Alabama and Auburn take it to court

Filed in state court in Alabama.

I anticipate filling a similar motion in 20 years the next time Marquette makes it to the Final Four.

Read more...

Sunshine

Lots and lots of sunshine. You know, the kind that gives you a really good tan. And stronger thigh muscles. Or maybe it's just all the rabbit chasing.

Read more...

University of Minnesota spokesman: "This is a totally serious matter. So serious, in fact, that I will now reprimand a big, fluffy gopher suit."

Bad Goldy!

"On behalf of Goldy and the University of Minnesota, I want to apologize to the Penn State player involved and anyone else who may have taken offense from this incident," Wolter said in a statement. "We have reiterated to Goldy the importance of exercising appropriate religious sensitivity in the future."

Read more...

Black is Beautiful, if not Plentiful

You knew you weren't going to get anything resembling rational thought in an article entitled "25 more things we miss in sports," basically a chance of old-timer sportswriters to have a wank about what sports were like when they were 9 years old (No ads in stadiums, wood drivers, "the perceived innocence of college sports," etc.)

But this one took the cake

24. Non-black college uniforms
They were neat for a while, a break from the norm, a variation on the typically retro throwback. But now that nearly every NCAA program has trotted out a variation on all-black uniforms, school colors have become all but obsolete.

The purpose of uniforms is to identify a team or program -- heraldic devices of a sort. While most schools have historically employed a neutral color (black, white or gray) to serve as the signature shade for home games, a number of programs have lately taken to wearing all-black as their primary uniforms. Therein lies the problem: If everyone does it, everyone looks the same, negating the purpose of uniforms in the first place. Only a handful of athletic programs remain true to their roots -- Southern California and Penn State are two that come to mind -- and while they may not sport the prettiest pairing of hues, at least we can tell them apart. -- N.J


Well, just among the D-1 Football programs without black jerseys (let alone all-black jerseys), I also count...

1. Michigan
2. Michigan State
3. Ohio State
4. Illinois
5. Indiana
6. Wisconsin
7. Minnesota
8. Northwestern
9. Syracuse
10. West Virginia
11. South Florida
12. Pitt
13. UConn
14. North Carolina
15. North Carolina State
16. Georgia Tech
17. Clemson
18. Miami (FL)
19. Duke
20. Boston College
21. Virginia
22. Virginia Tech
23. Florida
24. Mississippi State
25. Kentucky
26. Tennessee
27. LSU
28. Ole Miss
29. Arkansas
30. Alabama
31. Auburn
32. Texas
33. Kansas
34. Kansas State
35. Texas A&M
36. Oklahoma
37. Oklahoma State
38. Nebraska
39. Baylor
40. Iowa State
41. Washington
42. Washington State
43. Arizona
44. Arizona State
45. Cal
46. UCLA
47. Stanford

of 65 BCS Conference teams.

So by my count, only 16 BCS Conference College football programs have black jerseys or black alternates (Iowa, Purdue, Cincinnati, Louisville, Rutgers, Florida State, Maryland, Wake Forest, Georgia, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Colorado, Missouri, Oregon, Oregon State).

Oh, don't forget Notre Dame and Navy. But why let facts get in the way of a good argument?

Read more...

Why I Hate The College Spread Offense

Michigan QB Nick Sheridan - 11/19, 98 Yards

That translates to 5.2 yards per attempt. Terrible numbers, and though you can chalk it up to any number of things (the fact that Sheridan sucks, the new Michigan offense, whatever), the fact is that the spread is just an elaborate system of screens, hitches and slants. It kills the vertical passing game, and I hate it.

To put those YPA numbers in perspective, only 6 NFL teams had YPA numbers that were that bad last year, all of which from teams that had little or no talent at QB (St. Louis, Kansas City, Miami, Baltimore, Carolina and San Fransico).

So much is being made of the need to figure out how to slow down the spread around College Football, but I think it comes down to two or three things: speed, solid tackling and assignment discipline. Teams with enough of each can shut down a spread attack with relative ease.

Pointless and flawed rant over.

Read more...

Just to switch things up...a post on the BCS

Since this discussion is going down in an everyone-write-your-own-post fashion, here is my contribution.

DISCLAIMER: This post does not take the financial aspect of the debate into consideration at all. My argument is that a playoff would ultimately leave the fans just as upset, and ultimately more upset, than they are with the BCS system.

Maybe I glazed over someone mentioning this, but I'm pretty sure that you guys are missing one important point: if you go to a playoff there will still be debate over who really deserves to be there, conference championships would still unfairly screw over certain teams, and no one would really be all that satisfied. In other words, it would solve nothing.

Consider the following, very plausible situation: Missourri loses to Oklahoma and LSU loses to Tennessee in the Big 12 and SEC Championships, respectively. Also, West Virginia holds up against Pittsburgh.

That would mean a championship game between West Virginia and Ohio State (which, by the way, I really really hope doesn't happen). Since the Rose Bowl always wants a Big Ten/Pac-10 matchup, they would invite Illinois and Arizona State (a real thriller). Since Tennessee won the SEC, they would get a BCS bid. Since Hawaii is undefeated and eligible to go to a BCS bowl, they would get an invite. Then you have the ACC champion, either Virginia Tech or Boston College and the Big 12 champion, Oklahoma.

Now, one might say, "Look at those terrible games, this is why there should be a playoff." And yes, a playoff between those eight teams would be more entertaining than four independent, crappy games. But explain that to Georgia and Kansas, who would finish the regular season #3 and #4 in the BCS rankings, respectively. Kansas is a one loss team (and their one loss was to a tough team) and Georgia is almost inarguably the hottest team in the country right now. Explain to them why they don't even get into the eight-team playoff.

Now you can say that Kansas had their shot. "All" they had to do was beat Missourri and Oklahoma to maintain their perfect record. But Georgia has dominated their opponents--including Florida, Kentucky and Auburn--over the last two months. At times, they've looked unstoppable. Except they are stoppable, by a playoff system or the BCS system. Either way, Georgia gets screwed. And either way, people are not satisfied with the declared champion.

Even in a less bizzarre year, with a playoff, people would argue about who should get those two at-large bids and people will bitch and moan when a weak conference sends a weak conference champion in the place of a great non-champion from another conference.

So with those complaints existing either way, I prefer the current system that really does give a playoff feel to every game throughout the year, increasingly as the season progresses. A two or three loss team can pull a conference championship out of their ass and go to a BCS game, but the moment they lose that second game, all national championship hopes essentially evaporate. Games like LSU/Kentucky, LSU/Arkansas, Kentucky/Lousiville, Kentucky/Tennessee, USC/Stanford, Oklahoma/Texas Tech, etc. etc. lose a lot of "magic" (or whatever you want to call it) if you know the losers of those game will probably get into the playoff anyway.

Read more...

Kirk Herbstreit sucks

ESPN's Sportscenter tab "#1 and #2 Teams Upset"

Yes, that's right.
#2 Kansas's loss to #4 (now #1) Missouri, on a neutral site, is an "upset."
Aren't we taking this "season of upsets" a little too far here?

Also.....

Kirk Herbstreit is a dumbass. He pins the "unfairness" of Mizzou having to play in a conference title game while Ohio State doesn't have to on conference commissioners. Never mind that there are certain prerequisites for having one that are actually in the NCAA bylaws. Note the conferences with title games, and what they have in common.

ACC- 12 teams
SEC- 12 teams
Big XII- 12 teams
C-USA- 12 teams
MAC- 13 teams

You can only hold a conference title game if your conference has 12 teams or more and you can split into divisions. That's the whole reason why the SEC poached Arkansas from the old Southwest Conference almost 20 years ago. That's why the old Big Eight confrence snatched up Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor. That's why the ACC added Miami, VaTech, and BC. To get to 12 teams so they could hold a conference title game.

My opinion: If conferences want to hold a cash grab known as a conference title game, then there can be no complaining of unfairness when a team actually has to play in one. Kirk Herbstreit replied in the affirmative to "So by having to play Oklahoma, doesn't Mizzou put themselves in a position where they can only lose what they've already gained?"

There's one game left in the season. Mizzou hasn't "Gained" the national title game yet. They're Big 12 North Champions. Woohey! That's like saying a basketball team with the lead with 2 minutes to go is unfairly made to play the last two minutes and "lose what they already have."

Read more...

Answering a Question With Another Question

I'm admittedly not really much of a college football fan - regardless of whatever you say about the passion and the purity of amateur sports, you won't convince me - the pros are better athletes, plain and simple. The chance to watch Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, LT and the rest of the otherworldly superstars in the NFL will always trump seeing 10 slapdick future grocery clerks and one superstar play in a 56-3 rout of Alabama-Birmingham. But hey, that's just me.

Despite that, I've probably watched more college football this year than during recent seasons, and it's pretty obvious why. This college football season has been the most exciting in a long time, provided you're not a huge fan of the traditional powers like USC, ND, LSU or Florida (although if you follow the Gators, you'll get a consolation Heisman out of it, so don't worry too much).

The 2007 installment has had the excitement and feeligns of arbitrariness usually relegated to college basketball, starting with Appalachian State's shocker at Michigan Stadium. Over the following months, we got to witness Ohio State's persistent falling ass-backwards into title contention, USC's failure to play up to its talent, LSU providing proof that the SEC has more parity than any other conference in the country and the constant hilarity that was Notre Dame.

All the shocking upsets and constant shuffling amongst the top 10 left me with one question - Did this season's unpredictability prove that college football doesn't need a playoff? I've heard the argument (most recently from Dan Shanoff) that the college football season basically is a playoff, because the top teams will ultimately play in enough tough conference games (and hopefully at least one tough non-conference game) to really legitimate their stake at a national title.

Or, is the opposite true? Did this season only just serve to ultimately give us a lousy national championship with two teams who just basically managed to play a weak enough schedule that they weren't tested at the right time. Ohio State seems like the perfect argument for this. I mean, if you were to really think of the two best teams in the country, I don't think there's any way you'd put OSU in the top three. Maybe the top five, but that's probably a stretch, because I still don't think they match up to Mizzou, WVA, LSU or even Florida and USC. Isn't that as good an argument as any for having a playoff system to weed out lucky pretenders from the national championship game? In the completely made-up tournament in my head, I see OSU losing in the semis to a team like Georgia or even Arkansas.

Of course, tangentally related to this is the question of conference championships. After a completely dream season, Missouri could get totally screwed by having to play a really tough Oklahoma team in the Big 12 championship, while Ohio State gets to sit home and root for the Sooners. My completely uninformed opinion is simple - either all the BCS conferences should have one or none of them should.

I'm not nearly expert enough on the politics or machinery of college sports to offer anything close to an answer on this. I'm only curious to know what people think - has this college football season answered, in any way, the debate over the current BCS system? If you're interested enough, feel free to write up an opinion and email us, and I'll post it as its own item (yellowchairsports@gmail.com).

Read more...