The SEC Speed Truth
The other day I came across a blog entry on Bleacher Report titled Big Ten Must Admit They Have a Problem. Intrigued, I started reading through it and quickly realized it was another article about how the speedy quick SEC schools are running circles around the slow and fat Big Ten schools.
One thing I love about college football is the great traditions: Running through the T, UGA VI, Roll Tide, Dotting the I, Touchdown Jesus, Hail to the Victors, Rocky Top, the list goes on and on.
Of course there are some traditions that need to go away. One of them is the Big Ten's idea of "Power Football" which to the rest of the college football world means, SLOW.
Now for full disclosure I am a Tennessee fan (BSD. - How did that 2007 Outback Bowl work out for ya?), but I spent a good deal of time living in Ohio so I know plenty about Big Ten football. It is not just Ohio State in the BCS Championship games the past two years, it is the conference as a whole compared to the SEC.
Every time someone writes a column about how slow or behind the times Big Ten football is, all the fans do is rush to defend their conference and do not stop to look at the facts.
Which I must admit was my intention by the time I got about half way through this article. Especially when the author uses selective statistics and information to prove his points.
Overall, the SEC is 11-4 in all BCS games and the Big Ten is 8-9. Want more? The SEC won all four of its BCS games the past two years by a combined score of 161-62. While the Big Ten lost all four BCS games the past two years by a combined score of 90-73.
Great stat there, genius, considering half of our BCS games the last two years were against SEC teams. So yeah, if the SEC is winning that means the Big Ten is losing. Our other two BCS games featured our second best teams against USC. The SEC's were against Notre Dame and Hawaii. Congrats on that. In 2006 the Big Ten won both of their BCS games. The SEC lost their one constest. Damn those statistics.
Now, people can point out some Big Ten wins over SEC schools the past two years such as Michigan over Florida in the 2008 Capital One Bowl or Penn State over Tennessee in the 2007 Outback Bowl. However, those are not the games people will remember. Most fans only remember the games by the teams at the top.
There ya go. If we throw out the head-to-head matches where the SEC lost, the SEC is totally dominating the Big Ten. Well duh. In his previous paragraph he inadvertently puts heavy weight on head-to-head matchups to make his point. Now he casually dismisses them. Convenient.
Big Ten school, media, and fans need to admit they have a problem against schools in the SEC, Pac-10, and Big XII. they need to get faster and stop believing in "Three yards and a cloud of dust."
We'll get to the "need to get faster" thing in a minute, but the Big Ten is hardly built on three yards and a cloud of dust anymore. Purdue and Northwestern have been running high passing spread offenses since the 90's. In recent years Penn State, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan State under John L. Smith have all used the spread offense. Now Michigan and Penn State will be going back to the spread this year. The only teams that refuse to give up the three yard and a cloud of dust mentality are Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio State who is a big reason for our recent BCS woes.
One weakness that the Big Ten has compared to the SEC is that their media is not as tough. Look at what happens once a coach in the SEC starts to struggle, they are gone. Look at Ed Orgeron at Ole Miss, after three dismal years he is gone and they go out and bring in Houston Nutt (who had a bad end at Arkansas).
Now take a look at Kirk Ferentz at Iowa. After the huge win over LSU in the 2005 Capital One Bowl, the next three years Iowa went 7-5, 6-7, and 6-6. Do you think Kirk Ferentz would be the coach at Iowa right now if the Hawkeyes were in the SEC? No way! The fans and media would demand his head.
This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Is he seriously blaming the Big Ten's bowl game problems on the media? I happen to think it's honorable that the Big Ten has a rich tradition of coaching legends like Woody Hayes, Bo Schembechler, Joe Paterno, Hayden Fry, Lloyd Carr, and Jim Tressel. The Big Ten honors more than just winning football games. I kind of like the fact that we value academics, unlike the SEC. So if winning championships means replacing your coach every three years and failing your student athletes in the classroom, you can have it.
Once the Big Ten admits they have a problem, they can finally stop defending their "power football" and work to fix the problem and recruit all speed and not just one or two players, because all the other speed players are headed down south and the only time Big Ten teams will see that speed is when they are running by them in the BCS Championship Game.
Now I will agree with him that the SEC enjoys a decided speed advantage over some teams in the Big Ten. Ohio State most notably. But I don't think it's a matter of the Big Ten recruiting speed. In my opinion the Big Ten lacks the techniques in developing speed. Case in point I was reading this article this morning titled Debunking Mythes About Speed in the SEC and the Big Ten.
If the players training with me are learning explosiveness, I'm being tutored to gently fizzle. However, there's a spark of thought in my brain that's lolling around as I run figure-eight drills with the speed and elegance of a drugged orangutan: What if this, more than anything else, explains in part the notion that one college football conference could be perceived as innately "faster" than another?
Fortunately, outgoing strength coach Mark Sutton sums up what I'm mulling over in my head in a post-workout interview. He says what I'm thinking; I sit there and wait for my body to start spitting out ligaments and tendons like a smoking Buick spitting parts on an off-ramp.
"In terms of players we see for the combine, the best-conditioned and prepared athletes by conference come in this order: the SEC, the Big 12, the Pac-10 is just a little bit under that, and then the Big Ten brings up the rear."
The big Aussie casually framed one of the only rational explanations for the persistent and partially inaccurate perception of the SEC speed myth/Big Ten Sloth Legend: The emphasis on speed training, explosive Olympic-style movements in the weight room, and a noticeable bleedover between the disciplines of track and field and football.
It's not that the Big Ten can't recruit speed. Kids don't get faster the closer they are born to the equator. The Big Ten's problem is outdated strength and conditioning programs designed to build muscle mass, strength, and endurance. For years speed was just viewed as a gift from God. Some people have it and others don't. Thus little time was devoted to trying to develop it. The SEC schools have figured out that you can coach speed and train for it. And this is what the Big Ten lacks.
But like all things, the pendulum always comes back. Teams will focus on getting faster and faster, and in doing so they will get smaller and smaller. You can already see it.
"Miami's only lifting twice a week now--the rest of the week they're running," Sutton says. "Twice a week--that's it. Their skill players all run track in the off-season."
Then one day some school with a bunch of 310 lb. linemen and a 235 lb. running back will run them over like a truck plowing through a corn field. And then everyone will get back on the strength and size kick again. Back in the 90's everyone emulated Nebraska and their corn fed farm boys. That's the way these things go. We just have to wait it out. Our time will come.
0 recs |
38 comments
|
Comments
By the way
How does everyone feel about the way I just put up a little intro with a link to open the rest of the post? I thought some of you may enjoy this as you don’t have to scroll as far down the page to look at old posts when you want to keep commenting on them. I can try to do this going forward if the response is positive.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Jun 24, 2008 2:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I like it
Better than having to scroll down forever to get to a post i’m interested in. of course, I’m only responding because I AM interested in this post, but you know what I mean.
Anyway, good response. He rebuts every tired argument from Big Ten defenders, he rehashes the same tired arguments from SEC proponents. Nothing new here.
by georgiablue on Jun 24, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
Forgive the wacky second to last sentence. Should read: He rebuts every tired argument from Big Ten defenders with same tired arguments from SEC proponents.
by georgiablue on Jun 24, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes...
Please do. I’m still fired up about JayPa!!!!
by Stately NOVA Lion on Jun 24, 2008 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The media?
Really? That’s one of his points?
I am so sick of the phrase “southern speed”. The only thing they do faster in the south is run their mouths.
by speedomike on Jun 24, 2008 2:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is Ohio State's fault.
Really, we should just blame Ohio State for this mess:
http://runupthescore.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/scoreboard/
-- Run Up The Score http://runupthescore.wordpress.com
by Run Up The Score on Jun 24, 2008 2:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
Sadly, I agree.
It’s like our players and coaches curl up into a ball.
I was thinking and realized that the defense Ohio State employs against ‘faster teams’ in Illinois, LSU, and Florida is a defense designed to stop the exact type of offense Ohio State runs. Maybe it’s just easier to practice this way.
by Poe McKnoe on Jun 24, 2008 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Next to the Back up Quarterback is better
Southern teams are fast and northern teams are slow is the most sophomoric statement you can make. Sometimes it’s true, others it’s not. Forget the Outback Bowl, Penn State literally ran circles around Tennessee in 1991 and 1993. Florida was faster than Penn State (but that’s not why they won, in fact it’s because they dominated the line of scrimmage) but Auburn wasn’t (twice) and neither was Kentucky. Florida State was in 2005, but lost anyway, because Penn State’s players were better despite being .2 seconds slower than their Seminole counterparts.
Speed contributes, so does game plan, strength and most importantly, execution, to say the SEC is better than the Big Ten because it’s faster, is just so demonstrably wrong it’s almost not worth talking about.
I can see the post coming about how the SEC is actually faster supported by solid research and a nice list. It would be followed by my obligatory response that it does not transfer to wins on the field, and the difference between a 4.3 forty and 4.5 forty is so negligible at game speed that it hardly matters. It’s a factor, plain and simple, how big a factor is debatable. I’ve said once, and I’ll say it over, and over again, Penn State is a lot faster than we get credit for, and I can’t recall one game we lost because we were too slow.
Where the SEC has done a better job is innovating, or at least hiring other people’s innovators. The Big Ten is far too inbred in its coaching trees. It’s not that certain teams have been doing the same things for a few weeks; teams like Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin and even Ohio State have been doing the same things the same way for years. It’s too easy to game plan for Big Ten teams in bowls, and that is on us. Big Ten teams have been very poor about getting their best athletes the ball, and too conservative defensively.
For the Glory; National Champions 1982, 1986, 1994
by jesse. on Jun 24, 2008 2:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Speed.........
Last year sometime I did the following…......I took the top 5 winningest programs in the SEC and the Big 10 over the last 5 years. I then went back and counted how many players each school recruited that ran 4.5 or better. Surprisingly, Purdue had as many recruits over a 5 year period runnig 4.5 or better as anyone.
At the end of the day it appeared to me that when looking at 40 times, the best teams in the Big 10 were right there or more loaded in some cases than the best teams in the SEC. So…....maybe there is something to the S&C strategies. I know Urban Meyer has his studs work closely with UF Profs in attempting to maximize speed and agility.
I think the Elephant in the room has to be race. I have a hard time chalking up the dominance of African American’s in virtually every sport where speed is paramount as a statisical anomaly or even a sort of “specialization of resources”. Look at the rivals rankings by position at RB, WR, and Defensive Back. Virtually completely African American. The south is heavily concentrated with African Americans. I could be mistaken, but I am almost certain that no Caucasian has ever broken 10 seconds in the 100m. If they have, its like 1 person.
Now before I get basted for attempting to discuss race’s possible influence, realize that I am really interested in race relations. I think its fascinating. Also fascinating is our society’s virtual inability to have intelligent, civil discourse about the topic. So I would ask that before anyone responds specifically to the race portion of my post that they take a deep breath and realize that I am simply throwing it out there for discussion and am pretty interested in hearing what others think.
Eric Watters Atlanta, Ga.
by ech2os on Jun 24, 2008 2:48 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Yes, race.
I’ve long argued that “SEC speed” is just a convenient way to phrase the racial makeup of the conferences. It’s the team-wide athletic equivalent of “well spoken”.
-- Run Up The Score http://runupthescore.wordpress.com
by Run Up The Score on Jun 24, 2008 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're correct IMO
Southern speed is a politically correct way for saying…..they have more blacks in the South.
Remember when Nolan Richardson(Ark basketball coach) said that he recruits in the South because that’s where the slave ships stopped. I always found it interesting that at the time of the statement, his star player was a white kid named Bradley from Massachusetts but I digress.
Patiently waiting for the return of Penn State Football
by ReadingNitFan on Jun 24, 2008 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
disagree
Saying that the SEC is faster than the big ten isn’t a racial argument; it’s the objective truth. But as Jesse points out above, speed, in and of itself dosen’t determine who wins football games.
No one’s saying that some big ten teams are “deceptively quick,” which is the coded language for being a good skill position player, despite being white.
by spakajewia on Jun 25, 2008 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's a good possibility
Another factor is a population growth in the South in general, and states like Pennsylvania are losing people. So, African-American or not, there’s just more good athletes to choose from.
by speedomike on Jun 24, 2008 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Further Reading: The Athletic Dominance of African Americans--Is There a Genetic Basis?
As for current anthropological research, the jury is still very much out on whether through genetic heritage, humans of African descent possess a greater density of fast twitch muscles (or larger adrenal glands, or bone and tendon structure more optimally suited for sprinting and jumping, or fill in the blank), and whether said genetic characteristic provides a measurable advantage in athletic exercises pertaining to speed, agility and strength, and whether that advantage still exists many standard deviations away from the mean of the normal distribution (where professional athletes reside). As the author below notes, African American participation in both amateur and professional sports lies in the range of statistical anomaly, but insufficent data exist on the subject to draw meaningful conclusions; cross-sectional studies from the 1980s contradicted each other and current research is at an impasse, which can likely be attributed to the taboo nature of the subject, especially with respect to the contentious issue of selective breeding during the slavery era.
A selected passage by Vinay Harpalani in the book African Americans in Sport: Contemporary Themes by Gary Alan Sailes (circa 1998) at least confirms Eric’s suspicion:
Today, the dominance of African Americans in many sports is unquestioned; African Americans are overrepresented in both professional and amateur athletics. They represent approximately 12% of the United States population; yet they comprise 75% of the players in the National Basketball Association, over 50% of professional football players, and close to 25% of professional baseball players. African Americans also represent approximately 60% of college basketball players and 40% of college football players (Sailes, 1991, 480). In addition, African American/Afro Caribbean athletes have dominated track and field. Athletes of African descent hold world records in the men’s and women’s 100-meter dash, 200-meter dash, 400-meter dash, long jump, the men’s 110-meter hurdles, high jump, and triple jump, and the women’s 100-meter hurdles. Moreover, most of these records have been held by various African American/Afro Caribbean athletes for at least the past forty years, some for twice as long (Ashe, 1993, 542-551).
by gumbercules on Jun 26, 2008 1:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Update........
I missed the guys…....but just watched the 2 semifinal heats for the US Olympic Trials for the Women’s 100 meters…......all 16 were African American. So 6% of the population made up 100% of the final 16 contestants. 121 million white women in this country and not one of them in the final 16.
Don’t get me wrong…...I don’t care despite my posts. I just think its interesting. If the shoe were on the other foot and there wasn’t one African American in the final 16 somebody would be trying to figure out why and would be all over TV talking about it. The fact that we don’t discuss this stuff openly speaks to how uncomfortable our handling of race relations in this country has made us. No matter how sophisticated we are or think we are…...we roll up in a ball and hide in the corner when it comes to discussing our “differences” even though discussing them would make us all more comfortable with each other.
End of sermon :)
Eric Watters Atlanta, Ga.
by ech2os on Jun 28, 2008 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this in swimming?
Convivite Nudem!
by jtothep on Jun 30, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Half Full or Half Empty.......
I do think that when two people are watching the same game with different biases they see things differently. SEC fan watches LSU guy run for 13 yards before being tackled and the reaction is…......”Did you see him run by the OSU defense”. Similarly, SEC fan watches LSU guy tackle OSU guy after running for 13 yards and you might hear “did you see that southern speed track down that back ? Trindan Holliday would have taken that in for 6”.
Eric Watters Atlanta, Ga.
by ech2os on Jun 24, 2008 3:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Swimming Weather
Please, the SEC has a huge advantage in that they get to play all of their games in swimming weather and they often get to play their BCS games at home.
Gee, LSU had to “travel” to New Orleans. That’s pretty harsh.
It’s a distinct advantage. Which is exactly why if there ever is a playoff, the Big 10 must NEVER agree on “neutral site” games (i.e. home games for SEC teams).
All playoff games should be played ON CAMPUS. And if the little dainties down in Florida have to play at Beaver Stadium when it’s 20 degrees and snowing, we’ll see how fast they are.
by CDRS on Jun 24, 2008 4:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
weather
that sucks we never really get to use the weather as an advantage. We never have big out of conference games late in the season and I’m sure the badgers or buckeyes aren’t scared of State College weather.
I guess the whole bowl system is bias towards the southern teams now that I think about it. Luckily the Lions have kicked some butt down here in Florida recently.
I love seeing a southern team wilt in the PA cold. Too bad It never happens for PSU.
"It was an attrition football game and you know we like that."
by showtime on Jun 24, 2008 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weather
In the NFL, if you play well, you get playoff games at home. Imagine if you won the Steelers won the AFC North and as a reward got to decide whether to where dark or light jerseys in their playoff game against Wild Card Jacksonville – in Jacksonville. Big reward.
In College Football, you go undefeated, win your conference and then get to play LSU in New Orleans. Might as well just move the game 90 miles west and play in Baton Rouge. Same difference.
I realize bowl games will never be played on campus, but if we ever get a playoff system, the Big 10 should refuse to agree to it unless the games are all played ON CAMPUS. No Neutral Site playing field rigged towards the SEC.
If some CEO doesn’t want to go to State College in December, tough. More tickets for the real fans.
by CDRS on Jun 25, 2008 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense?
“Now I will agree with him that the SEC enjoys a decided speed advantage over some teams in the Big Ten. Ohio State most notably.”
So Ohio State can continually win the Big Ten, but it has a speed disadvantage versus other Big Ten teams as well?
While I agree Ohio State has shit the bed continually in the presence of SEC teams, it seems to be more scheme and intensity than this mythical speed argument. OSU can’t play LSU and Florida like it does, say, Penn State.
by Poe McKnoe on Jun 24, 2008 9:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
tUoOS speed....
I agree. tUoOS is a fast team, just as fast as anybody, but it seems like they just got plain outcoached in the MNC games. For example, Florida kept on running Harvin through the middle underneath the LB’s and tUoOS never once adjusted.
The Buckeye OL looked terrible…allowed at least 6 sacks to Florida and many more hurries….I doubt the Buckeye OL are that much slower off the ball than SEC OL…or maybe I’m wrong and the Buckeye OL just never seen DL speed like that in the Big 10 and weren’t prepared for it.
by Screen Name 20 on Jun 25, 2008 8:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the "M"NC
I don’t think a national championship is mythical when it’s won on the field. You win a one versus two national championship game, you’re the champs, nothing "mythical" about it. You may not like the system, but there was a national championship game last year.
The mythical comes from the era when there wasn’t a national championship game every year, and frankly, there was no real concerted effort to stage a national championship game. Nebraska’s title in 1994 was "mythical", just like Texas’ in 1969.
For the Glory; National Champions 1982, 1986, 1994
by jesse. on Jun 25, 2008 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would argue
That the BCS doesn’t eliminate the “M”. The obvious example here is 2005 where an undefeated Auburn while USC and Okl were selected.
Some holds true, IMO, in 2004 where LSU was awarded the BCS Championship without having to play #1 ranked USC.
You are right, though, some years there is a clear champ…but I don’t think winning the BCS Champ Game gives you an unqualified right to claim that.
I think we are closer, but I’m not giving up the “M” yet.
by Kevin HD on Jun 25, 2008 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I would reply
That Auburn is in a pretty influential conference when it comes to making the BCS rules. It’s not like they were Utah who simply has a system imposed upon them. It’s sad but true that after every single slight, both real and perceived, the SEC league office starts belly aching to try change the BCS rules to their benefit. When you have as much influence over the rules as the SEC does, you can’t bitch when the rules bite you in the ass. Or at least you should have enough pride not too.
Auburn, through their league, agreed to the rules at the beginning of the season. That year they happened to draw the short straw, it sucks, but it certainly wasn’t unfair. I mean really, can you imagine one whole undefeated season without a National Championship. Oh, the humanity! Somebody should appoint a commission, or retroactively award them the title. As an aside, Georgia should shut the hell up too, but I digress.
In reality, while LSU won the BCS, USC still got awarded a pretty big shiny trophy, and essentially two teams essentially shared the title. I found this to be a perfectly legitimate, logical and fair result. As bad as I wanted to call out Michigan’s title, theirs was shared too, which, in my opinion, is a different animal than "mythical. This controversy is mostly just more SEC belly aching.
Today, the number one team doesn’t get to pick who and where they play, i.e. USC didn’t duck Auburn, they were compelled to play OU. In 1986 Miami didn’t have to play Penn State, if fact they were encouraged not to by many people. Miami had sole discretion as to the location of the game, they chose to sell themselves to the highest bidder, but that game could just as easily (and almost was) played at the Citrus Bowl or the Gator Bowl. They also could have stayed at home and played Oklahoma (who would have been given a much better chance to win than PSU was) again, and won a Mythical National Championship while looking like a bunch of pussies. To their credit, they didn’t do that, but it is bullshit like this that created the "mythical" moniker, and the BCS eliminated it completely.
For the Glory; National Champions 1982, 1986, 1994
by jesse. on Jun 25, 2008 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BCS...
When you have two teams finish the season undefeated and one champion, I’d say that the BCS did all but eliminate the “MNC”. The “BCSNC” still came down to votes except this time it was to play for the “NC” instead of a beauty contest after the season was over.
by Screen Name 20 on Jun 25, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
MNC...
refers to championships without a playoff.
Back in the day, yes, championships were awarded by various polls and many teams could have claimed a “NC”. Some were even awarded before the final bowl games were played. The BCS takes away the “Mythical” to a degree, but it still leaves a lot of doubt to who should’ve been in the game.
The BCS is supposed to pare down the teams to the “supposed” top two and then mandate that the winner gets the votes. But there’s been 6 times this decade that there has been controversy as to two teams in the BCSCG. You can use the argument those teams agreed to the rules of the BCS…still doesn’t make the system right.
The situation in 1994 with PSU and in 2004 with AU are comparable in that they got screwed by the system they were in at the time. In each case, AU neither got the votes nor the computer love (to have a shot at the "NC") and PSU didn’t get the votes (to win/share a "NC"). But when you have more than one team finish the season undefeated and declare one the "NC" and the other runner up, that is the very essence of "MNC".
With a playoff, you remove most of that doubt as to who should be in the NC game and with that, the "M".
by Screen Name 20 on Jun 25, 2008 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
MNC refers to championships without a playoff – I disagree, I believe it refers to a National Title awarded with no set criteria, in essence, a title that anyone could claim to have won. For instance I claim the Penn State won the National Title in 1994, that while that title is certainly Mythical, but no less than so Nebraska’s.
You can use the argument those teams agreed to the rules of the BCS…still doesn’t make the system right. – It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about correcting the above item, which the BCS did. I have no sympathy for any team in a major conference complaining about a system that was designed and implemented for their own direct benefit.
The situation in 1994 with PSU and in 2004 with AU are comparable – They are comparable only the sense that Penn State joined the Big Ten knowing full well what it’s Bowl Commitment was going to be if/when they went undefeated. There is no argument that under any set of BCS selection criteria that PSU would have qualified for the championship game in 1994. There is also no doubt that Auburn didn’t, and if I recall, I was not all that close either.
With a playoff, you remove most of that doubt as to who should be in the NC game and with that, the “M”. – A system is a system, the NFL does it one way, college football does it a different way. While I bet that we disagree over which system is best, that’s not this discussion. The relevant parties have decided how they are going to pick the champion; hence the "M" is gone, except as a protest about your disagreement with selected method for awarding the title.
For the Glory; National Champions 1982, 1986, 1994
by jesse. on Jun 25, 2008 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not to get technical or anything
I believe it refers to a National Title awarded with no set criteria
I agree this captures part of the definition, and clearly the term Mythical National Championship has accrued quite a bit of implied meaning over the years. However, I believe the etymology of the modifier “mythical” is rooted in the fact that the NCAA has never awarded a national championship in the FBS or D1-A, and is used as a catch-all to describe the ambiguous nature of the situation. These mythical champions are dubbed by media outlets, or historical researchers, or based on a consensus from a variety of sources, or simply claimed through unabashed posturing.
http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html
The wording by the NCAA on the FBS championships page is very purposeful and delicate; these are national championships recognized but not awarded. In the perceived technical sense of the phrase, the BCS does nothing to relieve the national championship from its mythical quality, and neither would a 16-team tournament run by the same organization. Any perceived difference in the validity of the championship would be held only by the fans.
by gumbercules on Jun 25, 2008 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
These mythical champions are dubbed by media outlets, or historical researchers, or based on a consensus from a variety of sources, or simply claimed through unabashed posturing.
Right, I don’t see how any of this applies to a BCS Champion, or to Penn State’s two official titles, or any other team with a title that was the product of a one versus two national championship game.
For the Glory; National Champions 1982, 1986, 1994
by jesse. on Jun 26, 2008 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This thread has become stale and I’m not sure if you’ll read this Jesse, but my condensed point is that in the eyes of the NCAA, Penn State doesn’t have two official titles. They have zero, just like every other team. The rest is drummed up marketing by one organization or another. If we want, we could start awarding a Black Shoe Diaries (BSD) National Championship every year from a consensus of blog voters, register it as a trademark and create a trophy, which 300 years from now might appear on that silly NCAA web page after some historical researcher saw the depth of quality of our posts.
One future situation I find fascinating is that if the NCAA ever creates its own playoff, rather than farming it out to a BCS organization, this disavowal of past championships might make front-page news. I have absolutely no idea how they would handle the situation.
As for the matchups you suggest, I would concur the winner with high probability was the best fielded team during those seasons, with the exception of Auburn’s 2004 squad.
by gumbercules on Jul 2, 2008 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The BCS fixed one thing the Bowl Coalition lacked and that is the inclusion of the Big 10 / Pac 10. It is a system that is flawed system and that has been consistently tweaked since it’s creation. We can still end up with multiple “NC’s” (USC), we can still end up with multiple undefeated teams (AU, Utah, etc) and the NCAA still doesn’t recognize the “NC”.
by Screen Name 20 on Jun 25, 2008 1:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
isn't that how beat Tennessee
Tony Hunt,leaving in his wake, 8 yards and a cloud of very fast, very winded Volunteers eating dust
by queler on Jun 25, 2008 3:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Penn State has beat every power SEC team
At least once in a bowl, some multiple times. George for a national championship.
it’s pathetic, really, that Ohio State has never beaten an SEC team in a Bowl Game.
by CDRS on Jun 25, 2008 3:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Florida...
Not that it takes away from your post, but I don’t we’ve beaten Florida…ever.
by Screen Name 20 on Jun 25, 2008 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think your right
but we’ve only played them twice, once was about 50 years ago.
For the Glory; National Champions 1982, 1986, 1994
by jesse. on Jun 26, 2008 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WHY WOULD ANY AFRICAN AMERICAN PLAY FOR THE SEC OR...
...any of the southern schools that until very recently, would not allow blacks on their stupid campuses? LSU, Old Miss Georgia Alabama Florida Tennessee etc etc ALL FOUGHT integretation. IN THE 60s!!!! Meanwhile, African Americans were welcome in the Big Ten as long ago as the late 20s. The first college to accept blacks-and women-was in Ohio, (Oberlin), and they also helped “slaves” escape from places like Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, Louisianna, Alabama. Funny how that part of the SEC/Big Ten argument is buried.
by Jody Rope on Jun 26, 2008 1:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Explosive Strength Training
Was the issue that jumped out most to me from that article. Especially the context of the combine scout’s observations of diff conferences’ players’ performances there, generally. All the postings above adequately cover the speed ‘issue’ of the skill positions, and OSU has put a number of really fast receivers/returners in the NFL over the past decade. What really stood out in their last two championship losses was the apparent lack of trench speed vs. their SEC opponents (and they’ve put plenty of trench guys in the NFL, too!) We all know there’s heaps of qualifiers (scheme coaching could be a legit blame for that performance too) in a theoretical speed conversation, and that the ‘doesn’t translate to wins on the field’ argument holds a lot of water.
But I guarantee those performances (beatdowns) will not be overlooked by Jim Tressel, and suggest that the dudes he’s been bringing in the last two recruiting classes have been brought in to address the very concerns we’ve been noting here (Adams, Brewster, Shugarts). And, we’ll also have a nice, firsthand look at a modern, olympic- and track&field-style strength coach’s effect on a program as we line up against Michigan Tim Barwis’ lads the next few years.
Convivite Nudem!
by jtothep on Jun 26, 2008 2:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 























