College football 2011

[R_of_G]

So SVL, I know you're no fan of USC but I was pleased to see Matt Barkley decide to return for his senior year.

First and foremost, I appreciate when these guys stay the full four years and get their degrees. Whether or not they actually learned anything or faced any real academic challenges is another story, but at least they outwardly appear to be scholar-athletes when they stay for four years.

I'm also looking forward to seeing what the kid can do in a non-sanctioned USC season. USC had a great season this year though nobody talks about them because they're ineligible from bowl games. I also think he got snubbed by the Heisman voters. I still think Griffin deserved the award but Barkley should have been one of the finalists. Regardless of his school's probationary status, Barkley still had one hell of a season. Hopefully he can have another next year when it counts. Besides, it won't be until at least after next season when the Jets front office finally realize that Sanchez has already peaked so the more good QB prospects in that draft, the better.

[sunvalleylaw]

To be honest Jayson, I rooted for (well, did not actively root against) USC vs. OR this year. That they played well while taking their lumps, and that Barkley came back for his senior year, speaks well of the program.

[R_of_G]

Not really sure why I even tried to watch the Alamo Bowl last night. I guess I wanted one last look at Robert Griffin III before he gets stuck someplace like Miami.

With Baylor and Washington, I knew going in these were two high-octane offenses and two non-existent defenses but 67-56? That's ridiculous and both teams should be embarrassed. The two schools' basketball teams could play one another and not score as many points. If that's what people want to see in a football game that's just sad. Scoring is nice, but it should be a little more difficult to accomplish or else it's a meaningless contest of who gets the last possession.

[sunvalleylaw]

Yeah, kind of a junk show. (EDIT: on the Defensive side anyway ) And the only thing worse than winning a game like that is losing one.

[R_of_G]

I thought UW had them where they wanted when it was 35-21. Not that I thought that would be the final score by any stretch of the imagination, but I thought since neither squad was making any stops on defense they'd just continue to pile on points but the 2-score lead would give UW some cushion.

On the bright side for the Huskies, Price is one hell of a QB. I've not seen much of him this season but I've read a lot about him. It was good to see him play a full game to see what he can really do. I'm not sure there's anything he can't do. If UW can get their defensive guys to execute better, this team has a good chance to compete in the PAC in 2012.

[sunvalleylaw]

I agree. Defense was the bane of UW this year. But Price is certainly a bright spot to build upon.

[R_of_G]

Given how poorly most of the rest of the PAC plays defense as well, I would think a team with even a moderately tough defense could put a lot of those teams away, particularly with an offense like UW has. Part of the reason USC dominated the conference for so long was because they were willing to play a little bit of defense. They'll be tough to deal with next season with Barkley back, but UW should be able to be right up there if they tighten things up.

[sunvalleylaw]

I'm hoping so. It would be great to be competitive again. I don't need dominant as in the 90's, but competitive on both sides of the ball. I bet they can do it!

[luvmyshiner]

A junk show? Seriously? Steve, Steve, Steve. As a Baylor alumni who was actually in attendance I couldn't disagree with you more. The entire game was an adrenaline packed once-in-a-lifetime punch fest. Both teams fought like they should have at a bowl game. When Josh and I came back after the half we thought the game was over. And we ended up being wrong. And though I understand that it's easy for middle aged men with beer guts (like me) to sit back in their lazy boys and complain about everything, I can assure you that both quarterbacks were awesome. But everyone who was at the game (Baylor and Washington alumni alike) walked away from that stadium understanding why RG3 won the Heisman.

[sunvalleylaw]

LOL!! Good to hear from you Mark!!! You are right. I was being way too critical with that remark. I was referring to the defensive effort only. Being "raised" in the Don James coaching years, I grew to expect at least decent defense out of the Huskies, even if they sometimes arm tackled and didn't bring their man down. I don't love the trend toward porous D in football. But Price and the Husky offense is fun to watch!

[R_of_G]

Very entertaining Fiesta Bowl. Both of those QBs should make excellent pros.
After watching that game, I still fail to understand what makes Alabama different than either OSU or Stanford as far as getting a shot at LSU for the title.

[sunvalleylaw]

Didn't watch it but it looks like the Rose Bowl was a scoring fest, with OR leading the pace. Wisconsin had its biggest bowl day offensively too though. They keep calling Oregon the "futuristic" college team in the press, but I wish the future had some defense in it.

[R_of_G]

They keep calling Oregon the "futuristic" college team in the press, but I wish the future had some defense in it.

I was listening to Trent Dilfer and Tom Jackson do the NFL wrap-up this weekend and they were saying the trend towards offensive production over defense is taking hold in the NFL as well. The "defense wins championships" philosophy is put to the test when teams like New England and Green Bay (who had two underwhelming defenses this year) take the top seeds in their conferences. I'm interested to see how they stack up against teams like SF and Baltimore/Pittsburgh that do still focus on defense and game management.

You know on which side I fall. I'd much rather see a 9-7 game than a 49-47 game, if the low scoring game is a matter of two staunch defenses rather than two inept offenses. Scoring should be difficult, not something done on every other possession.

We're told fans prefer defense but I'm a fan and nobody asked me. I've yet to hear a crowd chant "O-ffense! O-ffense!" so you tell me, which is it people crave?

I chalk it up to the casual fan not understanding what happens on the defensive side of the ball. I continue to meet people who tell me Revis is overrated because he doesn't have a lot of INTs like other CBs do. Then I have to explain to them that a CBs primary duty is not to intercept the ball but to prevent the receiver from catching it. Find a CB that does that part better than Revis and I'll entertain more questions. It's the same with Bucs fans who think a DT (Gerald McCoy) is a bust because he didn't get 15 sacks his first season. He did manage to get a double team on nearly every single down but that's not tangible to the casual fan.

The NCAA and NFL are businesses and they care more about the casual fans than the hardcore fans because they know that while we may kvetch and moan about it, we're not going anywhere. The casual fan may find something more interesting with more scoring on another channel and if they change channels before they buy a hat and a jersey and a Direct-TV package than Roger Goodell is an unhappy man.

[sunvalleylaw]

I take it you would agree that the rules changes of late have contributed to teams with underwhelming defenses leading their conferences. Based on comments of yours that I remember, I believe you would agree with that. I am not in the camp that wants to see all games in single digits, but a decent balance would be nice. I think the NFL wants high scoring games like the NBA, and the colleges have followed suit. The rules have followed those desires. Of course getting more TV viewers is the prime reason.

Look at most sports and I can give an example of how it has been changed to fit TV better. Ski racing? Look at skiercross. Now you have skiers swapping paint NASCAR style. Auto racing? Can't find formula cars anymore. Again, NASCAR. Same thing with the NFL and NCAA. I suppose it is a matter of taste too. Like I said, I don't favor a game where it is all about the D, and the line. Smashmouth ground game football can be tedious too. But some sort of balance is in order. (IMHO).

[R_of_G]

I favor strong defense but not necessarily low scoring. If a potent offense can out-perform a great defense that's fun to watch as well. I just prefer the officiating be as little a factor in the outcome as possible, not a tool of the league to promote more offense.

[sunvalleylaw]

With that I wholeheartedly agree, and do not like the changes that have been made lately that have helped make football a "run and gun" style of game. To me it is similar to what happened to the NBA.

[R_of_G]

They've officiated defense right out of the NBA. I can't imagine the Knicks or Pacers of the early/mid 1990s could get out of the first half of game today without having all of their starters in serious foul trouble. I'm not saying the NBA game needs to be as rough as some of those contests were, but it should be more like in any pickup game where if the contact doesn't truly affect the outcome of the play it should just be let go. Which brings us back to pass interference/illegal contact calls as the NFL continues to outlaw defense.

[sunvalleylaw]

I liked early/mid 90s NBA. My hometeam and first pro team I followed, the Seattle SuperSonics, with Payton and crew, dished up some good D, and some good O. It was a fun game to watch.

But sometime in there was where the officials got out of hand with allowing travelling, and then started taking away the D. We all know what the end result has been. I hope it does not go any further in the NFL/NCAA.

[R_of_G]

I hope it does not go any further in the NFL/NCAA.

Unfortunately, it will. The rules to "protect" QBs are getting more out of hand all the time. We've all seen and cited many examples of the hand barely brushing a QB's helmet being called a personal foul for roughing the passer, but now the rules about hitting QBs low are being enforced to an insane degree as well.

The Chiefs were victimized by a ludicrous roughing call against Tebow because the defender, who had been forced to the ground reached out to ankle-tackle Tebow. He didn't make a dive at Tebow's legs or "go low on the QB." He was down and made a play that would be perfectly legitimate against a RB or WR. When the league starts to prioritize "protecting the health" of players on a per position basis you know it's not their health but their earning potential being protected. Can't kill the goose that lays those golden eggs. Seems to me all 53 guys on the roster should be "protected" equally.