Football Issues

Here are some things that have stood out to me in college football this season:

Boise State

Every week this season there was talk, hype, justification and denigration of Boise State's worthiness to be in a BCS bowl game, if not the BCS title game itself. They started as the AP's #3 team and USA Today's #5. They didn't lose until the penultimate game of the season, on the road against a good Nevada team. Now they're 11-1 and #10 in both polls and the BCS standings.

(NOTE #1: The BCS is not a poll)

(NOTE #2: if you think I'm not thrilled at being able to use the word "penultimate" in a sentence, you must be crazy)


Had BSU gone undefeated and been one of the two top ranked teams in the BCS standings, I would have absolutely no problem with them playing in the title game. That's the system everybody has signed up for, and if they don't like it they don't have to play. The BCS isn't being forced down anybody's throat, despite what is said in the papers, online, on the air or even in Congressional hearings. "Boise State: National Champions" would not be the end of the world.

Having praised them, let me now crush them.

Boise State played three "big" games this season and went 2-1. They beat Virginia Tech in an exciting game to open the season. They beat a good Oregon State team in a game that never saw the lead shrink below seven points after the 6:08 mark of the second quarter. They blew a 17-point halftime lead and lost a tight, tense, mentally challenging game against Nevada. They played some other good teams, including bowl-bound Hawaii, Toledo and Fresno State. I don't think their schedule is as soft as some people think.

However, it's the VT and Nevada games that stand out to me. One they won, the other they lost. They got ahead, and the other team came back. The pressure was really on in these games. What keeps popping into my head is that about eight SEC teams play about six of these games every year, where the opponent is not afraid of you or your talent or your record or any of that stuff. If Boise went 1-1 in two mentally and emotionally challenging games, how would they do if they played four more? When SEC fans talk about the toughness of the conference schedule, they're not limiting it just to the physical action on the field. There really is a grind that goes with the season, though there are usually enough cupcakes scheduled to offset some of that.

Speaking of physical action, consider this:

I think Boise State would have done "all right" in the SEC this year, meaning they'd go anywhere from 3-5 to 5-3 in conference. Replace BSU's schedule with Vanderbilt's. They'd beat Ole Miss, Kentucky, Tennessee, and maybe Florida or Georgia. Let's say they're even better than that and knock of South Carolina. Based strictly on their consistent level of performance, coaching and execution, I can imagine such a scenario.

Here's my question:

Even if Boise State is good enough to succeed against Vanderbilt's schedule, are they good enough to succeed when losing their starting left defensive end, starting free safety, starting right tackle and both starting offensive guards? That's the situation with LSU, who ended up with at least five different starters at the end of the year and still went 10-2 in the SEC West, which produced five bowl teams and two BCS qualifiers, including a BCS title game participant and the Heisman trophy winner; not to mention last year's BCS champion and Heisman trophy winner.

I don't have anything against Boise State as a program, but there is a weekly standard in the SEC (and a couple other conferences) that is beyond anything they've experienced. When LSU beat Ohio State in the title game in 2007, LSU safety Harry Coleman said that OSU "didn't fight back like an SEC team would do." That's what some teams are used to. When Nevada fought back, Boise State wasn't able to respond at a high enough level to win.

Big Ten divisions

Big Ten expansion has been set for next year with the addition of Nebraska, with the new 12-team conference being split into divisions and a conference championship game crowning the champion. The SEC started this whole trend back in the early 90s, and since then several other conferences have jumped on board. In each case the divisions are given names such as East/West (SEC, MAC, C-USA), North/South (PAC-12, Big 12), or Atlantic/Coastal (ACC). When the Big Ten expanded most people thought something similar would happen.

So it came as a bit of a surprise when conference officials announced the names of the two divisions would be "Leaders" and "Legends." Why not east/west or north/south? Because expansion and the school allotment in each division was not based on geography, they said. Okay, but Leaders and Legends?

I was all set to pounce on the conference for such hokey, corny-sounding titles, but then I heard someone on TV make what I thought was a pretty good point. Paraphrasing, he said, "This sounds like something and old man thought sounded really cool, which is exactly what the Big Ten has been about for the last forty years." I don't feel like crushing people just for being who they are, so kudos to the Big Ten for staying themselves and not being who other people think they should be. Commissioner Jim Delaney has announced that they will reconsider the names, but I say they should stick to their figurative guns.

Besides, they're a pretty killer conference despite the joy some people take in making fun of them. Their sports programs bring in massive amounts of money, perhaps more than even the SEC.

Cam Newton and the Heisman Trust

This year's Heisman Trophy winner was Auburn quarterback Cam Newton. After all the hoopla and media controversy over his father asking for money in exchange for his signing on the dotted line to play for a college team, he won pretty handily. I'm fine with this, since he was by far the most intimidating force I saw all year. After LSU lost to Auburn, I wasn't afraid to face anybody else. I was just glad LSU didn't have to face him again.

A lot of people said that Newton shouldn't win because of the possibility that future investigations would uncover more solid evidence that would render Newton ineligible and cause him to be stripped of the trophy or force him to give it back like Reggie Bush did earlier this year.

In my mind this is not an issue for the voters to address. If he's on the ballot, they should vote for him or not based on whether or not they believe he was the best player this season. If something comes up later, we can deal with it later. I believe that the determination of whether he should be on the ballot or not should rest with the Heisman Trust, the organization that actually presents the trophy. If they think that something is amiss, they should show some guts and remove a player from the ballot. They shouldn't leave it up to the writers, whose sole job should be determining and voting for the best player.