Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Coming of Age

In America, we typically associate a "coming of age" with late adolescence. But the truth is, some people (or things) take longer to adapt to their surroundings.

The Big Ten, America's oldest college football conference, has been known for generations as a run-first, smash-mouth league. And in the past, those characterizations were, if anything, compliments. But in recent years they've taken on new meaning.

Today, most people identify the Big Ten as an out-of-touch league whose bite doesn't match its bark. And since it's last National Champion in 2002, the numbers support those claims: Since the '02-'03 bowl season, the Big Ten has a combined bowl record of 15-28 (the worst of the six "power" conferences), including a 3-8 record in BCS bowls.

Does that make the Big Ten the sixth best conference in the land? That's debatable. What isn't is the fact that the Big Ten is making strides to turn things around. From new systems to more dynamic athletes, I believe the conference is on its way to a comeback.

It may have taken some time to catch on, but nearly every Big Ten program -- with Wisconsin being the lone exception -- has installed some type of spread offense. And considering how bad the Badgers' offense looked in '08, maybe they should consider joining the club.

Often, the casual fan will mistaken any shotgun formation as a spread. But where the quarterback lines up is not what defines this revolutionary scheme. While no two are alike, a spread is easy to identify: A formation is classified as such when three or more offensive skill players are spaced horizontally across the field, on or near the line of scrimmage. The idea is to, literally, spread the opposing defense. This makes the middle of the defense more vulnerable to the run and opens passing lanes for the quarterback to throw.

This basic principle, though never so widespread, has been around for years. But today the game's brightest offensive coaches are finding ways to build on that philosophy. Many of America's most successful football programs are incorporating spread formations into their offenses. And the Big Ten is no exception.

While Purdue has used a pass-heavy spread for years, Michigan is just beginning to make the transition to Rich Rodriguez's zone read, triple option spread. Others, such as the Big Ten's last two Rose Bowl representatives, Illinois and Penn State, prefer to use pro-style spreads, utilizing fullbacks and tight ends. But of course, these schemes are only effective if they have the right personnel. And it all starts with the quarterback position.

The most significant change over the last few years may indeed be the quarterback play. Instead of one-dimensional pocket passers that "manage" the game, the Big Ten -- due in part to the aforementioned changes in offensive philosophy -- features a handful of athletes at quarterback that can take control of a game.

Without digging too deep into the Big Ten history books, I'd like to share a few names that have garnered First Team All-Big Ten honors at quarterback since 1993, the year in which the league expanded to eleven schools. Out of convenience, I've listed only three players, each separated by five years, all of whom fit the mold of the "classic" Big Ten quarterback:

  • Darrell Bevell (Wisconsin, 1993)
  • Joe Germaine (Ohio State, 1998)
  • John Navarre (Michigan, 2003)

Each of these players were above-average quarterbacks known more (or should I say, only?) for their throwing abilities. Quite the contrary, the Big Ten's headliner quarterbacks of 2009 are three multi-dimensional athletes. These three players (Isiah "Juice" Williams of Illinois, Daryll Clark of Penn State, and Terrelle Pryor of Ohio State) have taken the conference by storm the last two seasons. And they don't look to be slowing down, either.

Williams and Clark, both seniors heading into '09, each received All-Big Ten honors last season. And Pryor, the nation's No. 1 recruit and the Big Ten Freshman of the Year in '08, may have the most upside of the three. Is it a coincidence that Illinois, Penn State, and Ohio State are among the Big Ten favorites in 2009?

It's difficult to deny the Big Ten's rise in offensive production over the last few years. From top to bottom, each conference representative is scoring more touchdowns than ever before. The following figures are the averages of the Big Ten's highest and lowest touchdown totals over the last five seasons:

  • 2004 -- 37 (high: 50, low: 24)
  • 2005 -- 38.5 (high: 56, low: 21)
  • 2006 -- 43 (high: 61, low: 25)
  • 2007 -- 42 (high: 56, low: 28)
  • 2008 -- 47 (high: 63, low: 31)

Note that (besides a minimal drop '06 to '07) the number of offensive touchdowns has risen steadily over this time period. Actually, a 27% rise in touchdowns over a five-year span is more than steady - it's remarkable.

But these offenses will eventually plateau. Defensive coaches will begin to recruit players to fit their system. And believe it or not, that's when we'll see a turnaround in the Big Ten.

After all, that 3-8 BCS bowl record I mentioned above is due more to a lack of defense than a lack of offense. In those eleven games, Big Ten teams scored a respectable 24.9 points per game. Meanwhile, they allowed an embarrassing 32.6 per game.

There will continue to be doubters. They'll trash the Big Ten for being old-fashioned or slow. But soon enough, Big Ten teams will start to win big games against SEC, Big 12, and Pac-10 opponents. It's certainly taken a few years to catch up - but I think the Big Ten is finally coming of age.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Certified Sales Professional

One day over winter break I gave my grandfather a hand with his Christmas decorations. Since he and my grandmother have about, oh, one hundred and twenty boxes of decorations, we had plenty to talk about. Pop asked about school, how I did in the fall, what classes I was taking in the spring, and so on.

After mentioning that philosophy was on my spring roster, he told me about his experience with the subject from his days at West Chester. He told me that one phrase, something his professor once said, has stuck him throughout the years: "We're learning more and more about less and less."

This professor meant, in the words of my grandfather, that everyone wants to be a "specialist." And he didn't mean it in a bad way, either. If someone has a heart condition, are they going to see a cardiologist or their family doctor?

The sports world has its share of specialists, too. There are long snappers in football, sharp shooters in basketball, designated hitters in baseball, and fist-throwing goons in hockey. And while specialists are typically good in sports, there's a certain kind that isn't.

Meet John Calipari, the new head coach at The University of Kentucky, America's winningest college basketball program. Many know him as the ultra-confident coach that's guided two different teams to the Final Four. Some know him as the guy that John Chaney went after in a post-game press conference. But Mr. Calipari -- who, by the way, has a degree in marketing -- is much more than that.

To his credit, Calipari is a great motivator. Whether at UMass or Memphis, he's consistently taken unheralded teams and turned them into contenders overnight. As far as motivation and preparation are concerned, he may be the best in college basketball.

But John Calipari is best known for being a master recruiter. No one convinces young athletes to sign on the dotted line better than this guy. Sure, being a great motivator will win a game here or there - but having great players is the key to sustained success.

Unfortunately, in this culture of steroid-abusing con artists and two-timing executives, being the best at anything -- and that includes the recruitment of high school athletes -- will surely draw skepticism from the public.

Lately, the skeptics have been overwhelmingly critical of Calipari. Exhibit A: The University of Memphis, Calipari's former employer, is facing allegations that Derrick Rose (one-year wonder guard at Memphis, last year's No. 1 overall pick, and the '08-'09 NBA Rookie of the Year) had someone take his SATs for him.

If there's any truth to these allegations, Memphis could have 38 wins and a Final Four appearance from '07-'08 erased from the record books. In the meantime, Calipari has been informed that he is not at risk in this investigation.

For those of you who are counting, this would mean that both of Coach Cal's Final Four appearances -- one at UMass, one at Memphis -- would be erased from history because of off-court scandals.

His first appearance was vacated because Marcus Camby (former NCAA Player of the Year and, to this day, Calipari's greatest NBA product) was found to have accepted cash, jewelry, rental cars, and prostitutes from two sports agents. Calipari was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing in the matter.

But these aren't the only instances of shady business involving Coach Cal. The latest scandal out of the Bible Belt involves former Memphis forward Robert Dozier.

According to several reports, The University of Georgia withdrew a scholarship offer to Dozier in 2004 after "fishy" entrance exam scores. His initial test score of 1260 (out of a possible 1600) raised red flags because they didn't coincide with his high school GPA.

When Georgia had Dozier re-take his SATs, his score dropped 540 points - rather, he had someone take his first test for him. And as soon as Georgia removed themselves from the situation, Calipari and the Memphis Tigers were quick to land the prep star.

If these allegations -- the second of such kind regarding a member of Calipari's '07-'08 Final Four team at Memphis -- are found to be true, the resume of college basketball's greatest salesman will feature yet another asterisk.

Some will defend John Calipari. They'll claim he can't control the sticky situations in which he's been involved. And to some degree, that's a fair remark.

But there's one thing he can control: the type of student-athlete he recruits. I don't expect college coaches to babysit, hold hands, or tuck their athletes in at night. I do expect them to know the type of kid they're giving a free scholarship.

Young men aged eighteen to twenty-one -- regardless of whether or not they play a sport in college -- are going to drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, or get in a fight on occasion. The average kid participates in these, let's call them, "extra-curricular" activities.

However, the average kid does not commit premeditated crimes such as accepting money from agents, having sex with prostitutes, cheating on SATs, or lying to admissions offices.

The alleged missteps of the oft-maligned coach, his former players, and the institutions they represented don't surprise me. The most shocking part of this ongoing saga is that The University of Kentucky has taken a chance on such a controversial figure. Based on his checkered past, Coach Cal doesn't seem to have much regard for grade point averages or graduation rates.

But because basketball (and football, for that matter) at the Division 1 level earn so much money for their schools, conferences, and the NCAA, the market is highly competitive. So in that sense, I can empathize with the pressure to succeed.

The longer a program such as UK basketball struggles to rise above mediocrity, the more likely they are to lower their standards. But at some point a line needs to be drawn. When will schools such as Kentucky put integrity before dollar signs? The University of Kentucky could very well be the victim of the next high-profile recruiting scandal.

There should be no place for slick salesmen like John Calipari in college athletics. If the NCAA wants to crack down on illegal dealings and hold onto whatever purity remains, they need to come down hard on the individuals that threaten the values of their organization.

Friday, June 12, 2009

What You've Been Missing

I may be wrong, but I feel as though I'm the only person watching the NHL Playoffs this season. Everyone I talk to says, "Yea, I saw the highlights." The highlights? Every second of the NHL Playoffs is a highlight. Maybe I'm just a huge geek when it comes to sports, but I can't understand why others aren't feeling the love.

Okay, maybe I can. Versus, a network that some Americans don't even have, is the only cable network broadcasting NHL games. And they aren't even good at it. Listen closely to their broadcasts. They're hilarious. I don't know what it means to "knife" the puck or for the puck to be "outletted," but the play-by-play guys at Versus create new words every broadcast. And as a broadcaster, if the fans know you're there, you aren't doing a good enough job.

Fortunately for us puckheads, NBC covers some weekend games during the season and most of the Stanley Cup Final - if NBC's any consolation. It's not quite ABC/ESPN, but I'll take what I can get. At least I don't have to hear the verb "knife" twenty-seven times throughout their broadcasts.

All I know is this: If ABC/ESPN won't pick up your games, you have a problem. They're called "The Worldwide Leader in Sports." If your games don't air on their network, essentially, you don't matter. As long as ESPN continues their boycott of NHL hockey, the league is going to have a difficult time marketing their product. And this lack of viewership is rooter deeper than we realize.

It starts at a young age when kids are getting into sports. Because of how costly hockey can be, not enough children are playing. Kids that do play hockey are either born into money or their parents go to great lengths to make sure they can afford it. Often, a kid that plays hockey only plays hockey.

As for the general public, their interest has a lot to do with the region in which they live. Most people in New Mexico couldn't care less about hockey. On the other hand, most people in New Hampshire live for it. The NHL needs to target those that lie in the middle.

And the best way to do that is to ride the coattails of the league's young stars. Look at the transition the NBA has made over the last five years. They stopped pushing Allen Iverson and Steve Francis on people and started to run ads featuring LeBron James and Chris Paul. The NHL's biggest stars -- especially their North American-born, English-speaking stars -- need to become household names.

As far as quality of play is concerned, the National Hockey League doesn't have much to worry about. It's brimming with young talent and, considering both No. 1 seeds failed to reach the Conference Finals this postseason, there's loads of parity.

If fast-paced action is what you're looking for, there isn't a sport that rivals hockey. Sure, basketball comes close. But as one of my readers pointed out recently, the first three quarters are nearly irrelevant. Plus, there are about two hundred points scored in each basketball game. Every goal is huge in hockey.

Maybe you're looking for some NFL-style violence. Hockey surely isn't lacking in that department. There's as much hitting in hockey as there is in football, and hockey players usually hit one another way past the whistle.

That leads us to fighting: Who doesn't like to watch a good fight? Amateur fights on YouTube get millions of hits a day, so we know somebody's watching them. Maybe the NHL can try to recruit these blood-thirsty viewers.

I'll admit, the NHL's campaign to grow their fan base took a hit when both the Eastern and Western Conference Finals ended in four and five games, respectively. But the Stanley Cup Final, a rematch of last year, has certainly helped make up for it.

The Red Wings host the Penguins tonight in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final. So if you've missed most (or all) of the playoffs this season, at least you can catch the final game of the year. But if that is in fact the case, shame on you. You don't know what you've been missing.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Hit or Miss

Over the last decade college football recruiting has practically become a sport of its own. And with millions of dollars on the line, things are more competitive than ever. Every program is looking for that stud prospect who can not only make an immediate impact, but also draw other recruits to their school.

Recruiting databases such as Rivals.com do a great job keeping fans in the know. But as far as projecting HS players to the college level, scouting is far from an exact science. These "gurus" often evaluate the very best prospects accurately - but once you get past the top of those lists, it becomes hit-or-miss.

Generally, it takes a recruiting class two years to make an impact on the field. Some kids may play immediately, while others may not touch the field for three or four years. But it's usually a two-year process.

Below I've listed the top sixteen recruiting classes -- according to Rivals.com -- from 2004 to 2006, along with each school's final Coaches Poll ranking two years later. (Note to reader: Teams finishing outside the top sixteen in the final CP are listed as not ranked or "NR")

'04 Recruiting Rankings ('06 Coaches Poll)
1. Southern Cal (4)
2. LSU (3)
3. Florida State (NR)
4. Miami (FL) (NR)
5. Michigan (9)
6. Georgia (NR)
7. Florida (1)
8. Oklahoma (11)
9. Ohio State (2)
10. Texas (13)
11. Tennessee (NR)
12. Oregon (NR)
13. Texas A&M (NR)
14. Penn State (NR)
15. Alabama (NR)
16. Michigan State (NR)

Five schools finished both the '04 recruiting season and the '06 regular season in the top ten. These five schools (Florida, Ohio State, LSU, Southern Cal and Michigan) have elite football programs. So elite, in fact, that six of the last seven BCS National Champions have been among this group.

But as I mentioned before, recruiting rankings don't always translate into on-field success. Programs such as Florida State and Miami (FL) annually rank among the best in the nation in recruiting, but have had a hard time cracking the top sixteen of the Coaches Poll in recent years.

'05 Recruiting Rankings ('07 Coaches Poll)

1. Southern Cal (2)
2. Florida State (NR)
3. Oklahoma (8)
4. Tennessee (12)
5. Nebraska (NR)
6. Michigan (NR)
7. Miami (FL) (NR)
8. Texas A&M (NR)
9. California (NR)
10. Georgia (3)
11. Iowa (NR)
12. Ohio State (4)
13. Auburn (14)
14. Virginia Tech (9)
15. Florida (16)
16. Maryland (NR)

Of the three recruiting seasons discussed here, the '05 rankings were by far the least accurate. Seven of the top ten in Rivals' rankings landed outside the top ten in the final Coaches Poll of 2007. The only three to finish in both top tens were Southern Cal, Oklahoma and Georgia, three of today's most consistently great programs.

You may have noticed that the No. 1 team from 2007, LSU, was no where to be found in Rivals' 2005 recruiting rankings, proving that the two-year theory doesn't always hold true. However, it should be noted that LSU finished 2nd in recruiting in 2004 and 7th in 2006.

'06 Recruiting Rankings ('08 Coaches Poll)
1. Southern Cal (2)
2. Florida (1)
3. Florida State (NR)
4. Georgia (10)
5. Texas (3)
6. Penn State (8)
7. LSU (NR)
8. Notre Dame (NR)
9. Oklahoma (5)
10. Auburn (NR)
11. Alabama (6)
12. Ohio State (11)
13. Michigan (NR)
14. Miami (FL) (NR)
15. Clemson (NR)
16. Ole Miss (15)

In 2008, just over half of the top sixteen in Rivals' 2006 rankings finished in the top sixteen of the 2008 Coaches Poll. And as usual, the powerhouse programs finished about the same in each while the underachievers (Florida State, Notre Dame, Miami (FL) and Clemson) continued to underachieve.

Speaking of underachievers, one of the biggest problems today when ranking recruiting classes is that programs with rich histories often get preferential treatment.

For example: Florida State finished 3rd, 2nd and 3rd, respectively, from '04-'06 in Rivals' recruiting rankings. They then went on to finish outside the top sixteen in the Coaches Poll from '06-'08. Are the Seminoles' recruiting classes put on a pedestal because of their name/reputation? Or is the FSU coaching staff not doing a good enough job? Maybe there are other factors involved.

Sometimes the inaccuracy of recruiting rankings is due to the system that a college program runs. For instance: If a school signs a quarterback that doesn't fit their offense, the "experts" will consider this a huge signing. That signing could then drastically (not to mention mistakenly) shake up recruiting rankings.

Geography may also play a role in the overhype of some prospects and the recruiting classes with which they sign. Of the 2009 Rivals 100 (the top 100 prospects according to the recruiting giant), a combined forty-one percent hailed from three states: Florida (18), Texas (12) and California (11).

Do those states produce that much more talent than, say, Indiana, New Jersey or Washington? Any recruiting "guru" will tell you that these three states -- in terms of the high school talent they produce -- are highly underrated.

But sure enough, none of the three had a player in the 2009 Rivals 100. I understand that scouts can't evaluate every HS prospect in every corner of the nation, but geographical biases can convey misleading reports.

I've followed college football recruiting closely for a handful of years. I've seen five-star prospects turn into busts and I've seen three-star prospects turn into All-Americans. So it's clear that college programs don't always know what they're getting.

But despite the unpredictable rankings, I'll continue to follow the recruiting process each year. It's good to be informed. I'll just be sure to proceed with caution.