State of the art

Okay, forget what I said about not rehashing the argument about being on the cusp of a new era in the SEC.

If this doesn’t sound like someone who’s looked in the steely eyes of Les Miles and seen the Gary Crowton train coming down the tracks, or has gotten the Meyer message…

“I’d rather be spread than dead” (photo courtesy Getty Images)…

then I don’t know who does:

“ We need a bus driver, ” (Arkansas offensive coordinator David) Lee said at last Saturday’s annual Razorback alumni breakfast. “ Just a bus driver to keep us in the road and not in the ditch. ”

Lee re-issued the line after Saturday night’s scrimmage when quarterbacks Casey Dick, the junior starter, and Nathan Emert drove the bus with but one detour, Emert’s interception piloting the second offense against the first team defense.

“ We don’t need a guy to be Heisman Trophy at quarterback, ” Lee said. “ We just need a guy to keep it in the street and not let us get off the road. ”

(h/t RazorBloggers Network)

Advertisement

Why pick on the SEC?

Kyle King has added another response to his debate with College Football Resource over whether the SEC is in the midst of a dramatic shift in offensive philosophies. Much of it mirrors a discussion between Heismanpundit and me here at this blog.

I’m not really interested in rehashing this argument (although I’d like to see if CFR has any counterpoint to what Kyle has posted), but I do have a question to ask that’s inspired by this discussion: why are CFR and HP so focused on the SEC?

In other words, why is there a perception that there is something lacking about offenses in the Southeastern Conference? Are, in fact, SEC offenses less successful than offenses from other conferences?

I took what is by no means an exhaustive look at one aspect of this to see if I could get any idea of how valid the concept of underperforming offenses in the SEC actually is (I’ve said I’m too lazy to be a stats geek). I took the 2006 offensive rankings of D-1 schools for points scored, sorted the rankings by conference and averaged the school rankings for each conference for comparison purposes.

What I got for the BCS conferences might surprise you a little.

BCS CONFERENCE AVG. SCORING RANK

Big XII………………………………… 39.50

Big East………………………………. 50.00

Big 10…………………………………. 52.45

SEC………………………………………53.33

PAC 10………………………………. 55.20

ACC……………………………………. 72.42

Looks to me that if any conference should be chasing after offensive coordinators, it’s the ACC. Overall, though, it’s hard to see much difference between four of the BCS conferences’ offensive results – including the SEC and the PAC 10. So, again, why the focus on the SEC?

*************************************************************

UPDATE: Boredom led me to run the numbers for ’05 and ’04, as well. Here’s what the running averages look like for 2004, 2005 and 2006:

• Big XII – 51.17; 54.50; 39.50
• PAC 10 – 50.50; 37.20; 55.20
• Big East – 43.50; 64.88; 50.00
• Big 10 – 62.09; 37.64; 52.45
• ACC – 66.92; 71.00; 72.42
• SEC – 56.58; 71.58; 53.33

Maybe I’m missing something, but the ACC still seems to be the most putrid looking of the bunch.

You say yes, I say no, you say stop and I say go, go, go.

If you wonder why so many people are so critical of the seemingly arbitrary nature of NCAA rules enforcement, you might want to read these two posts about Drew Tate, the Iowa quarterback who was forced by his school’s AD to turn down a prize to be applied towards a new car for making a hole-in-one at a charity golf tournament.

Turns out he was wrong.  Oops.  Sorry.

If he didn’t know the rules – and he evidently didn’t – how hard would it have been to make a call or email a question to someone at the NCAA about it?

But read through the first post to get an idea of how confused the rationale behind the NCAA’s amateurism rules is.  It’s pretty easy to see how the AD jumped to his conclusion.

No doubt that’s reassuring to Drew Tate.

(h/t The Wizard of Odds)