Daily Archives: December 12, 2008

Thank you! NEXT!

Is it just me, or is the Auburn head coaching search reminding anyone else of an open casting call for an off-Broadway musical?

I’m not surprised they like the way this guy dances, but if the story is true, he sure can’t claim he doesn’t know what he’s getting into.


UPDATE: I’ve obtained exclusive footage from one of Auburn’s auditions interviews.  Enjoy!


UPDATE #2: So much for that, per Barnhart.  And for this underlying reason, more than anything else, I suspect:  “But those sources also tell me that when Muschamp was at Auburn as DC, he and athletics director Jay Jacobs did not part on the best of terms.”

Back to the drawing board, er… casting couch.



Filed under Auburn's Cast of Thousands

Does “non-conference” have to mean “non-competitive”?

Man, it’s always enjoyable when you come across somebody who gets it.

And so we’ve come full-circle. We started the season bemoaning the sorry, wimpy nonconference scheduling that’s become the norm in college football; now we end there.

This isn’t just a personal hobby horse, nor is it just an August-September matter. The scheduling issue is affecting the entire season, as it impacts the rankings that make up the Bowl Championship Series. It is this hateful phenomenon — more so than even the BCS itself — that most harms the game today…

Preach on, brother.

Instead of worrying about the makeup of who plays in which BCS game, our attention and our frustration should be directed at who plays the cupcake game.  This season, the Big XII has played that game beautifully, as all of its major schools racked up gaudy records early on against talent that, for the most part, was less than scintillating.

In this era of twelve game schedules, there’s no excuse for going overboard in this department.

And make sure you read Everson’s linked article, too.


Filed under College Football, Media Punditry/Foibles

Somewhere north of defense, south of offense

Over at The National Championship Issue, Ed Gunther has decided to wade into one of the toughest issues of the day:

… If a defense holds an offense to 3 points, is it because they’re a good defense, or is it because they played a bad offense? At the same time, if an offense scores 70, is it because they’re good or because the D is bad? How do you know whether you’re watching good defense or bad offense, or whether you’re watching bad defense or good offense?

Good questions.  No, I mean really good questions.  This is the heart of the whole which-is-better-the-SEC-or-the-Big XII debate.  I’d love to see a statistical study that addresses this.  Unfortunately, Ed brings me down almost immediately.

I’m pretty convinced that statistically, there’s no way to definitively tell.

Damn!  However, he still thinks there’s some areas worth exploring.

But I’ve started to work towards a method to sort out some of the shades of grey, distinguishing over the course of a whole season where the good and bad offenses and defenses are.

Where he’s going with this is pretty logical.  In essence, he’s going to weigh a team’s performance against its opponents against each opponent’s overall statistical performance for the season.  There are charts galore worth looking at, although as he notes, the initial results pretty much do little more than track the general rankings.

I think what is missing so far from his study – and it may be coming, since Ed makes it clear that this is a work in progress – is some sort of strength of schedule factor.  If you take a look at his breakdown of Texas Tech’s season, you can see how much the Red Raiders feasted on the likes of meaningless opponents like Eastern Washington.  On the other hand, those numbers against the likes of Texas and Oklahoma State would seem to be more revealing of the worthiness of Leach’s squad.

Anyway, it’s a labor of love, a good start and worth your time to read.  I’m looking forward to seeing where he takes it.


UPDATE: Take a look at the defensive rankings of the teams that each of the Heisman Trophy finalists have faced.


Filed under Stats Geek!, The Blogosphere

“I’ve seen it start out where teams have more guys than spots, but it has always worked out.”

Brian Cook alert:  it looks like Butch Davis is taking a page out of the Nick Saban book on recruiting math.

Hey, it worked out pretty well for ‘Bama this year, didn’t it?

Oversigning – it’s not just for the SEC anymore.

(h/t The Wiz of Odds)

Comments Off on “I’ve seen it start out where teams have more guys than spots, but it has always worked out.”

Filed under ACC Football, Recruiting