NCAA at the whim of TV...

A couple of days ago, as you may know, the NCAA proposed several changes to the college football rules. Most of these changes were done not with the intent of enhancing the game, but instead at the request of TV to shorten the games.

There were some changes that were proposed which were, IMHO, good changes, because they were enacted to protect players from injury. For example, college football will follow the NFL now with regard to "horse collar" tackles, making that a penalty. Another was a greater clarification on what constitutes a "chop block".

These two rule changes have been long overdue. Too many times players who have been caught from behind and drug down by their shoulder pads, (i.e. the 'horse collar' tackle), have ended up with injuries. Some severely so. And the clarification on what is and is not a chop block makes if far more simple for referees to call, because that rule was simplified. However, on the horse collar tackle, what we do not know at this point is whether that is a 5-yard minor penalty or a 15-yard personal foul penalty. Personally, I believe it should be a 15-yarder.

Another rule that was enacted was the elimination of the 5-yard incidental face mask penalty. The problem with this rule being eliminated is that now the ref's are going to be making judgement calls as to whether to call a personal foul 15-yard face mask penalty. And I believe we will see the number of those calls go UP over the course of the season. That is a huge part of the game that can truly determine an outcome.

Another proposed change was another clarification on the helmet-to-helmet penalty. That was actually, (like the chop-block rule), a good proposal, because again, it makes it clearer what is and is not a penalty. And that helps the ref's in determining calls.

The other rule changes proposed though I think are unnecessary and actually take away from the game. The biggest of these changes is once again on the kickoffs. Last year the kickoffs were moved back 5 yards from the 35 to the 30 yard lines to try and speed up that part of the game. THIS season, in addition to that, any kick that goes out of bounds will be placed on the opposing, (kick return), team's 40 yard line, instead of the 35 yard line. That is a HUGE advantage to opposing offenses. And the ONLY reason for this rule is so that the TV networks can shorten their broadcasts. The same with the change in rule for the play clock.

Instead of starting the play clock upon the ref placement of the ball, it will start using a 40 second clock which will begin immediately after the preceding play ends. That is also a huge change in the game, and for no good reason, IMHO. While this rule parallel's the NFL game, in college, where schemes and coaching play a more dominant role in the outcome rather than the talent level on the field, this rule HEAVILY favors "hurry-up" or "no huddle" offenses. This may have the net effect that we will see a major shift in college football to less and less of a power football scheme to more of a "pass-happy", spread the field type of football.

The problem I have with these clock, kickoff and other "speed the game up" changes is that the game itself begins to look less and less like a traditional game of football and more and more like a "junk" offshoot of the game. I mean really, what is next? Are we going to see the NCAA go the X-Football league route and ban 'fair catches' on kickoffs next, because a fair catch call added a whole 2 minutes to each game? This rule does nothing to truly enhance the game of football. And in direct effect, actually DE-emphasizes a part of the game that is virtually 1/3rd of the strategy of the game of football.

I mean really, at this point, why even BOTHER with kicking off? The TV networks hate that anyway, so let's just eliminate that part of the game altogether and upon scores, just give the ball to the opposing team offense at their own 35 yard line to start. That will take a whole 4-5 minutes off of the game right?

I do not mind any change that actually "enhances" the game of football. But some of the rules changes being proposed do not do that, and are only being proposed because of pressure by TV networks because THEY do not like how "long" the game takes? Oh, right, THAT is a reason to make that change! (rolling my eyes here).

Basically what is slowly happening is that the game of college football is not changed for the betterment of the game, but instead is looking more and more like a government entity being swayed by a powerful lobbyist. And there is no good reason for that to be the case.

a different perspective on UL football signings

Yesterday, UL football signed 22 players to the football team. Of those 8 of them were JUCO's, and the rest prep players. Like many of the sports media wonks, I honestly do not put a whole of weight on the "star" rankings of players. Is there a talent difference between a 1 star and a 5 star player? Yes. But the gap between 3, 4 and 5 star players is really not that great for the most part. Remember, that rating is not so much a rating based on "talent" as it is the difference between "potential" versus "immediate" impact a player could have. Some kids are more physically developed than others, but that does not mean those that are not, will not become superstar players in college. It just might take a little longer. So I do not put a great deal of emphasis on those rankings.

Looking up and down the players signed by UL, it looks like a solid class. It has some size and speed, mixed in with shoring up some glaring needs that UL has coming into the 2008 season. So all of that is "goodness and light". But I have to say, I have some very serious reservations as to the strategy of recruiting by Kragthorpe and this staff.

My concern is not that Kragthorpe has not and can not find talent, it is that there exists what appears to be an extreme bias against recruiting what has been traditional areas that have resulted in reaping great benefits for UL football.

With this staff the emphasis is in recruiting the western part of the nation far more heavily than UL's history of pulling talent from areas like AL, LA and especially FL.

Unlike some others I am NOT convinced that this is in UL's best interest.

When Schnellenberger came to UL to build a program, he started pulling from talent rich FL. Over 10 years Howard worked that pipeline, building relationships and ties. And over the 20 years since that time, UL, (especially in south Florida), has developed a very strong alumni and prep school presence there. When Schnellenberger left, every coach since has recognized how important that link was to a state that is arguably the most football talent rich state in the nation. And without question IS the most football talent rich state east of the Mississippi river. And having recognized how important those in-roads to talent were, every HC since Schnellenberger continued to develop them.

The single biggest reason why I believe UL should not "focus" on recruiting players from out west is that of geography and demographics. The truth of the matter is that UL simply stands VERY little chance of ever consistently developing a pipeline of top level talent from those states of TX and CA, because quite frankly, UL just does NOT have the "national presence" to develop that pipeline. And historically only ONE school ever HAS done such a feat. That school is Notre Dame. Now having said that, I am not saying that Kragthorpe should never go to TX or CA to look for talent. But I am saying the he should NOT do it as the first option. Instead go after those players selectively and as a one-off process.

Geographically, trying to get a kid to come east of the Miss. river, unless your school name is Notre Dame, is nearly impossible. If it were that simple to develop and pull talent from those areas, you would see a LOT more schools from the Big 10, the ACC and even the SEC trying to do it. But they do not, and there is a reason for that. Most of the kids in TX want to play in fairly similar timezones, so that their families, parents and friends can see them play. In Notre Dame, that is easy, because of ND's virtual TV choke hold on NBC.

The other issue is one of demographics. Regardless of what this staff thinks, there is a HUGE cultural difference between the west and the east coasts. And Louisville just does not have the same type of culture, from an activities standpoint, that west and west coast environs do. (As someone who lived in Denver, CO and Phoenix, AZ for 7 years, I can speak to that a bit.) Not to mention that in the Big East, east coast football is very different than what they play out "west".

And a lot of what I say rang true with the FAILURE of this staff to pull in even mid-level talent from the state of TX. Two of the players that UL were recruiting signed with other teams that were on-par or were below UL's football level. That is VERY telling.

For Kragthorpe to "thumb his nose" at areas that UL has had long standing tradition with, and great success pulling recruits from, speaks to just how completely "out of touch" he is with the history of UL football. And lest we forget, the LAST time a school in the state of Kentucky tried to develop a strong recruiting base from the state of TX or west of the Miss. river; resulted in that school getting smacked with 2 years of probation due to NCAA violations. (*ahem*, see UK history for reference.)

It is my opinion that if Kragthorpe continues to disregard those areas that have resulted in football recruiting success and have deep ties to UL, then UL football is in for a long period of relative obscurity, because it will take at LEAST 5-10 years to even come close to developing the type of prep school recruiting pipeline that UL has cultivated over the past 20 years.

UGa Prez calls the Big Ten Obstructionists?!

In one of the most ironic turn of events I have ever witnessed, the University of Georgia President, not only a week ago proposed and supports an 8 team college football playoff to decide the national champion; but now THIS week has the cahones to call out the Big Ten as being obstructionists to a playoff?

Ok, first off, I 100% agree with Dr. Michael Adams, (president of the University of Georgia), about the Big Ten. He is absolutely, 100% correct that the Big Ten does not, and likely will not EVER, support any type of 8 team college football championship. And the reason is very simple. The Rose Bowl.

But for a president of a member school of the SEC conference to even hint that another conference is obstructionist and in essence exclusionist, is laughable if not stupid. The SEC is the biggest reason why we have this BS entity called the "Bowl Championship Series", to begin with. Whether Adams was the UGa president when the SEC voted on creating this debacle, I do not know. But why is it that NONE of those SEC presidents talk about getting OUT of the BCS system and forming a playoff system, except when it is their school that is basically left out? Not only that, but as I just alluded to, it was former SEC commissioner Roy Kramer who proposed, pushed and even bullied the other conferences like the Big Ten to form the BCS to begin with!

And do you see ANY of the SEC schools threatening to walk from the BCS post-season bowl picture if a playoff is not formed? Hardly. The SEC is the single BIGGEST winner every year in the BCS system as it stands today. The SEC, since the institution of the BCS title game to the method of the system, has had two teams playing in BCS bowl games. So do not give that "poor, pitiful me" nonsense Adams.

The SEC has done EVERYTHING it can to block inclusion to BCS games to teams not part of the "big six" conferences, and even suggested that the Big East should lose its automatic bid once Boston College, Miami(FL), and Virginia Tech bolted for the ACC. Luckily, that did not happen, and the Big East has earned its automatic bid by winning every single one of their BCS games since the expansion of the league to its current member configuration.

But as ironic and self-serving as Adams statements are, he is right. The Big Ten and the PAC-10 walk hand-in-hand when it comes to the Rose Bowl. And at no time was that more evident than the 2008 version of the Rose Bowl, when the RB exec's picked a good, but not great, Illinois team to play in the RB, when there where several possibly more deserving teams, (say Missouri for example), who would have been better opponents for the Pac-10 champs, USC. The Big Ten will NEVER give up, what it considers its "birth right" to the Rose Bowl. As a matter of fact, the B-10 and P-10 will literally WITHDRAW from the BCS membership before agreeing to any type of playoff in which they might not get their teams in the Rose Bowl every year.

The point is this, as I have said before, the chances of a true, college football playoff are all but 0%, IMHO, unless the other conferences, not named the Big-10 or PAC-10, create one WITHOUT those two conferences. And what do you really think the chances are that, that will happen?

Ohio State "Black"eyes and too many bowl games

Every year we get into the debate that is the BCS championship. Where we all sit around and debate why a playoff should be implemented instead of the bowl format we currently have today.

Let's face it, as I pointed out before in another post, there is no way that the university presidents will risk the money that is pulled in by college football today. So, as a result, we will continue to have a bowl format to decide the national champions. But that brings up the a reverse argument. That is the issue of way too many meaningless and unwatched bowl games that result in horribly lopsided losses.

The most obvious one this season was the GMAC bowl, where Tulsa set an almost 50 year old record for the highest winning margin in bowl games ever. Then on the very next night we once again were subjected to an awful BCS championship game played between two teams that maybe or maybe not should have been playing for a championship. Even with that, one of those teams, Ohio State, has for 3 straight years played in the BCS champ game and for the past two has been completely dominated by the opposing team, even though the Buckeyes were the favorite going into that game.

Add in the fact that another 7 games in the post season bowl games were decided by MORE than a double-digit margin and you have the very obvious evidence that MANY of the teams playing in post-season bowl games should never have been there in the first place. But that is NOT the fault of the teams playing in those games. The problem is that there are just WAY too many bowl games to begin with.

If the country is going to be stuck with a bowl game process that is to decide the national championship, then the NCAA needs to DE-sanction all but about 10 post season bowl games. Those 10 should include the current 5 BCS games, (BCS champ, Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta), and about 5 others that have a long standing history, the Cotton, the Liberty, the Sun (which is the longest consecutive running bowl, the Gator, the Champ Sports, and maybe one or two others that have very long histories, like the Peach (which I REFUSE to call the Chick-Fil-A bowl).

So, how would selection go? Well, first, the conference champions of EVERY conference get to go. That means that 11 of the 20-22 or so teams would automatically go to those bowl games, and then selection would go to the ONLY those teams ranked in the top 20 that are not conference champions.

While it may not eliminate blow out bowl games, (like the Sugar this year where Georgia just DOMINATED Hawai'i), it would at least look to minimize that, and make the bowl game we do have that much more interesting to watch.

No, it still does not solve the national championship debate issue, but unless there ever is a playoff, that will never be solved. So, again, if we are stuck with a bowl system, we should at least make it the best bowl system we can.

The money of college football....

As the BCS title game approaches, once again we hear everyone talking about how a "playoff" system would be better for college football, and even how it would "make more money" than the current bowl and BCS system does for the schools.

Well, since it is that time of year for the debate, one thing that VERY few people ever put together is the facts about the dollars of college football.

I will attempt to do that here, or more accurately, just put in perspective how much money is made in collegiate football programs.

Currently there are 123 Div I-A, (FBS), schools playing football. To truly understand the scope of money we are talking about, take the following statistics:

Div I-A (FBS) football revenue breakdown for all of 2007, (this does NOT include any revenue booked for bowl games played in 2008, only those from 2007, including the BCS title game last season.)

Total Revenue: $1.8 Billions
Total Profit : $721 Millions
Average Revenue per School : $14.6 Millions
Average Profit per School : $5.9 Millions

Let that sink in for a minute. The profit that schools make on college football, on average, is higher than MOST companies in America that are not in the Fortune 500. We are talking "profit" here. That is money that the school athletic departments can then use in whatever way they see fit. And note: almost NONE of that money goes to big coaching salaries, as the vast majority of coaching salaries is determined by a base salary set by the state and then added on to by boosters, sponsors, and other outside dollars.

But remember the dollars in college football are NOT evenly distributed, making that average both of revenues and profits completely artificial and very much misleading.

So who are the big winners in college football...err..dollar wise, I mean.


Top 5 biggest revenue producers

U. of Texas : $63.8 Millions
U. of Georgia : $59.5 Millions
Ohio State U. : $59.1 Millions
U. of Florida : $58.9 Millions
Auburn U. : $46.8 Millions

That is a huge amount of revenue streams. But even with that, how much did they keep?

Top 5 biggest profit winners

U. of Texas : $46.2 Millions
U. of Georgia : $43.1 Millions
U. of Florida : $38.2 Millions
U. of Michigan : $36.2 Millions
Auburn U. : $33.9 Millions

Note the change of OSU for UM in the revenue to profit margins. UMich does not generate as much revenue, but keeps a TON more in pure profit. Apparently OSU's cost structure is even higher than we might think...(although, they did come in at #6).

The point to this is that it is obvious, even for a 6th grader with rudimentary math skills, that the top 10% of revenue producers in college football, keep nearly 80% of the total profits made in this business. And make no mistake, this IS big business.

And what is even odder is that it can be literally MORE profitable to sit home and NOT play in a post-season bowl game, than it is to send your team to play in one.

All of this information is freely available, and I found mine on CNNMoney.

The bottom line, (pardon the pun), is this: no matter what people may want with regard to a Div I-A playoff system for college football, the massive amounts of dollars that football generates under the current system will be nearly impossible to overcome.

English is right man for UL DC job....

Yesterday Ron English, after the U. of Michigan bowl game knocking off a potent Florida offensive attack, confirmed he was taking the same position of DC at the University of Louisville. But only as a 2-year deal.

It is 100% positive that English will not stay at UL any longer than that, and maybe not even that long, as he has made it 100% clear that he wants and is ready to be a head coach in college football.

However, that is NOT a bad thing for UL football. UL has also hedged its bets by additionally hiring Ted Roof, former HC at Duke, and another long time DC in NCAA Div I-A, (FBS), football, who will without question be waiting in the wings whenever English gets that HC job he so badly wants.

That aside, make no mistake, Ron English the right man, in the right place, at the right time for UL. UL's defense was abyssmal in the 2007 season, and English is not only a solid defensive game planner, but also an outstanding recruiter. Both areas that UL badly needs help in.

The biggest impact though that English will make to UL, will be in two areas, the ability of UL to get pressure on opposing QB's. And the level of talent he will be able to bring in to the football program. The latter part will be the one that UL will need the most.

Speaking of FAU and Asst coaches

Can someone please explain to me WHY Jurich keeps always going "out west" hiring coaching staffs that have NO vested interest in UL, when there are very good coaches who lived and played in Louisville?

Why did TJ IMMEDIATELY without any hesitation go after a coach with huge question marks about his capability, (at least I had question marks about him), instead of at least looking at the coaching staffs like at FAU where you have guys like Howard Schnellenberger, Gary Nord and Johnny Frost who would have been a GREAT fit for UL, and guys who have galvanized the fan base instead of fracturing it?

I know that UL is looking for a DC and Frost is not anywhere close to being capable of taking over a position like that, but what about getting one of the best LB's the University of Louisville has ever had, back here to coach a DL or a LB corps that was pretty weak under the current position coaching staff?

In retrospect, TJ has made some great "temporary" hires for UL football, but has he really made the RIGHT hires? I love John L Smith, he is a great guy, and a good HC, Petrino is, and was, a phenominal offensive mind, but during their tenures not ONCE did UL look to "promote from within" or look to "groom" future asst coach's by bringing in guys who have close ties to not only the university but also the community.

I am just getting more and more confused why the ONLY coach'es UL EVER wants to talk to about positions at UL are always coach'es that have never lived, worked or coached east of the Mississippi river prior to coming to UL.

It just seems disingenuous to all of those who have given so much to the UL football program in the past to not even be considered for positions at the school and community where they gave so much.

FAU's "Old Warrior" still undefeated

Howard Schnellenberger, the Phoenix of college football, once again resurrected in a bowl game last night orchestrating a bowl victory with fledgling Florida Atlantic University football team, and stayed undefeated in post-season bowl games by completely dominating Memphis in the R+L Carriers New Orleans bowl.

In Boca Raton, they very affectionately refer to Schnellenberger as the "Old Warrior". And it aptly applies.

FAU, with a coaching staff HEAVY of assistants from the University of Louisville, plays a very tough, physical brand of football, which for 10 years we UL fans saw and loved. An NFL pro-style offense, using 2-back sets and an attacking passing attack, with a very physical running style; and a base 4-3 defense with huge fundamental emphasis on TACKLING as opposed to hard-hits. And if FAU's practices are anything like they were at UL, you can bet that game performance is the "EASY" part of a players week.

Schnellenberger has proven that pro-style offense with a physical defense can win at EVERY level of collegiate competition. From winning national championships at Miami University and playing on the biggest stages in college football, to selling just the CONCEPT of football with zero players to recruits at FAU. Not too mention what all UL fans know he accomplished at UL.

But Schnellenberger is more than just a throwback style brand of football. The man himself is a complete anathema to EVERY college coach in the nation. Schnellenberger THRIVES on challenge. It is literally the lifeblood of his heart. This is a man that LEFT Miami University AFTER winning a national championship there to come to UL to try and build a program that was all but dropped from competitive play back in 1994. And then, decided, (after a disastrous stint at Oklahoma where the fans and alumni there NEVER understood him), to build from literally NOTHING a football program in the heart and on the figurative doorsteps of the university where he won a national championship many years ago.

In an era of college football where we see coach's changing jobs every other year for ever increasing exhorbitant amounts of cash, where "loyalty" and "support of the coach" is DEMANDED of the fan base to support a head coach, REGARDLESS of the product they put on the field or their ever-wandering eye, here you have a coach that has a longer tenure at the schools he has been affiliated with than 90% of all the coaching staffs out there, but at the same time has taken positions that most former HC's would consider an INSULT, or a joke, if even mentioned as a job opportunity!

We praise HC's like Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno for staying with their respective universities so long; but would either of even THOSE guys have walked away from Miami after winning a national championship, NOT to take higher paying job, or a more prestigious job, but to breath life into a program at UL that had barely seen any success playing at the top level of college football? And NOT for money! Let's face it, had it been about money, Schnellenberger might even have been MICHIGAN'S number 1 pick at this point in his career, and even at his age. Because Schnellenberger could have stayed at Miami and won at least several MORE national championships there. And would be making a ton more dollars than he is right now at FAU.

As UL fans we owe a lot to Schnellenberger, and through that I was cheering as loud as I could last night for the FAU Owls to bring home their first bowl victory in their first bowl game ever, for a HC that I think deserves to at least be considered for nomination into the college football HOF.

Louisville signs 8 JUCO football recruits...

'Tis the season...the season of scrambling to fix holes and find quick fixes for all of those teams sitting at home this holiday season and not running through practices and drills getting ready for their post-season bowl games.

For the first time in 10 years, UL is sitting at home this season, even though the did reach .500 with a 6-6 record to become bowl eligible. But based on the team play this season, it would have been a perverse sense of justice if UL had gone to a bowl game.

Instead, Kragthorpe and remaining coaches have been scrambling to sign as many JUCO players as they can to fill some holes, to hopefully get UL back to a bowl game next season.

To be sure, UL has found numbers in the JUCO ranks, which they believe will help next season. But the truth is, JUCO transfers are at best a 50-50 shot at being impact players, and even less of a chance of being impact players their first eligible season.

Oh, I have no problem with UL getting JUCO's. UL has a very good history with them. No, I just prefer to err on the side of caution, rather than put the moniker of "UL IS BACK" on the team just yet.

But since it is the holiday season, let me put my wishes to song, in the spirit of the holiday season:

Oh come all UL faithful, hopeful but regretful, oh come ye, oh come ye to JUCO relief!
Come and be thankful, thankful for signing some talent.
Talent that will help us, talent that will help us, talent that will help us...
or so we think!

Petrino stikes again!.....

And the circus clown that is football coach Bobby Petrino is at it again. I have say, that if you are in the sports media business you have to LOVE this guy! Bobby Petrino gives you more fodder for copy than just about any high-profile coach today. And that is saying something, compared to the "colorful" characters and ethical fiber of guys like Nick Saban and Kelvin Sampson. When your actions make THOSE guys look good by comparison, you have begun setting a new high-water mark. This guy is more of a "drama queen" for the sports news than Britney Spears is for the paparazzi!

Petrino's abrubt and surprising resignation from the Atlanta Falcons just days after being given a large vote of confidence and show of support from Falcon's owner Arthur Blank, shows just how egocentric and fragile this guy's self-esteem really is.

No doubt that Petrino was given a very tough hand a few months after becoming the Falcon's HC. First the whole Vick fiasco which took away the best offensive weapon the Falcon's had; short-handed on NFL talent, then injuries then dissension and finally just outright mutiny by the players, left Petrino with absolutely nothing to work with.

But to leave the team under cover of deception with still 3 games remaining is FAR worse for Petrino, than it would have been had he tried to stick it out and finish the season. The reason is that without question, Petrino will now be labeled as a "quitter". And rightfully so. He quit the franchise, the fans, the players and most importantly, his boss who had faith in him. That is inexcusable, and Petrino's days as an NFL HC are completely ended, IMHO. What owner would take a chance on him now?

I have very little doubt, based on Petrino's past dalliances that he always wanted to be an SEC HC. To be literally worshiped by a rabid fan base that regardless of your ethics will not care what you as HC, or your players do, as long as you win. And win BIG!

If you do not think that being an HC in the SEC was Petrino's REALL "dream", then here are some very real past clues.

1) The first year as HC for UL, Petrino had a "secret" meeting with Auburn university to replace CURRENT HC, and his former boss Tommy Tuberville as Auburn's HC.

2) When the Auburn deal fell through, Petrino tried turning Louisville into "Auburn north", but instituting several pre-game ceremonies that Auburn had as their traditions. Hence the implementation of the now known, "Card March", which was based on Auburn pre-game walk by the players into the stadium.

3) The well publicized dance with LSU when Nick Saban scoffed and ran to the NFL Miami Dolphins.

There were indications from day one about his desire to be an SEC HC. But to walk away from the NFL, not only when he did, but HOW he did, just screams of a guy that has absolutely no clue about life, and has not only an over-inflated opinion of himself, but is a coward to boot.

Make no mistake, Bobby Petrino is a very, very good football offensive mind. And he WILL succeed at Arkansas, and his teams will be very strong and efficient. However, he has now proven to be something that no other HC has thought about being. A "quitter".

BCS bowls...what to watch, and not watch.....

I admit it...I am a college football junkie. I am sure there are many of you out there. With the regular season behind us, and no games this weekend, I am sure many of us want to rend clothing, cry, and anything we can do as an excuse from going to the mall. Yes, is that time of year that is the most stress-filled part of our collective American culture and existence. I am talking about the Thanksgiving-Christmas-New Years holidays.

Yes, that time of year when all thoughts turn to....alcohol, sugar and caffeine. When you put large groups of people you hardly know into small spaces, get them all honked up on a buzzed laced, sugar rush, drunk high and expect them to get along. Like THAT is gonna happen......NOT! That type of comaraderie ONLY happens in the confines of your home team's stadium.

BUT, we have a solution fellow junkies! We do NOT need a self-help group. Why? Because we have 32 post-season bowl games to get us through. We can take refuge in our "man cave's" and bask in the warm glow of TV radiation, while we blissfully listen to the sound of bone crushing hits and QB's that bark out signals the way that a mall shopper does when grabbing that last Elmo. BTW, it is perfectly legitimate to be a woman and have a "man cave" for sports. I know several that do. Man cave's are gender neutral, but they all must have the same ambiance to them. You know what I mean. That dank, dark, musty smell that can only come from socks and spilled beer. It just gives you that "warm, fuzzy" feeling. Of course that could be just mold....but I digress.

Having said all of that though, I have to say, in all my 30 years of watching post season bowl games, NONE of them leave me as flat and disinterested as the BCS championship game this year. LSU vs Ohio State. Color me UN-impressed and completely bored.

There is no interest there are at all for me. And even though that game will be the only spoting event played on a Monday night in January, I will probably not watch it. Oh, I'll look up the stats and the score the next day, feign surprise about the winner and shock about the poor officiating. But the bottom line is, I just simply could NOT care less about that game. It is not even in my top 5 bowl games to watch this season. Maybe not in the top 10!

But there are a few that are absolutely "must watch" games, IMHO. As we get closer to the start of the games, I will add some detail, but for now, here are a few that I will NOT be missing regardless.

1) Hawai'i vs Georgia. This is going to be a VERY fun game. As good as UGa is, the speed of the Rainbow Warriors and that oddball passing attack will not be stopped. This game could be the highest scoring game of the post-season bowls. I expect this will be a video game score. And a LOT of fun to watch.

2) UCF vs Miss State. If you have not seen the RB for UCF this season, then you have missed something special. Kevin Smith is not only the leading rusher AND the leading scorer in the nation, but also now holds the all-time rushing yards in a season. The kid is just a phenom, and the best player you have never heard of. Too bad the Heisman voters have never heard of him either.

3) Southern Miss vs Cincinnati. This is a personal favorite of mine this season. It might not be a great game, but a great story. Two old conference foes going back at it in a bowl game.

4) Indiana vs Oklahoma State. How can this NOT be a 'must watch' game. With all that this IU team has struggled with to get to 7 wins and reach a bowl game, which was the goal of their coach who passed away over the summer, and their adopted 'MOM', who is their coach's widow. This may be the best "story" bowl game to watch.

5) Utah vs Navy. The big interest here is that with UL looking for a DC, one of the possible candidates for that position could be the Utes DC, Gary Anderson. And wouldn't that be interesting seeing as he is basically 2-0 vs Kragthorpe, as well as having beaten UL at PJCS this season.

I have other matchups and games to go over, but I am running out of time right now. I'll review some games in depth as they get closer. Like that Dec 20th matchup between Utah and Navy.

the Big East busts, and the BCS should be next

We now have the THE perfect storm and the perfect nightmare for the BCS folks. We went into this week with no teams from the top 6 conferences being undefeated, however, no one was questioning the legitimacy of the teams sitting in the top two spots. Missouri and WVU. But with both of those teams losing, one getting throttled by a very good Oklahoma team for the second time in the season and the other pulling one of the greatest choke jobs you will ever see; the BCS standings and who plays for the BCS championship is completely turned upside down.

First, let's talk about WVU and their loss. WVU losing to Pitt did more to hurt the Big East than they did to themselves. WVU will still go to a BCS bowl game, and will likely be able to put themselves back on track and win that game. But the damage they did the Big East by losing to Pitt, IN MORGANTOWN, after being a 4 TD favorite and on national TV, will once again bring back all of the talk about the Big East not being "deserving" of an automatic bid to BCS games. All of those detractors will start coming out of the woodwork again. It was not even important that WVU WIN the BCS champ game, but to GET to it would have completely solidified and legitimzed the BE as both deserving and as a conference that truly is one of the elite. If you want proof of that, look to the ACC where since the expansion there, all but ONE season two former Big East teams have played for the ACC title. And this year was no exception. Former Big East teams have completely DOMINATED the ACC since that expansion, proving just how tough the Big East truly was....and still is. But that will not get noticed.

As for the BCS nightmare, well, the biggest single problem(s), they have are the two teams sitting the #4 and #5 spots in the Nov 25th BCS poll. Those two teams are Georgia and Kansas. With both Mizzou and WVU losing, ONE of those teams will almost positively move into that BCS #2 spot. Not by virtue of what they did on the field, but by what someone else did not do. But that alone is not the issue. The issue is, how can a team play for the BCS championship game, when NEITHER of those two teams were "good enough" to even attempt to play for their CONFERENCE championship, much less win their conference.

But here is the REAL problem that the "playoff proponents" have and that the BCS apologist always point to. In a playoff system it is ALSO possible that a non-conference champion could be playing for a national title. Unless, of course, you only include the conference champs. But then you have as big a mess as before, with bickering as to one conference being "deserving" while another one is not. I do think there is a solution to this, but it would not make ANYONE happy. And believe it or not the orchestator of the BCS, Kramer, is the one that had the answer, IMHO. A SINGLE 80 team conference. I will put a blog entry up about that some day. But for now, just know that a playoff would not solve this dilemma entirely. To prove that, look at the FCS, (formerly Div I-AA), championships where 3 of the top #1 seeds are out of the playoffs, and are NOT competing for the FCS title.

That is the BCS nightmare they have to face. The problem is, can Va Tech, who is the ACC champ, and sitting in the #6 spot of the BCS, over take both Georgia and Kansas to play for the BCS champ title? At least that way with Ohio State and Va-Tech, you would have two teams that WON their conferences!

If the BCS puts either Georgia or Kansas in the BCS title game, we will hear the biggest uproar for some type of playoff system than we have ever heard before. Not to mention it will be a DOG of a TV game to watch. Who would watch it, other than the fans of those teams?

Add to that, that the AP poll will almost 100% assuredly pick a different team as the #1 team in the nation and we will once again, have a split national championship. Something that the BCS was created to alleviate.

This season is the biggest nightmare for the BCS since it was created. And now the BCS apologists are going to have to come up with yet ANOTHER "tweak" to the system to try and make it work.

UL MUST win vs USF for bowl bid?

I have been looking at UL's chances of getting a bowl bid if UL goes 6-6 this season, and quite frankly, it is NOT good. I think UL MUST reach 7 wins to go to a bowl game this year.

Before I explain why I think that, let's step back and look at the six BCS conference bowl tie-in's. Including the BCS bowl game, but not the BCS champ game.

Big East: 5 bowl games
Pac-10: 6 bowl games
Big 12: 8 bowl games
Big 10: 7 bowl games
SEC: 8 bowl games
ACC: 8 bowl games

So that accounts for 42 of the total of 62 spots from the 31 total post season bowl games played, NOT including the BCS championship game, of course.

Given those tie-in's right now it looks like from the Big East 4 teams are already sitting with 7 or more wins, 100% assuring themselves of a post-season bowl somewhere. Those teams are, (in no order), WVU, UConn, UC, and USF. And right now Rutgers is ahead of UL in the overall standing with a 6-4 record and only has to play Pitt and UL to finish the season.

The best shot that UL has of going to a post-season bowl game though, may NOT be in their control. If RU beats Pitt on saturday, and moves to a 7-4 record, even if they lose to UL, if UL does not have 7 wins, then UL will NOT get a Big East post season bowl bid, because of the NCAA and Big East conference rule that stipulates that all bowl tie-in bids MUST be filled by a team with 7 or more wins before a team with only 6 wins can be considered.

That means that the game vs USF this saturday for UL is an absolute must win game for the Cards. Or, the Cards have to hope that Pitt somehow finds a way to beat Rutgers on the Scarlet Knights home field, or UL's post-season bowl chances are all but zero.

But let's say that UL does finish the season 6-6, and that RU finishes 7-5 and UL does not get one of the 5 BE bowl game bids.

Is there any chance that UL might get an "at-large" bid to a bowl game somewhere? The answer is yes, but that is a very slim hope.

The best chance, I think that UL has of getting any type of "at large" bid to a bowl game if they are only 6-6 is IF one of the other conferences is unable to fill all of their bowl slot tie-in's by not having enough bowl eligible teams. The problem is, as of right now, there are three other conferences that even have a chance at finishing without enough bowl eligible teams. The Pac-10, the ACC and the Big-12. However, there is a wrench in that argument. The Big-10 with only 7 bowl tie-in's have a total of ten currently bowl eligible teams. Which leaves the Big-10 looking for a possible bowl berth for 3 of their teams. AND the SEC with 8 bowl tie-in's also have a total of ten currently bowl eligible teams. Even if you figure that the SEC and the Big-10 will both get two teams playing in the BCS bowl games, that still leaves 3 teams from those conferences, (1 from the SEC and 2 from the Big-10), that will be looking also for an "at-large" bowl bid somewhere.

The least likely conference to finish without any bowl eligible teams, is the ACC. With 8 bowl game tie-in's, the ACC is sitting with 7 current bowl eligible teams. However, both NC State and Maryland will play each other the last game of the season, and with both teams currently sitting at 5-5, one of them WILL finish at least 6-6 on the season so that fills all of their slots.

With 6 bowl game tie-in's, the PAC-10 is sitting with only 5 current bowl eligible teams in the conference. But UCLA, (currently 5-5, like UL), has two games remaining with both of those games against two top 11 teams in form of Oregon and USC. So it is VERY possible that the PAC-10 would not be able to fill all of their bowl slots. (There is an outside shot that Washington State may get to bowl eligibility, but that is a VERY long shot.) As a result, the PAC-10 could end up 1 short on their tie-in's. Which bowl may open up? Probably the Armed Services bowl, which pits the #6 picked PAC-10 team against a MWC opponent. Which at this point, looks like it would be Utah. Bowl executives are not real keen on rematching teams from the regular season, unless it has some sort of major mass TV market appeal. And let's face it, UL vs Utah does not grab TV headlines. If the MWC opponent does turn out to be some other MWC team, then MAYBE they might consider UL. But probably not, only because UL's record would be so poor, compared to other matchups they could get that might have more "regional" appeal, since it is played in Fort Worth, TX. And I think that with the Big-10 looking for a home for some of their schools, I would look for the Big-10 to make a play here. Especially with the PAC-10 and Big-10 relationship.

The Big-12 is like the ACC right now. While the Big-12 has only 6 eligible teams to fill 8 slots, both Kansas St and Oklahoma St look like they will get to 6 wins. Especially Ok-St since they play an awful Baylor team as one of their last two games. K-State would be the one real question mark out of the B-12, but again, with the SEC and the B-10 looking for a home for one of their 3 member schools, UL is probably out of luck here. And completely out of options.

I just do NOT see any set of circumstances where a 6-6 UL team gets a bowl bid this season. UL's only chance to get a bowl bid, I think is to win BOTH of their last two games vs USF and RU.

Which means then that this saturday's game vs the South Florida Bulls in Tampa is an absolute MUST win scenario.

Too many bowls, or too few good teams?

It is that time of year when the college football fan starts thinking about where their favorite team is heading for a post-season bowl game. As result, it is time to bring up that yearly debate about who is actually "deserving" of a bowl game every year. The reason that is an annual debate because every year, some team, (often a team from a non-automatic BCS bid conference), with a very good W-L record gets left out of a post-season appearance for a team that just BARELY has a .500 record.

I do not want to get into the debate on whether the NCAA should sanction a post-season playoff vs a bowl game format to determine a national championship. That argument is so old my grandfather can argue the merits of both. And he has been dead for 20 years. Although I will say this much about it. The weakest argument I have ever heard for or against a playoff, is the one that some pro-bowl system supporters use saying that the regular season is a playoff. That is such a crap argument it is not even funny. And here is why. In a playoff system, you lose one game and you are out of the tournament. In the regular season, you can win every one of your games, go completely undefeated, and NEVER even be considered for a national title. So, how can you go undefeated and not even compete for a national title, if the regular season is equal to a playoff? That makes no sense. And that brings me back to the original point of this blog entry. The issue of a bad teams playing in bowl games versus good teams sitting at home watching.

The issue for me, and the one that I despise the NCAA for allowing, is the one I alluded to above. That a barely .500 W-L team has the ability to even be considered for a post-season bowl game. The last time I checked, if you are sitting at .500, that is a "push", and you are NOT a winning team. Prior to the NCAA allowing for 12 regular season games to be played, the rule was that in any given year where a school played 12 games, they had to have 7 wins to be considered bowl eligible. That was against a normal regular season schedule of 11 games, where it was required that 6 wins be considered for bowl eligibility. It was only after the Big-10 and primarily the SEC, with support from the B-12 lobbied the NCAA to change that rule such that even with 12 games a 6 win season is considered "bowl eligible" now. That means that instead of a team having the possibility of finishing the season including their bowl win @ or above .500, if they finished 6-5 or 7-5, now they can lose their bowl game and finish with a LOSING record and still be considered as having a "successful" season. (Assuming a 6-6 team loses its bowl game, to finish 6-7.) What a crock!

The NCAA is supposed to be not only the organization that does what is in the best interest of the athlete-student, (BTW, sometime in the future I will write about my distinction between athlete-students and student-athletes, because in today's college sporting world there IS a difference), but also the NCAA is supposed to have a responsibility to protect what is in the best interest of the sport itself. In this case, the NCAA should have stuck by the original rule that a team is NOT eligible for post-season bowl participation in the 12 game regular season, UNLESS it can reach a 7 win total. Period, end of story.

But guess what would happen then. We just might have had some teams from conferences like the SEC, Big-10 or Big-12 actually NOT GET TO PLAY IN BOWL GAME!!! Oh, the horror of it!! To actually possibly see a team from the Sun Belt, WAC or MAC take a bowl spot from the BCS conferences? Not a chance! That would be fiscal blasphemy!

As I mentioned before though, this is not about protecting or promoting good football, or rewarding teams who are deserving. This is all about dollars. And the big conferences are NOT going to give up dollars easily to any other conference not in their "circle of friends", or "favorite five", (to use a cellular phone term.)

So, we as football fans are stuck watching bowl games where a team like Miss State, (and do not get me wrong, I think what Croom has done there is GREAT for football), will get paired up with a school like Boise State, Air Force or Utah, who will blow them off the field and just be a boring game to watch, AND end up finishing with a losing record.

But let's face facts. The post-season bowl format is NOT about a good football game, or even just good football. It has almost NOTHING to do with football at all. Bowl games are all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$. And big dollars at that. The money generated by post-season bowl games funds most of all of the schools other athletic endeavors in other sports, especially those driven by Title IX. The only other sport to generate as much if not more money is men's college basketball. So, let's not even go down the road about whether bowl games, and the participating teams are about football...they are NOT. And never have been.

When is scoring too much?

Originally, I was not going to write about this, but upon reading the head coach response to Kansas HS Smith Center's 83-0 win, (including a 72 point 1st QUARTER assault), I have to weigh in on this.

The reason I have to comment is because I completely DIS-agree with Smith Center HC Roger Barta's response to his team mid-way through the 2nd quarter. When a HC stands up in front of his players and tells them, not only that no one else on the team is going to score, but also that even if they get close to the goal line to literally "fall down at the 5 yard line", then I HAVE to take exception to the HC's decision.

I completely understand that this is prep football, and that Barta had NO desire to embarrass the kids from Plainville HS, (the opposing team that suffered this beatdown). And I do completely agree with Barta's decision to pull all of his 1st string offensive players in the 1st quarter and all of his 1st string defensive players in the 2nd quarter. That I agree with. If those kids in Plainview were THAT outclassed by the talent-level then putting in your 2nd and 3rd teams is a way to try and give the opposing kids a chance at being competitive.

But I think it sends completely the wrong message to tell kids to DELIBERATELY "throw in the towel" and literally throw the game. Because in all actuality that is what Barta told his team. "Give up." In Kansas there were already rules pertaining to blowout wins to try and protect the ego's and psyches of young players. One such rule is that once the game reaches a 40 point margin the clock never stops, even on time outs or change of possessions. And, BTW, a sidebar note, it was NOT as if Smtih Center was throwing the ball all over the field. The Smith Center Redmen only attempted 3, yes, 3, total passes all night, and only completed two of them. All in the first quarter and only went for a TD. Every other play they called all night long was a running play.

As a former youth athlete myself, having an opposing team that was beating the hell out of me actually start LETTING me try to win, was even MORE embarrassing than them just continuing to stomp me. At least I knew that the opposing team respected me and my teammates, we just sucked. But when you suck AND your opposing team deliberately takes a dive on you that just made me mad, and was really embarrassing the next day.

It is not up to teams to stop themselves. It is up to the opponents they play to stop them, or continue to be stopped themselves. Whichever the case may be. (Afterall, Plainview did not score the entire night.) By having the team that was that far ahead give up, then why should I, (as an opposing player), continue to play hard? What's the point then?

Sometimes, in sports, you get your head handed to you. Just like in life. And it is how you deal with those adversities which determine part of your character. I think in deciding to "lay down" Barta completely disrespected the kids who played for Plainview, and was more concerned with how HE would look by continuing to run his offense, and the game, than what it meant for the kids of Plainview to try and fight their way back and make the game respectable.

The stretch run....football awards

Ok, here we are. The MLB season is over, culminating in my Boston RedSox winning the World Series. The college football regular season is rapidly coming to end and the conference championships are coming closer. Other fall collegiate sports are gearing up for their post-seasons, as the collegiate basketball season gets underway.

So much to talk about, and what thought keeps coming up in my mind of local interest? College football's Unitas Award.

What about the Heisman? Forget it. Both local candidates from UL and UK will NOT be invited to the DAC, (Downtown Athletic Club), in New York come early December. And that is REGARDLESS of what they do or do not achieve over these last few games in November.

Both Brian Brohm and Andre' Woodson are all but eliminated from consideration. Why? Because recent history suggests that they are out of it completely. Since 1997 NONE of the top 4-5 invitees for the Heisman award ceremonies have been from a team that had 4 or more losses on the season. Woodson MIGHT still make it, but UK has to win out AND the top 5 guys in front of Woodson have to slip up. Brohm is out of it completely.

I am sure I am going to take a ton of heat for this, but that is the reality of the situation. Both QB's could put up HUGE numbers and lead their respective teams to win out the rest of the year, and that would NOT make a difference. Again, it is because guys in front of them have slip in the national presence. And right now, those top 4 candidates are looking pretty strong. Right now, according to ESPN, the top 5 candidates are Matt Ryan (BC), Dennis Dixon (OR), Tim Tebow (FL), Pat White (WV), and Mike Hart (MI). Out of the top 15, Woodson checks in at #13, and Brohm is not listed at all. Basically, put a fork in them.

However, there IS a post season award that both can and will be considered for that is pretty prestigious in and of itself. And presented right here in Louisville. The Johnny Unitas Golden-Arm award, given each year to the best SENIOR QB. And with both Brohm and Woodson we are lucky to have two of the top QB's in the nation right here in the state. And how cool would is it to have these two guys fighting for this award in their home state?

So, here is the question: Which QB deserves the award?

First, they will have competition from Heisman candidates Matt Ryan and Dennis Dixon. But it is actually rare that even a Heisman winner gets both of these awards. And the primary reason is that the Unitas Award is based on the overall performance and that Sr QB's full body of work over their career, not just how well their team is doing or how good their Sr. year is.

But if you look at the body of the work that all of these Sr QB's have put together, (Ryan, Dixon, Woodson and Brohm), I think the CLEAR winner is Brian Brohm. The overall performance of his 4 years at UL overshadows the work that the other 3 have accumulated. Especially in the early parts of their careers. Brohm has been the starting QB since his Sophomore season, and his results speak for themselves. The highpoint of his career may not have been his MVP Orange Bowl award and leading his team the Orange Bowl victory, but actually may be THIS 2007 season. In a season where the UL football team is as dysfunctional as the NY Mets with 2 weeks to go in the baseball season, Brohm has been a MAJOR stabilizing force and reliable leader on the field. The past two seasons he suffered injuries and forced him to miss several games. But this season he has remained healthy, and incredibly prolific amid all sorts of horrific play and dubious coaching. As a result, I think this may be Brian Brohm's best year he has ever had. With Brian Brohm, I shudder to think where UL would be right now. And not because of his ability throwing the ball, but just his presence and ability to make the right choices.

So, in a year that Brohm could have, and maybe even expected, to win college football's most prestigious award, (Heisman Award), given to the supposedly "best football player", the best award for him might be to take home the award that epitomizes the real virtue of a true QB. The Unitas Award.

The problem of bad calls....

Last friday night during the UL vs UConn football game we witnessed one of, if not the, most egregious bad calls in collegiate football history. You could say that the Oklahoma vs Oregon on-side kick call was worse, but in that situation, there were a lot of bodies flying around. In the case of the UL vs UConn game, what we saw was in that non-call of a clearly fair catch signal with the back judge standing not more than 10 yards away, looking dead on AT the UConn's return man Taylor, with NO other players around him, was nothing less than hideously stupid. And led to not only all of the opposing coverage players stop dead in their tracks, but also UConn's coverage team as well, it led to a touchdown, in a game where UL eventually lost by 7 points.

But the problem we saw friday night past, I believe, is FAR more large than this one bad call and how it did or did not effect the outcome of the game between UL and UConn. The problem of dozens of blown calls over the past few years, is symptomatic of the fact that in all by one sport, (including professional sports), all of the officials are PART-TIME employees of their craft. The ONLY sport that actually pays and retains officials as Full Time Employees, (FTE's), is Major League Baseball. And THAT for me is the problem.

How can we expect some sap official who spends half the year working at Home Depot in the hardware section, to be good at the craft of officiating a sport where every call and action is critical and vital to the outcome of a game, with literally millions of dollars riding on it? And while it is easy to see the millions in pro sports like the NBA and NFL, let's face it, even in college, post-season bowl games, sponsors and boosters are BIG money issues.

If officials spend half of the year wandering around working other jobs, and NOT spending the off season honing their craft by learning the rule book inside and out, as well as watching video and attending learning sessions to make themselves better, we will continue to see this type of extremely poor officiating continue, and even get worse as things move forward.

While pro sports have their own ways and worries of trying to deal with this problem, in the case of collegiate sports, the NCAA MUST step in soon and make this a top priority issue. And not just for the example of horrible play calls or non-calls like illustrated by the UL-UConn game. But also for the complete integrity of the game as a whole. We have already seen this past summer an NBA official admit to gambling on games, even those that he officiated. Do we REALLY believe that part-time officials at the collegiate level, guys who do NOT make this their living, and get paid paltry sums of money, are immune to the temptations of such outside influences as gambling?

The conferences themselves are also to blame here, for they, as decided by the NCAA, employ and maintain their conference affiliated officiating staffs. But that makes it even worse. You would think that the conferences, which bring in HUGE amounts of TV money would not want the incredible media beat down that is 100% justified and inevitable when horrible calls or non-calls are made that impact the outcomes of their own conference games.

Instead of issuing the required, "Mea culpa!" to the impacted schools of their own conference, what they SHOULD be doing is looking to greatly improve the status and skills of all of their officiating in every sport and level. And IMHO, that all starts with making officials full-time employees, so that they can be held much more accountable for their actions.

Well, that's my take on it anyway.......

Nebraska situation vs Louisville issues

In case anyone might get the wrong impression, this article is NOT about whether Nebraska would interview Tom Jurich for its vacant AD spot after firing Steve Pederson yesterday; nor is it about whether Jurich would consider such a move. This is NOT about anything of the kind.

What I do want to do is compare the relative situations between UL and Nebraska football. I find it extremely fascinating how the two situations parallel each other, and how the fan base and the actions taken by Nebraska is so very different than UL, but for the exact same basic reasons.

First, look at the two schools record this year, and the expectations coming in. Nebraska was ranked 16th in the AP and 17th in the Coach's poll in the preseason. While UL had one of the most successful years ever in their history, Nebraska had a good season in 2006, finishing only 9-5, but did win the B-12 North and played in the B-12 Championship game. Ok, yeah, they lost to Oklahoma, and then lost their bowl game vs Auburn in the Cotton Bowl. But losing to teams like those in post-season games, while disappointing, is hardly anything to be upset over. Note that this all happened in the 3rd year of HC Bill Callahan's tenure. So as a result, expectations for the Huskers were big coming into 2007. They were the heavy favorites to win the B-12 North, and could even have their shot at a BCS game.

And then the season started. The Huskers on defense this season have looked like Louisville West this season. Averaging giving up over 40 points in all three of their loses this season, including last saturday's worst home loss ever to Oklahoma State. (Not Oklahoma mind you, Oklahoma STATE).

So what was the reaction to this horrible start by a team that was to be a "contender" for the B-12 conference title? A firing of the Athletic Director. (Now, I realize that there are being reported some other issues with Pederson and the job he was doing at Nebraska; such as employee dissatisfaction and job morale issues. Still, none of those appeared to be big problems back in June/July when the Nebraska administration extended Pederson's contract for 5 years. Those only became "issues" as criteria for dismissal once the football team's season tanked.)

Now, compare that with the reaction of Louisville where the season this year has been, well, to be kind, far below what people have thought it would be. Including pundits like Phil Steele, among others. But at no time has the UL fan base, or the UL administration had anything but continued faith in UL VP of Athletics Tom Jurich, to fix the problems with this football team and with the coaching staff where/if applicable.

The question is: How much does the AD truly and really impact the final W-L column of the football program?

Is not that the responsibility of the HEAD FOOTBALL COACH?? The AD's job, whether it be in Louisville, or in Nebraska, is to provide all the tools and means necessary for the football HC to build a football program that will result in wins on the field. Making sure of things like facilities, fund raising, NCAA compliance, and even player eligibility are all in order. The only other function is the fact that the AD is responsible for hiring the HC's for every sport the university offers, but it is the HC's job to put together a coaching staff that can teach the game fundamentals, techniques, schemes and methods which result in positive success on the football field. It just seems ridiculous to hold an AD responsible for the W-L records of any of the sports teams. Either from a "firing" of the AD because of it, or of a "the AD has to fix this" perspective. Both, for me, seem to be not focusing on the real problems at hand.

The real issues, for both schools, has been horribly inconsistent play by the defense, as well as some key injuries and poor game management in other phases of the game.

Yes, UL won a very key game up in Cincinnati over the weekend. One in which the UL DL played a big part in. But, given this team's track record they could turn around this week and make UConn look like the New England Patriots. The biggest key to UL's win over Cincy this past weekend were the turnovers they created, and the ones that the Cincy defense did not. That is not necessarily a trend that you want to depend on every week to get you a win. But I am digressing.

The point here to this issue for me, is that I think that that Head Coach's of each respective program at not taking enough responsibility for the current state of each respective program. With UL, you can be a little more forgiving because it is a first year coach, but how can you give a 4th year HC a nod of approval, and then turn around and fire the AD for on field performance? Conversely, how can the UL fan base give unwavering support believing that JURICH, not Kragthorpe, will "fix" UL's football on the field success? When I see both Pederson and Jurich on the practice fields with a whistle, a game plan, and putting kids through drills, them maybe I will accept that. Until then, I think it is a bit unfair and a little naieve to expect the AD of any school to have that sort of on the field impact.

UL coach under fan fire

It is the halfway point for the University of Louisville football season. Louisville is currently sitting at 3-3 on the season, having lost two games at HOME vs teams with a combined W-L record of 4-8. With the other loss being to UK on UK's home field. So the question has to be asked, where does this leave UL for the remainder of the season?

UL now has 6 games remaining with 4 of them road games. Oddly, this might be a blessing in disguise. UL has played abysmally at home this season, while showing at least SOME form of clean effort and play when going on the road. UL did lose to UK in Commonwealth Stadium, but actually led in the game with less than a minute to play, and were it not for a horrible defensive breakdown, might have come away with that victory. Add to that they did go on the road to NC State and admittedly beat a very poor Wolfpack team, but did so by playing much more sound in every aspect of the game. So maybe going on the road will actually be the best thing for this team. The problem is, the teams that UL plays get harder and harder on the road. And like the UK game, most of the rest of the teams UL plays on the road have the date with UL circled as one they want to 'payback' UL for.

First up is Cincinnati this weekend who not only is sitting in the top 20 and 6-0 on the season; UL has also beaten UC 7 of 8 times they have faced each other. And UC badly wants this game to prove they are a legitimate team. After that comes another road trip to UConn with a very much improved Huskie team, but is still very young. That might be UL's best chance to steal a game on the road, but it will not be easy. As for the other road games, @ WVU and @ USF. UL has yet to ever beat USF in Raymond James Stadium, even when going in with a much better team and none of the problems that this one faces. Add to that the Bulls are also undefeated @ 5-0 and ranked in the top 10 in the nation, and things do not look good at all there. Morgantown is one of the toughest places to play in, in the nation. WVU is ALWAYS dangerous. The 'Eers have had a lot of problems early this season with key injuries, but are still 5-1 headed into the meat of the Big East conference, with their only loss at the hands of the aforementioned USF Bulls in RJS. So, if UL has ANY chance at a post-season bowl game THE "must win" game of the year has to be against either UC or UConn. My guess is it will be the UConn game.

All of that is assuming that UL wins BOTH of their remaining home games, mind you. Given UL's ability to throw in MAJOR klunkers on their home field, even against VASTLY inferior teams, by no means do the games against Pitt and Rutgers at home look like they are "easy wins". It could come down to UL needing BOTH the UC AND the UConn games on the road to be bowl eligible.

Which brings up the real issue here. Why is this UL team so HORRIBLY bad when playing at home? If it were not for the fact that this team just so "out-classed" its two early season opponents, (FBS doormat Murray State, and nearly winless Middle TN State, (1-5)), UL could already by completely out of contention for a bowl game.

The fans have completely revolted against new HC Steve Kragthorpe, and what we see now is a completely fractured fanbase seperating into three VERY distinct groups. Those groups are the "fire Kragthrope now", "give Kragthorpe 2 years" and the smallest group, (of which I consider myself), the "jury is still out". I believe that the last group is probably the most realistic. I am not even close to saying, "get rid of Kragthorpe", but I am just as far away on the issue of saying that "Kragthorpe is the best coach for UL". Personally, I wrote this season off as a rebuilding one after the Middle Tennessee game. UL looked worse in that game that they won, as they ever have in any game that they have LOST in the past 8 years. At this point, for me, I do not care if this team does get to a bowl game or not. The major problem for me, is that during NONE of the first 6 games has there been any phase of the game, (defense, offense, special teams, or even kicking), that has shown marked, or even steady improvement from one game to the next. NONE. And more than anything else that disturbs me the most. If anything, there has been a backslide of areas that early in the season looked very strong. For example the offense has not produced in the past two home games in the first half and in both cases had to rely on offensive heroics in the last few minutes of the game to even make the games close at the end. The UL offense, on their home field, even BLANKED in the first quarter of their game against Utah, and only scored 7 total points for the 1st half. The punting game that last year avg nearly 34 yds per kick looks like it is a kindergarten kickball team. And the ST kick coverage is at best marginally better than the coverage last year that gave up an avg return of 20+ yards.

This lack of game to game improvement, and even backsliding, is a big sign of problems that go a LOT deeper than just "kids not buying into the system", or, "bad kids that need to be weeded out", "poor coaching by the assistants", "lack of communication from the coaching staff about the team", or even, "poor game planning/scheming/preparation by the coaching staff". For me, it speaks that the whole system is faltering. From coaching staffs not on the same page, to kids being confused and then getting angry and acting out, to a total lack of on-the-field discipline and communication. Still, even with all of that concern, I am not ready, after only half of a season, to say that Kragthorpe should go. No, instead what I will be watching is to see what off-season changes are made. Nothing can or will be "fixed" during this season, of that I am convinced. So I am just going to ride this out this season, and not make any judgments based on what I see on the field, or the results in the W-L column for this season. Instead, I want to see what happens in the off-season. Will there be coaching changes in the staff? (I'm about 99.9999% sure on that one) How will that effect recruiting? Will there be a ton of position shifts of the current players? Will there be a lot of kids transferring out? If so, how many are underclassman, (sophomores and freshman), vs current juniors? How will that impact the senior leadership next season, as well as the off-season team-led workouts? Will this coaching staff become more open and forthright with the fan base about the internals of the team? (Which brings up a sidebar note. I VERY much believe that a great deal of the animosity some of the UL fan base have with this coaching staff is the LACK of straightforward communication about the team. When things are going great, everyone, from coach's to CEO's of companies are afforded the luxury of being tight-lipped. But when things are going wrong, fans and stockholders alike want answers. They want to know, not only that issues ARE being addressed, but HOW they are being addressed. This does not mean that they have to, or even should, know the exact tactics or problems, but that there is a clear and distinct course of action being taken. So far, this staff, and the UL Athletic Department as whole has failed miserably on that. However, I do give Kragthorpe a big shout-out for at least throwing the fan base a bone and now releasing NFL type player injury information. That I think at least shows a sign of offering some sort of olive branch.)

I have a ton of questions about this staff right now. But none of the questions I have can, or will, be answered for a while yet. I think this HC deserves every chance to put the pieces in place he thinks he needs to fix the problem. But one thing he cannot do, is after the season, bunker down and not even communicate out to the fans what is being done. For Kragthorpe to survive at UL he needs to lose a little bit of his "stubborn" streak and really make an effort to allow the fans to embrace him. I think they can, and will, but right now, the issues on the field and the apparent cavalier attitude toward them is causing a lot more fans to head towards that "fire Kragthorpe now" group than the other two.