Archive | General CFB RSS feed for this section

Offseason college football questions from the last 100 years

1922 – How do you think Jones will do for State this year?

1932 – How do you think Jones will do for State this year?

1942 – How do you think Jones will do for State this year?

1952 – How do you think Jones will do for State this year?

1962 – How do you think Jones will do for State this year?

1972 – How do you think Jones will do for State this year?

1982 – How do you think Jones will do for State this year?

1992 – How do you think Jones will do for State this year?

2002 – The BCS really sucks. By the way, how do you think Jones will do for State this year?

2012 – Have we talked about how the BCS really sucks? Let’s ask the same people who came up with the BCS to come up with a new system and then let’s talk about our chances of making a playoff that isn’t even in place yet! Playoffs?!? Is State going to jump ship to a new conference? A super conference? If we play an eight game conference — sorry, superconference — schedule, won’t that give us a better chance of making it in? How much revenue will the school be making from its television deal? Will we be able to fund a new stadium and a hot tub for the players? Have we received that extremely important commit yet from a player who I’ve never seen play? You know, the one who won’t graduate high school until 2018? He’s a must get! By the way, how much should we pay the players? Did you see what Jones tweeted yesterday? How much pot did he actually consume during that high speed chase? Oh, um, how do you think he’ll do this year??  And by that I mean will he improve his entirely hypothetical draft stock???  I don’t really care if State wins…do you think they’ll beat the spread in the opener? See you at the corporate-sponsored tailgate in September!

Comments { 0 }

How the NCAA probation helped USC

The talk from Scott Kennedy at Scout.com is that what USC is doing in recruiting is ‘unprecedented‘ after one of the nation’s top running backs, Ty Isaac of Joliet, Ill., committed to the Trojans on Monday.

Internet recruiting reporters aren’t exactly known for their ability to put things in proper perspective — in any given recruiting season, you will hear about players being ‘unblockable’ or being ‘the LeBron James of high school football‘ and so on — but something Kennedy said on the linked video struck me.

“They got hammered by the NCAA,” Kennedy said, before reciting the list of top players from around the country currently committed to USC. “That speaks to the brand and the power of recruiting of USC, Lane Kiffin and Ed Orgeron.”

Without a doubt, Kiffin and Co. are killing it in recruiting. But, to me, USC’s continued success really begs the question: Have the heavy-handed, seemingly unfair and controversial NCAA sanctions–specifically the roster limitations–actually helped the Trojans in some ways?

It certainly sounds counterintuitive, but I believe they have helped USC in three important areas.

First, because of the scholarship restrictions USC has been forced to take fewer chances or reaches in recruiting. With yearly scholarships limited to 15 and overall roster limits set at 75, Lane Kiffin and staff can’t sign as many players who might have trouble qualifying academically, or who might have character issues, or who could potentially wash out. They must work even harder than usual at getting to know all about the recruits they pursue. Pete Carroll might not have recruited 5-8 cornerback Nickell Robey out of Florida because, on the surface, he didn’t fit the profile of the typical USC recruit of that era¹. But Monte Kiffin did his due diligence and now Robey is an All-American candidate and team leader. “He’s the hardest working, most dedicated kid I’ve coached in 20 years,” said one USC coach.

That kind of attitude rubs off on the rest of the team and it certainly appeared to pay dividends in USC’s turnaround 2011 season. The Trojans of 2012 might not be as talented top to bottom as they were in 2007, but they appear to be more serious about team success.

[Note: Let's also not forget a basic law of economics that applies here: When the supply of a valuable product is restricted and demand remains the same, the value of that product increases. USC's limited scholarships are of higher value now than they were before the sanctions, which is certain to have some effect on the decisions of recruits around the country. And with USC forced to grant more early playing time due to lack of overall roster depth, that scholarship offer becomes even more appealing, which of course aids the recruiting effort.]

Another way the thinned-out roster has helped is that it has served to speed up the development of USC’s talent. This is a program that is always going to be loaded regardless of who is the head coach. But one of the problems with the Trojans during the latter part of the Carroll Era was, ironically, too much depth, particularly at the skill positions. USC was often over-talented and under-coached. The 2007 roster featured 10 prep All-American tailbacks. Few of them reached their potential, in large part because they never got to play on a consistent basis. At quarterback, a first-round talent like Mark Sanchez had to wait until his fourth season to play because he had to pay his dues backing up Matt Leinart and then John David Booty (who themselves had backed up first-round picks). USC’s current lack of depth has accelerated the learning curve for players like Robert Woods, Marqise Lee, Robey, Hayes Pullard and Curtis McNeal (just to name a few). With more depth on hand, these guys would’ve received fewer reps in practices and in games and, perhaps, wouldn’t have developed as fast, or at all. A few years ago, Lee — a future first round pick  in the making at receiver and one of the explosive cogs in the 2012 Trojan offense — might’ve been moved to safety due to the luxury of USC’s depth.

Furthermore, coaches who are spoiled by ultra-talented rosters tend to not work as hard. With so much talent on hand, the temptation is to roll the ball out on the field and let the players play. The necessities created by a limited roster leads to invention and a greater sense of urgency in all phases. This has certainly been the case with USC, especially when it comes to recruiting.

[As a side note, let's also acknowledge that USC is extremely fortunate to be located within 20 miles of Gardena's Junipero Serra High, which has produced three of the most highly-recruited players in the country in the last couple seasons. How much different would this team be in 2012 without Woods, Lee and George Farmer?]

Finally, the lack of depth forced an important change in USC’s offensive approach. Lane Kiffin’s offenses have always stressed balance (often for balance’s sake), with the quarterback under center, a prominent role for the fullback and not much of a vertical passing game. USC played in a phone booth for the first few games of last year, which resulted in close wins over Minnesota and Utah and a trouncing at the hands of Arizona State. When asked early in the season about putting Matt Barkley in the shot gun, throwing more and not worrying about balance, Kiffin said “If we throw 40 times per game, Matt will get killed.”

Nonetheless, with no real fullback on hand and tenuous depth at tailback, Kiffin loosened the reins a bit in the second half of the season, putting Barkley in the shot gun more often while letting him chuck the ball down the field to his uber-talented receiving corps. USC’s offense responded by scoring at least 30 points in its last eight games (over 40 in five of them) and, while Barkley didn’t throw 40 times per game, he did average 37 attempts per game (second most in Trojan history). And, incidentally, Barkley didn’t get killed since USC gave up the fewest sacks in its history while leading the country in that category.

So where does that put USC heading into 2012? Most polls will have the Trojans in the top three, with many pundits predicting a national title. Is this the sign of a program that has been hit hard by NCAA probation?  Hardly.

On the contrary, the NCAA probation has forced USC to change its approach in recruiting, in roster management and in scheme. Many of these changes were needed anyway as a result of the hangover effect of the Carroll Era. The NCAA’s heavy-handedness merely accelerated these changes and now–justlikethat–USC is back in the national title mix, Barkley is the leading Heisman candidate and even Lane Kiffin has managed to not rub someone the wrong way in a long time.

Surely, this is not what the late Paul Dee had in mind.

Note: Readers should not think that because of this column the NCAA sanctions were a net positive for USC. They were obviously a blow to the program in many ways. I am merely pointing out some of the unforeseen positives that have emerged as a byproduct of the sanctions, which have helped lead to Lane Kiffin’s Trojans remaining an elite team despite the tough hurdles they have had to overcome.

¹ — I do realize that Robey was technically recruited a couple months before the sanctions were announced (though most USC people knew heavy punishment was coming) but he is the model of the type of player that USC has had to work extra hard to find under the current restrictions. 

Comments { 25 }

Some added notes on the fastest players list

Thanks for all the feedback on the fastest players list.

Track marks can be quite tricky and I thought I’d pass along some thoughts on that, as well as respond to some of the suggestions for the list.

1. Keep in mind that track marks that are wind-aided are not legal marks. Any wind over 2.0 meters per second is not allowable. Having a wind at one’s back can really push a runner to a fast time. For instance, Marvin Bracy’s best wind-aided time is 10.05, while his best wind-legal time is 10.25. That’s a big difference. Now, it is worth noting that his 10.05 was with a 2.2 wind, which is just over the legal limit, so we can surmise that he’s probably very capable of running under 10.25, but just hasn’t done it yet.

2. Look out for the NWI. You’ll see a lot of track marks that have an NWI mark next to it. That means ‘no wind information’, which makes the mark not legal and puts the validity of the mark into doubt. NWI marks are rampant in Texas high schools, which is why Texas high school track marks are notorious for their unreliability.

3. Sources for marks are very important to consider. I use Track and Field News because their criteria for making a list is quite stringent. You know the mark is correct if it makes the T&FN list. After T&FN, I go with Dyestat.com, which is a bit more comprehensive, but maybe not as reliable. Other websites like athletic.net also have a go at it, but I consider most of their marks unreliable. Of course, reports from newspapers are rarely complete and I never, ever go off of hearsay.

That all said, here’s my responses to some feed back I’ve gotten:

– Someone claimed Baylor running back Lache Seastrunk ran a 10.33, but this is certainly apocryphal, even though his bios at Oregon and Baylor claim as such (you can see, then, how such claims spread). Note also that he supposedly also long jumped 21-8 while running a 10.33. Those are two marks that don’t go together (a 10.33 sprinter should easily jump at least 23 feet).

– Someone offered to me Cordarrelle Patterson, a wide receiver heading to Tennessee, saying he ran a 10.25. A little research showed that he actually ran a 10.33 with an NWI next to it. He’s probably pretty fast, but not 10.33 fast and his speed on the track is definitely not quantifiable at this point. I have no doubt that the 10.33 will be quoted in the fall by announcers with no knowledge of the situation.

– Incoming freshman Morgan Steward of Missouri was another suggestion, but his 10.44 run recently was an NWI time.

– The Atkinson twins of Notre Dame just competed in the Big East Track Championships. George ran a 10.36 and Josh ran a 10.39. Alas, both were wind-aided beyond the legal limit and so their marks are not official, although George’s race was barely above at 2.2 mps. Otherwise, neither Atkinson has topped the 10.60 mark to date and so do not make this list.  But both are very fast nonetheless.

– Another commenter suggested I check out another incoming Irish freshman, Chris Brown, who indeed has a best of 51-2 1/2 in the triple jump when he was a junior. But I was unable to verify the claim that he has a 7 foot high jump or that he ran a legal 10.51 (the mark I saw had an NWI next to it). However, his 6-8 high jump and 23-9 long jumps are legit, so he’s a very good athlete. Not a speed merchant, but a great, explosive athlete.

Thanks for the input folks. Keep ‘em coming.

Comments { 2 }

The fastest players in college football, 2012

It’s time for Heismanpundit’s annual list of the fastest players in college football.

Now, some of you are going to disagree with parts of this, most likely by quoting a hand-timed 40-yard dash that you read about on some fan site, or a track time that can’t be independently verified.  And I get that some pretty fast players may not make it here. This is a very tough list to make and just because a certain player does not make this list, it does not mean I am saying he is not fast!

But I am basing this list upon hard data, meaning verifiable and relatively recent track times.  I am looking for speed, not quickness. If a mark is in the distant past and the player’s body composition has changed markedly or an injury has occurred, I take that into account.   I compile the data and combine it with my knowledge of track and field (I am an aficionado of the sport) as well as my own observations of how these players move on the gridiron, plus other factors such as weight gain and abundance of available data.

This list recognizes that most of the 40-yard dash times reported out there are bogus, due not only to inaccurate and scurrilous timing methods (a strength coach’s thumb being the main arbiter most of the time), but also because they are run under widely disparate and unreported conditions that render them unreliable.

The list is not about anecdotal evidence, but quantifiable data that we can verify.  Track marks are generated under mostly uniform conditions (across a narrow range of parameters) with reliable timing instruments.  While it is true that some players without a track time might indeed be very fast on the football field, it is difficult to accurately measure their speed compared to players who do have such times. So those are the players we stick to on this list.

Also, some of you will question the relevance of these marks when it comes to football, as in “Why does it matter if a football player can run a fast 200 meters when a football field is 100 yards?”  The answer is that each track event provides us clues as to the overall speed potential of an athlete.  A certain 100-meter time relates to a certain 40-yard dash mark.  There’s basically no need to time a 10.60 or better sprinter in the 40–-you already know he’s fast, probably in the 4.4 to 4.5 range!  A good 200-meter time indicates an athlete’s ability to maintain his speed (and hence, go ‘downtown’ on the football field). When someone long jumps a certain distance, it is often because he possesses excellent foot speed.  And so on.  Remember: ‘Quick’ and ‘fast’ do not always go hand in hand. And having the ability to start and stop on a dime, or cut without slowing down are nice attributes to have but they are separate items from speed itself.

The track marks help give us a more accurate measurement of true speed. [Note: Most of these marks are taken from Track and Field News, the bible of the sport, while a few are culled if necessary from Dyestat.com] We do take a few other factors into account to come up with what we think is an accurate list so it’s not necessarily just a matter of ranking players by best marks.  Oh, and most of these guys are pretty darn good football players, too.  Think track and football don’t mix?  Well, at HP they do.  There is no such thing as ‘football speed’ or ‘track speed’.  There is only speed. A player is either fast or he is not. Whether he is good at football or not is another story. So take another look.  Without further ado (and please, any additions are welcome if we overlook them), here is the list for 2012:

Continue Reading →

Comments { 53 }

HP’s Top 10 Teams, Pre-Spring Edition

The quest for the national championship is really just the Heisman Trophy race writ large, so I would be remiss if I failed to provide the proper, bigger-picture context for my views. For instance, a commentator asked me below “Why not Keith Price for the Heisman?” To which I responded that I do not think that Washington will be good enough for Price to warrant such attention. Which really means that, as good as Price is–and I think he’s very good–he’s probably not good enough to elevate his team to the level that, say, Robert Griffin III elevated his team. Which means he ain’t going to win the Heisman.

That all said, it’s time to put in my two cents on how the team race is shaping up. A lot will change between now and September. Knees will blow out, arrests will be made, tests will be flunked and recruiting classes will be added, thus ensuring that this list changes down the road. But for now, here’s how I see it:

1. USC – The Trojans have the best combination of elite talent and favorable schedule in 2012, so they nab the top spot for now. The roster features the nation’s finest collection of skill players (including what I think is the most talented receiving corps in college football history), plus four returners on the offensive line, a four-year starter and Heisman front runner at quarterback and everyone from the defensive back seven. Add in the likelihood of being favored by double digits in 11 of 12 regular season games and it all points to the kind of season that even Lane Kiffin can’t screw up. Right?

2. Georgia – The Bulldogs return perhaps the SEC’s best quarterback in Aaron Murray. They’ve got perhaps the best defensive player in linebacker Jarvis Jones. The combination of sophomore Isaiah Crowell and freshman Keith Marshall at tailback should be lethal. This is a team that hit its stride toward the end of last year. I think it will carry over into 2012 and, more importantly, there’s no early-season matchup with the likes of Boise State.

3. Clemson – To all those who think that Clemson’s Orange Bowl disaster has any bearing on how it will do in 2012, I say pshaw! Clemson’s 2011 squad was loaded with young and inexperienced talent and managed to win the ACC anyway. I don’t buy the ‘oh, it’s Clemson and Clemson always messes up’ line. The old Tiger choke squads wouldn’t have won the ACC with a first-year starting quarterback and a bevy of freshmen all over the place. Most of those players are back and saltier from the experience. Quarterback Tajh Boyd had a huge year as a sophomore and he’ll be even better as a junior. All the top rushers return. Rising sophomore Sammy Watkins is the nation’s best wide receiver. The defense returns most of its key performers. This is a team ready to move up in class and challenge for the national title.

Continue Reading →

Comments { 17 }

Happy Holidays from HP

Just wanted thank everyone for visiting the ol’ blog during this past year. It’s been great fun.

Best to you and yours this holiday season.

HP

Comments { 0 }

Mental Health Break

While awaiting the decision on whether Matt Barkley is returning to USC or not, I thought I’d link to a fun music countdown that I’ve been following.

Check out songs No. 90 thru No. 81 as filmmaker Amerigo Chattin counts down the best songs of the last decade.

Comments { 0 }