Ya Can't Cure Pathetic

First thing this morning I checked in with the staff writers at my hometown newspaper online, the Akron Beacon Journal (so lovingly called the "Leaking Urinal" by most locals). I wanted to know what the guys could've possibly written, or how they could've positively spun, the Browns' ridiculous and humiliating 28-point defeat at home to the Green Bay Packers yesterday. I found, to my approval and agreement, an article by Patrick McManamon, who covers the Browns quite well for the Journal, which comes right out and says exactly what every Browns fan has been thinking since week four: it's time to get rid of Mangini. So instead of writing my own rant about this, I am reposting Patrick's article here, as it states very eloquently the same sentiments I have. It's the god's honest truth, folks, and it needed to be made public.

"CLEVELAND: The Browns have reached the time for a difficult decision regarding the future of Eric Mangini: There shouldn't be one.

Sunday was another humiliating loss, this one to the Green Bay Packers, at home. The 31-3 final does not do it justice.

The Browns were abysmal.

Yes, a bunch of guys had the flu during the week, and the flu stinks.

But so do the Browns — now 1-6 and playing worse.

The Packers were playing without two starters on the offensive line. They found a way to play well, to compete, to win.

Which is what mentally tough teams do.

The Browns find ways to lose, to botch games, to turn a loyal-to-a-fault fan following dispassionate and blase.

Coach Eric Mangini did not deserve the personal shots taken at him in Rolling Stone last week, but professionally, he has done nothing with this team except make it worse.

The Browns ended last season
playing their third- and fourth-string quarterbacks. This season's team has its roster, minus the normal number of injuries. It's not overly beaten up, and it's not an expansion team.

Yet it's the worst Browns team since the jubilant return in 1999.

This is Mangini's team. It's his approach, coaching staff and roster — with 23 new players on opening day (and 10 former New York Jets now on the team).

The Browns have been humiliated on the road in Baltimore and Denver, embarrassed at home by the Minnesota Vikings and the Packers. They lost by three to the Cincinnati Bengals then won by three in Buffalo.

Imagine — the highlight of the season is a three-point win over the Bills, when the starting quarterback completed two passes.

The two quarterbacks have regressed to the point that they don't resemble the guys who played the previous two seasons. All the Browns have done with Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn is destroy their trade value.

Quinn was yanked after 10 quarters. The past 12 quarters, Anderson has gone 23-for-70, yet during a blowout loss Sunday, Quinn never looked for his helmet.

Is there any clearer indication that he has absolutely no future with the Browns?

Go down the roster, especially to the places Mangini made changes. The right side of the line? No better. Neither are the other spots where Mangini brought in ''his'' guys — at receiver, tight end, safety, inside linebacker or defensive end. Not to mention offensive coordinator.

Too, consider the teams that former coaches Butch Davis and Romeo Crennel took over. None had a Shaun Rogers at nose tackle, a Josh Cribbs, a Joe Thomas, an Eric Steinbach.

Mangini did not take over a 12-win team, but he also did not take over one that should lose by 28 at home.

After the loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers eight days ago, their offensive coordinator, Bruce Arians, said the Steelers noticed the Browns like to blitz the safeties on first and second down. If you protect, Arians said, you can make big plays by running guys through the vacated area.

Guess what the Packers did in the first quarter? It saw safety Abram Elam blitz, then sent Donald Driver to Elam's area for a 71-yard touchdown that featured yet more missed tackles.

The players can say they're playing hard for their coach.

The evidence isn't there.

The Browns can keep hoping that things will get better and the ''foundation'' is being built.

If they do, they're fooling themselves.

It's difficult and painful to admit a mistake, but coaches have been replaced sooner.

The Browns and owner Randy Lerner need to start considering this possibility. Seriously.

Is it fair to Mangini? Probably not. He's trying, he's working. He doesn't want to lose. But it's not working. The Browns could win next Sunday, yes, but what does that make them? Two-and-six.

And is it any less fair than it was to Quinn to have 10 quarters to prove himself? Mangini wanted this system where he decides personnel. It's his show, and his record.

Most important, though, is perpetuating this situation fair to the fans who have to watch this nonsense week after week after week? To give them this kind of effort and play after they've spent so much of their hard-earned money?

If the Browns think they have problems now, wait until December, when it's cold, and 25,000 are in the stands and games are blacked out locally. And wait until they start selling tickets for 2010.

The only thing worse than making a mistake is not admitting it.

Continuing a mistake ''just because'' only compounds the mistake.

The Browns' defense has been terrible all season, but coordinator Rob Ryan might be able to reach the players in a way Mangini hasn't. He's done nothing to earn the job, except be the best option on the staff to be an interim.

Heck, it can't be worse.

It's a tough decision for Lerner, because he personally hired Mangini. But this team has gotten worse — in every way — and there's no evidence short of a 6-3 win in Buffalo that the team believes in what it's being told.

Nor is there a shred of evidence that it will get better.

The time has come to recognize a mistake, make a tough decision and start over again next season. It's another restart and that's one more too many, but maybe it will produce better results and some long-lost continuity.

What's taking place is simply not working."

Actions & Motives - The B(c)S

I've been hearing a lot of talk lately about how much the BCS sucks. I've spoken, myself, about it since its inception so many years ago, and I couldn't agree more with the negative opinions out there concerning this crap about crowning a "true national champion." The BCS knows it doesn't work, and so does the rest of the country. Especially Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah). Some (ok, almost all) of my previous blogs mention something one way or another about the BCS' flaws, but we can highlight a couple here to set the stage. The most obvious to me deals with the BCS' refusal to drop the AP and Harris human polls from its ranking "calculation," which of course causes the BCS to remain a largely human influenced poll; when the AP and Harris polls count for 2/3 of a team's ranking in the BCS, it cannot by any means claim to be mathematical or objective, let alone unbiased. The fact of the matter is that maintaining any sort of human opinion-based influence in the calculation of a team's ranking lends itself to a biased, opinionated, and thus necessarily flawed ranking.

Another glaring problem arises when we consider that the BCS is solely focused on conference schools in Division IA and Notre Dame. Calling this fair is like telling the Catholic Church to support abortion: it just isn't going to happen, folks. The fact is that the automatic BCS bowl berths are centrally and exclusively focused on the big name conferences and Notre Dame. Now, being a Notre Dame alumnus, it's always nice to know that even when my team sucked donkey doogan, we could (and would, simply and unfairly because of the revenue generation) get invited to a bowl game, however useless it may be (i.e., Hawaii last year). But all team loyalties aside, not even I can sit back in my Lazy Boy recliner on a January Saturday and think this is a fair situation. And the same goes for the other major conferences in college football. If the BCS was actually an objective system, it would either abolish the automatic conference berths, or include all Division IA conference winners in those automatic bowl berths. Neither occurs, and the system is flawed.

There are plenty of other injustices in the BCS system that we could discuss this morning, but the two points I just made lead to something that I think needs to be addressed. Too many of you out there are crying about how schools from certain Division IA conferences aren't getting a fair shake with the BCS. I agree. Your solutions to the problem primarily involve a three week, eight team playoff system following the season. I agree with that as well. My fellow blogger John Feinstein makes several fantastic points about this and the truth of the BCS in his recent post, "The BCS - There Is No Defending The Indefensible." But John falls into the same habit that most writers have lately: he's defending the idea that any undefeated team, regardless of schedule strength, regardless of any cookie cutter teams a school plays, should have a chance to play for a National Title.

I couldn't disagree more with this lunacy.

We've seen consistently, and I'm talking about for decades now, that high profile schools will schedule "warm-up" games at the beginning of the football season, and easily dismantle an extremely lesser talented team, thereby cushioning its "W" column with a couple cupcake victories. That automatically becomes an unfair advantage and instantly corrupts the system, which rewards the high profile team for its "win" and ignores the fact that there was never a chance for any real competition in the game to begin with. The problem has gotten worse in recent years when teams have simply played complete cupcake schedules. Why waste time with a couple easy games, when you can simply play all 12 easy games? This is an even bigger, more obvious corruption of the system; certain high profile schools are taking advantage of weaker football teams that - let's be fair and observant - stand little to no chance of ever winning those football games.

Where so many playoff system advocates have suddenly lost their senses of logic is when they ignore the factor of schedule strength in their bracketing methods, failing to recognize that indeed, certain schools play tougher schedules. Period. This is not an arguable point; it's a goddamn fact of the matter. And this is not a call to give privileges to certain conferences, or certain schools, or even to Notre Dame, as the BCS currently does. We've already seen the bias in that system. Rather, it's a call to recognize that, at the end of the year, we have the opportunity to review the records of a team's opponents, and make a logical calculation about how good or bad the 12-0 record of the team in question may be. And yes, there is such a thing as a weak 12-0 record (see Boise State, as if you didn't know that was coming). This is a call for an objective playoff system that incorporates the unarguable fact that certain teams are more deserving of a playoff berth based on their wins compared to their schedule strength. For example, this year clearly, Alabama plays a much tougher schedule than, say, TCU - and this observed fact has nothing to do with current rankings. It has everything to do with simply examining the records of Alabama's opponents, as compared with the records of TCU's opponents. It's pretty damn simple, folks.

What it comes down to fundamentally is a question of which type of football team is more deserving of the opportunity to play for a National Title: the competitive, hard working, victorious team that has proven itself to be good by consistenly competing against and beating other solid football teams; or the lazy, easy-way-out, unproven team that has truthfully accomplished nothing in purposefully, consistently competing against and beating overmatched teams. Are you willing to work for your trophy, or do you want someone to just hand it to you after you sat on your ass all season? Are you a nose-to-the-grindstone, blue-collar guy, or a wipe-my-ass-and-put-on-cartoons, trust fund baby?

Including strength of schedule into a bracketed playoff system would not only yield unbiased seeding -- we'd see for certain which teams are actually stronger -- but would also encourage schools to think twice before scheduling Western Michigan (way to go Notre Dame with the 2010 schedule), Delaware State (seriously Michigan?), or Chattanooga Southwestern Arts & Crafts School For The Underprivileged Little Sisters Of Northerneastern South America At El Paso (you've never heard of that traditionally steeped and storied CSACSULSNSAEP football program either?). The point is that factoring in strength of schedule is imperative to determining a team's actual playoff seeding in a system in which teams cannot play every other team in the system. It's not like the NFL, NHL, NBA, or MLB when a team has the opportunity to play every other team in the league. Because of this natural deficiency in college football, which is something that's impossible to remedy given the length of a season, schedule strength must be included as a seeding factor to eliminate teams from posting a top tier ranking with a 12-0 record as a result of a cupcake schedule. We simply must keep the system unbiased and objective and recognize which teams are winning competitive football games, and which teams are winning Easy Bake Oven Pajama Party Tickle Fights.

At the end of the season, the playoff system would make schedule strength quite clear, whether it's factored in or not. Teams like Boise State, for example, or TCU, would find themselves on the tummy ache side of the slaughterings they'd been handing out all season to the cupcake schools they "compete" against to compile their foundationless undefeated records. But if schedule strength were factored into the playoff equation, and we honestly and objectively recognized the merit in playing a competitive schedule during the season, teams like 12-0 Boise State or TCU would be seeded extremely low, if at all, thus generating a pure playoff system of truly proven teams.

I have nothing personal against Boise State or TCU, but they're two of the most obvious examples this season of high ranked teams that don't deserve to be there, based on their schedules. You can review my other blogs to find out why, if you're really too stupid to figure it out already for yourself.

I'll say it again and again until something manifests and the system is objective and unbiased. Play a uniformly consistent 12 game schedule. At the end of the season, compare every team's record with their strength of schedule (therein examining their opponents' records and their opponents' opponents' records). Calculate their playoff seeding as a result of their overall win-loss record versus their strength of schedule. Seed the top eight teams into four bowl games: the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange bowls for example, in a 1 vs 8, etc system. The remaining teams can all go duke it out in the remaining bowls sponsored by god knows what kind of corporate feces. A week later, we do it again in round two, with four teams left, the same highest seeding vs lowest seeding, etc, in two more bowls. The third week will then see the remaining two teams playing each other in the remaining bowl game, at a predetermined site, for the National Title.

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult idea for anyone to grasp.

It maintains the same length of the college football season. It increases the number of bowls played, and therefore also the revenue generated from them. It increases the opportunity for corporate sponsorship. It increases the revenue for schools and conferences; the more a team wins, the further it advances, the bigger the corporate sponsor payout. It increases fan support and participation in the sport as it is accepted as an objective and true system. And -- imagine this -- a true, bonafide, undisputed, actual winner emerges at the end of the season.

Silly me. My alarm clock just went off. Time to wake up and get out of bed.

Ruby BCS Slippers

Last Sunday the first BCS standings were released. Boise State had crushed another insignificant opponent (albeit by only 7 points after struggling the entire game). Cincinnati had pulled away from an overrated South Florida in the final quarter. A 2-3 Arkansas gave Florida all it could handle, and Florida escaped narrowly with a 3-point victory (after a questionable call late in the game against Arkansas, for which the SEC officiating crew has been suspended). Alabama took care of business against a low-ranked South Carolina. It took Texas all it had to defeat a miserably pathetic Oklahoma team. Georgia Tech spanked then-(4) Virginia Tech. USC survived (thanks to Duval Kumara's last second slip in the end zone) a furious Notre Dame comeback in the 4th quarter. Purdue kicked the living sh*t out of Ohio State for most of the day and eventually won the game. And ranked teams like Nebraska and Kansas lost to unranked teams by significant margins.

Whew. Week 7, however surprising this continues to be to some people, ended up giving us the same conclusions that each previous week has: the polls are a joke, the pollsters are clueless, no one pays attention to record versus schedule strength when ranking a team, decent teams are only decent because they're demolishing horribly weak teams, and teams that were supposed to be decent (according to the pollsters) are losing to unranked, weak teams that are not supposed to be decent. Haven't we learned yet, coaches and sports writers? Hmm?

What is it going to take to wake you morons up?

(1) Florida barely won by a field goal (with the help of a horrible call) against unranked Arkansas
(2) Alabama defeated (22) South Carolina (save your applause until the final paragraph please)
(3) Texas snuck past (20) OU by 3 points with OU's backup quarterback playing most of the day
(4) Virginia Tech was absolutely slaughtered by (19) Georgia Tech
(5) Boise State beat unranked Tulsa by only 7 points (shhh, applaud later I said)
(6) USC needed an Irish wide receiver to fall down to escape (25) Notre Dame's comeback
(7) Ohio State was summarily dismantled by possibly the worst team in college football, Purdue
(8) Miami (FL) showed us their muscles by ripping up good ol' Central Florida

Do I really need to keep going? Ok, fine.

(12) TCU demolished another unranked, pathetic opponent, Colorado State
(15) Nebraska was manhandled by unranked Texas Tech by 21 points
(17) Kansas lost to an unranked Colorado team

Is the point made yet? Do you all see the absolute absurdity in this bullshit poll system? Am I alone in the Land of Logic here folks?

I'm sure my points seem repetitive, week after week. But what else is there to talk about when the glaringly obvious is staring us all in the face? College football's ranking system has become like that wonderfully wrapped Christmas present beneath the dimly lit tree on Christmas morning: you want it to be a brand new stereo or bike or Play Station Whatever, but when it's unwrapped, its horrific truth is revealed: it's just an ugly argyle sweater, for god's sake, from a great aunt with a hairy mole on her upper lip that you haven't seen in 12 years. Who the f*ck wants an argyle sweater?!

I won't even go into detail about the BCS rankings that were just released. Suffice it to say that, of course I find them full of lunacy and illusory justice, and I think that those of you who subscribe to their supposed "cure-all" to produce a "true national champion" are just as blind as the coaches and pollsters who are ranking these teams in the first place. The fact is, though the BCS uses certain computer rankings in its magic formula (where are we, in f*ckin The Land of Oz now?!), it still uses the human polls (AP and Harris) to "calculate" 2/3 of a team's final ranking. How in the living cockf*ck is that mathematically producing a true national champion?

Maybe we'll all get lucky someday and a goddamn house will fall on those ugly, sparkling, f*cking BCS rudy slippers. I'm not a fan of politics at all, but Jesus, I hope Orin Hatch from Utah makes a point and Congress outlaws this Land of Make-Believe waste of my time. Even Stevie F*ckin Wonder can see this nonsense.

Irish, Trojans & Bearcats (Oh My)

Well folks, let's just do it. Let's get the damn cat out of the bag once and for all. I've been holding this back because in most of my articles I want to be neutral. But of course, I have a particular team in my heart, as most of us do, and I cannot sit silently anymore and watch this happen.

Last night (8) Cincinnati beat (21) South Florida 34-17. It was billed as a Big East showdown of two unbeatens, ranked nationally in the top-25. The commentators discussed whether or not the winner of the Big East, provided they're undefeated at the end of the season, should play for the national title. One of those guys said they should. Another topic that emerged toward the end of the game was the idea that Cincinnati had proven itself as a worthy top-10 team because it had demolished - so they called it - a ranked opponent, South Florida, in South Florida's stadium.

Holy baby Moses in the basket floating down the river in Egypt. Are you f*cking kidding me?!

Yesterday I briefly mentioned Cincinnati's breathtaking schedule in my article about Boise State. The comparison between the two teams is inevitable: both are pretenders. And now it's Cincinnati's turn to face the music. I don't give a rat's behind if they end up undefeated and winning the Big East. Once again, we must ask ourselves who they've played and who they've beaten when we look at their record.

Cincinnati's record is currently 6-0. They're nationally ranked at no. 8. Their wins have come against Rutgers, Southeast Missouri State, Oregon State, Fresno State, Miami (OH), and (21) South Florida. Rutgers is 4-1, having beaten such formidable teams as Howard, Florida International, Maryland, and Texas Southern, with their only loss coming to Cincinnati; their record is obviously weak. Southeast Missouri State is a pathetic 1-5, their only win coming against Quincy (who in the holy living hell is that?), and their other losses coming from Eastern Illinois, Tennessee Martin, Tennessee State, and Austin Peay. Wow. Way to go Bearcats for that one. Next up is Oregon State, who is 4-2 with wins against Portland State, UNLV, Arizona State and Stanford, and losses to of course Cincinnati and Arizona. Oregon State's record is unstable at best. Fresno State is 2-3, having beaten UC Davis and Hawaii, and having its other losses to Wisconsin and Boise State (don't get me started). Miami (OH) at 0-6, has lost its other games to Kentucky, Boise State, Western Michigan, Kent State, and Northwestern. And now we have South Florida, at 5-1. The Bulls have beaten Wofford (um...), Western Kentucky, Charleston Southern, then-(18) Florida State (now unranked at 2-4... don't get too excited), and Syracuse, before losing to that Mighty Casey of a team, Cincinnati.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, this is your Number 8 team in the country: the Almighty Cincinnati Bearcats. (1950s corny male superhero voiceover): Undefeated, sitting alone atop the mighty Big East conference, they stand for Truth, Justice, and the American Way...

Enter the University of Notre Dame. I'm not your typical whining, blame-it-on-the-refs, run of the mill Irish fan. I'm an alumnus. I take pride in that fact, and I take pride in the traditions of Notre Dame football. But I also face the reality of the situation: Notre Dame has not had a significant football team in my opinion since it was briefly ranked no. 1 in 1993 after ousting Florida State. I won't even bitch about the "Bush Push" of 2005. All that being said, let's examine Notre Dame's schedule this year, against its 4-1 record and no. 25 national ranking.

The Irish have beaten Nevada (2-3), Michigan State (3-3), Purdue (1-5), and Washington (3-3), and lost in the final seconds at Michigan (4-2). Their opponents are far less than impressive, having currently a combined record of 13-16, with only one opponent sporting a winning record thus far. I'm going to come right out and say this: if we're rewarding, in the polls, teams like USC (4-1), Ohio State (5-1), Cincinnati (6-0), Boise State (5-0), TCU (5-0), South Florida (5-1), BYU (5-1), Houston (4-1), and Utah (4-1) for beating very weak opponents and compiling either undefeated or one-loss records, then I see no reason to not reward Notre Dame for doing the same thing. But if we're going to punish Notre Dame in the polls (or any other team) with a no. 25 ranking for beating weak opponents, in spite of an undefeated or one-loss record, then we should be doing the same punishing to the other aforementioned teams with similarly weak schedules and similar records. Again, we must examine who these teams are beating, who they're losing to, and measure that schedule strength against their overall records to determine an accurate ranking.

Enter Oklahoma. OU sits at 3-2, ranked no. 20 in the country. They've lost to then-(20) BYU and then-(17) Miami, their only two ranked opponents thus far. They've beaten Idaho State (0-6), Tulsa (a very weak 4-2), and Baylor (3-2). With a 3-2 record, wins over unranked, weak teams, and two losses, each to a ranked opponent, Oklahoma is still nationally ranked only because of its preseason no. 3 ranking. Compare, quickly, the other 3-2 teams in the country who've beaten similarly weak opponents: Baylor, Texas A&M, Uconn, Central Florida, Temple, Arkansas, Mississippi, and several teams in the Sun Belt and Pac-10 Conferences, including Cal. Why aren't those teams ranked at 3-2? This brings up an interesting point: Cal beat some weak teams, lost to (13) Oregon and then-(7) USC, and dropped out of the rankings with their 3-2 record. Cal lost to better teams than Oklahoma lost to, beat similarly weak teams as did Oklahoma, yet Oklahoma remains ranked in the top-20. Cal was preseason ranked no. 12. OU was preseason ranked no. 3. You tell me what's going on here.

So what we gather from the polls after all this examination, is that a 3-2 OU is supposed to be better than a 3-2 Cal, despite Cal losing to better opponents than OU lost to; that a 4-1 USC, 4-1 Houston, and 4-1 Utah are better teams than a 4-1 Notre Dame, after they've all beaten similarly weak, inferior opponents; and that we're rewarding undefeated and one-loss teams (except Notre Dame) for beating the poop out of weak opponents with (usually) losing records. You ready for the mind f*ck? I'll just lay it out there to stir the pot a little bit, to see who's really paying attention to the complete lack of logic inherent in this ridiculous ranking system: USC (4-1) lost to Washington (3-3), while Notre Dame (4-1) beat Washington (and lost to a 4-2 Michigan team), and USC is ranked not only higher than Notre Dame, but 19 spots higher than Notre Dame. Not only did Notre Dame beat the team that beat (6) USC, but its loss came to a better team (4-2 Michigan) than USC's loss (3-3 Washington).

I'm not at all saying that Notre Dame has a better football team than USC, or even that Notre Dame will beat USC this Saturday. But I am saying that this is a perfect example to illustrate the utter absurdity, the completely random and senseless nature, of the ranking system.

A 6-0 Cincinnati, who beat the shit out of nobody teams, is ranked no. 8.
A 4-1 USC team who lost to a 3-3 Washington is ranked no. 6.
A 4-1 Notre Dame team, who lost to a 4-2 Michigan team, is ranked no. 25.
A 4-1 Notre Dame team who beat that 3-3 Washington team, who in turn beat no. 6 USC, is ranked no. 25.
A 3-f*ckin-2 Oklahoma team who can't beat a ranked opponent is still nationally ranked at no. 20.
A 3-2 Cal team who lost to better ranked opponents than no. 20 OU is not ranked at all.
And we haven't even discussed the likes of Houston, Utah, TCU, and BYU yet this season.

I'm irritated, folks. I'm lost in the senseless lack of logic here. Someone remind me again why we don't play a full season, examine record versus schedule strength at the end of the year, place conference champions and the remaining certain number of teams with the best records versus schedule strengths into a ranked bracket system, and play a playoff to crown a true national champion. Anyone? Bueller? Buuuuueller? Buuuuuuuuueller?

Boise State: The Great Pretenders

Ok people, I just can't take this anymore.

No. 5 Boise State beat Tulsa last night to move to 6-0 on the season. They're about halfway done with their schedule, they're undefeated, and they're ranked 5th (AP) in the nation. After watching the highlights of last night's victory over (dramatic music) Tulsa, those formidable, daunting opponents from Oklahoma, I'm still not convinced that Boise State is the real deal. I'm still not convinced that, faced with an opponent like Florida, Texas, Alabama, Iowa or LSU, that these guys would emerge victorious. I'm still not convinced that, if faced with the schedules of those aforementioned teams, Boise State would win even half its games.

Let's examine the opponents of Boise State this year, and their records and schedules as well. Perhaps we'll come up with some sort of, oh, I want to call it "Schedule Strength", against which to measure Boise State's sparkling 6-0 record. Genius idea, I know; you can thank me later. So the (what are they called again? Blue um... Blue Horses?... Aqua Velvet Knights?... Ultramarine Trojans?...) Broncos opened up the season ranked (preseason) no. 14, which we all know is based on absolutely nothing but opinions and paper, and has nothing to do with actually playing the game of football. They beat then-(16) Oregon (again a preseason ranking based on nothing) at home 19-8. Oregon has gone on to win all of its subsequent games, beating the likes of Purdue, then-(18) Utah, then-(6) Cal, Washington St, and UCLA, to run their record to 5-1. Not bad, but we must remember that Utah is now ranked 24th and Cal is not ranked at all. It's safe to say that Oregon has had a moderately soft schedule thus far, and remains to be tested against (6) USC later this year - its only formidable opponent. Suffice it to say then that Boise State's victory at home in the opener over Oregon was not the big deal that everyone likes to think it is, especially considering the fact that preseason rankings are horseshit. Stop shaking your heads and admit it - you know better.

The following week the Broncos took on Miami (OH) and won 48-0. Whoa Nelly, Keith Jackson would've said. And what about Miami (OH)'s record? Right now they're a (dis)respectable 0-6, in the basement of the Mid American Conference, having lost their other games to Kentucky (2-3, unranked), Western Michigan (3-3, unranked), Kent State (2-4, unranked), Cincinnati (5-0, no. 10), and Northwestern (4-2, unranked). Let's pause for a moment and make a quick point: Cincinnati's 5-0 record and no. 10 ranking come after they've beaten Rutgers, Southeastern Missouri State (I think I just peed a little), Oregon State, Fresno State, and of course Miami (OH). What a holy terror of a schedule for Cincinnati, ladies and gentlemen. I mean, if anyone deserves a top-ten ranking... ok, ok, sarcasm be damned. Back to Boise State. We see then that the victory over Miami (OH) was nothing special; the Broncos demolished a team that has been demolished by everyone else it's played. Big deal.

Moving on to week 3, the Blue Ballers handed Fresno State a loss, but not until Fresno put up 34 points on them. Fresno State is currently 2-3, unranked, and has beaten the likes of UC Davis and Hawaii, while losing to Wisconsin, Cincinnati, and of course Boise State. Again, Fresno State is simply another unimpressive opponent. And they managed to score 34 points on the supposed no. 5 team in the country.

Boise State's next opponent would be Bowling Green, those fearsome Falcons of northwest Ohio, who have compiled a record thus far of 2-4, with wins against Troy (who? are they a sub-division of USC?) and Kent State, and losses to Missouri, Marshall, and Ohio University. Oh, and Boise State beat them as well... like a rented mule.

October 3 saw Boise State beat UC Davis. I sincerely had no idea until this season that UC Davis even existed, let alone had a football program. UC Davis has also lost to Fresno State and Montana, while beating Western Oregon and South Dakota to complile a record of 2-3 this year. UC Davis actually gave the Broncos a tough time for the first couple of quarters in this contest, which doesn't bode well for Boise State's case as a top-10 (or even top-25) team.

Finally we have last night's game against Tulsa. Boise State won 28-21 when Tulsa's wide receiver dropped a pass at mid-field on 4th down with less than a minute to play and Tulsa driving. Tulsa has a record now of 4-2, with wins over Tulane, New Mexico, Sam Houston State, and Rice, and losses to then-(12) Oklahoma, and now Boise State. As you can see, just like the rest of Boise State's opponents, we have a team whose wins came over weak teams.

To quickly review, Boise State's 6-0 record has come by beating preseason (16) Oregon (5-1), Miami (OH) (0-6), Fresno State (2-3), Bowling Green (2-4), UC Davis (2-3), and Tulsa (4-2). Their opponents' combined record thus far is 15-19, with 1/3 of those victories coming from one team. Their opponents' losses have come at the hands of traditionally weak, bottom-dwelling teams from mid-major conferences. Their opponents themselves, with the exception of Oregon, are from consistently weak mid-major conferences. Their remaining schedule looks like this: Hawaii (2-3), San Jose State (1-4), Louisiana Tech (2-3), Idaho (5-1, against more weak teams), Utah State (1-4), Nevada (2-3), and New Mexico State (3-3).

All alliances aside, we must admit one thing at this point: Boise State is in no way deserving of its top-5 ranking. It's not even deserving of a top-20 ranking. When teams beat up on perennial losers in order to compile a winning or undefeated record, and end up nationally ranked in the top 25, there is a problem. I won't go into the issues with the human polls in this article, but I will make the point: those of you coaches and sports writers out there voting these blood-sucker, bottom-feeding teams like Boise State into the top-25 are either ignorant of the concept of schedule strength or are just blatantly ignoring it; you obviously haven't a clue about what makes a team good, let alone great, and deserving of a high national ranking. Put down your ballots, go to Barnes & Noble, and read a book on logic. Many will argue that a win is a win, and an undefeated record is simply perfect. But we must ask ourselves, as true logical thinkers and fans of the college game, who exactly are teams like Boise State playing and beating? And who are those teams playing, with their losing records? A win is not simply a win. It does matter in the college game who you play and who you beat. Schedule strength, in my opinion, is of utmost importance in conjunction with a team's record. For that matter, if it's not, we may as well have Idaho (5-1), Tulsa (4-2), Notre Dame (4-1), and Marshall (4-2) ranked in the top-10 as well.

Ah, but you so slyly ask, who have those guys played? Nobody. Just like Boise State.

The (Toilet) Bowl "Championship" Series

Ok folks, I have to get this off my chest... for about the tenth time in as many years.

The college football ranking system is useless, absurd, obsolete, and produces no true National Champion. Here's why.

Let's start with the obvious. The AP and Coaches polls are used to determine a national ranking. These polls are based on one thing: some sports writer's or coach's opinion of how good a team is. This in itself should be enough to make the point that any national champion that emerges at the end of the year from this system is based upon an unfounded opinion of how good a team is. It's simply ridiculous.

This matter of opinion determining a national rank is no more glaringly obvious than in the first few weeks of the college football season in which teams are nationally ranked in the preseason poll before they ever set foot on the football field. The preseason rankings are based not only on these unfounded opinions, but they take into account the previous year's teams and returning members. In essence what the preseason poll states is merely what a select group of people think the teams are going to be like once the season begins. It's all "on paper" at that point, and therefore is pointless. Furthermore, a team's preseason ranking -- again based on a hollow opinion, on the previous year's accomplishments, and on returning members -- continues to determine is sustained national rank throughout the year. For example this year, if preseason #1 Florida simply goes unbeaten, no matter how pathetically weak their schedule may be, they'll remain the #1 ranked team because they were ranked #1 in the preseason. It's horseshit, and it gives zero potential for any other team to usurp their position.

So at this point in the development of our examination we have a ranking system that's based upon the opinions of a select few individuals, in turn, whose opinions are based on forethought and predictions in the preseason and not at all on what's going on on the football field. Had enough already? It gets better.

When the season actually begins, the polls run into many problems, the most obvious of which has already been mentioned (a team's ability to maintain its preseason, unfounded, opinion-based national rank based solely on the fact that it just hasn't lost a game yet, no matter how insanely easy its schedule is). But then we run into a problem regarding schedule strength. Take, for example this year, Boise State. They're currently ranked #6 in the country, having a record of 5-0. And how did they accumulate that record? By beating teams like Miami Ohio, Bowling Green, Fresno State, UC Davis (didn't know they played football there), and Oregon who was unranked at the time of Boise State's victory. Their remaining schedule looks like this: Tulsa, Hawaii, San Jose State, Louisiana Tech, Idaho, Utah State, Nevada, and New Mexico State. Seriously folks? You're going to rank these guys as the 6h best football team in the country because they beat the living shit out of all these bullshit football teams that Lakeland High School in Rathdrum could beat? This is a glaringly obvious issue with the polls. There are far too many weak teams from horrible conferences playing other weak teams from other horrible conferences and ending up nationally ranked. Boise State is this year's most obvious, but others of note right now are Cincinnati, TCU, Houston (who thank god, dropped from the rankings after a lopsided loss to an unranked UTEP), and BYU. Take a look at their schedules and ask yourself if they deserve to be ranked nationally, even with 5-0 or 4-1 records right now, resulting from beating up on teams like Middle Southeastern Wyoming State West Campus For The Blind. Gimme a break.

The next issue is a result of an aforementioned issue regarding the preseason ranking. Oklahoma is this year's prime example. Right now OU is 2-2. They're ranked #19 in the AP poll. Why? Because they were preseason ranked in the top 5, and won two of their four games. Their wins are against Idaho (those formidable Vandals' football teams strike fear in the hearts of grown men) and Tulsa (still shaking in my shoes over here). Their two losses are against current #18 BYU (a previously mentioned prime example of a bullshit team with several wins on a bullshit schedule) and current #11 Miami, who has risen steadily in the ranks early this season. Several sub-issues come to mind in this situation. BYU's problem has already been mentioned (nationally ranked based on winning with a weak schedule). Miami's problem with rising in the ranks is based on the overall problem with the polls: Miami has beaten teams whose rankings were unfounded, based on the preseason polls, and beating up on weaker teams. So we really don't know how good Miami is right now. But to further compound the issue, if we take the rankings for being somewhat true at this point just for the sake of argument, and we see clearly that OU has lost half of its games, both of them to ranked opponents, we must ask ourselves how good OU can possibly be if it can't beat a ranked opponent, even if those rankings are unfounded.

This is the gigantic monkeywrench in the early season rankings: we really don't know how good a team is until it's about halfway through its schedule. Consider also that most teams have a "warm up" game or two (or 12 in Boise State's case) at the beginning of the year, in which they play a terrible, unranked opponent from a weak conference. This year seems to be worse than others, in that even after 5 games we're still seeing match-ups that don't make sense, with traditional powerhouse programs playing football teams that haven't won games, much less a conference or national title, ever.

So at this point in our examination we have a preseason poll based on opinions, last year's team, and returning members. We have nationally ranked teams who play absolutely no formidable opponents, yet who compile undefeated records. We have traditional powerhouses who play weak teams and win, and who play strong teams and lose, yet remain nationally ranked. And we truly don't know how good or bad any of these teams in the national rankings are because they've not yet been adequately tested, their rankings are still based on preseason spots, and their records largely reflect weak schedules with games played against schools who've never had any sort of noteworthy football programs in their history. Messy enough for you?

The problems deepen as the season progresses and comes to completion. As the season continues teams may slide up or down a bit, but we have to understand the points we've examined at the beginning of the season. A team's national rank cannot possibly matter if it's based on a preseason poll, an opinion of a coach or sports writer, or on beating up weak teams with less than adequate football programs. So at the end of the year, when the final rankings are set and the bowl games are picked, are we really seeing a true champion crowned when the likes of Boise State, TCU, and BYU, with their pathetic schedules, are playing in major bowl games? Obviously we are not. We're seeing who a select few individuals have decided will play in those bowl games. Period.

Many think that the BCS system has solved some of these problems because it incorporates "computer" rankings, based on schedule strength, into its national ranking system. Two things. First, the BCS also takes into consideration the AP and Coaches polls when it "calculates" the national rank of a team. How a national ranking can be unbiased, mathematical, or based on strength of schedule when it still incorporates someone's opinion, is beyond the comprehension of my intellect. It's simply not a true, mathematical system. Secondly, the BCS' strength of schedule category makes a good point. But it's almost moot because it still incorporates the opinion polls of the AP and Coaches. If you're going to base a national ranking off a record versus strength of schedule, then damn well do it. Forget the AP and Coaches polls. The BCS, because of this, still does not crown a true national champion.

In examining this system, one wonders what it will take to abolish it. One wonders how on earth the BCS could complain about losing money if a playoff system is established, which would generate more games played in bowls at the end of the year. It's beyond me. But I do have a few suggestions.

Get rid of the preseason polls and rankings. No one knows how good a team is until it steps onto a football field and plays an entire season. Period. No rankings until the end of the year.

Remove the possibility for traditional powerhouse teams to play Division II teams, who have very little, if any, chance of beating the powerhouse teams. It does nothing but add another win or two to the powerhouse team's record, and falsely inflates their "image" as a good team. It also continues to subdue those teams that are not traditional powerhouses, keeping them in the basement of college football. It keeps the scales tipped in favor of the traditional teams and does not allow a chance for anyone else to emerge as a significant winner. All Division I teams need to play only other Divsion I teams. Period.

Next, use the one little good idea the BCS has had and wait to rank teams nationally. The BCS does us all a little favor when it waits until after week 6 to rank teams so it can "calculate" schedule strength. I'm saying wait until the end of the year. Examine a team's record. Examine its opponents records and the opponents' opponents records. Figure out how good or bad these teams are based on the one and only thing that can do that: how many wins a team has and how strong its schedule has been. (I'm sick of seeing Boise State beat the shit out of 12 horseshit opponents and play in a bowl game, then bitch about not being considered for a national title. Give Boise State the schedule of LSU this year and watch it go 4-8 if it's lucky). And once the season is over, and teams are nationally ranked based on record and schedule strength, once this true ranking is established, plug the top 25 teams into a bracket playoff system (like, oh I don't know, every other sport does) and go through a few rounds of playoffs.

When it's all said and done, you'll see who the strongest team is. You'll know who deserved to win the national title, instead of sitting around second guessing everything at the end of the year. You'll see the traditional powerhouse teams beating each other up in the playoffs instead of seeing them beat up Akron and Wyoming and Middle Northeastern Tennessee Trade School of Art & Design. And most gratifying of all, these teams -- all teams -- will have the chance to play strong schedules, to win those big games, and to legitimately contend for a playoff spot. And Boise State, BYU, TCU, Houston, and Cincinnati can go duke it out amongst themselves for the Tampax Bitch Trophy in the Summer's Eve Douche Bowl with the local high school teams, where they deserve to be.

The Defunct Browns Fan

I remember being a couple years old and listening to my dad and grandfather talk about Brian Sipe and Sam Rutigliano in the early 1980s. When my dad was a kid, there were the likes of Jim Brown, Lou Groza, Frank Ryan, Gary Collins, Leroy Kelly, Dick Schafrath, and Paul Warfield. Those guys went 10-3-1 in 1964 and won an NFL Championship, demolishing the then-powerhouse Baltimore Colts 27-0. From their inception in 1950 through 1969, those Cleveland Browns appeared in 12 NFL Championship games, compiling an overall record of 180-71 in the regular season, and winning four championships. Those teams were hall-of-famer producing machines.



And then I was born in 1979.





We're all familiar with the 1986 - 89 teams who won during the regular season and came "this close" in the AFC title games before losing to the Denver Broncos. We won't go there. It's too disgusting for me to think about. But those were my teams when I was a kid: Bernie Kosar, Kevin Mack, Earnest Byner, Reggie Langhorne, Ozzie Newsome, Webster Slaughter, Brian Brennan, Clay Mathews, Frank Minnifield, Hanford Dixon, Mike Baab, Matt Bahr, Chip Banks, Bob Golic, Carl Hairston, Gerald "The Ice Cube" McNeil, and Felix Wright - just to name a few that stick out in my mind. Those guys played a damn good game of football. They won games, they made believers out of us in Northeast Ohio, they attracted national attention, and they believed in themselves. Marty Shottenheimer was one bad-ass coach and he got the job done.



Fast-forward to today. There are talks of Cleveland trading Brady Quinn, their former first round quarterback out of Notre Dame. All bias aside, the kid is intelligent, reads the field, plays a smart game, and can throw a decent football... especially when he isn't limited by the bullshit 3-yard short-pass game plan of a certain "Mangenius" coach from New York. The Browns have already unloaded their top receiver in Braylon Edwards. They dumped Kellen Winslow in the off season. Tim Couch was ruined so many years ago. Josh Cribbs isn't allowed to do anything that will highlight his talents. I look back on the regimes we've experienced in this city since the 1989 firing of Marty Shottenheimer and I wonder - was it always just Art Modell? Or is it the team itself?



Because you have to realize that since I've been following these guys since I was old enough to hold a football, all I've ever seen them do, in spite of a few good seasons, is trade, release, and fire all their best players and coaches. And with recent talks of trading Brady Quinn, much like the Indians just traded their ace Cliff Lee last year (again... after CC Sabathia and Bartolo Colon were traded previously), I have wholeheartedly come to believe that the sports teams of Northeast Ohio, those heroes of my childhood, are simply meant to be sustained - and not meant to win.



I suppose at 30 years old it's time for me to admit it. It saddens me really. When I was 7, 8, 9 years old, I wanted nothing more than to see my Browns win something, to see Bernie and Webster and Kevin out there beating people and carrying trophies, like the tradition of the teams before them in Cleveland. But by the time 1990 rolled around, everything collapsed. Marty was fired. Bernie was benched (I still hate Bill Belichik with a passion). Everyone was traded. And in 1995 Modell just up and left with "his" football team, moving to Baltimore. Nothing has ever been the same on the football field on the south shore of Lake Erie.



So go ahead Browns. Trade your number one draft pick again. Hire your demolition football coach from New York. Limit your best players. Uphold that mantra: it's the town where talent comes to die.



At least I'll always have Notre Dame - where the kids come to play for the love of tradition and the game - and the Pittsburgh Penguins - where Mario and The Kid know how to build a team and win championships. Is it any wonder I've defected?