Showing posts with label alabama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alabama. Show all posts

Sunday, November 28

Devotion and Doubt

I found myself rooting for Alabama over Auburn this past weekend. But I wasn't sure why. Maybe it's because I was still hoping that Boise State would get a shot at the title, and I figured that was the easiest way they could get there. Or because in Pick 'Em I needed a big upset to have to chance to come back in the standings. Or because when I hear that "S-E-C! S-E-C!" nonsense I feel like a cat being petted in the wrong direction - uncomfortably testy. Auburn was one of the last stops on my road trip, and despite my exhaustion it was probably the best Thanksgiving Friday of my life. The fans were as generous with me as anyone, and a jovial day ended with a hearty celebration at Toomer's Corner. My heart should probably always be with Auburn in the Iron Bowl, but I needed my brain to give it the reminder.

I moved to Argentina two and a half years ago, and have felt more distant from college football each season. Not that I haven't been paying attention, but it's just not the same when you can't take in the whole Saturday. Reading box-scores as they come in just isn't the same. I can curse the fact that internet here is too slow to stream all I want, but it doesn't change the situation. The last two weeks, I took an extended break to celebrate Thanksgiving with the family and got to behave like a real fan again. Oh how I have missed taking in the full slate of games every week. That said, it did not go very well for me and my team.

I've been on the side of giving Rich Rodriguez another year, but it was based on limited information. I haven't been able to actually watch many of the games over the past three seasons. I've had to go on box scores, bloggers' analyses, and angry or relief-filled e-mails from friends. In statistics, we'd say that a model built on limited data like this has a lot of error. Over the past two weeks I gathered more info. I watched not just Michigan's games against Wisconsin and Ohio State, but various other teams playing various other games. During the Ohio State/Iowa game last week, it struck me how they limit their mistakes to the bare minimum. They are not a superb team, especially on offense. But it's not like they're a good enough team to truly dominate. Except for those occasions when Pryor goofs, the team never shoots themselves in the foot.

It strikes me that as Michigan fans, we must watch between our fingers, waiting for the next big mistake. On Saturday, otherwise reliable receivers dropped easy and hard passes all day. It was sunny and dry. There was no reason for these gaffes. The best offensive play of the afternoon, the one Michigan's run all season where Denard Robinson jab-steps and then throws deep over the middle was negated because of the stupidest of penalties. The defense started out playing strong, but eventually the mistakes arrived via missed tackles or by players being out of position.

It is clear that Rodriguez is a talented coach when it comes to schemes and running an aggressive offense. Whatever he has done to coach Denard in the offseason and during this year has worked tremendously well. Last year Denard wasn't remotely a quarterback. This year he broke records. And I'm willing to forgive his proclivity to turn the ball over as that's what first-year starters often do. But the team is clearly not prepared to play. At the end of the year, the kinks should already be worked out and the blooper-reel stuff eliminated. What we saw the last two weeks simply cannot happen. Maybe they had a bad couple of weeks, or perhaps the team is tired. I'm still working with limited data here, though the more I gain, the bleaker the picture becomes.

If Michigan can indeed snag Jim Harbaugh now, it's clearly the choice with a higher probability of long-term success. Rodriguez was not dealt the best hand when he arrived at Michigan. The talent wasn't there, and many people were working against him, hard. From the old-schoolers in the athletic department who wanted Les Miles, to the Detroit Free Press' hatchet men, to the litigious WVU Athletic Department, he had a lot of unfair stuff to deal with. I am sure the team will improve next year if he stays. There are few seniors, and the offensive recruits coming in seem to have a lot of potential. And it would be impossible for the defense to be any worse, even if Greg Robinson is miraculously spared the axe. Maybe the continuation of this nadir is not all Rodriguez's fault, but that doesn't really matter anymore. It's like one of those sad country songs where the singer burdens himself with blame, but gives a fair share to the fates. Either way, the dude's just going to be miserable for a while, and there's not much he can do to lift his spirits.

I am now very concerned about the ceiling of the team with Rodriguez. If they can't catch a pass in the most important game of the year, and can't stop getting dumb penalties, and can't be in position, will they ever be an elite team? Because that's the real reason Ohio State has now won seven times in a row. They get the most out of the players they have. This year, I'd say we got the most out of just a handful: Denard and one or two offensive lineman. That, more than anything makes me think it's time to cut bait. It's pretty clear that Jim Harbaugh gets the most out of his talent.

Again, I'm out of the loop. I can't even decide which teams to root for anymore. Not seeing games hurts all of it. I guess I still need to hear what people like Brian and Dave have to say. They've been preaching patience all year. But after they saw what we all saw these last two weeks, I can't imagine they have a lot left. Suddenly, a bowl game is small consolation.

At the very least I am thankful to have endured those games and seen so many others. Reading about how Boise State saved their season with a last second bomb only to blow it on two botched chipshots pales in comparison to taking it in live. At the very least I have come to a conclusion about something. Next year, I'm finding a way to spend my Saturdays with football, even if I have to move. Either that or I'll have to buy a guitar and pick up a drawl so I can lament my various losses in song.

Thursday, January 22

Fisking the ESPN Prestige Rankings

ESPN has put together a "prestige ranking" of all the I-AA college football programs. "ESPN's Prestige Rankings are a numerical method of ranking the best FBS college football programs since the 1936 season." Obviously, this is more of an exercise that is just for fun and not to be taken too seriously. But at times, I like to take frivolous things more seriously. It's the nerdy statistician in me. So let's take a look at what they did and where they may have erred.

Their system:
National Title: 25 points
Major bowl berth: 10
Major bowl win: 10
Conference Championship: 10
AP Top 5 Finish: 10
AP 6-10 Finish: 6
AP 11-25 Finish: 4
Heisman Winner: 8
Bowl Appearance: 3
Bowl Win: 3
10-win Season: 2
Week as AP #1: 2
Win over AP #1: 1
Each All-American: 1
First Round NFL Pick (since 1970): 1
Losing season: -2
TV Ban year: -1
Bowl Ban year: -2
Probation year: -1
Financial-aid Penalty year: -1
Recruiting Penalties year: -1
Each penalty of "show cause action:" -2

What they definitely got right:
  • 25 points for a National Title is dead on.
  • They handled the conference championship perfectly, and have the right amount of points on it (see their page for details or just trust me).
  • 8 points for a Heisman trophy is probably right. Perhaps it could go to 10, but it is a major aspect of the sport, even if you disagree with it.
  • The AP finish rankings are pretty much perfect.
  • When it comes to one point for each All-American, you could debate that this isn't important and that team success should supersede everything. But everywhere I went, the great players were integral to the thoughts and feelings that everyone expressed to me. At LSU, I heard no less than 40 renditions of Billy Cannon's punt return vs. Ole Miss. Even the youngest Dawgs wanted to discuss Herschel Walker's amazing freshman season. Tommie Frazier could run for governor of Nebraska one day and win in a landslide. When talking about prestige, certainly the great players who made the great plays matter. Do offensive linemen really belong in this category? Maybe not, but to keep the methodology consistent, you have to include them.
What they got wrong:
  • Including points for a 10-win season is very problematic. It inherently means less than it used to, thanks to the additional games on the schedule and the fact that those additional games are almost exclusively facing the weakest competition available. I don't think that beating Georgia Southern really improved Georgia's prestige any, but it did get them to 10 wins this season. Furthermore, it shouldn't be included because it is redundant with all the other measures. In statistics, it's akin to what we'd call an overspecified model.
  • Including each week ranked as the AP#1 and giving it two points, yet counting a victory over the AP#1 with only one point seems totally backwards to me. Alabama held their #1 ranking the week they beat Mississippi State. Did that really add to the program's prestige in any way? The sport of College Football is inherently about the big moments. And there is no bigger moment in the sport than taking down the #1 team in the country. This should be worth 10 points on its own. Just ask Texas Tech fans. Crabtree's touchdown against #1 Texas trumps any prestigious moment in the history of the program and will until they win the conference (and even then, there will be some who argue that this was bigger).
  • Strength of Schedule is basically absent outside of the one point for taking down the AP #1. It's a part of the game (well, it used to be anyway). I realize it would be hard to include this, but the "big games" are important. Perhaps including nationally televised broadcasts would have been good (though quite unfairly skewed as well). Or at least a point for every win over an AP ranked team.
  • First round NFL Pick doesn't belong here. Does Ryan Leaf's NFL experience add to the prestige of Washington State? He was chosen 3rd overall. Also, since it only goes back to 1970, it will skew the data to more recent success. ESPN still has trouble understanding that the two sports are not the same. Also it's relatively redundant with the All Americans.
What's missing?
  • Part of a program's prestige has always been wrapped up in its all-time great coaches. Can you think of Ohio State without Woody Hayes? Or Alabama without Bear Bryant? It would not have been hard to include points for any coach that was with a school for at least ten years and had at least a .700 winning percentage. For Penn State, give Paterno credit for each decade of tenure.
  • Because their system goes season by season, there is nothing for all-time records. For most fans, this certainly plays into the argument for the prestige of their school. It would not have been hard to include a certain number of points for every 100 wins all time. Yes, there would be some redundancy, so perhaps this is not needed.
  • Nothing for attendance? Shouldn't Miami should be penalized for their lousy fan base? Fans are a part of the game, too, and certainly affect the prestige of a program.
1936?
They actually address this issue, saying:
The AP poll was introduced that season, making it the first time the longest-standing news organization in the United States began ranking teams and crowning a national champion. Starting in 1937, the NCAA began recognizing "major college programs" (now known as the FBS). To accrue points, a program had to be recognized as one of these major programs by the NCAA.
This is a curious decision to me. When we are talking about "prestige", that doesn't precisely equate with "history", but they're certainly related. To begin in 1936 is to begin after the death of Knute Rockne. In these rankings, we have no Four Horsemen, no Red Grange, none of the "point a minute" Fielding Yost teams, and none of the great Army teams from that era. However, all these seasons matter to many fans today, and are talked about specifically in terms of prestige. Go to South Bend sometime and see if nobody quotes Grantland Rice to you. I promise you it's not possible.

The omission of all early seasons will knock down Michigan and Notre Dame at the least. Perhaps this is by design? As I learned on the road last season, Notre Dame is universally resented around the nation. Michigan is coming off a down year. They have two of the most active internet fan bases and will surely be irate about a lower ranking, causing them to talk about this endeavor that much more. Uhh... kinda like I'm doing right now. It seems like their rationale here doesn't really meet with the overall goal of the project, so I find myself skeptical about the decision. I mean, shouldn't Michigan beating Stanford 45-0 in the very first bowl game add to its prestige a bit? We'll see how things net out as they reveal 1-10 over the next two days. So far, #s 11-119 feel pretty accurate.

Overall, these rankings make a lot more sense in the pre-BCS, pre-horrendous scheduling era. If anything, they point out how much of the tradition has eroded in the last ten years. If I had to bet, my money would be on Nebraska or Oklahoma to take the title. Those "bonus" scholarship players and years of beating up on the other 6 teams in their conference are going to pile up the points.

Popular Posts