Biased Opinion 1/15/07: LSU Football at a Crossroads

The LSU football program is at a crossroads. I think back to 1989. Bill Arnsparger (Don Shula's defensive guru for the great Dolphins teams) built LSU into a perennial contender (for blue-chip recruits as well as conference titles) in his three years at the helm (1984-86). When he abruptly left to become AD at Florida (but really to get away from AD Bob Brodhead), LSU made one of the worst mistakes in its athletic history. Instead of considering applicants like Steve Spurrier and Bobby Bowden, they opted for "continuity" and promoted defensive coordinator Mike Archer. Mike's first season (1987) produced a 10-1-1 record and #5 ranking. 1988 produced an 8-4 record and an SEC co-championship. However, with most of Arnsparger's players gone, 1989 ended 4-7 and 1990, 5-6. Goodbye, Mike; welcome Curly! When Hallman's four years failed to produce a winning season, he was gone also. Gerry DiNardo took over and "brought back the magic": 7-4-1 in 1995 and first bowl game in seven years, 10-2 in 1996, and 9-3 in 1997 with a bowl win over Notre Dame. Then things turned sour fast. 1998 started with a #7 ranking but ended 4-7. When 1999 produced 3-8, Gerry was shown the door. In came Nick Saban from the State (i.e., second class) school in Michigan.
It's hard to complain about Les Miles' first two years since coming from Oklahoma State. First back-to-back 10 win seasons in LSU history. Two Top Ten finishes. But now over half of Saban's players have moved on. Offensive coordinator Jimbo Fisher and first round draft choice JaMarcus Russell must be replaced. And Saban himself now leads a rival SEC West school. We'll soon see what Les Miles is really made of, both in recruiting and coaching.

Biased Opinion 1/5/07: Drop a Team's Weakest Victory?

Bomani Jones on ESPN.com posted a "defense" of the BCS. You should read his article before continuing here.

First of all, I agree with his contention that the BCS is better than what we had before. He illustrates this beautifully with his lists of this year's bowls and what we would have had under the Bowl Alliance. He could also have cited 1996 when Florida State and Arizona State were the only undefeated teams and should have played for the championship. However, as Pac-10 champ, Arizona State went to the Rose Bowl (which was not part of the "Bowl Alliance"), leaving FSU to play Florida again in the Sugar Bowl. And we had a split championship in 1997 because #1 Michigan played in the Rose Bowl and #2 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl because of conference tie-ins.

That said, I take issue with the overall tone of Jones' article, which mirrors the tone of other status quo defenders like Pete Finney in the New Orleans Times Picayune. Their approach is to ask a sequence of questions which they don't even try to answer, implying that satisfactory responses are impossible. The one question Jones does answer, he gives what he apparently considers a definitive rejection.

If those are the best reasons he can come up with against a Plus-One System (which I call a "College Football Final Four"), then I'm heartened because both his objections are ridiculous. Apparently after a month off, the two semifinal winners would become "weary competitors" after only one game! As for stepping on the NFL's turf, the setup for the next four years already does that. This season's championship game is Monday, January 8, which follows the first weekend of NFL playoffs. And his reference to the NFL not airing Saturday games until late in the season is outdated since the NFL has not scheduled Saturday afternoon doubleheaders this December, opting instead for Thursday games on its NFL Network. And why should the NCAA make any decisions based on what the NFL prefers?

Bomani's other argument is this.

This refrain is echoed by Finney and others. Their point can be summarized like this: "Any playoff system will be imperfect; so why change?" First of all, if mankind adopted that approach to life, we'd never make any progress. Secondly, Finney opposed the BCS eight years ago because it was really no better than the status quo (according to him); yet now he defends it. But, most of all, isn't it better to argue over the 4th team to enter a Final Four rather than the 2nd team in a Final Two? Or better to disagree about #8 in an 8-team playoff than #2? This year there is not much difference between #2 Florida and #3 Michigan but a dropoff from Michigan to #4 LSU. Wouldn't it be a better if Florida played Michigan in the #2 vs. #3 semifinal to determine on the field who moves to the final game? No, it's not perfect because we would certainly argue over whether LSU should be #4 over USC or Louisville or Boise State. But I don't hear anybody claiming that any of those teams should be playing in the Championship Game this year.

Recall the controversial years of 2003 and 2004. With a Final Four setup in 2003, LSU–Oklahoma and USC–Michigan would have been semifinal games and LSU–USC would have met in the final. In 2004 undefeated Auburn at #3 would have played #2 Oklahoma while #1 USC met #4 Texas. (See all the BCS and Bowl Alliance results.)

Finally, Jones doesn't give the "A playoff will dilute the regular season" argument but Finney often does. So let's address that point. Would a Final Four setup have diminished the importance of last week's Florida-Arkansas, USC-UCLA, Louisville-Connecticut, and West Virginia-Rutgers games? To the contrary, it would have enhanced their excitement. Before those games, Florida and USC were in the driver's seat for Top Four rankings. Louisville and Rutgers still had hope but only if they won. Arkansas was not in contention because of its loss the week before to LSU, which boosted the Tigers to #5 (thanks also to their win at Tennessee and their come-from-behind overtime win over Ole Miss). And Michigan would not have remained #2 or #3 in the polls after their loss to Ohio State if they had not won all their other games.

Of course, the only people who count are the College Presidents. They haven't made decisions on the basis of logic or fairness because their main concerns are the almighty dollar and (I think) fear that just a four-team playoff will make football even more uncontrollable within their academic environments. We will address these issues at another time. [Maize and Blue weighs in on this subject in his 12/04 posting.]