Fire over your questions to me at
email@example.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.)
Even though he is
only a sophomore, do you think that Tim Tebow is the most disliked
college football player ever? No matter where you go across the country
or who you talk to, bring up the subject of Tim Tebow to a college
football fan and you get a negative reaction. Outside of maybe Kellen
“The Soldier” Winslow Jr., I can’t think of another college football
player that has been disliked by the fans of every other college
football team across the nation. I thought about Brian Bosworth, but
college football is so much bigger now than it was in the 80s with all
the TV coverage, internet message boards, etc. Who am I forgetting?
A: The only comparison I can come up with is the Duke basketball player
of your choice. Maybe it’s Chris Collins, Shane Battier, or Steve Wojohowski.
Christian Laettner. The other comparison is Steve Spurrier, who has everyone’s
respect, but non-Gator and Gamecock SEC fans truly despise.
To me, Tebow is a true warrior, often to his detriment, who takes on too
much unnecessary punishment. I’d take him quarterbacking my team any day
of the week, and if there was a college football MVP race, I’d think
he’d be right in the hunt alongside Matt Ryan. With that said, the
rah-rah, go-get-‘em types tend to get dogged and become easy targets for
a world that likes its quarterbacks to be cool, calm generals. The Boz
was hated because he was flamboyant, but like Tebow, he could truly
play. Winslow was hated because he was a blowhard, but it doesn’t seem
to be at the same level.
Historically, the only other player I could come up with was former
Miami Hurricane WR Michael Irvin, who became a lightning rod for those
great teams, but he wasn’t near a national figure like Tebow or Boz.
IF Ohio State
and Boston College play for the National Championship does that
prove that it's better (in terms of playing for a National
Championship) to be a good team in a mediocre conference than a
very good team from a strong conference?
A: Who are these “very good” teams that are assumed to be better
than Ohio State and Boston College? Call me naïve, but I truly
believe the Buckeyes and Eagles are the real deal and would, at
the very least, be one of the leaders in a race for a SEC or Pac
10 title. Just because their conferences aren’t the best, that
doesn’t mean the teams aren’t elite. By the way, based on
cumulative opposition, Ohio State and Boston College have tougher schedules than LSU (according to the NCAA). To answer your question, it's far,
far better to not play in the SEC or a tough league in a given
year. Go unbeaten in a BCS conference, roll the dice on playing
for a title.
Admittedly Notre Dame is miserable
this season, but in forty years of being a serious college
football fan I've can't remember a team opening with a tougher
schedule. No 1-AA schools, no mid-majors, not even any BCS
conference bottom feeders; eight straight games with no bye week
against quality opponents. Is there a team in the nation this
year you think would have been 8-0 after playing ND's schedule
to date? How many of the top 25 teams do you think would have
been at .500 or above playing those eight teams on
consecutive Saturdays to start the season?
A: Georgia Tech, at Penn State, at Michigan, Michigan State, at
Purdue, at UCLA, Boston College, USC, and now, Navy and Air
Force. That’s ten straight games against bowl bound teams, and
it’s the toughest I can ever remember seeing. That doesn’t
excuse being dead last in the nation in total offense, dead last
in sacks allowed, second to last in scoring and passing
efficiency, and deal last in rushing. No, I don’t think anyone
goes unbeaten against this schedule because of the cumulative
effects of tough game after tough game after tough game.
Any insight as to how the heck the biggest Big Ten
game of the week ended up on the Big Ten Network and not on ABC,
ESPN, ESPN 2, while much lesser games were picked up by the
bigger networks? This is nuts! – TE
A: Every Big Ten team has to play a few league games on the network,
and this one seems to have worked out badly for ESPN and ABC. This is the
first time this year one of the really, really big games won’t
be seen by a large portion of America, although people were also
ticked to start the year when Appalachian State’s win over
Michigan. The fight with Comcast continues to be nasty with the
Big Ten Network continuing to insist it should be part of the
basic package. Comcast thinks it should be part of the sports
package, meaning users should have to pay more to get it. While
the football side of things has gone relatively smoothly, wait
until basketball season. If you want a lot of the better Big Ten
hoops games, look into DirecTV.
What would you say is the one team in each conference that is
the flakiest year after year? They could beat anyone, but they
could also lose to anyone (for teams in the non-BCS leagues,
maybe you could modify "could beat anyone" to "could beat anyone
in their league"). Michigan State and Clemson are the first
ones to come to my mind. - Z. Morris
A: ACC: Clemson. There are few better teams when the
lights are on, but consistency is always a problem.
Big East: South Florida. Just wait until the weather
starts to get colder up north.
Big 12: Oklahoma State. The team that got whacked by Troy
is still in the Big 12 title chase.
Big Ten: Michigan State. The epitome of the flaky team.
Conference USA: UTEP. This year is might be Southern Miss
after losing to Rice, but UTEP under Mike Price has been in the
hunt every year only to collapse in crunch time.
MAC: Bowling Green. So frustrating, the pieces are there
to be a MAC powerhouse, but it hasn’t been able to turn the
Mountain West: Wyoming. Tantalizingly close in the
Mountain West race because it usually comes up with a few big
wins at home, it can’t come up with the consistent wins on the
Pac 10: UCLA. How do you get obliterated by Utah, lose to
Notre Dame, and beat Cal? How do you beat USC last year, and
get run over by Florida State?
SEC: Georgia. Just when you think it’s a world-beater, it
comes up with a strange loss. Just when you think it’s average,
it beats someone really, really good.
Sun Belt: Middle Tennessee. The makeup to beat Vanderbilt
a few years ago and hang with good teams on the non-conference
schedule, but it doesn’t have it when it comes to pulling
off a title. Yeah, it tied for the Sun Belt championship last
year, but it really lost it to Troy.
WAC: Fresno State. Where are all the WAC titles under Pat
Hill? The program that’s so great at going on the road and
losing close games to good BCS teams can’t get it done lately in
the Boise State-dominated league.
Ok Vince Young fooled me. He tricked me into believing that
Texas was actually an elite program with his phenomenal
performances in two Rose Bowls and one NC game. I thought this
team would have new swagger even after Vince left and for a
while in the 2006 season it seemed like they did they did. I was
able to assuage my worries about this team losing three games by
just saying "If Colt was there" and "One of those losses was to
the number one team in the nation" (even though I thought that
buckeye team was overrated all year). But now this season after
a sub par performance against the worst Nebraska team in 40
years I can't deny it any longer. We are back to the same soft
underachieving program with delusions of elite performances as
we were Before VY carried us to glory. I would like to know what
you think is the reason a school in a small state with much less
talent in their backyard like Ohio State can be so consistent
every year but we can't even beat our rivals up north on a
consistent basis who do not have near the resources we do? In my
opinion there is no reason Texas shouldn’t be able to emulate
what USC has done and I think that our inability to do so starts
with coaching. – RP
A: There are a few different things at play here. First of all,
Ohio is one of the most populous states in the nation and is
every bit the football talent machine that Texas and Florida
are. O.K., maybe just a hair below Florida, but Ohio State is
hardly, hardly a school in a “small state.” Secondly, the
bizarre part about Texas is that it didn’t fall because of the
loss of Vince Young. Of course, you don’t get better by losing
VY, but Colt McCoy was arguably the best player in the Big 12
last year before getting hurt and has been a warrior all season
long. What McCoy can’t do is carry the team by himself when
things break down. Young was an all-timer of a superstar who’ll
never, ever be replaced, able to mask all the Texas issues
you’re still concerned about. While Texas might not be in the
national title hunt, it was close to playing for the Big 12
title last year, and despite the ugly showing for three quarters
against Nebraska, is still one of the league's top teams.
If Randy Shannon had told the Hurricanes to rush the endzone
a la Mark Richt, wouldn't the college football world be blowing
up with righteous anger? – CP
A: Are you asking this based on coaching skin color, program or
both? If this is a question about programs, there would
rightfully be “righteous anger” from the media if Miami had done
what Georgia even if Larry Coker was still the coach. Miami has
a history of issues and the reputation of brashness that could
incite a major on-field fight by doing something like that.
Memories of the Florida International brawl of last year are
still fresh, while Georgia doesn’t have that history of issues
or a past. It does now, and now it can’t do anything like that
again, but that’s what was so great about what the Dawgs did.
You’d never, ever have expected that from Mark Richt’s team. It
If Michigan and Ohio State win the next two weeks and
Michigan tops Ohio State in Ann Arbor, what are the chances a
one loss Ohio State gets an at large BCS bid (giving the Big 10
two BCS berths, to the fury of fans of other conferences)?
Aside from the Hawaii/Boise State winner, only Arizona State and
Kansas may potentially be one loss teams without an automatic
bid, with the one loss for all these teams coming in the last
few weeks of the season. Which one of these teams get the open
spot, or will a 2-loss team pass them? – CS
A: If Michigan wins the Big Ten title and Ohio State has one
loss, outside of a possible Oregon - Michigan rematch, why would
fans have a right to be furious? How could you say that these
two don't beling in BCS games? Unless LSU loses the SEC
Championship game, the SEC won't get two in, and it's unlikely
the Big East gets a second team into the top ten. The slot will
be three for a second Big Ten team.
This year again truly reinforced how critical it is to get
your quarterback playing at a high level. Most of your top
teams all have had outstanding play at the quarterback
position. (Dennis Dixon, Chase Daniel, Matt Ryan ect....).
Which brings me to my question. Why or how do some programs get
consistently great playmaking from their quarterback position,
while other programs it takes 1 or 2 seasons for the quarterback
to start making plays? For example look at the kid at Oklahoma,
who is having a great year, and then you look at a team like
Oregon State who seems to constantly struggle with a first year
quarterbacks. I know powerhouse programs attract better
athletes (PLEASE don't mention the word recruit; they don't
recruit they select), but I don't think the answer is that
simple. Is it?!! - JC
A: Sometimes there are players already in place and the new guy
needs to wait his turn, other times there are open battles for a
spot for a young player to step in early on, and sometimes, in
the case of Sam Bradford, who has two NFL receivers to throw to,
a loaded backfield, and one of the five best offensive lines in
America to work with, everything is in place. It’s all about
getting a guy to fit a system or a style, and some guys get it
faster than others. Some guys get better offensive lines than
The number one factor in a quarterback’s success is time. How
many times have you seen someone get a hand on Tom Brady or
Peyton Manning this year? At the highest level, those two make
the right reads instantly and get rid of the ball in a hurry,
but at the collegiate level, it’s all about the mismatches on
the lines. For example, Oklahoma and Ohio State each have
dominant lines, Bradford and Todd Boeckman, respectively, don’t
get touched, and they get all the time they want to look great.
When you hit a college quarterback, you make them screw up. The
older a quarterback gets, the fewer mistakes he'll usually make
and the better his reads will be. Coaches tend to limit what
they give young quarterbacks to deal with.
Who is stronger? The top 6 teams
in the Big East (WVU, UConn, USF, Rutgers, Cincy, Louisville) or
the SEC East division (Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, South
Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt).
A: Go by the standings. Right now, on a neutral field, would you
- Connecticut vs. Georgia … Georgia
- West Virginia vs. Tennessee … West Virginia
- Rutgers vs. South Carolina … South Carolina (but I’d call this
- Louisville vs. Florida … Florida
- Cincinnati vs. Kentucky … Kentucky
- South Florida vs. Vanderbilt … South Florida
I’d take the SEC East, but remember, you’re taking the worst
team in a division vs. a mid-range team in a conference. Make it
Syracuse vs. Vandy and it’s not even a close comparison.