IrishAZ

Ahhh...you are correct! Which is why an ELO system would work well. Because conference games wouldn't be confining who a team's opponents will be, national scheduling can happen more freely and a truer measure can be made of how good a team really is. Boise St. wouldn't be playing Rice and UTEP but traditionally Big 12/10, SEC, ACC, Pac-10 teams because they wouldn't get as far ahead beating up on weak teams., Weak teams would have bad ELO ratings, and therefore not worth as much. Teams that want to win will go after the bigger fish, as it were - because losses don't hurt as much and wins are much more beneficial. The incentive to have a stronger schedule will push sandbaggers like KSU out of the running. IRISH!

I see your point, hoya - but It's really a semantic argument you're making. I mean, what if you had 9 undefeated teams? Or (and more likely) 9 teams with only 1 loss? It doesn't matter if there's 2 or 8 or 32 teams in a playoff - as long as the means to determine who actually goes to the playoff is arbitrary, it won't be fair either. Boise St. should have had a shot as well as Utah or Auburn but BSU was screwed in the polls and didn't stand even a margin of a chance. If we're going to determine the champion on the field, determining who is eligible to play for the championship should be decided on the field as well. And the only way for a non-arbitrary selection system to work would be if conference scheduling were eliminated. IRISH!

It's a thought...but truth be told, unless the major conferences get out of the system which determines who the NC should be, or the polls no longer have any meaning and all play is bracketed by conferences (with the winners of each conference going to the selection pool), a playoff will be counterproductive. If a top-8 bracket were used, both Virginia Tech and Boise St. would not be in the running if it were based upon poll selection. Nor would the Big 10 champs (Michigan) for that matter. The whole system is inherently flawed. You have arbitrary voting to determine who the best teams are, but then a competitive system to determine who is awarded the championship. The two are incompatible, really. At best, a poll system or selection committe would just extend the current controversy to include more teams who could have a gripe. Instead of just Auburn having a beef with not getting to play USC, you'll have Boise St making a claim it belongs in the top 8 because of it's undefeated record, and Virginia Tech making a claim that its 10-2 record is superior to Georgia's 9-2 record by virtue of playing and winning an additional game. However.... If conferences were dissolved (they pretty much have outlived their usefullness anyway - I think transportation has improved enough to where the need to have close regional competition is no longer there) and schedules were unlocked to allow a greater range of opponents, then a legitimate ELO rating system could be used. If you're not familiar with an ELO rating - it's simply a system where one's rating goes up or down depending on the strength of the team you face. ELO goes up more if you beat a higher rated team, and down more if you lose to a lower rated team (and up less beating a lower rated team and down less losing to a higher rated team). This is the system that's incorporated into Sagarin's rating system in USA Today if you're familiar with that. A true rating system can't work, though, as long as there are "inbred" schedules. If the same 8-12 teams play the majority of their games against each other, there's no way to get a statistically valid rating in place for the whole of Div 1A. So really, if everyone wants a playoff, the only way to get it is to start pushing for independant status or more open scheduling. Once conferences aren't controlling schedules and requiring minimum conference matches, it will be much easier to make substantial and positive changes, I think. USA Today has a nice article on the huge cluster-f*ck that is the BCS and its controlling interests, the Major Conferences. IRISH!

Thanks Y'all feel free to jump in here as well! IRISH!

Basically, yeah. Though I would add the caveat that recruiting ranked players gives a slight statistical advantage over non-ranked. However, expectations about the difference between a 1 or 2 star player and 4 or 5 star player are a bit exaggerated. Consider this: every year, out of 971,000 HS players at about 30,000 high schools, about 65,000 go on to play college (in all divisions, that is - including JUCO). I don't know how many of that HS player pool either never bother with college ball, weren't first or second teamers in High School, dont' go to college at all, etc., but that would reduce the number a bit I'm sure to say, 100k (those who will go to college and of those who go the ones who would play if they could). Chances are, either you or I or any reasonably edicated football person could sift through those 100k+ players and figure out which ones have some potential at the college levels (if nothing else, ruling out the undersized guys). That still leaves a pretty large pool to pick the "best" players - the ones which could reasonably play college ball, at least. At best, the recruiting ranking services can help sort out those 100k players and determine who could play in Div I (about 3,500 or so) but I would say that's about it. IRISH!

It seems that the plot thickens a bit in Trojan-land concerning Chow. Chow possibly forced out. IRISH!

"A single battle does not make a war"... Or something like that. I don't recall who said it first, but it sure seems accurate, doesn't it? In football, you have a dozen little battles happening at the same time with each play as each player tries to overcome the player across from him. Consider these matchups the little battles of the campaign that is a football play. Then consider the sum of all the football plays to be the war that is the game. Each of these matchups is the Game Within the Game. What happens in these individual matchups is that each player tries to gain an advantage in one of the elements of Space, Time, POsition, or Ability (STPA) in order to win the individual battle. At face value, it seems obvious - the offensive lineman and the defensive end trying to win Position, the receiver and the cornerback jockeying for Space, the QB using the snap count and cadence to control Time, the RB juking a linebacker out of his socks with the difference in Ability between them, and so on. Analysts will look at the players on opposing sides in opposing positions, provide an arbitrary (or on rare occasion, objective) analysis of the matchup, determine who should win the matchup, and then declare a game winner based on the sum of these individual matchups. So a team which wins the individual matchups wins the play, and if they consistently win the play, they win the game. Sounds reasonable and most people believe it. But what if you win the majority of the plays, but don't win the game? In the history of conflict and competition, we see patterns at times. A point in the confrontation when the tide is clearly turned. Waterloo. The Normandy Invasion. Midway, Denver's first punt against Indianapolis, Bush winning Ohio. This is a common thing in football. One team dominates statistically in yardage, first downs, yards per play, etc. but still loses. So, how does something like this happen? The answer is another familiar term: the "Big Play". Let's draw a parallel to chess with this. One side can have all the advantages - plenty of Space, well developed pieces (Time), every piece defended (Position), good attack chances (Capability). Then, the other side makes a daring move, or even a sacrifice! A piece crashes into the opponent's well-formed lines. Suddenly the carefully constructed game is wrecked and the player who dominated for 30 moves is on the defensive while the one who was losing for those 30 moves is charging in and going for the kill. The attacker gives up vying for Space and Time and opts for Position and Cababilty in a crushing play to win. In football terms, the Big Play offense forgoes trying to control the clock with a slow ground game or gain Space with yardage eating mid passing routes and goes vertical looking for the knockout. The Big Play defense goes for the pick, not the tackle or blitzes heavily. No boxing, just slugging. Granted, only a fool would game plan hoping for a haymaker knockout, but *every* play seeks to be a "Big Play". The Big Play in terms of STPA is a massive gain in Space in a short amount of Time (the opposite of chess - but then, in chess checkmate is the goal, not moving the ball). So, the Game Within the Game means there are multiple levels of play and that teams not only try to dominate STPA at all levels with regularity, but also seek to gain a crushing advantage via the Big Play. In the next article, I'll talk about how these all fit together, bring up what the ancient philosophers thought of Football and include the off-field components of the game: Leadership and Emotion. IRISH!

Was he listed as a DT? I thought he was listed as an OT. IRISH!

I agree with you there Bernard. That's one of the drawbacks of getting the young, talented, dynamic guys - it's hard to keep them in coordinator/assistant positions for long. Bo will be really good for LSU - especially in a conference where you don't need to worry about KSU chop blocks IRISH!

Well, look at it this way... Last year, Tom Lemming's 2000 Top 200 sent only 34 players into the NFL (including Junior draft eligible from the previous year). That's just a little over 8% of the highly touted players coming in that are good enough to make the next level. Not only that...but it also means that around 266 players who had NFL caliber talent going into college, or developed it while in college, were *missed* by Tom Lemming. Now, that's one guy - but he's pretty high profile and that's one sucky run rate. That certainly suggests that there's a lot of diamonds in the rough out there or unrecognized talents waiting to develop or guys the recruiting raters just plain ol' miss. At best, recruiting rankings are a weighted gamble - if you took two players in the same position, one rated 4 or 5 stars and one rated either 3 or fewer stars of unrated, there's a slightly higher probability the 4/5 star player will succeed. However, that doesn't mean that the lower rated player won't succeed, and in fact, the chances of that player succeeding are pretty good. The same parallel can be made with the Patriots. There's only *1* First Round pick on their starting offense. The one that ranked 2nd in the NFL in scoring and yardage and won a Superbowl. Chemistry and fit are important. And, dare I say it?...coaching! Now, that's not to say BC's spiffy recruiting class will be bust - rather, that the Stanfords, Boston Colleges and Notre Dames of the world have as much chance of success at getting good players as UNL does even with the academic standards at play in those places - not to mention the NCAA rules on academics will be getting more and more strict in the next few years. And I'll say again, UNL isn't an Ohio State or FSU that will take just anyone, literacy optional if they can tackle or run. The Huskers aren't slouches in the academic department in the least. IRISH!

A lot will depend on how the running game, secondary and QB play shapes up in camp. If BC's made any improvements in those areas and the rest of the team stays on a par with last year, we should expect at least 7-4 (and I'm hopeful for 8-3, with losses at OU, TTU and either CU or KSU). I'd be satisfied with 7-4 and feel pretty good about BC's progress then. A 6-5 regular season would be just about last year's pace - a bit of an improvement, but it won't be enough to answer any of the looming questions. IRISH!

I would go with option B. That seems the most logical - since this is a Husker board, having Husker sports forums in one category makes sense. Having all the other stuff in a category of its own makes sense too - though I don't see there being a lot of discussion on any particular other sport enough to warrant its own forum. With one exception, though...I rather like the Coaches Corner idea. Maybe have a place where coaches and/or players can share game related stuff. Thanks for the great board guys and asking for the feedback. Appreciated as always! IRISH!

In chess there are 4 essential elements: Space, Time, Position and Power (Capability). In order to win a game, you need to have dominated at least one of these elements. Space gives you room to manuever. Time is the initiative and the ability to get pieces into play before your opponent. Position is the favorite of puzzles and some of the more daring players (Tal and Fischer). And capabilty is the ability to have the right pieces in the position to achieve the goal. How does this relate to football, then? In football, space is obvious; in fact, it's the point of the game. Gaining yards, field position, putting the ball across the goal line, punting and kickoffs. Space is the underlying concept for the entire game. Offsenses seek to gain it, defenses seek to stop offenses from gaining it and aggressive defenses seek to gain their own space. Time seems obvious - I mean, there is a clock and in the NFL some teams have coaches dedicated to just clock management. But that's the larger concept and not the whole of it. At the micro-level, time is subtle. The speed at which a play develops, the timing of drops and passes, delays and draws, using the play clock, snap counts and cadences, reaction time. At the macro level, the game follows stages under certain situations - from kickoff to halftime to kickoff to end, each part of the game is like chess with openings, middle and end games. Included in the macro concept of time is using timeouts, 2-minute drills, time of possession. Position is rather subtle in terms of the game, but is the most visible. It is simply the combination of a player being in a particular place at a particular time. Most likely, the first thing a game watcher notices when the teams line up is the offensive formation. Second is probably the defensive formation. Position is not only formation, though. Position encompasses player placement, coverages, assignments, blocking schemes, route running, misdirection, stunts, running and passing lances, motion. Lastly, there is Capability. On a team scale, this can be the big numbers that most fans like - yards gained, defensive stats, turnover ratios, etc. But, a more detailed look yields the intangibles that are often talked about - tackling ability, vision, decisiveness, soft hands, cut back ability, blocking ability, arm strength and accuracy, ball handling, awareness, separation. One thing that may be missing in this list, but is often talked about, is athleticism. Where does personal talent fall into this matrix? Speed and athletic ability (heretofore called "talent") is just a composite way of achieving position without having to deal with the complexities of Space and Time. Ok, I know this is starting to sound more like science fiction or the Discovery Channel than football, but bear with me. If the nature of Position is being in the right place at the right time, then athleticism lets you achieve that more easily. It is not, however, the *only* way to achieve Position, just the easiest. So, what does all this mean? I think it means that in order to win, you have to have a significant advantage in at least 2 of these categories at any point. And the context of using these resources will come up next: The Game Within the Game Theory. IRISH!

I think the only problem I have with this is the predetermination of reps. Chemistry, acclimation to the system and culture and terminology, learning the offense - these things are just as important as sheer physical talent. A JUCO might have done it with one team, but that's no guarantee he can do it with another team. Seems like reps should be equal at the beginning of spring camp and only shifted until some of the existing QB's start to prove themselves better than others. IRISH!

We got it the first 100 times. You don't think the recruits are very smart. Thanks again for bringing that up. I dunno....I mean, yes, ND is a private institution with slighly higher admissions requirements than many - but I think the hurdles for ND admisions are overestimated. By the same token, I think UNL is underestimated in terms of academic standards. I posted on another thread that UNL had the most AAA's in all of the NCAA (ND was second in DIV I) and has routinely had grad rates superior than the NCAA average. That's not too shabby. Besides, good academics are the results of the institution. I have a hard time thinking UNL's admissions office would let someone in who had no chance at success (props to the school...but Callahan still sucks. of course ). Here's a nice article from December in the Nebraskan if you want to read more. Besides that...I'm bummed a bit. I really really wanted Weis and Minter to get a shot at Chow - and here's my early Domer Homer prediction: ND hands them their first loss next year. IRISH!

Interesting fit, I think he'll do well. IRISH!

I think there will be a bit of a transition. Although in some respects it might be easier for an X's and O's kind of guy to move from college to pro coaching just because of the level of ability and knowledge already there. Although, the Titans are a young team and I think Chow is not only a great coordinator, he's a good teacher as well. If some of that teaching can help the younger players improve, he'll be in good shape I think. Not to mention, the Titans were devastated by injury last year. If he has McNair back to work with, it'll be a really fun team to watch. Overall, I suspect he'll be really good. He might be shown as the big fish in the little pond, but I doubt it. He won't be the next Charlie Weis, of course... : IRISH!

hehe....I admire your restraint. I was about to say, "yeah, there might not be a ***** in their armor next year". But I suppose that would be insensitive and disingenious. One other thing to consider though...Chow isn't the only coach they've lost - I think 5 of their staff has moved on. The HC might stay, but that is more than half of their staff. Time will tell, but I suspect this will be the beginning of the end for Carrol's dynasty at USC. Chow is a genious and a major reason for their success. They might luck out and get a good replacement, but it's hard to go to hamburger, or even a good rib eye, when you're used to (no pun intended) kobe steaks. IRISH!

I'm a chess player. I really enjoy the game, and one of the things about it which I enjoy immensely is the huge amount of intellectual fodder there is to ponder and the sheer complexity and near limitless potential of the game. I'm also a football fan. And, like chess, I believe football provides the same intellectual fodder, complexity and near limitless potential that the grandfather of games provides, not to mention being a tad more exciting. When I deal with European friends, sports is always a hot topic - and the age-old question of "Rugby vs. American Football" comes up with regularity. I've gotten so sick of the predictable "it's not football! You barely use your feet" thing that I've started referring to *our* version of football as "Grass-Chess with Running and Violence" or just GrassChess for short. And tha parallels are unmistakable: both games have specialized pieces/players. Both games seek similar goals in terms of getting and holding territory. Both games have a similar look inasmuch as there are two lines facing each other across the field For all this similarity, though, there's one thing Football coaches are privy to that the average fan doesn't have, but for which Chess has in huge amounts: theory. Now, I'm not talking about the "run the ball, stop the run" or "defense win championships" or "run to setup the pass" type strategies. Those anectdotes are nice and mostly accurate, but not interesting enough to grab the imagination and keep us occupied for 6 months while we await the start of the real part of the year. They rather lack the core questions of how and why. So, I'm going to write some stuff I've been pondering for a few months, borrowing from a fair amount of loose sources to try and build a theory (or set of theories) that explain those questions of why and how. And I hope you all participate and your own ideas and experiences as players, fans and coaches. At worst, it's passing time being football geeks. At best...well, you never know. We might end up developing an unbeatable strategy that will forever go down as the HuskerBoard Offense. At any rate...and I'll split this into another post....the first part of my emerging theory: Space, Time, Position, and Capability. IRISH!

Good call Blackshirt - let the guy linkshare if he wanted to just offer his board (no reason the love can't flow both ways). It's dang hard building up a BBS and getting a name out in a community, especially one as nationwide as Husker fans. It isn't cool to just swoop in and leach off the efforts of others without giving something back. IRISH!

Looks like it's official - Chow is now the OC for the Tennesse Titans. Chow to Titans - from ESPN.com Sort of sad, really...I wanted Weis/Minter to have a shot at him. Ah well...I have a feeling that USC will decline next year. What's really sad is that this didn't happen until *after* National LOI day and *after* Leinart declared he was staying at USC. I wonder if Jeff Fischer (the HC and Exec VP of the Titans) being a USC grad played into this? I mean, we can get very X-Files with this scenario - sign a top-notch class, keep a Heisman QB at the school...then send the Offensive heart of the team to the NFL. Could easily be construed as the classic "bait and switch" to keep the recruits and Leinart in place for next year. Chow deserved a chance, but it seems that there was no reason to wait this long other than nefarious ones. Mike Heimerdinger left Jan. 19th, and by all published accounts the Titans only ever talked to Chow. (edit: correction, Chow was the only external candidate they interviewed - the spoke to two assistant coaches as well). It just seems fishy. IRISH!

Oh yeah...though, didn't El and Ward change to WR in the NFL but wer drafted as QBs? I think I was narrowing the memory search to just guys who changed from starting QB to college to WR in college. The edge I'm thinking he might have in the backfield is that, as a former starter, defenses have to be aware of his ability to throw the ball. Were he just a player recruited as a QB, then moved to another position, the effect wouldn't be as great. IRISH!

Just anything but WR. If Daily ends up not starting at QB, he needs to be in the backfield. I mean, why on earth would anyone want to put a running QB in as a WR anyway? Arnaz Battle was the glaring exception (and the only converted QB/WR that's met with any success that I can recall). There's no direct conversion - he might know what the routes are supposed to be, but that doesn't mean he can run them and ball handling and catching are arguably different skills. However, he's used to contact, has good speed and size and always has the threat of the halfback pass at his disposal. Not to mention he's got a lot of heart and a lot of class, and those are qualities you can never have too much of on the team. IRISH!

The #1 contributor to success is the student him/herserlf. The teachers and faculty, coaches, advisors, tutors, ancillary programs, facilities...it all contributes to the success of the student. On balance, UNL has done very nicely - from 2000 to 2003, UNL had the most Academic All Americans in the entire NCAA. The only other DIV I school in the top 5 was Notre Dame. And Stanford, of all places, didn't make the top 10 (coming in at 13th - though that's probably due to lack of athletics than lack of academics ). 1. University of Nebraska I 28 2. Emory University III 26 3. University of Notre Dame I 22 4. Truman State University II 19 5. University of Indianapolis II 18 IRISH!

Agree there - one of the regrets I have is that I didn't take some free Cardinals tickets because of other plans. It would have been nice to have seen him play in person at least once. IRISH!