We wrapped up another conference in the never-ending 2012 season preview series yesterday: Conference USA. With last year's best teams (Southern Miss and Houston) replacing both coaches and key personnel, last year's disappointment (UCF) returning just about everybody, and most of the bottom teams changing head coaches, there should be all sorts of transition to be found this fall ... which makes considering the off-the-field transition the conference is currently experiencing. Give me UCF and Tulsa in the conference title game, and a year after I predicted UCF to disappoint, I'll take the Knights to win the title.

I've mentioned this before, but in 2008's War As They Knew It, a book admired by critics and hilariously abhorred by two different fanbases who claimed bias, axes-to-grind, etc., Michael Rosenberg took a look at the relationship between Woody Hayes and Bo Schembechler, Ohio State and Michigan, and each respective university and their hardcore football coaches. General arguments of overall quality aside, the book does a solid job of laying out certain themes. The one that stuck with me the most, however, came from a throwaway line. College football's higher-ups were debating (and shooting down) the idea of a playoff as early as the mid-1970s. Michigan athletic director Don Canham, one of the most powerful of the powers-that-be of the time, was one of the leading anti-playoff forces.

Fourth-ranked Michigan was headed to Pasadena to play No. 13 Washington. If the Wolverines won, they had a chance at the national title … as long as No. 9 Ohio State beat No. 3 Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, and No. 5 Notre Dame beat No. 1 Texas in the Cotton Bowl, and No. 6 Arkansas beat No. 2 Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl.

This was how college football had operated for years -- there was no system for producing a clear national champion. But the clamor for a playoff was increasing. The Football News told fans that if they wanted a playoff, they should write to the three most powerful men in college football: Walter Byers, the executive director of the NCAA; Roone Arledge, the president of ABC sports; and [Michigan athletic director] Don Canham.

Canham was not interested in a playoff. He didn't want to extend the season, and he thought the automatic Rose Bowl bid gave the Big Ten a huge advantage over other conferences. But the Football News was right: if Canhan had wanted a playoff, he was one of the few men who could help create one.

This was in 1977. Six years earlier, the same debate was taking place. And, as depressing as it may be, the arguments haven't changed in the 41 years since. People who don't currently have a seat at the table preach equality, fairness, and "every other damn sport has a damn playoff." Meanwhile, people who are quite comfortable with the current arrangement stress classroom time and exams, the grind of a long season, and those glorious bowls.

Arguing About College Football In 1971

In the 1971 piece to which Mandel linked (PDF), a Have-Not (William A. Miller, Faculty Athletics Representative of "North Texas State University") argued for a playoff while a Have (Tennessee athletic director Bob Woodruff) took the tut-tutting side of the argument. The discussion is so familiar that you might get vertigo reading it.

First, Miller.

There has been some talk of a few "super" schools bolting the NCAA and forming a new super alliance. How many would this be. No one knows for sure, but I would suspect it would be the same 12 to 15 schools that appear on national television each year.

Now, he said this during an era in which conferences didn't have television contracts and only the biggest games were televised at all. But the "Haves versus Have-Nots" nature of college football was exactly the same then as now. About a decade later, Division I football split into two subdivisions (1-A and 1-AA), but obviously 1-A featured a few more than 12-15 teams. Today, we're hearing the same discussion. Are the power schools going to break off and form a new subdivision? (I'm guessing that if that does happen, it will be a lot like it was then -- quite a few years after the discussion begins, and with quite a few more teams than originally conceived.)

Continue reading this post »

From time to time as the summer advances, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at how this year's conventional wisdom is coalescing -- which teams look destined to be overrated, which ones are being overlooked, etc. To do this, I will be comparing some of the mainstream "Preseason Top 25" columns with what we are coming up with in our preseason F/+ projections (the final version of which has not yet been completed).

This week, two mainstream outlets produced Top 25s: ESPN's College Football Live panel and SI's Andy Staples. Combining their votes, here is what we get:

Conventional Wisdom Top 25, May Edition

1T. USC (49 points, 1 first-place vote)
1T. LSU (49 points, 1 first-place vote)
3. Alabama (46)
4. Oregon (44)
5. Oklahoma (42)
6. Georgia (38)
7. South Carolina (37)
8. West Virginia (32)
9. Arkansas (31)
10T. Wisconsin (30)
10T. Michigan State (30)
12. Michigan (29)
13. Florida State (28)
14. TCU (27)
15. Kansas State (24)
16. Stanford (23)
17. Clemson (18)
18. Nebraska (17)
19. Virginia Tech (14)
20T. Boise State (9)
20T. Texas (9)
22. Oklahoma State (7)
23. Ohio State (6)
24. Auburn (4)
25. Washington (3)

Also receiving votes: Notre Dame, Florida, Georgia Tech.

(That's right -- two different polls differed on only three teams. ESPN included Ohio State, Notre Dame and Florida, while Staples included Auburn, Washington and Georgia Tech. And the votes for Teams 3-5 were exactly the same.)

So how does that differ from initial projections?

Destined To Be Overrated

Washington (Conventional Wisdom: No. 25 | F/+ Projection: No. 59). We'll see if others pick up the Washington baton, or if Staples is the only one. But while the Huskies have an intriguing offense, and while they have made some hires that may help their absolutely dreadful defense, it is quite a bit to ask for that defense to improve this much in one season. I love what Steve Sarkisian is doing, but UW still has some climbing to do.

Kansas State (Conventional Wisdom: No. 15 | F/+ Projection: No. 35). My friends at Bring On The Cats and I had an eventful autumn last year. I was repeatedly told that I hate K-State even though I couldn't stop gushing about the job Bill Snyder (and, of course, Collin Klein) did in 2011. Why? Because they did it in such an unsustainable way (record in one-possession games: 8-1), and the numbers never bought in. Even with Klein's return, I just cannot believe they will see the same success in 2012. Then again, I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop last year, too, and it only did briefly (Oklahoma 58, KSU 17).

Continue reading this post »

Today at Football Outsiders, the annual "Adj. POE And Draftability" column went up. The column will focus mostly on the relationship between my two primary advanced runner stats -- Adj. POE and Highlight Yards -- and the NFL Draft. But I also wanted to take the time to dump all of 2011's running backs data on you.

First, here's a quick refresher.

POE stands for "Points Over Expected." The idea for POE is simple: It compares a runner's production (in terms of EqPts) to the production that would have been expected of an average back given the same carries against the same opponents. A runner with, say, a plus-6.0 Adj. POE produced the equivalent of a touchdown more value than the average FBS running back would have with the same carries.

POE = EqPts - Expected EqPts.

Last year, we added an adjustment to account for the quality of a runner's offensive line (based on the team's Adj. Line Yards ratings). So below, you will see a raw POE figure and the more comprehensive Adj. POE figure. Backs are ranked by Adj. POE.

...

Now let's expand on another topic we unveiled in last year's POE column: Highlight Yards.

A few months ago, FO introduced the idea of "Second Level Yards" and "Open Field Yards" for NFL running backs. These were the remaining yards that were left after each break in the baselines for Adjusted Line Yards. I've done the same thing here for college backs, with two differences. First, we're adding together both "Second Level" Yards (5-10 past the line) and "Open Field" Yards (11-plus past the line). Second, we're counting only half the Second Level Yards, just as the line gets half credit for these yards. We'll call this stat "Highlight Yards," because these longer runs are the ones that show up on the highlight shows. A three-yard run gets zero Highlight Yards. A 70-yard run gets 63 Highlight Yards. The more Highlight Yards, the more explosive the runner was, and the less his overall yardage and POE totals were due to the offensive line blocking for him.

Basically, Highlight Yards are the yards credited to the running back and not the blocking. Again, we rank them below in terms of their full-season accumulation instead of their per-carry average.

After a 2010 season that saw a strangely high amount of mid-major backs placing high on the list (it probably wasn't a coincidence that last year's draft class was also pretty poor), 2011 normalized a bit. Sure, you had Northern Illinois quarterback Chandler Harnish pulling a Top Five ranking, but eight of the top 10 runners last year were from a major conference; the two that weren't: Harnish and Temple running back Bernard Pierce, who is considered a solid draft prospect. (Plus, hey, Temple isn't actually a mid-major anymore!) It's a prettier list to look at, in other words.

Top Ten Runners According to Adj. POE, 2011
1. Montee Ball, Wisconsin (+57.2)
2. Trent Richardson, Alabama (+42.6)
3. Joseph Randle, Oklahoma State (+35.5)
4. Chandler Harnish, Northern Illinois (+35.4)
5. LaMichael James, Oregon (+34.4)
6. Bernard Pierce, Temple (+33.0)
7. Terrance Ganaway, Baylor (+30.4)
8. Collin Klein, Kansas State (+29.9)
9. Denard Robinson, Michigan (+28.6)
10. Orwin Smith, Georgia Tech (+26.2)

A couple of notes:

• Ball's plus-57.2 total is the highest recorded Adj. POE (2005-11).
• Harnish's plus-35.4 is the third-highest Adj. POE for a quarterback in the last seven years, behind 2008 Colin Kaepernick (plus-48.6) and 2006 Pat White (plus-41.2).
• I'm finding that runners typically have their best seasons before their last seasons in uniform. But that's another column for another time.
• Orwin Smith really did have one of the strangest seasons imaginable. He recorded a plus-26.2 Adj. POE ... despite carrying the ball just 61 times all season.

And while we're at it...

Top 10 Runners According to Highlight Yards Per Carry (min. 75 carries)
1. Ja'Terian Douglas, Tulsa (4.25)
2. Michael Smith, Utah State (4.03)
3. Henry Josey, Missouri (4.01)
4. Chandler Harnish, Northern Illinois (3.92)
5. Charles SIms, Houston (3.91)
6. Jeremy Smith, Oklahoma State (3.81)
7. Braxton Miller, Ohio State (3.72)
8. LaMichael James, Oregon (3.69)
9. Asher Clark, Air Force (3.41)
10. Joe Banyard, UTEP (3.41)

2011 Adj. POE And Highlight Yardage

As always, feel free to download the file, play with it, and post whatever you find interesting here, either in comments or in a FanShot.

Continue reading this post »

After 30,000 words, I still have no idea who's going to win the MAC this fall. Toledo has the recruiting rankings, Bowling Green has the experience, and just about every other team in the conference has some combination of the two. I guess Ohio should be the odds-on favorite, but only barely. Anyway, until September, here's everything you need to know about the MAC, from Chandler Harnish's silly stats, to Fruit Loops Tettleton, to why I can't help but root for Kent State and Eastern Michigan.

(By the way, I cannot tell you how frustrated I am by Temple's departure. With the 24-team Mount USA alliance faltering, I had visions of Temple and UMass becoming the eastern outposts of a new MAC, complete with Fordham, Duquesne, Albany, Villanova, Maine, James Madison and whatever other schools needed to fill a 24-team MAC. I NEED A SUPER-MID-MAJOR CONFERENCE, DAMMIT. You can't just tease me with this, then not bring it to fruition. Hell, pull in some Dakota schools, too. Make it happen.)