By
Pete Fiutak
Fire over your questions to me at
pete@collegefootballnews.com. I might not be able to answer them
all, but I promise they're all read. Any e-mails sent to this
address may be published or edited unless requested otherwise.
(Please put ASK CFN in the subject line, and PLEASE keep the
questions short ... it makes my life easier.)
Is Michael Crabtree
really as good as some people make him out to be? CFN has him ranked as
the top player in the country but I don't buy it. Sure the numbers are
amazing, but it's Texas Tech. Everybody who comes though that program
puts up ridiculous passing stats. Just look at Crabtree's own teammate
Danny Amendola - he's 3rd in the nation in receiving yards. Are we to
believe that he too is one of the very best players in the country?
–DZ
A: “It’s Texas Tech?” Last I checked, Texas Tech is a FBS college
football team and in a BCS conference. Yards are yards are yards, and
points are point are points. Wouldn't everyone like to be number one in
the nation in total offense, number two in scoring offense, and first in
passing offense? If USC or Oklahoma had a receiver putting up the same
numbers, would you say the same thing?
Who’s had a better first half than Crabtree? First of all, yeah, he's
really good. He was a strong recruit who could've gone to most top
places, and he happens to be in a system that showcases his skills.
Remember when Drew Brees put up big stats for Purdue, and everyone
complained it was the system? He was a great driver who had a sweet car.
It's the same for Crabtree. His numbers are at a record-setting pace,
and he’s already blown away a few records after just six games. This
isn’t about who the most talented player is; it’s about who’s been
better than everyone else so far. I don’t care how the numbers were
amassed. I don’t care if it’s a system. I don’t care how it works. If
it’s so easy to catch 70 passes for 1,074 yards and 17 touchdowns in six
games (let those number sink in for a minute) then wouldn’t everyone do
it? I’m not saying Crabtree is a better player than Glenn Dorsey, or
Darren McFadden, or Matt Ryan, or slew of other top talents, but it’s
about what the players have done on the field so far.
Suppose LSU
is the only undefeated team left going into conference
championship week, and then they lose a really close one to
Florida in the rematch. What do you think would happen for the
national title game? – SA
A: Before bombing me with e-mails, LSU fans, the question is
what would happen, not what should happen. Obviously it
depends on who else is out there and who else is in the mix, but
this year, it would be tough to lose late and get into the
Superdome. I don’t believe that a late loss should count more
than an early one, and I'll argue that you shouldn't play for
the national title if you don't win your conference, but in the
confines of the current system, I’ll scream and yell that a one-loss LSU
team should get in over
a one-loss USC or Oklahoma, who lost to lesser competition.
Sure, 2003 Oklahoma is the example of a team getting in after
losing late (and ugly), but would the Tigers get in over an
unbeaten Hawaii or Boston College? That would be a fun debate.
So I've been noticing in most of the Heisman "watch lists" that
due to the crazy nature of the '07 season, Glenn Dorsey
continues to (sort of) hang around the Heisman discussion. I
know this is mostly out of respect for his impact on the line
because his stats don't stand out, but with the lack of a real
front runner is there anything a defensive tackle (or a monster
DE like George Selvie) could do to really get in the race? -
DH
A: Dorsey is in the race because he’s the best player on the
best team in America. If Cal goes to number one, then DeSean
Jackson will get more Heisman attention. If BC is first, then
Matt Ryan will get more pub, and so on. It’s not really about
actually winning the award, Dorsey doesn’t have an honest
chance, but it’s about possibly being a finalist. Realistically,
getting in the top five is the real honor. Everything else is
just a lucky beauty contest.
I'm still trying to get over the biggest shock of the year. Not
App. St. over Mich, not Syracuse over UL, not even Stanford over
USC. The biggest shock is easily USC only falling 6/8 spots. I
have always believed that the human polls have been the cancer
to the BCS. Might this cause a change to the way the human polls
are done? I forsee a scenario where USC climbs up to 3rd, and
LSU loses a close game in the SEC championship. Should USC even
be allowed a chance at the BCS title? - Aaron
A: If Stanford’s fourth down touchdown pass fell incomplete,
where would USC be ranked? 2nd? 4th? 1st?
It’d be somewhere in the top three in the rankings. Mark
Bradford caught the pass, so that one play is the difference
between No. 2 and out of the top 25?! Among all the problems
with the rankings, one of the big issues is the lack of
movement. Yeah, it’s fine to knock USC out of the top 25 this
week, and then move it back into the top five if it starts
rocking and rolling again. USC is seventh in the Coaches’ Poll,
but if you were hooked up to a lie detector and had to bet the
house, would you take South Florida or Boston College over the
Trojans on a neutral field? Maybe, but would you take Hawaii,
Texas, Purdue or Kansas over USC? The rankings are tough, and
I’m all for ripping on the process, but it’s not an easy puzzle
to put together from a practical, or philosophical level. As far
as being “allowed” a chance at the BCS title, sure. If Cal is
number two, and it gets blasted by USC by double-digits, then
what are the rankings like? The remaining schedule, after the
Arizona game this week, is at Notre Dame, at Oregon, Oregon
State, at California, at Arizona State and UCLA. If USC runs the
table impressively, yeah, it has to be in the mix.
Overall, Mack Brown and the Longhorns seem to always get
labeled with "soft" when they struggle, while OU, in 2005, lost
to TCU, struggled with Tulsa, got blown out by Texas, played
flat games against Kansas and Baylor (2OT), barely squeezed by
A&M, lost (arguably?) to Tech... but then beat Oklahoma State
solidly and upset Oregon in the Holiday bowl... and were labeled
"gutsy" and "tough as any team in the country." So my question
is, if UT struggles but wins out and then wins a respectable
bowl game, do they get to be "gutsy" and "tough" or are they
"soft" again? Do they have to blow out teams between now and
then to get the "tough" label? Or is that reserved for a group
of teams that UT isn't a part of? – Jeff
A: Yeah, it’s a strange double standard. You wouldn’t
necessarily classify USC as gutsy or tough, but it pounded its
way past Nebraska earlier this year. Basically, if a team runs
the ball and is good at stopping the run, it gets labeled as
tough. If a team struggles to run effectively and has to rely on
the passing game when it needs the hard yards, if gets the soft
tag. I wouldn’t label Texas as soft after the loss to OU.
Considering how Colt McCoy got battered around, I though the
Longhorns battled well against a better team. If only Jammal
Charles could hold on to the ball.
Is Boston College overrated? Of all of the teams they have
played (NC ST, Wake, G. Tech, Army and Umass) only one has a
winning record, none are in the top 50 for scoring offense, all
in the bottom half in total offense. On the defensive side,
G.Tech and Wake (barely) are in the top 50 for total defense.
It's not like BC has blown out any of these teams and only beat
I-AA Umass by 10. It seems like they are in for a big crash at
the end of the season playing at V.Tech, Maryland and Clemson
and getting FSU and Miami at home. – JB
A: Being in the top four might seem a bit high, and it's
sort of there by attrition, but it’s still just October, and
there's plenty of time to prove to the world it's for real. With
enough big games left, there will be plenty of chances to
justify the ranking, and if the Eagles are still unbeaten in
mid-November, then they’ll obviously be for real. With that
said, at the moment, this is a rock-solid team with
above-average players all over the place, and a superstar,
possible first round draft pick in Matt Ryan leading the way.
There aren’t any glaring weaknesses. I love this team and think
it’s the absolute real deal, and this year, undefeated is
undefeated. With all the upsets all over the landscape, we might
be past the point of being able to criticize schedules.
If Cal ends up playing South Florida
for the national championship, which is as good as anyone's
guess the way this season is going, would that help get a
playoff sooner in college football? No one outside about 100
square miles of Northern California seems to know about or care
about Cal, and USF is still confused with UCF, FIU, FAU and the
other newbies from the Sunshine State by most football fans.
Bears and Bulls are more associated with the stock market, so
what fans from Ann Arbor, South Bend, Baton Rouge and the other meccas
of college football are going to tune in to a USF-UC national
championship? - PA
A: Let’s settle this right now. Nothing, NOTHING will bring
about a playoff any faster. Not seven unbeaten teams, not four
top-shelf one-loss teams, not Utah State vs. Florida
International getting in thanks to the computer polls, nothing.
I’m hearing more and more about how fans just aren’t fired up
about the possibility of, say, Cincinnati vs. Arizona State in a
national title, or Kansas vs. Hawaii. Don’t fall for the brand
names. Would fans rather have Notre Dame vs. Miami? How about
Texas vs. Michigan? As of right now, I’m taking a stance to
mentally whiz all over anyone who gets all high and mighty about
not having any interest in the national title game pairing a
couple of non-traditional teams.
It’s the exact same thing for me and baseball. I admit to having
less than zero interest in a Colorado – Arizona National League
Championship Series, and will probably be more interested in the
latest episode of The Biggest Loser than the winner of
that series playing Cleveland, if the Tribe beats Boston. Of
course I’ll watch, but true baseball fans have the right to
dismiss me as a total idiot, just like I'll blast away at anyone
who dogs a Cal - South Florida matchup in New Orleans.
What's your opinion on a player hitting a ball carrier, in the
field of play, just before he runs out of bounds, when running
out of bounds is almost assuredly his intent? During the
Florida vs. L.S.U. game a Tiger defender hit Tebow just before
he left the field of play, and was penalized for it. Wasn't
this a poor call? Isn't hitting a quarterback in the field
of play, in a legal fashion, something defensive players
supposed to do? - Brian
A: Until a player is out of bounds, I vote to blast away. You
never, ever know. Take a player like Devin Hester, who has an
uncanny knack of flirting with the sidelines like he’s about to
go out of bounds, and then make some freakish cut to bounce up
the field and get a few more yards, or tear off a huge return.
All players know they’re fair game between the lines. If a
defender can pull off a Rey Maualuga-like blast on Pat Cowan on
the sidelines, go for it.