend. I can understand not remembering this though, as it was not reported by any media outlets. I only heard about it because I knew one of the seven or eight people in the stadium that night.

Seriously, the last 1,000-yard rusher in the NFL was Craig James in 1985. It hasn’t been much better for backs of pallor in college. And we all know why, right?

Because they aren’t as good at playing running back?

“They can’t compete with us,” Eric Dickerson told the Orlando Sentinel in 2004. “The black athlete, especially at that position, is faster, more elusive. That’s just a position made for agility. It’s kind of like our chosen position.”

Eric DICKerson (see what I did?) is kind of an asshole, but he’s not entirely wrong here.

I’m no anthropologist, but the facts back that up. Still, you can’t tell me that of the millions of white males born in the United States over the past 30 years none have been fast or shifty enough to tote the rock.

There are white running backs scattered around college football. They are not usually that productive. Most don’t get to play in the NFL. I’m no anthropoligist, but I am going to go out on a limb and say that it is because black people are generally better at the position.

There’s an institutional bias at work, the same kind of mindset that used to turn black quarterbacks into receivers and defensive backs. Forget his 1,736 yards and 26 touchdowns, you just know NFL scouts have Gerhart penciled in as a fullback or tight end or owner’s son-in-law.

Look Dave, I don’t want to question your completely made up assertion of bias, but you know, proof would be useful. I am guessing (I wouldn’t dare say I ”just know”) that NFL scouts do not have a white running back who put those numbers up in a major conference penciled in as a fullback. Because I trust that they are reasonably sane human beings who try to assess who the best players are.

Not that a player’s NFL prospects matter in the Heisman. If they did, Suh would take home the entire Downtown Athletic Club trophy case Saturday. The only argument against him and Gerhart is that they played on four-loss teams.

That seems kind of hyperbolic. You realize other really good pro prospects have won the award, right? They didn’t just give Barry Sanders every Heisman award in perpetuity despite the fact that he’s the best running back of the last 40 years. Arguably the best ever.

The last player to win the Heisman on a team with that many pre-bowl losses was Jay Berwanger, the original winner in 1935. Paul Hornung won it for 2-8 Notre Dame in 1956, but that just proved how sportswriters would have voted for J. Fred Muggs if he were a Domer.

It did demonstrate bias. Paul Hornung was a really awesome football player though.

Where is it written that only players from teams with zero or one loss can win the Heisman? You know what that gets you?

Nowhere is that written. Tebow won it on a 9-3 team. Andre Ware won it on a 9-2 team. George Rogers won it on an 8-3 team. That’s just off the top of my head.

Troy Smith. Jason White. Gino Torretta. If not for Suh and Gerhart, Nebraska and Stanford would have been Iowa State and Florida Atlantic.

Troy Smith and Jason White put up huge numbers. Torretta is probably one of the least deserving winners in history, so you have me there. It also gets you Herschel Walker, Eddie George, Charlie Ward, Vinnie Testaverde and a score of other really awesome college players.

Nebraska’s offense was so abysmal that he may be right that Suh was the difference. But Stanford would not have ben Florida Atlantic bad without Gerhardt I think.

What we have here is another perfect electoral storm. People are tired of the old ways and we have two once-in-a-lifetime candidates.

Or, you know, none of the frontrunners from the awesome teams have put up numbers good enough to put them out front. But maybe it’s change people want…in their Heisman winners. Sure, makes sense.

Gerhart could alter how coaches look at tailbacks. Maybe they’ll see potential first, not color.

Seriously, if you’re going to keep going to this could you at least offer some evidence of bias beyond “there aren’t a lot of white running backs?”

Ndamukong could prove that a boy named Suh could grow up, become a defensive tackle and still be named America’s most outstanding college football player.

Is that a fucking “Boy Named Sue” joke? How fucking old are you man? So he will be striking a blow for people with nontraditional American names? What the fuck are you talking about? I’m sure his personal story is really compelling. Was he born in Hawaii?

Either one would be change we could truly believe in.

No, you lead with this awful joke. You don’t make people finish your shitty column to enjoy this nugget. I mean, what if they get bored?

The Not-So-Great Debate Part II

A quick look at an over-reaction from Pat Forde’s 3-Point Stance:

1. Texas coach Mack Brown spins so well that if he owned ice skates, he’d be favored to medal in Vancouver. Maybe when the disbelief evaporates and my jaw returns to its upright position, I’ll return to thinking that the Longhorns deserve to play in the BCS National Championship Game. But the slapstick finish to the Nebraska game, coupled with the inability to put mediocre Texas A&M away the week before, are reason enough to believe that the wrong team from Texas will play Alabama.

Pat Forde writes jokes so badly he’d be voted off “Last Comic Standing” the first week. What is so unbelievable about a very, very good Nebraska defense, a defense that carried an abysmal offense all season, holding Texas’ offense in check? I don’t really want to carry water for Texas. I wanted them to lose, so we could find out just how good TCU is. I find them intriguing too. However, you can’t just discount Texas’ total body of work because of two bad games to close out the year. They averaged to win about 40-15 over the course of the season. They had two very poor offensive performances against Oklahoma and Nebraska. They had one very poor defensive performance against Texas A&M. TCU beat Air Force, a military academy with players who are undersized and less athletic than those at every major college by a fair magin, 20-17. They beat a four-loss Clemson team who lost by 17 to a very average South Carolina team, 14-10. Are those games less meaningful because they happened earlier in the season? If so, why? Also, to beat this point to death, TCU played the 84th toughest schedule in the coutry and Texas played the 44th.

The Not-So-Great Debate

Well, we’ve come to the end of another college football regular season. And so, the annoying jabber about fairness, playoffs, non-BCS teams, etc. begins anew. Some of these “takes,” to use a Rome-ism, will be rational. Some will be emotional. Most will suck. One will come from the keyboard of Dennis Dodd. It will be emotional. It will suck. It will be headlined:

Messy BCS: Longhorns in title game doesn’t seem right

I’m not sure that Texas, or Alabama for that matter, is better than TCU or Cincinnati. Statistically speaking, both certainly look better on paper than Cincinnati. The evidence is less compelling in TCU’s case. That said, both teams have been ranked ahead of TCU and Cincinnati all season, they haven’t lost, and neither TCU nor Cincinnati has played a particularly tough schedule. Cincinnati’s is ranked 63rd toughest by Sagarin, TCU’s 84th. Alabama (20th) and Texas (44th) both played tougher schedules. Sagarin is imperfect, but it does try to apply some scientific method to the process of deciding who the best teams are. So, it kind of seems right to me.

It just doesn’t feel right, not when the two happiest men in college football Sunday were Dan Beebe and Walt Anderson.

Ah, but does it feel right? I didn’t consider that in my opinion. I don’t know. I mean, I’m kind of curious about what sex would feel like, but I’m also kind of nervous. I mean, this is a big step. You want it to be more than just an awkward backseat encounter. Maybe if the mood was right and it was with the right person (Johnny is really dreamy), I’d be ready. What were we talking about?… Oh right, national title game participants. It feels wrong…because…two guys are happy. Um, huh?

It doesn’t feel right because the Big 12 commissioner (Beebe) and his supervisor of officials (Anderson) were just as much a part of Saturday’s furious finish to the season as was the football.

The commissioner and the supervisor of officials were a part of Satruday’s furious finish? Is Dodd insinuating a conspiracy? Defend this statement, Dennis.

It doesn’t feel right because half of the BCS title-game matchup was decided from the video replay booth. The commish and his supervisor had to put the final stamp of approval on Texas’ 13-12 non-loss over Nebraska. Yeah, they got it right even after Texas almost got it unforgivably wrong.

So, you’re blaming them for…getting a call correct in an immensely important game.

 

Many of you saw it and you still can’t believe it.

 

It was kind of amazing how nonchalant McCoy was on that last play, but I totally believe it happened.

 

Colt McCoy rolled out with eight seconds left with a timeout in his pocket and treated the play like it was a seven-on-seven drill. His leisurely pass out of bounds was flat enough — and Ndamukong Suh was a split-second late enough in sacking him — that it hit the ground with one second left. And as we all know, “The clock doesn’t stop until the ball hits something,” Anderson said.

Yes, we all know that, but do we feel it? That’s the important thing.

Cue the confetti streaming down from the rafters. Wait, first clear the field of celebrating Huskers. Given that precious extra second, Texas’ Hunter Lawrence punched it through from 46 yards for the winner.

Hunter Lawrence defines clutch.

That’s how the 12th BCS title matchup was decided — Texas not so much celebrating as exhaling. It was finalized only after Nebraska defensive coordinator Carl Pelini screamed at Texas, “You should be ashamed to accept that trophy,” at least three times according to the Omaha World-Herald.

Well, it was, you know, settled when the replay official made the correct call and Texas made a last-second field goal. You know what might also have made a difference? If Bo Pelini’s kicker hadn’t kicked the kickoff out of bounds after they’d taken the lead or Carl Pelini’s defenders hadn’t horse-collared a guy after a completion, setting Texas up at the 30. Shouting that someone should be ashamed to accept a trophy after you blew your shot at it defines sour grapes.

His brother, head coach Bo, dispatched legend/AD Tom Osborne to the middle of the Cowboys Stadium field to fetch Beebe. The commissioner had some ’splainin’ to do. The pair talked out of earshot although the World-Herald reported hearing curse words.

Rumored cussing aside, they got the call right however much Nebraska wishes otherwise.

“BCS,” Bo was quoted as saying, “That’s why they make that call.”

Really guys, you lost. You melted down. It’s not a conspiracy.

In the fog of war we all say, do — and write — stupid things. No, it wasn’t a BCS call, Bo. If Texas would have lost, it would have guaranteed the Big 12 more money by getting two teams in the BCS.

 

 

You’re all over the place Dennis. You alluded to a conspiracy. Then you said the call was correct. Then you listed quotes and rumors about Nebraska feeling cheated. Then you come back and say it wasn’t a conspiracy. Jesus Christ, pick a side.

 

As it is, the conference has a team in the BCS title game for the second consecutive year and third time in five years. We’re going to be asked to celebrate a title game featuring grand programs with two brand names. But something doesn’t feel right because Texas is TCU is Cincinnati at this point. Might as well throw Boise State in there too because after Alabama, no one can convince me that the Longhorns “deserve” anything.

 

If only there were some way to compare these teams in a dispassionate, scientific way using some sort of “thinking machine” that compiles a bunch of different statistics and takes this “data” to rate the teams accordingly. Boise’s schedule is ranked 98th. Texas has an overall rating two points higher than TCU, about three-and-a-quarter higher than Cincy and nearly five higher than Boise. So inasmuch as anyone “deserves” to play for a college football national title, Texas does.

Their best victory is over an Oklahoma State team that couldn’t beat Houston. Please, hold your applause. Their closing statements were anything but convincing, giving up 39 points to Texas A&M, then having Anderson clear up any misunderstanding about how they mismanaged the clock. Texas was one silly second from making Chris Webber’s timeout in the Final Four look like a mere oversight.

Per Sagarin, their best win was over Oklahoma (no. 23),  Nebraska (no. 24), then Oklahoma State (32).

At least TCU went on the road twice in the ACC to win. The Frogs beat two other ranked teams. Cincinnati beat three teams ranked in the top 20. But Texas is in and when Saturday blows over we’ll spend most of the next month flogging its honorable place in that brand-name final.

TCU went on the road to beat Virginia (no. 70) 30-14 and Clemson (no. 21) 14-10. Cincy beat Oregon State (no. 15) 28-18, Pitt (no. 18) 45-44, and I think, maybe he means WVU (no. 27) 24-21. Did I mention that Cincy’s schedule was 63rd and TCU’s 84th overall while Texas’ was 44th?

Texas’ biggest advantage it turns out is starting higher in the polls. TCU and Cincinnati finished a fraction behind in the BCS because they are Holiday Inn Express to Texas’ Ritz. If you want to celebrate, look beyond January to a year when one of the non-traditional schools playing for the title. Soon. We came within a second of it happening this season.

Well, yes, that was good for them, but they also rank higher in at least one of the computer rankings, the most well-known one, and probably most others.

That’s why it doesn’t feel it right. It’s the same feeling we all got in 2001 when Nebraska lost by 26 at Colorado, didn’t win so much as its division and still played Miami for the national championship.

Look, I’m on record in this blog saying that the Nebraska championship game year wasn’t nearly the travesty people make it out to be, but the two situations are not comparable at all. Texas won their division and their conference. They are undefeated. They have played better competition overall than the other undefeated teams except Alabama. Not. The. Same. But, then I’m not really using my feelings here. Let me just emote here…. Oh, wow. He’s right. It totally feels the same.

Something is missing.

That something? Love.

Drama, maybe? The whole season seemed to be a prelude to Florida/Alabama winner vs. Texas. When it actually happened it was a huge letdown for me, at least. What looked like a good game on paper a few weeks ago now looks like Alabama 27, Texas 14.

And who can forget the drama everyone felt heading into 2008 Championship Game between LSU and Ohio State. It was palpable.

I was just as intrigued about the Fiesta Bowl when it began considering Boise State and TCU. The Sugar Bowl is giving us Tim Tebow’s final college game against Notre Dame’s next coach (Brian Kelly) who may or may not be in attendance with Cincinnati.

Yes, those are pretty interesting games. I will watch them. They are not more compelling than a national title game.

The end doesn’t feel right because there are voters in the Harris and coaches polls who can’t give me a good reason why their No. 2 is the right choice.

Unlike every other year when it is set in stone. If you’re reading this Dennis, and I’m sure you are, you have plenty of reasons why Texas should be number two. Of course, I’m not a voter, so fuck me, right?

They still can’t tell me how to separate Longhorns from Horned Frogs from Bearcats from lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

I bet some of them can, not that I really think you’ll ask.

Something bothers me because those coaches have been hiding in anonymity all season. That’s what the coaches do with their votes. For all we know some voters have had Kelly’s next team at No. 2. We’ll know this week when the coaches go legit and release their final ballots.

Maybe some did. They would be foolish to have done so, but it’s possible. And why are you whining about secrecy when the final ballots are about to be released, you dummy?

Until then we’ll have to rely on the text of one Gary Patterson. He’s the TCU coach who I asked Sunday if he was upset at the prospect of being left out of the championship game.

You mean, the coach of one of the teams in question? I bet it will be completely unbiased.

“I don’t know about upset,” Patterson wrote, “but I did vote us No. 2. I had voted us No. 4 up [through] the games of yesterday. I watched all of them and this is what I thought.”

Dick Cheney, 2000: “I have considered all of the potential candidates for Vice President and determined that the one who is best qualified, gives us the best possible chance at taking back the presidency for our party, is the sexiest man alvie is…me.”

Gary Patterson, 2009: “Having watched college football games one weekend this year, I have decided that the second best team in the country, the team most deserving of playing Alabama is…mine.”

After a strange, strange finish to a strange, strange process, that feels about right.

Too bad we have to rely on feelings, because I think if there were some way to quantify these teams objectively we might really know who should be ranked second.

Keep Away From My College Football Jemele!

Jemele Hill has a question: Where all the white running backs at? Is it racism? Is it genetics? Is it a plot by the KKK to get white people riled up about something and bring about the race war predicted by The Beatles’ White Album? Jemele Hill reports. You decide.

When Michigan played Notre Dame, a freshman pounded the Irish for 131 yards rushing, slashing and slithering around defenders like an eel.

Ah, the old “slash like an eel” descriptor. How cliché.

It was some coming-out party. But other than his ability, one thing really stuck out about this Wolverines tailback.

He’s a complete fucking asshole.

He’s white.

Same difference. WOOO! Black power!

Michigan hasn’t had a white player start at tailback since Rob Lytle in 1976, which also was the last time a white tailback led the Maize and Blue in rushing.

If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times, the University of Michigan hates white people.

If Sam McGuffie’s breakout game against the Irish is any indication, maybe he’ll be the one to break new ground for white tailbacks, who have become as rare a sight as Halley’s comet.

It’s about time white folks caught a break. You only see white guys at tailback once every 76 years, and that needs to change. You’re representing us all Sam. Don’t fuck it up.

“I really don’t have too much to say about that,” said McGuffie, who ran for 1,711 yards and 23 touchdowns as a senior at Cy-Fair High School in Cypress, Texas, and gained YouTube fame for hurdling a defender. “If you can play the position, you can play the position.”

Insightful. Thank God this was included.

Many of us watch sports not caring if the men on the field are purple or magenta, as long as they produce.

If I saw someone purple on the field I think I’d care, as it would mean either that aliens have infiltrated our Universities or I need to stop dropping acid. Either way, it would be meaningful.

But watch sports long enough and you inevitably notice trends and rarities. One of them is that white tailbacks at the college and professional level have become virtually nonexistent.

I really don’t notice it much or care at all. At most it garners a “Huh, a white guy” from me. I will admit to noticing white cornerbacks though, and if your team has one it usually means your secondary sucks.

In 2007, just 13 of the top 100 rushers in the Football Bowl Subdivision were white. The SEC and Pac-10 each have just one white starting tailback in their respective leagues, Vanderbilt’s Jared Hawkins and Stanford’s Toby Gerhart.

13% doesn’t seem all that out of whack. It might even be a little higher than say, top 100 receivers or top 100 in interceptions or something. More importantly, who gives a shit?

And McGuffie is the Big Ten’s lone starting white tailback.

When are the whites going to wake up and smell the racism?

In the NFL, white tailbacks are even scarcer.

You don’t say.

Not one white player starts at tailback on any of the NFL’s 32 teams. The last time a white tailback was taken in the first round of the NFL draft was 1974, when the Los Angeles Rams selected Penn State’s John Cappelletti with the 11th overall pick.

Huh, and that sort of coincides with the college game really becoming integrated. Perhaps there’s some connection there.

With such a deeply entrenched trend, you wonder if ESPN college football analyst Craig James might be the last white player to rush for more than 1,000 yards in the NFL or if former Washington Redskins legend John Riggins will be the last white feature back to be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

I just want to remind everyone that James is an asshole who played for the cheatingest program in NCAA history. That has nothing to do with anything else in this post, but I really hate Craig James. Some white dude will someday play tailback in the NFL and maybe even make it to the Hall of Fame. That Ian Johnson guy at Boise looks like he might be good enough to at least get a starting gig in the NFL. It won’t be common or anything, because black people tend to be better atheletes than white people, but I don’t know why you’d rule it out entirely. However, the main reason I don’t wonder if there will ever be a white running back who accomplishes anything in the NFL is because I don’t give a fuck.

“Fans write me all the time calling me ‘The Great White Hope,’” said James, who ran for 1,227 yards with the New England Patriots during the 1985 season.

Seriously? Fans write him all the time and call him “The (fucking) Great White Hope?” Because of that one good year he had 23 God damn years ago? That is some self-aggrandizing bullshit. I’m almost in awe of it.

“One of these days, someone will come along.”

Craig James molests goats.

There’s a lot of junk about nature vs. nurture arguments. My favorite quote is this:

“I don’t ever want to put a spin on it and say it’s profiling,” said Floyd Keith, the executive director of the Black Coaches Association. “I think it has a lot to do with the quality of player.”

I find it ironic that the president of a group formed to combat profiling against one race refuses to accept that premise going the other way. I happen to agree with him about the quality of player being the determining factor though.

But what does someone who actually studies shit have to say about the rarity of white running backs?
“Once the population designations were set,” Entine said, “there are real differences in the gene frequencies in the east and west African population, which is quite different from populations around the world.”

Entine points out athletes with East or North African ancestry and also those from Mexico and South America are likely to dominate endurance activities because they have evolved in highland terrains whose populations tend to have a larger lung capacity and lean physiques.

“It’s geography and ancestry,” Entine said. “It’s not race.”

Geography and ancestry lead to racial differences, so it’s kind of race. But that’s quibbling. In summation, white people tend to be slower than and not jump as high as black people. Both of those things are important in playing the position of running back. Fewer whites play running back at the highest levels of football. Duh.

Breaking News! FSU Not as Good as They Used to Be!

I decided to see what stupid thing Dennis Dodd wrote this week, and lo and behold I found this:

‘Noles down low, ‘Dores up high … what’s going on?

The same thing that’s been going on for the last couple of years as far as FSU is concerned, and a large amount of luck in the case of Vandy. There, you can stop writing now.

One is a football factory, a flat-out jock assembly line with various classes and professors getting in the way.

One that has gone 14-12 the last two seasons.

The other operates without an athletic department, without much care, it seems, whether it contends for championships.

Which is probably part of the reason they haven’t been to a bowl in 26 years.

Florida State or Vanderbilt. Which would you rather be this week?

Florida State always and forever. They actually devote money to their football program and build facilities and have gone to a bowl game pretty much every year that I’ve been following football. We’re only three years removed from them winning their conference title. Vandy hasn’t won a conference title since 1923 (in the no longer existant Southern Conference). This is a no brainer. FSU, for all of their difficulties, would likely have beaten Vanderbilt each of the last two years.

If you said Vanderbilt go to the head of the, uh, class. If you can. Ninety-five percent of the school’s freshmen score at least 24 on the ACT.

Ugh. Vandy has high academic standards?! I never knew that.

At Florida State — where ACT used to mean Always Catching Touchdowns — the ‘Noles would settle for a score, any score.

Then they should be pleased by their field goal the other night, you unfunny hack.

The two programs are headed in opposite directions for the first time in, well, forever.

No. No they are not. If anything you could argue that FSU is slouching towards Vandy, but even that would be an overstatement.

College football awoke to a bizarro world Sunday that saw Vanderbilt ranked for the first time since 1984. Florida State was just rank.

That rank-rank trope is an affront to comedy. I love the mention of 1984, which was one of the other seasons Dodd mentions later where they started 4-0. Their final record was 5-6.

If you wanted an example of parity, folks, here it is. Vandy is 4-0 for only the fourth time since World War II.

First, this is not an example of parity. Vandy has played four of their seven potentially winnable games, including two of the most likely. Second, they have been outagined by three of their four opponents (by a combined 283 yards in their two SEC wins). They have won largely because they have a +9 turnover margin. While it’s possible they could ride this wave of flukishness to a seven win season – as Mississippi State did last year – it isn’t likely, nor is it sustainable over time – as Mississippi State’s fall back to the bottom of the SEC this year would indicate.

Playing an easier schedule than the Commodores, Florida State is 2-1.

Vandy was largely dominated by a team that lost to the same Wake Forest team who represents FSU’s only loss so far. It might be a bit premature to compare the two teams.

FSU continues to sink into the tar pit that has become the latter part of Bobby Bowden’s career. Two 7-6 seasons have been followed by Saturday’s statement that a turnaround isn’t near.

Yet those two 7-6 seasons are still better than Vandy’s 4-8 and 5-7 records over the same period.

You want an indicator? For the first time in five years, Joe Paterno is ahead of Bowden on the all-time victories list, 376-375.

What. The. Fuck? Indicator of what? What does this have to do with Vandy vs. FSU as a football program?

You wonder if Papa Bowden is ever going to catch up again. The coach himself has hinted that this might be his last season. A pity that we would have to stick a fork in a great career, instead of remembering Chief Osceola flinging that lighted spear into the Doak Campbell turf.

He probably won’t if this is his last season, as Paterno has managed his program better in recent years than Bowden. This still has nothing to do with Vandy as compared to FSU.

If it’s only a painful week at Mega U. that would be a good thing. But FSU’s problems look deep and profound.

Their main problem seems that Bowden let his son run their offense into the ground and they are only in the second year of recovery with a lot of new assistants. That doesn’t seem all that deep or profound considering the kind of talent they can attract.

The 12-3 loss to Wake Forest marked the second-worst offensive performance at home by the ‘Noles in the Bowden era. The worst was two years ago in a 30-0 skunk job by Wake.

So they lost by three fewer touchdowns and played defense pretty well this time. That’s an improvement, yes?

There were seven turnovers — seven! — before an adoring public just waiting to see if the ‘Noles were showing signs of returning to prominence.

That will sometimes happen when young quarterbacks are playing against their first quality opponent.

Oh, and wasn’t this about the relative merits of Vanderbilt compared to FSU?

“We’re not where I hoped we were,” Bowden said. “That was evident.”

Hey, a useless quote!

It appears that there is more than academic fraud at FSU, where the school started the season missing several players, suspended for cheating on tests.

What?

It’s never good to have more penalties (12) than points (three),

You don’t say.

especially after your quarterback, who is making his third career start, feels compelled to guarantee victory …

Especially after that? It would have been somehow more acceptable to have more turnovers than points if he’d said something like, “They’re a tough team. We just want to go out and compete, and hopefully we come out on top.”

… Over Wake.

Who is still not Vandy. We’ve gone about six or seven paragraphs now with no comparison between the teams referenced in the fucking headline.

Also, Wake has won the conference title within the last two years and has beaten FSU two (now three) years in a row. Why was the guarantee thing so shocking. (Fun fact: Wake beat Vandy worse than they did FSU last year.)

It’s time to face a stark reality in Tallahassee. Wake Forest has the better program. Tiny Wake. Laughable Wake. Sure, the Seminoles recruit better players — the 2009 class is ranked No. 5 by Rivals.com — but the Demon Deacons do more with their guys. That’s what makes it even worse.

All true. Wake Forest is still not Vandy. Had you started out to make the point that Wake Forest has passed FSU you could easily make that point. You have three years of solid evidence to support that assertion. You, however, were arguing that Vanderbilt has passed FSU and have spent about two sentences trying to support that claim. This is bait-and-switch journalism.

Bowden is passing the baton, at some point, to offensive coordinator Jimbo Fisher. Deacons coach Jim Grobe has a 10-year contract, and now owns three consecutive victories over the school that dominated Wake from 1992-2005.

I suppose the point of these facts is that Wake is more stable at the moment and thus a better program or something like that. Wake, however, is still not Vandy. And it just goes on like that for a few more paragraphs. This is the journalistic equivalent of listening to an eight year old tell a story. It rambles along with no clear line of logic and at the end you’re left wondering what the fuck just happened. I’ll skip to where it finally veers back into Vandy.

The ‘Dores are suddenly two victories away from bowl eligibility. Here’s a brain-teaser: What comes first, Vanderbilt’s next bowl game — the last was in 1982 — or Florida State fielding a capable quarterback?

Vandy has two games left that they should win: Mississippi State and Duke. They’ll probably lose the rest, but they will be bowl eligible if they win the ones they should. So, in summation, this is a stupid question posed as a brain-teaser because Dodd suffers from some sort of disease that causes him to write stupid things.

Chris Rix, please come back. All is forgiven.

For example, this implies that Chris Rix was a capable QB, which is disproven by Chris Rix’s career.

By some cosmic chance, the underdog subjects of this column, Vanderbilt and Wake Forest, end the regular season on Nov. 29 in Winston-Salem. Florida State plays Florida the same day.

Cosmic chance or their ADs scheduling the game? You decide.

The label is waiting for one or both games: The SemiNo Bowl.

One or both? What the fuck will Vandy making a bowl have to do with FSU not making one? For the record, I’d go with option C. Neither.

If something positive doesn’t happen quick in Tallahassee, FSU’s dynasty will be a footnote because this is not just about the decline of a football factory.

This rates a 3.1 on the Mitzelbaum Scale.

The Seminoles were embarrassed twice by institutions of higher learning over the weekend.

Don’t do it Dodd.

Wake on the field and Vandy in the polls.

Sigh.

A Brief Reminder That Terry Bowden Is Not To Be Trusted

Headline for this column:

Bowden: Ohio State will be ready…and win

College Football Is Destroying This Country

Fortunately, there’s a man…no, there’s a hero championing justice and righteousness, and perhaps saving our very freedoms in the process. You may remember him for his good works in taking on perfidious bloggers. His name is Buzz Bissinger. You may have read his book about trying to score weed on Friday nights or something like that (I never read it). Whatever. The point is, he’s turned his bile spewing on the college football world, and we’re all a little worse off for it.

EDSBS touched on it on Friday. But there’s so much more wrong with it. Take it from the top Buzz:

It’s a couple of weeks ago and I am watching the Alabama-Clemson football game.

Timely.

It’s a pretty good contest, actually.

As a hater of all things orange I enjoy watching Clemson get dominated as much as anyone, but this was not a pretty good contest. It was a thorough ass-kicking.

The Crimson Tide is in the groove against a Top 10 team. But that’s not what truly interests me.

For someone who purportedly enjoys sports this is a strange statement. You’re basically saying, “Fuck the game. I want to focus on the periphery.”

I am watching the fans in various states of rabidity, wondering how long it takes to wash all that school-color gunk off your body once you lacquer it on, not to mention what precisely motivates someone to apply such gunk in the first place.

I stopped wondering about that when I was about 14. Apparently, Buzz just can’t let it go.

I am watching the cheerleaders in their somersaults and squats of perfect synchronism with those slapped-on smiles.

Some of them could be genuinely happy and excited, performing for the crowd giving them a rush and all that. I’m cynical but damn.

I am just watching the crazy spectacle of it all — frenzy and bloodlust and the low rumble of moans and the high-pitch of screams.

Yeah, it is pretty awesome.

I wonder why we need any more studies showing our nation’s education system to be in the tank when all you have to do is attend a college football game.

Oh, that’s not where you were going with that. Apparently sports fandom is a uniquely American trait. Our new peculiar institution. Far be it from me to call a serious member of the media ignorant on a blog, but read a story about soccer riots you ignorant fucktard. 

There’s also the claim of a connection between a poor education and exuberance at an entertainment venue. You know how bad our education system must have been in the ’50s and ’60s because you can see the rapturous adoration of acts like Elvis and The Beatles in those old clips.

But mostly I am watching Nick Saban.

That’s just weird. I’ll skip past the stuff about Saban’s personality since EDSBS already covered it.

When I watch Nick Saban, it is hard for me to tell how much difference he is really making out there, notwithstanding the nervous pacing and urgent back-and-forth over the headphones.

Trust me. He’s making a difference, discussing strategy, trying to motivate players through chastisement or encouragement and so on. You wrote a book about Texas high school football and don’t know what coaches do during games? Knowing that, I’m kind of glad I never read it.

Despite the millions of pages that have been dedicated to the genius of the American college football coach, the game still seems quite wonderfully helter-skelter to me, ultimately determined by the successes and failures of the 22 players on the field who actually play it.

Again, this is just pure ignorance of the game. There’s gameplanning and grueling hours of practice to get eleven members of the offense to work in conjunction in order to advance the ball and eleven members on defense to work together to stop them from doing so. If it were helter-skelter then the coach who had the 22 best athletes on the field would always win. Such is not the case.

Does Bissinger really not know this or is he just pandering to those New York Times readers who look down upon sports fanatics as some sort of inbred mongoloids?

I get bored after a while. The spectacle wears off, and watching Nick Saban coach is about as much fun as watching a traffic cop conduct rush-hour traffic.

You could try watching the game. You know, the spectacle that is the central reason you’ve been able to watch Nick Saban on television?

But I still need my college football fix. So I do what has become my favorite pastime of late — I read the database of contracts for major college coaches compiled by USA Today.

Now this is just a bold-faced lie. Nobody’s favorite pastime is reading anything in USA today, let alone fucking contract details. And nobody who needs a football fix turns to contracts either. I think you’re full of shit, Buzz.

I read the one for Nick Saban, and it is a very good read, in particular for anyone who wants to know why the United States has become a second-rate nation and will remain so until we figure out what is important and what is not.

Second-rate in what regard? We have the largest GDP in the world. We live alone in spaces that many countries use to house entire families if not multiple families. Our system of higher education is widely considered the best in the world. Unemployment is low. We want for nothing in this country. Our poor people are fat for Christ’s sake. Get some perspective.

I learn that his pay this season, his second at ’Bama, is $3.75 million. Given that the average pay for a University of Alabama full professor is $116,000, that strikes me as a lot of money, even if all of it does come from revenues associated with athletics and not from state taxpayers. But the contract also makes it clear that the University of Alabama board of trustees don’t think $3.75 million is enough for Nick Saban. There need to be more perks. After all, he is the football coach.

What an original take on priorities. I’ve never heard this from anyone, ever, in my life. To give you an idea of how freash this take is, here’s a Bear Bryant quote on the difference in pay: “How many people watch you give a final exam? [About fifty is the reply.] Well, I have 50,000 watch me give mine – every Saturday!” This quote was attributed to him while he was coaching at Texas A&M, which was from 1954-57.

There’s a section about the Miami thing, which was necessary reading for no one. There’s also a lot of bitching about incentives and graduation rates and so on. This pretty much sums it up:

Alabama is 2-0 this season and currently ranked 11th in the Associated Press’s most recent poll, so the investment in Nick Saban may well pay out the dividend that Alabama is so desperately seeking in trying to restore itself to national prominence. Of course, the season is still young, and the fortunes of the Alabama team could still go in a downward spiral. Not that I think it will have much lasting impact on Nick Saban.

Because Saban’s an asshole who doesn’t care I presume. Which runs counter to that angry visage he permanently wears and you noticed while you were watching him instead of the football game.

If his team misses out on a big bowl game, he misses out on some hefty bonuses. But there will still be the country club membership. There will still be the use of the two automobiles for him and his family. There will still be the use of the non-commercial plane for 25 hours. All on top of the eight-year contract he signed for $32 million.

All of those things are paid for by the athletic department budget, which takes in hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Buzz actually did point that fact out, but it doesn’t seem to make him any more understanding of the salary and perks.

All in the name of college football.

See?

Which is why Nick Saban should try to look a little happier on the sidelines. When you’re laughing all the way to the bank, you should at least be smiling.

See, he’s getting money for nothing. He doesn’t spend 80 hours a week coaching and breaking down tape and gameplanning. He doesn’t travel around trying to convince fickle 17 year olds to sign on with his program. He’s just down there watching the melee on the field, gesticulating and making jokes about the “student bodies” – if you know what he means – with the other coaches via his headset. It’s not as if there’s any pressure to win at Alabama. If only our priorities were straight.

Thanks Buzz. You’re doing God’s work.

I’ve Been Baited

But it’s just so shiny that I can’t resist. Georgia played an ugly football game against South Carolina on Saturday, which is surprising to exactly no one who has ever watched Georgia stumble through this game in most of its recent incarnations. Gregg Doyel is so surprised by this occurrence that he thinks Georgia should fall five spots in the polls for winning a game in an ugly fashion against a mediocre opponent. For some perspective, let’s list a few Georgia-South Carolina outcomes and the end results of Georgia’s seasons:

• 2002: 13-7, Georgia. Season results: 13-1, SEC Championship, Sugar Bowl victory, no. 3 final ranking.
• 2004: 20-16, Georgia. Season results: 10-2, Capital One Bowl victory, no. 6 final ranking.
• 2005: 17-15, Georgia. Season results: 10-3, SEC Championship, Sugar Bowl loss, no. 10 final ranking.
• 2007: 16-12, South Carolina. Season results: 11-2, Sugar Bowl victory, no. 2 final ranking.

Perspective. The South Carolina game has been indicative of nothing during the Richt years. Now onto the column.

National ranking biggest issue for overrated Bulldogs

No, it’s the biggest issue for you regarding the Bulldogs. They were probably cool with being ranked second.

There’s a problem with Georgia, but it’s nothing that can’t be fixed. That’s the good news.

That’s a relief.

The problem is more fundamental than Georgia’s bad group of receivers,

based on a sample size of one game.

bad pass coverage

Can’t really argue there.

and bad play-calling.

Based, again, on a one game sample.

Georgia is ranked No. 2 in the country. That’s the problem.

Oh, SNAP! Man, is my face red. I thought you were going one way, and you completely fucking flipped it on me. This is good sportswriting.

But it’s a fixable problem.

Phew.

It can be rectified as soon as Sunday night when coaches and media make their newest Top 25 polls and drop the Bulldogs like a left hook to the jaw. 

Seems like an overly violent simile there. I assume this is a boxing metaphor or something, so in the vein, considering your argument later that they should be dropped to seventh isn’t this kind of an overstatement? Seventh is not “out for the count” or whatever people say about boxing. Also, and forgive my ignorance as a non-fighter, but do left hooks always drop people?

South Carolina almost made it easy on pollsters by landing a haymaker of its own,

More boxing. Can’t we get some good war metaphors in here? That’s the norm for football after all.

but Georgia bobbed and weaved and avoided being knocked out of the BCS championship picture with a season-saving 14-7 victory Saturday at Williams-Brice Stadium.

That’s it. I’m creating a “boxing metaphors” tag. (RIROHG: Ripping off Fire Joe Morgan since its inception).

If Georgia’s victory was season-saving doesn’t that undercut your drop-in-the-polls-like-someone-hit-them-really-hard-in-the-jaw thing from earlier? Is it season-saving or season-killing? Does CBS employ anyone who can write down ideas in any sort of coherent manner?

Now it’s up to voters to do the right thing and smack Georgia in the mouth.

Again, this seems a touch on the ultraviolent side. Can’t they just give them a stern warning, or put them in timeout or something? I get the feeling that Gregg Doyel is a drunk and abusive husband and dad.

Say, by dropping the Bulldogs to somewhere like seventh.

Seventh? That’s a slap on the wrist, easily correctible later on. If you want to smack them in their metaphorical mouths you need to take them off of your ballot completely. That’ll teach them to play a shitty game early in the season. Much like a woman, they probably won’t learn though. Am I right, Gregg?

But there’s a problem with the polls, and it’s something that rarely gets fixed. That’s the bad news.

Nobody likes to admit they were wrong, certainly not until they have no other choice, and pollsters are no different.

Well, sure. Rational people also don’t change their minds about things based on small sample sizes.

Pollsters are notoriously slow to admit their mistakes, even though mistakes in the polls are so simple to make.

Sure, but these things have a way of working themselves out over the course of a season. Cal was mistakenly ranked second at one point last year. They played themselves out of that ranking by losing some games. These kinds of things happen every year.

Picking the preseason Top 25 is impossible to do with any accuracy, and everyone knows it, yet that initial poll sets the tone for the rest of the season.

Provided you win enough games to remain highly ranked. If you don’t, you drop.

Be lucky enough to be ranked higher than you deserve in August, and you’ll stay higher than you deserve most of the season.

If you start number one and lose one or none during the regular season, are you ranked higher than you deserve if you’re still in the first spot at the end, assuming you have a better record than other teams who played relatively similar competition?

Get screwed in the first poll, and you might as well get used to the feeling.

I’d love to see his example that proves this point. Auburn in 2004? Oklahoma and USC destroyed people all year and played for the title. Let it go.

Georgia was the preseason No. 1 team in the country. Voters swallowed enough pride a few weeks back when they dropped Georgia to No. 2 behind Southern California,

Based upon the very wrong idea that blowing out a bad Virginia team warranted such a change.

but based on history, that was as much pride as you’re going to see swallowed. And so that’s as far as the Bulldogs will drop. You watch.

I love how emphatically he makes this point. I can hear him grumbling, “You watch.” As it turned out, Georgia fell to third. Which I have no problem with, for the record. It’s the third week of the season. Things will change. I have a feeling we won’t see these kinds of columns written when Oklahoma and USC struggle with some average conference opponents later this year, though.

But did you watch this game?

Yes, every minute of it.

Georgia looked abysmal against South Carolina.

Abysmal is a bit strong. They controlled the game for three quarters but blew too many chances to put South Carolina away. The run defense was good, and the defense got stops when they had to late in the game. The offensive line and receivers had bad games. These things happen.

South Carolina’s defense is good, no question, but Georgia has alleged Heisman Trophy candidates at running back and quarterback, and Georgia managed just 252 yards.

See above comment about offensive line and receiver play. Blaming Stafford and Moreno is like blaming a pitcher for an unearned run.

South Carolina’s defense isn’t that good.

Probably not, but as I mentioned in the open, for whatever reason they manage to shut down Georgia’s offense nearly ever year.

South Carolina’s offense, meanwhile, isn’t any good. Tailback Mike Davis is a dime-a-dozen back notable only for fumbling at the goal line midway through the fourth quarter and for breaking into a locked refrigerator in the USC weight room in August and getting busted by a surveillance camera. Quarterback Chris Smelley has been jerked around by coach Steve Spurrier. Star receiver Kenny McKinley has been injured.

All of this is true. Points scored by this craptastic offense on Saturday: 7.

The Gamecocks have issues. And still Georgia couldn’t put them away. Couldn’t come close.

Well, they came close a few times. They twice blew touchdown opportunities and had to settle for field goals. A couple of other drives were killed by drops. Would 21-7 have been an impressive enough score to only fall to fourth or fifth?

The Bulldogs’ best player Saturday was their punter.

I’d give the nod to Rennie Curran who won SEC Defensive Player of the week honors for his play. Mimbs did have the best game of his career though.

Brian Mimbs launched kicks of 45, 51 and 77 yards in the fourth quarter when alleged Heisman candidate quarterback Matthew Stafford and alleged Heisman candidate tailback Knowshon Moreno were factually useless.

Yeah, fuck you guys for not blocking better on running plays, catching passes better or calling better plays.

Stafford and Moreno did have great moments earlier. Stafford darted 30 yards on a keeper, threaded a 39-yard needle to A.J. Green and stuck his head into the scrum as a lead blocker for Moreno. And Moreno’s touchdown was one of the prettiest 4-yard runs in the history of football.

Those moments didn’t actually affect the outcome of the game though. Results of the first three quarters are thrown out the window. Only the fourth matters.

But when it mattered, Stafford and Moreno didn’t.

Those shitheads. I bet they bagged it on purpose.

Stafford was 1-for-2 for eight yards in the quarter, and was sacked twice. Moreno had five carries for 16 yards. Coach Mark Richt didn’t help matters by calling strange plays throughout the quarter, running when he should pass and passing when he should run and generally doing nothing to showcase his two alleged Heisman candidates. And don’t get me started on the Georgia receiving corps, which dropped five passes and couldn’t be bothered to dive for a catchable ball on another throw.

First, Mark Richt no longer calls plays. Mike Bobo handles those duties now. The play was a little odd though. Second, wouldn’t the two sacks and 16 yards on five carries indicate that maybe the line was not doing its job? I don’t care what plays you call. When you don’t block, they don’t work. Third, I’m kind of annoyed by the receivers too, but they played like crap against South Carolina last year and got over it. It’s one game.

Richt blamed his team’s play on the steamy conditions. It was 92 degrees at kickoff.

“When you play in a hot, muggy, miserable day against the type of resistance we came up against,” Richt said, “you’re just not sharp.”

Sounds reasonable, but it also sounds ominous. Georgia plays in the SEC, and the ‘S’ isn’t for “Siberia.”

Ooh. Awesome joke man.

It gets hot in the South. It’ll stay hot in the South.

In perpetuity. It will be 92 degrees with 90% humidity on October 25, because the weahter never ever changes in the south.

If Georgia’s offense is capable of looking sharp only on those hot, muggy, miserable days when it’s facing Georgia Southern and Central Michigan, Georgia is in trouble.

And we should expect this to be the case, because they played a fairly bad game against South Carolina, much like they always do.

Unless the Bulldogs get the chance to hang 50 on Western Carolina and Eastern Illinois.

And these are two teams that Georgia does not play, which is fucking puzzling. What does this mean? Why is it here? Is it code? Is it shitty writing? It’s shitty writing isn’t it. I really overthought that.

The schedule isn’t cooperating.

I hate cantankerous schedules.

The schedule says Georgia still has a trip next week to Arizona State, where it won’t be snowing,

Nor will it be humid, because it’s in a fucking desert.

as well as SEC games against Alabama and Tennessee in Athens and visits to LSU, Jacksonville (to play Florida) and Auburn.

I will predict that by the Sept. 27 game against Alabama the temperatures will no longer be in the 90s.

Not a lot of polar bears in any of those places.

This is the dumbest bit of sarcasm I’ve ever read. The whole paragraph, start to finish. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Gregg Doyel : Sarcasm :: Carlos Mencia : Racial Humor

So there is time for this problem with Georgia to be corrected. If voters won’t do the right thing later this weekend and drop the Bulldogs behind any of a half-dozen superior teams —

Oh man. I love this list.

I’m thinking Southern California (fine), Oklahoma (cool), LSU (has played nobody), Florida (struggled mightily on offense against what is probably only an average Miami team) and possibly Missouri (secondary was a sieve against Illinois) or Alabama (struggled with Tulane) – then some of the teams on Georgia’s schedule will have to do it later.

Which makes me wonder, why the fuck are you writing this?

That’s one of the charms of the college football season. Sooner or later, mistakes in the polls get rectified. Even a mistake as glaring as the “No. 2″ next to the word “Georgia.”

Seriously, why?