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.)
What do you think Georgia needs to do in order to seriously
compete for a national title, not just win an occasional SEC
title? Granted, Mark Richt is a definitely a good coach and a
strong moral role model but there seems to be an intensity
missing in him that the coaches that have won national
championships seem to exude…the killer instinct. Urban Meyer,
Nick Saban, Pete Carroll…they all go for the throat at the first
chance they see an opening to blow up a game…even if it means
taking some chance. As much as I think “complaining” about a
coach who averages 10 wins a season like clockwork is not a good
idea…I am just wondering if Coach Richt need to develop his
killer instinct to a fine point for UGA to get that extra effort
out of the players in the 1 or 2 games a year that always trip
them up?
– DJ
A: If you want to argue that Richt is too
conservative, that might be true. However, while he might not be
a wide-open, risk-taking head coach, don’t think for a second
that Richt isn’t ultra-intense just because he’s not seen
yelling and screaming on the sidelines like a raving loon who's
trying to put a foot on a team's throat. Look at the highest
level. Does Mike Tomlin seem like he has a killer instinct, or
is he calm, cool, and composed at every turn in both
play-calling and demeanor? How about what Tony Dungy was able to
do? How about Pete Carroll, who is as cool and loose as they
come? I thought Richt did a masterful job of “going for the
throat” throughout 2007 and taking some chances. Remember the
celebration in the
Florida
game? Georgia
didn’t miss out on the national championship in 2008 because of
a lack of intensity; it missed out because of early injury
issues and because Florida was fantastic.
There’s a
theory among NCAA basketball coaches, when it comes to March
Madness and getting to the Final Four, that all you can do is
consistently put out good teams. Eventually, all the breaks will
come your way, it’ll all click, and it’ll be your turn. I used
to think that with Georgia,
but now, Florida has become
truly special, Alabama is about to go from great to elite of the elite,
LSU just came up with yet another major recruiting class, and Tennessee might be better than it has been
over the past few seasons. At some point, Georgia has to ask the brutally
unfair question: Is Mark Richt good enough to get the program
over the top. Like you alluded to, it’s not right to question a
guy who has won like Richt, but
Georgia
needs to make another step up soon.
My question relates to
the pre-season rankings and the "glass ceiling" that a team like
West Virginia or
Utah
has to face. How feasible would it be to get rid of pre-season
rankings and just release all the rankings that matter (BCS,
Coaches, Harris) at the same time? I know Americans are obsessed
with rankings, so couldn't they just release the AP Poll as the
sole pre-season ranking since it has no bearing on the BCS
rankings? My reasoning comes off the observation that if you
rank a team like USC, Florida or Texas in the top 5 in the
pre-season, then that automatically gives them a "head start"
over a team ranked 25th. I think getting rid of the pre-season
rankings could go a long way to solving some of the BCS problems
that everyone seems to have. Thanks. – MD
A: You
bring up my single biggest problem with college football. The
rankings are the rankings; don’t blame us, or anyone else, for
wanting to rank the teams in July. However, blame the process
when voters don’t change their rankings enough based on what’s
happening on the field. Also, blame a system that puts so much
emphasis on rankings put together BY PEOPLE WHO DON’T WATCH
COLLEGE FOOTBALL. You think Bobby Bowden has the first freakin’
clue about whether or not
Oregon is any good? You think Kyle
Whittingham will be breaking down Boston College
this off-season? Will Jim Tressel be watching
Kentucky
vs. Tennessee?
To answer your question and your point, you bring up the
other huge problem. Florida will be everyone’s preseason No. 1 team and Texas will likely be No.
2. If those two teams go unbeaten, no one else, including USC,
will have a shot to play for the national title no matter what. West Virginia, for example, could beat
everyone by 24 and it wouldn’t be able to crack the top two
because no one will drop the Gators or Longhorns if they keep
winning. Also, you can all but eliminate about 100 college
football teams from the national title before they start spring
practice because of the way the system is set up. That’s why
(I’m going to keep writing this because I’m desperate to get my
system in place), the six BCS league champions, the top ranked
non-BCS league champion, and the highest ranked team who doesn’t
fit the first two categories. Eight team playoff. Everyone would
be happy.
With the hiring of
Shane Montgomery and Walt Harris,
Akron
coach J.D. Brookhart has compiled the most experienced and
big-name offensive coaching staff in the MAC. Will this
translate into big-time recruits and MAC championships? – JC
A: And don’t forget about the new stadium coming up to help
create a bit of a MAC splash.
Akron
should have a good team returning with QB Chris Jacquemain
leading the way behind a veteran line. Step one for Harris will
be to improve the defense. I’m not really sold on the 3-3-5
Akron
used in the past, but the pieces are there for a strong season.
As far as big-time recruits, they won’t come to
Akron
over a big-time program, but having Montgomery and Harris won’t
hurt.
Does anyone there think that the 2008 season was simply a down year
across all conferences? I know sports writers have to make their
stories interesting, but I think the parity this past season resulted
from having about ten merely decent teams, and the rest were simply
terrible.
– CG
A: We said all year last season that everyone was down
outside of the Big 12 South (at least before the bowls). The SEC was
an utter disaster in non-conference play and saw LSU,
Auburn, and
Tennessee
have major problems, the Pac 10 was a nightmare, outside of USC, in
non-conference play, and the Big Ten stunk. However, while the bowls
might have been a problem for the ACC, the league had a fantastic
regular season and was excellent in non-conference play. There wasn’t
the big, flashy win, outside of the Georgia Tech win over Georgia, but
there was a whole slew of nice wins over BCS teams like Maryland over
Cal, Clemson over South Carolina, Florida State beat Colorado, Wake
Forest over Ole Miss, Duke over Vanderbilt, North Carolina over Rutgers,
UConn, and Notre Dame, along with a whole host of other nice ACC wins.
As Bracketbusters weekend
approaches us in college basketball, it has me thinking how cool this
would be in football? What if we were to get matchups like
Utah
vs. Boise
State, TCU vs.
Tulsa, ECU vs. BYU, etc... for a weekend in
college football? Bracketbusters weekend is a huge success for
hoops and can do wonders for a team trying to get a little publicity (Think
Kent State
after their win over St. Mary's last season). It would go a long
way to telling us about conference strength, and it would eliminate
pretenders trying to get BCS bids. Thoughts? Thanks. –DA
A: There always are those types of games, but you have to look for
them a bit in the glut of bigger games. Boise State plays Tulsa, Louisiana Tech plays Navy, Nevada
plays Colorado State, and there are others. I’ve always
proposed that FBS teams should eliminate games against FCS teams (or D-I
vs. D-IAA) so that more interesting matchups could be put together. This
summer, once the schedules are finalized, I’ll do my yearly piece about
the games that could and should happen instead of the Pitt vs.
Youngstown States and the Florida vs. Charleston
Southerns.
I’m scratching my head: How can a school like Oregon State that
wins bowl games year after year, finish in the top 25 three(?) years
running, top three in the Pac-10 the past three years and yet every year
their recruiting class is ranked in the 50’s (or lower) and 7 or lower
in the Pac-10? Do the “recruiting gurus” just not pay attention to
the kids that aren’t being looked at by a Florida or USC, or is
Mike Riley just that good at scouting and player development? It
just seems that Oregon
State just never seems to
get any recognition for what they’ve accomplished (and I’m sure that
they’re not alone).
– RD
A: That’s my beef, too, with a whole recruiting process that
can be so full of beans. How can Utah
blow past a team with as much talent as
Alabama? How does
West Virginia
play so well without having the five-star guys? Wisconsin, before last year, was the poster
program for producing with players who fit the system. Yeah, Riley is
fantastic. For a program like Oregon State, yes, it is about punching
your weight and getting the guys who will come to you, but it’s also
about finding a few guys here and there who have program-changing
talent. Jacquizz Rodgers, Sammie Stroughter, James Rodgers … you get a
few guys like that (or a Pat White and a Steve Slaton at
West Virginia), and a solid base of players who
fit your system, and you can win. However, it’s harder to do. When you
recruit like a Florida, USC, Texas, Oklahoma, or LSU, there’s bigger
margin for error because you’re getting so many elite talents.
Can we all finally admit that
the Big 12 was way overrated? After the bowl games, the
conference proved how mediocre it was, and yes you, and everyone, seem
to have Big 12 teams ranked really high this off-season. Oklahoma State in the preseason top five? What am
I missing? – DH
A: The Oklahoma State loss to
Oregon
was certainly a black eye for the Big 12,
and the Texas Tech loss to Ole Miss was a disaster. However, I’m not
going to dog Texas too much for the
game against an Ohio State
that finally played like it was supposed to, and I’m certainly not going
to dog
Oklahoma for losing the national title in a
tight battle with a team like
Florida.
Nebraska, Kansas
and Missouri
might not have looked great, but they did win their bowls.
I have
a theory on the Big 12’s
problems, and Colt McCoy backed me up when I interviewed him a few days
ago. Great offenses, not just the Big 12’s,
tend to cool off with a lot of time off. The timing isn’t quite there
after a several week layoff, and teams with great defensive talent, like
USC, Florida, Ohio State, and Ole Miss, are able to find a few new
wrinkles and are able to have the time to break down the high-octane Os.
Non-Big 12 example, Georgia
Tech’s offense was unstoppable at the end of the year, but with a month
to prepare, practice, and analyze, LSU was able to figure out how to
stop it. The same went for the Big 12
offenses. McCoy told me he didn’t feel like his timing was right, and he
didn’t feel comfortable, for about a half in the Fiesta Bowl. He also
said he was “shocked” at how good and how fast Ohio State
really was. If Texas plays Ohio State
on December 13th, and if Oklahoma
played Florida
right after the Big 12 title
game, it might have been a different story. With that said, it’s all
about producing in prime time, and the Big 12
struggled while the Pac 10 rocked and the SEC turned in a fantastic
post-season.
And now, the fun of yet another week of USC fans
thinking I hate their program …
Why do you hold USC to a higher standard than everyone else? Your
biased idea that USC has to win every game to win the national
championship is just stupid, and so are you. Go to hell.
– KF
How is it that
exactly that you demand a national title out of USC? By holding us
to a "higher standard"? Answer this, just who on our schedules
is it that USC COULD lose to and still be in the NC? In other
words USC has to have one fewer loss than SEC or Big12 to play for the
NC. Add to this the fact that you are ONE of the people
keeping us out of NC appearances. – AW
A: You wonder
why USC hasn’t been playing for the national title, you get mad about
it, I tell you why, and I'm biased?!
Fact: Florida and Oklahoma had a better strength of schedule than
USC this year.
Fact: The Pac 10 was awful in out of conference
play, before the bowls, and had no national respect with so many bad
losses. The SEC sucked out of conference, too, but after winning the
last two national titles, and three of the previous five, winning the
SEC title carried more weight than winning that Pac 10. Florida’s
blasting of Georgia and beating No. 1 unbeaten Alabama, along with the
utter destruction of everything else in its path, made up for the loss
to Ole Miss in the eyes of the voters. USC wasn’t able to overcome its
loss to Oregon State because the Pac 10 was so awful before the bowls.
Also, this year, winning the Big 12 was more prestigious than winning
the Pac 10 title.
Fact: Had USC beaten Oregon State, it would’ve
played for the national title. If USC didn’t lose at home against
Stanford two years ago, it would’ve played for the national title. If
USC goes unbeaten this year, it’ll play for the national title unless
both the SEC champion and Texas finish unbeaten. No one else in
America can say that.
Does any of that mean I’m biased? If you’re
going to continue to throw that word around, actually give me something
that I’ve written that’s factually incorrect.
USC is the best
team in the Pac 10 by far. No one is even close to being as talented
from top to bottom. No one in the league can come close to bringing in
the players that USC can (although UCLA is starting to make a run at
it). Meanwhile, there are always about 3-to-5 teams at the same high
talent level in the SEC, Oklahoma and Texas area always about the same,
and there’s usually one other killer in the mix per year. In other
words, USC should win all its Pac 10 games because it’s better than
everyone by far, while that’s not the case in some of the other leagues.
If Florida or Texas were in the Pac 10, I’d say the same thing. With
Penn State reloading a bit, I’ll be saying the same thing
for Ohio State now that it’s becoming
head-and-shoulders more talented than everyone else in the Big Ten.
And no, I’m not keeping USC out of the national title; USC is.
That’s part of the point. The Pac 10 was so awful out of conference
during the regular season that there was no margin for error for USC.
Don’t blame me. Blame the Mountain West for kicking Pac 10 butt.
Blame Boise State
for beating Oregon
in Autzen. Blame
Oregon
State for getting obliterated by Penn
State.
USC continues to be the best
team in America every year, and because you hate USC, you can’t seem to
see that. If you don’t realize USC was the best team last year, and that
it should’ve been playing for the national title, and that is should’ve
been in over a two-loss LSU team two years ago, then you’re an idiot.
– RK
A: THAT’S THE POINT. If USC is so great, which it is,
then it should beat the teams it's supposed to and then there’s no
question mark at the end of the year. And yes, there is a double
standard because the SEC, for example, has more than earned the benefit
of the doubt for the last decade with so many top teams. When was the
last time the Pac 10 has had a second team deserving of being in the
BCS? Of course, USC has also earned the benefit of the doubt, but it
also comes down to the deserve factor. USC didn’t deserve, based on what
happened as the season played out, to be in. Utah deserved to be in over
USC. A case could’ve been made for Penn State over the Trojans, and
Texas, that’s a whole other can of worms. That's not even bringing in
Florida and Oklahoma in the discussion. As far as the 2007 national
title and LSU getting in over a two-loss USC … Stanford 24, USC 23.
You keep ripping on the Pac
10, but we play an actual out of conference schedule. We don’t play the
cupcakes like everyone else does. The SEC is awful and a bunch of wusses
who don't take challanges. – KR
A:
Arizona
threw an Idaho on the slate, Arizona State
played Northern Arizona, Washington State played Portland State,
and there are others. However, there’s no question about it; the Pac 10
deserves credit for always stepping up in the scheduling more than
anyone else by far. And then there’s the nine-game conference slate that
determines a true champion, unlike the gimmicky championship games of
some of the other conferences and the Big Ten, with each team missing
two other teams.
The Big Ten is probably the biggest offender
among the top leagues as far as non-conference cupcake schedules, and
the Big 12 isn't far behind, but many e-mailers wanted to focus on the
SEC. The SEC plays its share of lightweights, but give credit to the
league for almost everyone having one nasty game on the slate (LSU’s
non-conference schedule sucked last year), along with the brutal
conference schedule. Florida plays Florida
State every year, and played Miami, Georgia
plays Georgia Tech every year, and travelled to
Arizona
State, Ole Miss went to Wake
Forest, and so on. This year, Auburn plays
West Virginia, Alabama, who started off last year against Clemson, plays
Virginia Tech, Arkansas is playing Texas A&M in Dallas, Florida plays
FSU, Georgia goes to Oklahoma State and Georgia Tech, Kentucky plays
Louisville (yes, it is a BCS game), LSU goes to Washington, Mississippi
State plays Georgia Tech, South Carolina goes to NC State and plays
Clemson, Tennessee plays UCLA, and Vandy plays Georgia Tech.