I can't figure out a good way to refer to the schools who play in the conferences without automatic BCS qualification. The common reference is "non-AQ's", but that sounds bulky and weird, like you're referring to an outdated Army acronym. I've defaulted to "Non-BCS", but that's not even accurate. These teams can make the BCS, they're just given an intricate obstacle course to navigate first.
I've settled on "excludeds", which drives the spell checker crazy but does a fair job driving the point home. Like the little brother who's forced to stay inside while big bro and his buds play a mean game of tackle football out back, excludeds like TCU and Boise State won't get the establishment's hint. They want to play too. And they've got the game to hang.
It's time to recognize that these schools aren't little fish who happen to absentmindedly swim over to the big pond every once in awhile. They're legitimately budding national powerhouses. They just happen to reside in the WAC and MWC.
Here's the common argument against why TCU and Boise State (or Utah or Hawaii, or whoever it might be in a given year) shouldn't be considered a part of the national championship conversation: "If they played in the SEC of the Big 12, or even the ACC for that matter, they'd never run the table. The week-in, week-out rigors of major conference football would wear them down."
It sounds nice, and because it's hypothetical it's tough to argue against. But here are a few reasons why it doesn't hold water:
1. It's hypothetical. Anyone can spout off such a statement, but there is absolutely no way to prove it. That is, until next year, when Utah, a perennial powerhouse among the excludeds, makes the leap to the Pac-Ten. A year from now, when the Utes are firmly embroiled in the Pac-Ten title race, check back to this post as a reminder that at least one person saw it coming.
2. It's based on outdated source material. What I mean by that is, the argument plays on overall team depth. It's widely thought that major conference teams are deeper - recruiting hauls mean they're overloaded with talent and the guys on the bench would easily start for a Boise State or TCU. That may have been true 30 years ago, but in this day and age scholarship limits restrict the big schools from stockpiling they way they used to. More blue chip talent gets spread elsewhere - to places like Fort Worth and Boise. And the overall advancements in training and the quality of play in high schools across the country means that there are more good players now than ever. Again, this spills over to the benches of the excludeds. So they may not have the players the ubiquitous professional high school talent scouts blather about on the seeming dozens of recruit tracking sites, but they do have guys who can play. And they have a lot of them.
3. How often does a major conference team run the table these days? So you want to argue that the excludeds would invariably drop a game or two if they played an "SEC-style schedule". Fine. You're right, they probably would. But the last time I checked, Alabama, a team labeled as everyone's best heading into the season, has a 2 in the loss column. So how does that make them any different? Using that argument actually works against the arguer. It makes the excludeds equal to the big conference big boys, who, if they do manage to go unbeaten, do so more on luck and a few wise decisions than they do on overall skill. The difference between a 2-loss SEC team and a no-loss SEC team isn't that much - just watch Alabama-Auburn in 2 weeks for proof.
4. It ignores history. Once upon a time, much of the college football world resided in a peaceful co-existence of independent programs. As many as thirty programs were unaffiliated with a conference, and in this world several programs we now consider elite were able to rise from the morass and attain greatness. Florida State and Miami were once considered gnats, their constant buzzing about taking a place among the giants considered annoying talk to most. But persistence payed off, and the Hurricanes and Seminoles earned their place at the establishment table in the 70's and 80's. They were aided by the landscape of independence. They weren't tied to a conference that, either by perception or reality, weighed them down.
The biggest disadvantage Boise State and TCU have is the fact that they're affiliated in a conference. Their rise should be no different than that of Florida State, Miami, or any of the other programs who scrapped their way to prominence. But they carry the weight of perception. Because all the traditional or recently-anointed traditional powers have all clustered into the conference system that aids their own establishmentarianism, it's harder now for new powers to break in. We hear talk of "East Coast Bias", but perhaps the greatest media bias, one fueled by the college football system itself, is the universally-held viewpoint that non-BCS conferences are vastly inferior. There's no doubt that some level of inferiority exists, but it's not nearly as striking as we're led to believe. So when a team like TCU establishes itself on a much higher level above the rest of their conference, they aren't given the credit they deserve. It's assumed that almost any mediocre major conference team could waltz into the Mountain West and dominate. Rarely is it even questioned? But is it true? Could a team like, say, South Carolina, demolish all comers from the Mountain West, including road games in places like Salt Lake City, where the Utes hadn't lost in years? Doubtful.
So the conclusion is that the logic behind the attempts to explain away the power of the excludeds is faulty. Let's face it - TCU and Boise State are as good as any of the top 5 teams in the country. And this year they're rising up, ready to topple the establishment. With the uneasiness that exists in the major conferences and the inevitability of ongoing expansion on the horizon, this could mark the year that the system tips, and the excludeds earn their place at the table. We may look back at it as an historic year, a loosening of the establishment's stranglehold.
All that's left for it to happen is for either TCU or Boise State, or both, to finish what they've started and earn their spot in the title game. Because if they make it, they'll win it.
Abbreviated picks again, after a decidedly unabbreviated post:
1. Penn State at Ohio State
We PSU alums are carrying our heads a few inches higher after the past 2 weeks, but no matter how poised Matt McGloin looks, he's still a former walk-on starting a game against the closest thing the Big Ten's had to a dynasty in a long time. I don't envision this being very close.
Ohio State 35, Penn State 14
2. South Carolina at Florida
South Carolina is dying for an SEC title shot, and this looks like the year Spurrier finally delivers. He knows how to win in the swamp, and the Gators are far less balanced than the Gamecocks.
South Carolina 27, Florida 20
3. Mississippi State at Alabama
The success of Mississippi State this year is a nice story, but their 7-2 record is highly misleading.
Alabama 30, Mississippi State 17
4. Oklahoma State at Texas
The surprising run for both teams - in opposite and unexpected directions - continues. It will be interesting to see how Texas responds once they get to loss #6 and have to scrap for a bowl berth.
Oklahoma State 38, Texas 31
5. Virginia Tech at North Carolina
Virginia Tech is clearly the ACC's best, but if this year is anything like all the others in the Frank Beamer era, the Hokies lose this one. North Carolina regularly trips up some of the more established ACC programs, and it's only a matter of time until Virginia Tech ends up with a third loss, one to a team they should beat.
North Carolina 20, Virginia Tech 13
6. Georgia at Auburn
Potential trap game here. With all the hoopla surrounding Cam Newton's recruitment, and the Crimson Tide on the horizon, Auburn could come into this game unfocused and looking ahead. Bad idea. Georgia may be 5-5, but they're not dead. I think Auburn wins, but they do so by having to come back from 2 scores down.
Auburn 41, Georgia 35
7. Iowa at Northwestern
Another potential trap game, but Iowa's disciplined and well-coached, and they'll be out for revenge, as Northwestern ended the Hawkeyes' undefeated season, and that of Ricky Stanzi, in Iowa City last year.
Iowa 31, Northwestern 17
8. USC at Arizona
It's fun to watch USC crumble.
Arizona 24, USC 20
9. Oregon at California
The Ducks haven't won in Strawberry Canyon in a long time, but as far as we can tell, not even the train from Unstoppable could stop Oregon's offense.
Oregon 48, California 27
10. Texas A&M at Baylor
The Big 12 is becoming a revolving door, sending new teams into the top 25 every week. This week Texas A&M gets their crack, but expect a letdown after their big win against Oklahoma.
Baylor 42, Texas A&M 31
11. San Diego State at TCU
The last real threat to TCU's undefeated season and potential place in the BCS title game. Assume it will be eradicated quickly by their suffocating defense.
TCU 34, San Diego State 7
12. Utah at Notre Dame
Not many people expected Brian Kelly's first season at Notre Dame to go worse than Charlie Weis's last few. But this one might - the Irish have to beat either Utah or USC to become bowl-eligible.
Utah 28, Notre Dame 21
13. Kansas State at Missouri
Missouri's due to bounce back, and K-State is due for a letdown. Home field means everything this year in the Big 12 (unless you're Texas).
Missouri 33, Kansas State 23
14. Miami (FL) at Georgia Tech
Georgia Tech is 2 steps slower than they need to be to run Paul Johnson's option offense.
Miami (FL) 31, Georgia Tech 28
15. Nevada at Fresno State
The main threats to Boise State's rise to glory, and no, their records don't overstate their worth. These are both solid groups. The Valley is a tough place to win, and Nevada will find that out late Saturday night.
Fresno State 35, Nevada 33
No comments:
Post a Comment