With the 38-24 LSU win over Ohio State, the 2007 college football season comes to a close, and not without bringing to mind some interesting questions.
1. Can you honestly say with 100% certainty that the BCS worked out right?
Sure LSU was a solid team all year long, and it did take two 3OT games to give them their losses, but I think this year, moreso that others, there were a few other teams that could say they deserved to be considered for the big game. While Kansas couldn't even make it to their conference championship game, it did beat the team that the computers ranked as number 1. West Virginia was considered dead, what with the choke against Pittsburgh and the drama inducing loss of the supposed mastermind to their success these past couple years, but they throttled what was said to be a great Oklahoma team. And what about Georgia? It was ranked 3rd behind West Virginia and Missouri before their losses but then gets dropped to 5 because the voters didn't expect the top 2 to lose their games, and the result is an utter annhiliation of a Hawaii team. Do you think that LSU is definately better than any of these teams?
When all is said and done, nothing but a playoff could really have picked 2 teams worthy of the championship game. And at least the BCS is looking into it now with some tpye of interest. This could work on so many ways, especially if they add a couple other things too.
-
Doesn't keep traditional conference matchups but each bowl gets screwed out of a marquee game only once every 4 years
-
Should have a rule saying you can't be ranked in the top 4 if you don't win your conference (really should it be any other way?)
-
Finally Get Notre Dame in the Big 10, and split them into 2 divisions (not going to happen unless they enforce the above conference rule)
2. Were all the upsets and surprises really that good for the sport?
I for one think the many WTF moments in the season (USF and Boston College ranked 2, upsets over Michigan and USC) made this season one of the best in my memory. I actually watched and cared about games that didn't involve Florida or the SEC. Watching some non-traditional schools make it big, and play compettively, seems more of a trend than an anomoly. With more exposure to their programs and some unique coaching, schools like Hawaii, Boise State, USF, and Kentucky are able to get better athletes and be more of a threat. It may be a while before they become consistently good but they're becoming more of a threat to the traditional powers. This increased parity will probably mean that certain schools won't be guaranteed winners in their conferences (though still favored). Will this result in teams like Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Oklahoma getting more 2-4 loss seasons? Will Florida now have a harder time getting good recruits because of how good Kentucky has been the last couple years (and all the big name coaches in the SEC)?
Would this eventually take away some of the excitement and fun of the game, since storied tradition and great rivalries really make it what it is? Would college become more like the boring NFL where most teams year in and out are not that much different from each other in chances at winning?
Or is this not even a concern since over many years football powers are known to rise and fall. And even with the craziness of this season its not as if things wound up really weird in the end. Known football schools like USC, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, and LSU all won their conferences and were ranked in the top 10 and played in the big bowls and the party crashers like Hawaii wound up losing big in the end
3. Would you have the same Heisman candidates after the bowls?
I think its an honest question. The Heisman is basically the best player of the season, which include the bowls, and if players are punished for stinking it up in a game early on why not for stinking it up in big time televised games, which do matter on some level (pre-season rankings, NFL draft stock, skill credibility). Of the finalists Tebow is the only one not to be really dissapointing (though he was just average), and others that should have been considered before shone through (Michael Crabtree of Texas Tech, Glen Dorsey of LSU). I would think someone else probably would deserve the trophy more than Tebow after the bowls.
4. I don't even know what to say about the coaching situations?
Petrino leaves Louisville for the NFL, dooming a promising school where he could have been treated like a king, finds out its not so easy so ditches them towards the end of the season, and is then welcomed back to the college level with open arms and a huge paycheck. I'm sure it would be Les Miles dropping his team like Picky does CTs in Counter Strike, and Rodriguez praised as a saint if West Virginia had won out. How schools can keep justifying truckloads of money for coaches who may wind up really doing horrible, who may wind up leaving you unexpectedly for some other fool willing to throw more at them, and who you probably can't trust for anything except cashing those checks.
I know its just me but why leave the cushy situation you're in? So many coaches build something great at a school where they can live in guaranteed safety even with a few bad years and still make a killing, and when they win big they can easily renegotiate for something more that really isn't that much worse than what others will offer for more unkown conditions. Hell, if Petrino doesn't get Arkansas an SEC championship in 3 years he'll probably be looking elsewhere (Saban is in an even worse situation at Alabama), whereas he could have kept finishing 2nd in Big East play for years and no worries.
Of course the prestige of bigger names, and the challenge of better conferences can be alluring too. But whats more prestigious? Taking over a storied school like Michigan where you could wind being known as "One of several coaches between Carr and that other championship winner", or turning a school like West Virginia into one of those traditional powers? Is coaching in a better known conference really mroe challenging than taking your current school to consistent BCS bowl victories and championships with odds against you?
Ah well. One thing I'm also tired of is meaningless attributes to coaches as if they're some otherwordly being. For example, I don't know how many times I;ve heard phrases like "Coach so-and-so is 4-0 in bowl games so obviously the odds are in his favor". I know I was kind of glad that Florida lost just so announcers could stop saying that Urban Meyer is "unbeatable in games where he has had 2 weeks or more to prepare". He was lucky enough to be the better team's coach those few games, not because of anything supernatural about his presence.
Anyway, its late so I'll end up this wall of text here, but feel free to add your own thoughts or comments on the season.