Featured Article

College Football: Top 5 Overachieving and Top 5 Underachieving Teams for 2011.

by Jeff Merrick on December 4, 2011

Once again, the BCS has declared its final, pre-bowl rankings of the best 25 teams in college football.  Fans always dispute the standings by arguing that many of the voters are ill-informed or biased.  But the BCS ranking and the Associated Press poll establish the official pecking order.  So, how much of winning is recruiting the best high school players (according to the experts)?  How much is coaching, avoiding injuries, and luck?  This post reviews the recruiting classes from 2007-2011, so you can compare to the final standings.  Then, I list my top five overachieving and underachieving teams for 2011.

Each year ESPN publishes a list of the top 25 college recruiting classes.  Colleges recruited most of today’s players in 2007-2010.  Some 2011 recruits also saw action. We, at BizzyLife sports, looked at the ESPN class rankings and assigned points: 25 points for the #1 school and 1 point for the #25 school.  The 2007-2010 point totals follow:

Rank

Team

Cumulative Points 2007-2010
1 Florida

92
2 Texas

86
3 USC

85
4 Alabama

79
5 LSU

78
6 Miami

74
7 Georgia

68
8 Michigan

57
9 Oklahoma

54
10 Florida State

53
Ohio State

53
12 Notre Dame

52
13 Tennessee

49
14 Clemson

46
15 S. Carolina

39
16 UCLA

37
17 N. Carolina

30
Virginia Tech

30
18 Auburn

29
19 Illinois

24
20 Penn State

20
Texas A & M

20
22 Arkansas

14
23 Georgia Tech

12
Pittsburg

12
25 Arizona State

9

(Others with points 2007-2010: 9: Arizona State; 8: Nebraska, Stanford; 7: Oregon; 6; NC State; 5: Rutgers, Ole Miss, 3; Minnesota, Miss. State; 2: Iowa, South Fla., Colo.)

When we add the 2011 recruiting class, the ranking changes a bit, as follows:

Rank

Team

2007-2011
1 Texas

107
USC

107
3 Florida

106
4 Alabama

103
5 LSU

94
6 Georgia

88
7 Florida State

78
8 Miami

74
9 Ohio State

71
10 Notre Dame

69
Oklahoma

69
12 Clemson

64
13 Tennessee

62
14 Michigan

57
15 Auburn

52
16 S. Carolina

50
17 N. Carolina

40
18 UCLA

37
19 Virginia Tech

32
20 Illinois

24
21 Arkansas

21
22 Penn State

20
Texas A & M

20
24 Oregon

19
25 Nebraska

17

(Others with points 2007-2011: 13: Stanford; 12: Georgia Tech; 9: Arizona State; 8: California; 7: Arkansas; 6: Virginia, Ole Miss; 5: Rutgers; 4: Louisville; 3; Minnesota, Miss. State Oklahoma State; 2: Colorado, Iowa, South Fla., Washington)

When we compare recruit ranking to poll results, we can identify the top 5 overachieving teams and the top five underachievers.

Overachievers:

Team Recruit Strength BCS Rank AP
Oklahoma State Not ranked; 3 points  3 3
Boise State Not Ranked; 0 points  7 8
Kansas State Not Ranked; 0 points  8 11
Wisconsin Not Ranked; 0 points  10 9
Stanford Not Ranked; 13 Points  4 4

Many teams underachieved.  One way to rank the teams that did the least with the most would have been to look at won-lost records. I took the easier route.  Here are teams with the recruiting classes in the top 10 who ended the season unranked.

Team

Recruit Strength 2007-10 |  2007-11

BCS Rank

AP Poll

 
Florida

1  |  3

 Not Ranked Not Ranked
Miami

6  |  8

 Not Ranked Not Ranked
Florida State

10 |  7

 Not Ranked Not Ranked
Ohio State

10 |  9

 Not Ranked Not Ranked
Notre Dame

12 | 10

 Not Ranked Not Ranked

So, the booby prize goes to . . . . Florida.  And Coach of the Year should go to Mike Gundy of Oklahoma State.

One Response to College Football: Top 5 Overachieving and Top 5 Underachieving Teams for 2011.

  1. Bizzy Life Author Avatar Mike Wilcox says:
    December 27, 2011 at 11:27 am

    Loved this and who could argue with the method? Plus I agree with the Coach of the Year suggestion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Posted in Advertising, Man Cave

Screw Congress And The NBA!

by Tim O'Leary on November 23, 2011

Let me clarify that I am not a sports fan.  I have never watched sports of any kind on television, and frankly have never understood the appeal. My attitude towards sports is similar to my feelings on pornography; I’d rather play than watch.

But the one exception has always been the NBA. For over twenty years I have had season tickets to see my hometown team, The Portland Trailblazers. So of course the NBA lockout this year has put a damper on my fall and winter fun.  But as bad as this might be for the fans, I especially feel sympathy for the many businesses that depend on the NBA to make a living; and I’m not talking about the silly and selfish billionaire owners or multi-millionaire players.  I’m more concerned with the restaurants, t-shirt shops, concession stands, and other small businesses that depend on the games to survive.

Last night I went to a favorite local restaurant that many people typically visit before a game because of its easy access to the stadium.  A year ago it would have been packed with people, but without a game it was a ghost town.

I can’t help but think about the many great non-profits that operate concession stands in the Rose Garden to support terrific causes.  While the lockout might have a minimal effect on Paul Allen, Mark Cuban, or Kobe Bryant – it really hurts the Boy Scout Troup in Hillsboro, Oregon that won’t have funding this year, and I suspect the family of the shoe shine guy that does a booming business on game nights won’t have much of a Christmas.

It occurs to me that right now selfishness and incompetence rule when it comes to getting things done.  Owners can’t get along with players; Democrats can’t get along with Republicans.  While they all argue about money, the rest of us keep paying the price.  As I write this the stock market is down 200 points, primarily because our Congress just can’t get along, which drives market uncertainty, and as a result the country loses.  Our 401k accounts go down in value; companies fire or don’t hire; but instead of acting like real Americans, making some tough decisions, and finding a way to get along, our “corporate and Grover Nordquist sponsored” politicians throw up their hands and say there is nothing they can do.

And maybe this will get us all thinking a bit differently.  Perhaps next year I really don’t need my Blazers Season Tickets. Thanks to the immaturity of the NBA,  I am learning that life isn’t so bad without basketball.  Perhaps I can find some entertainment that is just as fulfilling provided by people that care about my community.

And while I don’t get a say in choosing who owns or plays on an NBA team, I do get to cast a vote for who represents me in Washington.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Posted in Advertising, Politics

Six reasons why there should NOT be a college football playoff.

by Jeff Merrick on November 21, 2011

Major League Baseball in the United States crowns one World Champion every year. The problem is, it does not offer the rest of the world a chance to compete, except for one team from Canada.  Any legitimacy presumes that no team from Japan, the Dominican Republic, or any other place could win.  Similarly, every year, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) invites two teams to compete for the National Championship.  Historically, the selection presumes that one of the two best teams must come from the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and other team.  This year, maybe both teams.  That’s because losing to another SEC team does not count as much as losing to, say TCU, last year’s No. 2 team. Each year people challenge the BCS presumptions and legitimacy.  Debate rages as to which teams should take part. Each year, people scream that we MUST have a playoff to determine, objectively and definitively, which college football team is the best.

Why?

Why do we need to resolve the debate among the best 4 or 6 or 8 or 16 teams?  Even when two teams play, sometimes the better team does not win because of bad officiating, an injury or some other reason.  No, I’m not one of those guys who thinks every player on every kids’ soccer team should get a trophy regardless of wins and losses.  In fact, I used to be in the “Blow Up The BCS” camp.  Now, I’m firmly opposed to a playoff series for the following six reasons.

Reason # 6: Can the fans really take off work and travel across the country on 2 or 3 or 4 successive weeks?

Reason # 5:  The way the bowl games operate, colleges must guarantee a certain number of tickets sold.  Will a smaller school need to siphon academic funds to support a run for the title?

Reason # 4: Under the current system, every week is a championship game.  The top teams and their fans know that a single loss could doom their chance for the title.  As a result, every game offers sudden-death excitement and consequences.  For the best programs, that means the regular season is a 12 or 13 game playoff.  (By contrast, does anyone really care about the basketball regular season?  College or pros?)

Reason # 3: Are college football players student-athletes or just low-compensated performers? Extending the season means continuing to drain their time, energy and focus from school work.

Reason # 2: Extending the season also means continuing to keep students away from their families when they attend school away from home.

Reason # 1: Every time a student-athlete plays football, he risks disabling injury. Adding games increases that risk, which greatly exceeds the benefits of (a) money to the bowl organizers, (b) money to the media and its advertisers, (c) potential money for schools, (d) entertainment for middle-aged guys like me who need to get a life, and (e) deciding who is really the best.

Let the fanatics who care about which team was best in the 2001-2002 season continue the debate for years.  Ten years later, let the players on the number 2 and 3 teams nurse their aching knees with their belief that they played on the best team, despite what the BCS declared under its flawed system.

 

 

 

One Response to Six reasons why there should NOT be a college football playoff.

  1. avatar kurt says:
    November 21, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    Reasons # 6, #3, 2, and even 1 are bogus. NCAA has playoffs in football for Div 3, Div 2 and Div 1-AA (FCS) and playoffs work, those same objections would have to be applicable in these other divisions (and they are not). I love having Bama and LSU in the championship game, but would prefer them getting there via a playoff system. And they probably would in 2011 with a playoff system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Posted in Man Cave

Don’t Trust That Text

by Tim O'Leary on November 16, 2011

A few weeks ago while my wife and I were travelling she received a text message that said “Wells Fargo Alert. Your card has been deactivated. Please contact us at 503-327-9452″.

Wow. Efficient security Wells Fargo! Only problem… my wife doesn’t have a Wells Fargo card. A few hours later I received the same text – and I don’t have a Wells Card either.

When we called the phone number a very official sounding recording (I suspect the recorded it right off a Wells number) asked for my credit card number, and gave no method to talk to a live operator.  I obviously didn’t and couldn’t comply, and later Wells Fargo verfied that it was a a phishing scheme.

Yesterday I received an e mail from Verizon warning consumers of a  very similar e mail scam.  A very official-looking e mail comes from Verizon, asking for your credit card number to reactive your account.

So the creeps and criminals are getting more and more sophisticated, and we all need to treat every communication with suspicion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Posted in Life

College Football Preview: Oregon Ducks at Stanford

by Jeff Merrick on November 11, 2011

When Oregon visits Stanford on Saturday, a streak will end.  Stanford has the longest winning streak in big-time college football at 17.  Oregon has won 18 consecutive conference games.  The winner wins the Pac 12. If Stanford wins, it might play for the national championship.  With so much at stake, ESPN will use its Game Day program to focus the eyes of the football nation on The Farm in Palo Alto, California.

Both teams, by turns, have looked great but beatable over the past few weeks.  In it’s last game, Oregon State tested Stanford more than the 38-13 score would indicate.  Once again, Stanford’s best wide receiver, Chris Owusu suffered a concussion.  (If I were his dad, I’d urge him to retire.  He’s suffered too many concussions.) Also missing for are two tight ends who have caught many of Andrew Luck’s passes.

By contrast, Oregon’s starting quarterback and best runner recently returned from injury.  But Oregon’s offense did not impress me against  Washington, despite the 34-17 score.  Although Darron Thomas has performed brilliantly at times, at other times, he looks shaky, especially in the first couple possessions of big games.  Oregon never quite replaced its clutch receiver from last year, Jeff Maehl.  Against Washington, a few drops kept Oregon’s score down.  Also, Oregon continues to have some issues with turnovers.

I focus on the offense, because offense dominated the last two meetings.   In 2009, Stanford won 51-42 with methodical, run-first drives.  52 runs plus 20 passes for Stanford added up to 505 yards.  Oregon’s 570 yards of offense made for an entertaining game.  In 2010, the teams combined for 1144 yards of offense and 83 points in Oregon’s 52-31 home win.  Perhaps the sad turning point in the 2010 game was another Chris Owusu knock out. He was out cold and dropped the ball before dropping to the ground.  Oregon scooped it up and turned the game around.

Stanford will again rely on the run as much as possible to keep Oregon’s big-play athletes off the field.  Stanford will march down the field and score at least 35 points. (It averages 44 points per regulation Pac-12 game).  Oregon’s defense is looking pretty good and is pretty healthy (despite the absence of All-American Cliff Harris).

Oregon also averages about 44 p.p.g. against Pac-12 competition.  Oregon will score on special teams to make up for whatever fumble or interception it gives away.

As of this writing, the betting lines have not been posted.  This is a tough game for picking a winner.  I think Stanford’s loss of three pair of receiving hands will neutralize its home field advantage.  In my mind, however, that only means that the slight tip in Stanford’s favor is gone, making the outcome a coin-flip.  In Jeff Sagarin’s computer schemes, the predictor rating ranks Stanford above Oregon.

Oregon has too many game breakers.  Final score:  Oregon wins: 44 – 42.  (I’ll be there with my Stanford alumnus ticket wearing Duck clothing.)

P.S.: Look for the fun side show between mascots: the Stanford tree and Puddles, the Oregon duck.  Here’s the Stanford Tree taking care of the Virgina Tech Turkey.  (Come on, who can’t beat up a turkey.) The Oregon Duck is known for Harley riding and a viscous smack-down of a Cougar.

One Response to College Football Preview: Oregon Ducks at Stanford

  1. avatar Thomas G says:
    November 14, 2011 at 8:09 am

    Super post! I`ll send it to all my friends!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Posted in Man Cave