1. There is a boat load of mediocre to crappy teams across the nation.
I've realized for some years now that there is a problem that is passed up from high schools to universities, namely undeveloped, undisciplined, athletes for sure, but those who lack any understanding of the fundamentals of the game.
College coaches respond to this dilemma in the same way that many high school coaches do. They put the speed on the corners and in the backfield and the best arm or athlete at QB. Yes they can score and yes they will make some spectacular plays just from their athleticism. But the successful teams, the real winners, have coaches that do the extra work to teach the fundamentals that were once taught in grade school. They spend the time to teach discipline, personal discipline, and to develop the athletes as men who can keep their emotions in check, think through the game, and play within the team concept.
The problem is there are maybe two handfuls of coaches like that out there (probably less) spread out between the P5, G5, and FCS and some at the division level. They tend to be young coaches who have trained at the knee of the guys we now call control freaks. Or, they're old guys about to retire like Snyder and in a few years Saban, who have their skull sessions down to a fine art and who have learned to read the 5 star and 4 star kids when they are recruiting so that they don't waste much time with the unteachable. They not only know talent but know how to read people, especially young people.
Because of that Peterson, Saban, Snyder, and Meyer have stood out. And disciples of theirs like Dabo, Mullen, and Smart are having success as well. But the rest of the nation is putting hit or miss product on the field and it shows every week. But it shows in the work place and in education and in government as well. Those who value the young people enough to take the time and give the effort to teach them succeed and often while others less motivated get in the way.
Money gets into the success recipe because these kinds of coaches command a lot of it. Most of the rest are just warm bodies stealing money from athletic departments for a short span of years.
Because of the lack of total commitment to teach the game inside and out college football is suffering. Some of the performances are so unpolished that it's no longer fun to watch.
2. The mediocre to crappy teams represent the simple majority in almost every conference. So far the SEC has managed what looks to be 2 stellar teams, 3 or 4 good teams, and the rest fall into the mediocre range. We have 1 real stinker and a couple of others that are at best pedestrian. And guess what? That makes us look like world beaters.
3. The ACC has 1 stellar team, 2 maybe 3 good ones. The rest are mediocre to pedestrian, but only one maybe two are vying for being stinkers.
4. The Big 12 may have one stellar team, but it hard to determine because they have a couple of good teams and a couple of mediocre teams and their stinker is no longer playing like a stinker. I think the ACC and Big 12 are fairly close with regard to the 1 stellar and the good teams. I think the Big 12's mediocre teams are better than some of the ACC's mediocre teams and that they definitely have fewer stinkers.
5. The Big 10 may be one stellar team, but that team has shown enough weaknesses to perhaps simply qualify as the best of the good teams. They have a few good teams, but they have a broad range of schools that are mediocre to stinkers.
6. The PAC doesn't have a stellar team. Washington is very good, not as good as Ohio State, but very good. They have a couple of good teams, but for a conference of 12 they have 3/4's of the conference that is just plain mediocre to poor, but they don't seem to have a stinker unless Arizona stumbles into that role.
7. The time was when I watched some of almost every game on TV. It could be that I'm just old now, but I now seek out what are the good to stellar teams and watch bits of those games and I no longer waste much time on those who haven't really prepared anything for me to watch and enjoy.
8. We need to get back to teaching fundamentals in every aspect of life. Sports, grammar, science, mathematics, interpersonal skills, customer service, and especially in citizenship. If we want better lives we each need to be the best people we can be at everything we do. We no longer teach excellence. We learn how to get by and get our papers so we can schlep through our jobs until retirement.
If we want a better nation we must first be better people. It will absolutely improve everything.
9. I'd like to say that I can't wait for next weekends games. But I can. There will only be half a dozen or so worth watching.
Take care and have a great week. As always feel free to disagree or add anything you noticed. I'd be more excited if it were less obvious who 3 of the 4 CFP teams would be.
I tend to agree here, it’s a trend and for what ever reason even before the season started I could see it
Mybe with all this big tv money the coaches have been moving around a lot more, mybe there are other sociological reasons like they way kids grow up these days
Mybe college football has passed it peak and is now just a bloated blob fixing to collapse in on itself like a super nova
adding a bunch of money to a school hasn’t changed the on field performance of most of these good to mediocre A5 teams mybe even has made some perform less
Good coaches are in short supply and this is plain to see when you see a team loaded with blue chip talent and loads of money producing mediocre results year after year, what gives ?
I suspect more players today than 30 years ago have learned the hard way to not trust their parents or the adults in their life. Non-custodial parents via either divorce on never being married or even living together. More exposure to addiction thanks to the meth epidemic that was basically immediately followed by the opioid epidemic. So you almost certainly know someone who is unreliable thanks to addiction, either not showing up because they are high, or in rehab, or in jail.
They've had to deal with coaches trying to exploit their talent since they were 7 or 8 years old with people recruiting them for teams all the way through high school and into college someone has tried to get them to cast their lot with their team.
Even if you have the same head coach your entire college career it is still unlikely that you will have the same position coach.
You have kids who have gone from classrooms where odds are something is broken (chair, light, heat, air, plumbing) and then "get a scholarship" and see what a fully equipped classroom looks like and you know that your athletic skill is the only reason you've been crowned to be there, they didn't want you because you were a student, they wanted you because you could shoot the three or haul in any pass close to you or you are fast and violent on defense.
When you concluded everyone around you is full of BS you aren't going to be consumed with loyalty and dedication to them, so if the fast talking coach who signed you has a crap day at the job why would you bust it for him? Why would you bust it for the guy hired to replace the guy who signed you, he's just a different fast talker.
This has created a faux parity.
A team that is "on paper" better gets beat by a G5 like happened with first year P5 coaches in Lincoln, San Diego, LA, and Fayetteville. IT's how Florida State can look even worse with a first year coach. PLayers don't trust a coach or don't buy in and they lose to teams that the recruiting rankings say they should beat.
(09-16-2018 11:53 AM)JHS55 Wrote: [ -> ]I tend to agree here, it’s a trend and for what ever reason even before the season started I could see it
Mybe with all this big tv money the coaches have been moving around a lot more, mybe there are other sociological reasons like they way kids grow up these days
Mybe college football has passed it peak and is now just a bloated blob fixing to collapse in on itself like a super nova
adding a bunch of money to a school hasn’t changed the on field performance of most of these good to mediocre A5 teams mybe even has made some perform less
Good coaches are in short supply and this is plain to see when you see a team loaded with blue chip talent and loads of money producing mediocre results year after year, what gives ?
I agree. I think a lot is sociological. And some is the trend in recruiting. They are recruiting speed heavily. That goes before football smarts. They are more concerned with recruiting people who are genetic football players, not people who already are players. That may well give them a better team, but it also leads to some ugly play as they are using their talent and get burned sometimes because of it. Starting younger players as they are now makes a difference. They learn the hard way they can't get away with what they did in HS when they physically outclassed everyone else.
(09-16-2018 12:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect more players today than 30 years ago have learned the hard way to not trust their parents or the adults in their life. Non-custodial parents via either divorce on never being married or even living together. More exposure to addiction thanks to the meth epidemic that was basically immediately followed by the opioid epidemic. So you almost certainly know someone who is unreliable thanks to addiction, either not showing up because they are high, or in rehab, or in jail.
They've had to deal with coaches trying to exploit their talent since they were 7 or 8 years old with people recruiting them for teams all the way through high school and into college someone has tried to get them to cast their lot with their team.
Even if you have the same head coach your entire college career it is still unlikely that you will have the same position coach.
You have kids who have gone from classrooms where odds are something is broken (chair, light, heat, air, plumbing) and then "get a scholarship" and see what a fully equipped classroom looks like and you know that your athletic skill is the only reason you've been crowned to be there, they didn't want you because you were a student, they wanted you because you could shoot the three or haul in any pass close to you or you are fast and violent on defense.
When you concluded everyone around you is full of BS you aren't going to be consumed with loyalty and dedication to them, so if the fast talking coach who signed you has a crap day at the job why would you bust it for him? Why would you bust it for the guy hired to replace the guy who signed you, he's just a different fast talker.
This has created a faux parity.
A team that is "on paper" better gets beat by a G5 like happened with first year P5 coaches in Lincoln, San Diego, LA, and Fayetteville. IT's how Florida State can look even worse with a first year coach. PLayers don't trust a coach or don't buy in and they lose to teams that the recruiting rankings say they should beat.
There is truth in what you say, but the point is that they fail. At some point even the most socially jaded individuals have to act in their own self interest to advance. There has to be a desire to be the best coupled with an opportunity and of course the teach-ability and hard work to get there. The Michael Jordan's and Bo Jackson's of the world were not only extremely talented but driven so as not to let cynicism get in their way. But what they all would tell you is that they had at least one coach who helped them hone their skills and who taught them to think through the game, and even more importantly how not to let anything deviate them from the pursuit of excellence.
(09-16-2018 12:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]When you concluded everyone around you is full of BS you aren't going to be consumed with loyalty and dedication to them, so if the fast talking coach who signed you has a crap day at the job why would you bust it for him? Why would you bust it for the guy hired to replace the guy who signed you, he's just a different fast talker.
This has created a faux parity.
A team that is "on paper" better gets beat by a G5 like happened with first year P5 coaches in Lincoln, San Diego, LA, and Fayetteville. IT's how Florida State can look even worse with a first year coach. PLayers don't trust a coach or don't buy in and they lose to teams that the recruiting rankings say they should beat.
Tom Osborne (ironically now, given Nebraska's woes) pinpointed this problem a few years ago, when he criticized Bill Callahan without mentioning him by name. Osborne said something like, "Some coaches know a lot about football, but for whatever reason, they can't get kids to play hard for them." When coaches can't get players to play hard, their teams are going to lose games to teams with less raw talent more often than an occasional random upset.
It's a big ask to expect players to fully trust a new head coach who hasn't shown a lot of loyalty to anyone. Florida State players still feel burned because Jimbo took the money and ran, and now they have Taggart, who spent only one season at his last job. Players aren't stupid; they know the guy asking them to buy in is the same guy who burned Oregon just like Jimbo burned FSU. It's not much better for others like Frost, who was at his last job only two seasons, or Kelly, who is on his fourth head coaching job in seven years.
(09-16-2018 03:13 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]3. The ACC has 1 stellar team, 2 maybe 3 good ones. The rest are mediocre to pedestrian, but only one maybe two are vying for being stinkers.
Yes, the bottom of the ACC has quietely upgraded itself. Duke and Wake used to be two of the worst A5 programs. Not anymore, e.g. Duke has beaten B1G and Big 12 opponents the past two weeks. Wake could surprise Notre Dame next week.
(09-16-2018 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2018 03:13 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]3. The ACC has 1 stellar team, 2 maybe 3 good ones. The rest are mediocre to pedestrian, but only one maybe two are vying for being stinkers.
Yes, the bottom of the ACC has quietely upgraded itself. Duke and Wake used to be two of the worst A5 programs. Not anymore, e.g. Duke has beaten B1G and Big 12 opponents the past two weeks. Wake could surprise Notre Dame next week.
If Vandy hadn't turned it over in the red zone a couple of times they could have surprised them yesterday. Vandy's better too. But a 5 point win at home in which the game was in doubt until the end isn't very convincing of a top 10 rating now is it?
I disagree with point 7. UCLA stinks and will end up at the bottom of the South.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I disagree that Dabo is a great teacher of the game. His strength as a coach has always been recruiting, PR, and hiring great assistants. It’s onviously worked tremendously for him and Clemson, but He’s never been a tactician or coaching mastermind and I think even most Clemson fans would tell you that.
I guess we should have one 8 team league....relegate the rest to the FCS. Thanks for killing my joy. LoL
(09-16-2018 02:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree that Dabo is a great teacher of the game. His strength as a coach has always been recruiting, PR, and hiring great assistants. It’s onviously worked tremendously for him and Clemson, but He’s never been a tactician or coaching mastermind and I think even most Clemson fans would tell you that.
I think that Dabo (along with his staff) do an above average job of player development but I certainly agree with the "tactician" part of your comment. As an ardent Clemson and college football fan but by no means a football genius, I would be willing to bet that I can correctly call the plays that Clemson will run at least 30% of the time - if I can do this, I am sure the DC's that Clemson faces can do much better.
As it stands after 3 weeks, I think the only team that could hang with Bama is UGA. But the good thing about college football is that things have a tendency to change over the course of a season so we will see what the landscape looks like come playoff time. Clemson has the talent to be a playoff team but they have been VERY inconsistent - at this point, I would have to say that they are ranked in the top 4 soley based on reputation/talent and not due to their performance. Part of this is due to Dabo's desire to play numerous 2nd and 3rd string players early and often in games - good for preparation down the road but does not lend itself to sharp execution on either side of the ball at this point in time. Currently (and with no improvement from how they have played so far) I can easily see them run the table but I can also easily see them lose 1 or 2 games.
On another note ...... I went to the Clemson/A&M game and was thoroughly impressed with A&M's fans and traditions. Despite the horrendous weather, this was easily the most enjoyable away college football game that I have attended in my 43 years of attending college football games. I have been to many places (including SEC venues such as UGA, UT, USC, & Mizzou) and none of them came close to what I experienced at A&M. The Aggie fans were absolutely the best group of fans that I have ever been around. The atmosphere at Kyle Field during the game was unbelievable. Kudos to Texas A&M!
B-10 can't keep recurits home or draw recurits in. weather is a factor,
ILLinois blows my mind, they can't keep anybody home, a factor for most schools in that conf
Minn, Neb, Iowa, Indiana, NJ, MD are to small to support top 10 fb programs
Things that stood out (possibly):
Did Houston-TTech start at 330pm EST and end at 8pm EST?
(09-16-2018 07:50 PM)templefootballfan Wrote: [ -> ]B-10 can't keep recurits home or draw recurits in. weather is a factor,
ILLinois blows my mind, they can't keep anybody home, a factor for most schools in that conf
Minn, Neb, Iowa, Indiana, NJ, MD are to small to support top 10 fb programs
Most of Illinois' talent comes from Chicagoland, right? Technically, that seems to be more of Northwestern's, South Bend's, and maybe even Madison's territory than Champaign's. However, I am an SEC guy, so what do I know
Iowa and Indiana would be a lot better off it they were not sharing talent with Iowa State and Purdue (I did not include Notre Dame because they are their own creature that truly recruits nationally). However, such a setup would not make them top programs if other states followed suit. Imagine how silly talented Alabama, South Carolina, and Michigan would be if they did not share recruits with Auburn, Clemson, or Michigan State (or vice versa depending on your rooting allegiance).
(09-16-2018 06:13 PM)IR4CU Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2018 02:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree that Dabo is a great teacher of the game. His strength as a coach has always been recruiting, PR, and hiring great assistants. It’s onviously worked tremendously for him and Clemson, but He’s never been a tactician or coaching mastermind and I think even most Clemson fans would tell you that.
I think that Dabo (along with his staff) do an above average job of player development but I certainly agree with the "tactician" part of your comment. As an ardent Clemson and college football fan but by no means a football genius, I would be willing to bet that I can correctly call the plays that Clemson will run at least 30% of the time - if I can do this, I am sure the DC's that Clemson faces can do much better.
As it stands after 3 weeks, I think the only team that could hang with Bama is UGA. But the good thing about college football is that things have a tendency to change over the course of a season so we will see what the landscape looks like come playoff time. Clemson has the talent to be a playoff team but they have been VERY inconsistent - at this point, I would have to say that they are ranked in the top 4 soley based on reputation/talent and not due to their performance. Part of this is due to Dabo's desire to play numerous 2nd and 3rd string players early and often in games - good for preparation down the road but does not lend itself to sharp execution on either side of the ball at this point in time. Currently (and with no improvement from how they have played so far) I can easily see them run the table but I can also easily see them lose 1 or 2 games.
If he's not a tactician, then that says even more about his abilities as a teacher.
It means he teaches the kids how to play so well that even if the opponent knows what's coming, they can't stop it.
(09-16-2018 09:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2018 06:13 PM)IR4CU Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2018 02:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree that Dabo is a great teacher of the game. His strength as a coach has always been recruiting, PR, and hiring great assistants. It’s onviously worked tremendously for him and Clemson, but He’s never been a tactician or coaching mastermind and I think even most Clemson fans would tell you that.
I think that Dabo (along with his staff) do an above average job of player development but I certainly agree with the "tactician" part of your comment. As an ardent Clemson and college football fan but by no means a football genius, I would be willing to bet that I can correctly call the plays that Clemson will run at least 30% of the time - if I can do this, I am sure the DC's that Clemson faces can do much better.
As it stands after 3 weeks, I think the only team that could hang with Bama is UGA. But the good thing about college football is that things have a tendency to change over the course of a season so we will see what the landscape looks like come playoff time. Clemson has the talent to be a playoff team but they have been VERY inconsistent - at this point, I would have to say that they are ranked in the top 4 soley based on reputation/talent and not due to their performance. Part of this is due to Dabo's desire to play numerous 2nd and 3rd string players early and often in games - good for preparation down the road but does not lend itself to sharp execution on either side of the ball at this point in time. Currently (and with no improvement from how they have played so far) I can easily see them run the table but I can also easily see them lose 1 or 2 games.
If he's not a tactician, then that says even more about his abilities as a teacher.
It means he teaches the kids how to play so well that even if the opponent knows what's coming, they can't stop it.
Some of the greatest teams in the history of college football were teams that the opposing coach, the fans, the kid selling cokes all knew what was coming, the question was there anything you could do about it.
I was poking around looking at ESPN FPI and the "game score" which rates a team's performance in a game 0-100 based on the result, how well they controlled the game, strength of opponent, location, etc.
The highest rating Arkansas State had was for a game against Louisiana - Lafayette in 2012 under Gus Malzahn. At one point in the game, AState ran the same play five times in a row and marched straight in for a TD.
When you get to the point you don't care if the other team knows what is coming next, you are really good.
(09-16-2018 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2018 11:53 AM)JHS55 Wrote: [ -> ]I tend to agree here, it’s a trend and for what ever reason even before the season started I could see it
Mybe with all this big tv money the coaches have been moving around a lot more, mybe there are other sociological reasons like they way kids grow up these days
Mybe college football has passed it peak and is now just a bloated blob fixing to collapse in on itself like a super nova
adding a bunch of money to a school hasn’t changed the on field performance of most of these good to mediocre A5 teams mybe even has made some perform less
Good coaches are in short supply and this is plain to see when you see a team loaded with blue chip talent and loads of money producing mediocre results year after year, what gives ?
I agree. I think a lot is sociological. And some is the trend in recruiting. They are recruiting speed heavily. That goes before football smarts. They are more concerned with recruiting people who are genetic football players, not people who already are players. That may well give them a better team, but it also leads to some ugly play as they are using their talent and get burned sometimes because of it. Starting younger players as they are now makes a difference. They learn the hard way they can't get away with what they did in HS when they physically outclassed everyone else.
Speed has changed the game a lot.
Everyone needs a mobile QB that can run and throw passes where the defense can't get to it rather than where the players are.
Its made the game more complicated, more explosive and more dangerous for the favored team. That is why a 60-3 type score in a conference game has become much more common. A score like that at one time would only happen to the most hapless teams but now can happen with two Top 25 teams playing one another.
(09-16-2018 10:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2018 09:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2018 06:13 PM)IR4CU Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2018 02:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree that Dabo is a great teacher of the game. His strength as a coach has always been recruiting, PR, and hiring great assistants. It’s onviously worked tremendously for him and Clemson, but He’s never been a tactician or coaching mastermind and I think even most Clemson fans would tell you that.
I think that Dabo (along with his staff) do an above average job of player development but I certainly agree with the "tactician" part of your comment. As an ardent Clemson and college football fan but by no means a football genius, I would be willing to bet that I can correctly call the plays that Clemson will run at least 30% of the time - if I can do this, I am sure the DC's that Clemson faces can do much better.
As it stands after 3 weeks, I think the only team that could hang with Bama is UGA. But the good thing about college football is that things have a tendency to change over the course of a season so we will see what the landscape looks like come playoff time. Clemson has the talent to be a playoff team but they have been VERY inconsistent - at this point, I would have to say that they are ranked in the top 4 soley based on reputation/talent and not due to their performance. Part of this is due to Dabo's desire to play numerous 2nd and 3rd string players early and often in games - good for preparation down the road but does not lend itself to sharp execution on either side of the ball at this point in time. Currently (and with no improvement from how they have played so far) I can easily see them run the table but I can also easily see them lose 1 or 2 games.
If he's not a tactician, then that says even more about his abilities as a teacher.
It means he teaches the kids how to play so well that even if the opponent knows what's coming, they can't stop it.
Some of the greatest teams in the history of college football were teams that the opposing coach, the fans, the kid selling cokes all knew what was coming, the question was there anything you could do about it.
I was poking around looking at ESPN FPI and the "game score" which rates a team's performance in a game 0-100 based on the result, how well they controlled the game, strength of opponent, location, etc.
The highest rating Arkansas State had was for a game against Louisiana - Lafayette in 2012 under Gus Malzahn. At one point in the game, AState ran the same play five times in a row and marched straight in for a TD.
When you get to the point you don't care if the other team knows what is coming next, you are really good.
Oh, I don’t disagree. Even if the other team knows what you are going to do but you out execute them and/or have better athletes, you are still going to be successful. I have no problem at all with what Dabo is doing but the play calling can be pretty predictable.
If we look at each conference, here is my take.
AAC:
Memphis, UCF, USF, Temple, Navy, Cincinnati and Houston are the best teams.
ACC:
Clemson and Syracuse. The rest still look lousy or not face tougher competition yet.
Big 10:
Ohio State
Big 12:
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU and West Virginia
C-USA:
North Texas
MAC:
Akron, Toledo
MWC:
Boise State, UNR, Hawaii, San Diego State and Fresno State
PAC 12:
Washington and Stanford
SEC:
Alabama and Georgia
SBC:
Troy
Independents:
BYU and Notre Dame
FCS:
NDSU, SDSU, James Madison
Now, if we look at the results, Big 12 seems to be the strongest conference right now. SEC is right up there. Big 10, PAC 12 and ACC laggers behind the AAC and MWC. What is the reason why G5 schools and FCS schools wind up beating P5 schools? The good players who could not get into the P5 schools that have a higher standards for ACT and SAT scores which a lot of players may not be able to pass. At the G5 and lower, except for the big academic schools, do not have the higher bar. Many of the good players go to G5 or FCS schools because it is easier to get into, or you could start right away. Even some players have been overlooked by P5 schools like Boise State's Kellen Moore. The good players are being spread out to all the schools where the blue blood schools are having issues of getting the right players to win with. Look at Arkansas? They have lost to teams that they should not have. i could think Arkansas State, UCA and even Arkansas Tech could beat them right now.