2010 NFL Draft Preview

This year's NFL Draft will start on Thursday night. I'm not sure what I think of that, and probably won't be sure until it actually happens. I know that the Washington Capitals are scheduled to play Wednesday and Friday, so we'll see if I'm up for spending three straight nights on my couch watching sports.

I do know that I'll at least watch through pick #4, as I'm very interested to see what the Redskins do with their first round pick. I'd be pretty surprised if they did anything other than draft offensive tackle Russell Okung, but you never know. That's why you tune in.

But of course, the Redskins aren't the only team whose fate will be affected on Thursday night. And so, we look forward to the 2010 NFL Draft. Like last year, we'll predict the top fifteen picks and give some analysis on each.

2010 NFL Mock Draft

1. The St. Louis Rams select Sam Bradford, quarterback, Oklahoma. Not much surprise here at this point, with how much discussion there has been about Bradford's rise up everyone's draft board, but remember right after the NCAA football season ended? Ndamukong Suh was everyone's #1 pick. I guess we shouldn't be surprised when a quarterback ends up going #1 overall, though. Seven of the past ten first overall selections have been quarterbacks.
2. The Detroit Lions select Ndamukong Suh, defensive tackle, Nebraska. I don't generally get into college football, but I rooted like crazy for Nebraska when they played Texas in the Big 12 title game. A loss by Texas could have forced Cincinnati, Boise State, or TCU into the BCS title game, which is all I've ever wanted out of college football. Anyways, Suh is an elite defensive line talent, and the Lions are still the kind of team that just needs players.
3. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers select Gerald McCoy, defensive tackle, Oklahoma. There's been some debate over which elite defensive tackle is the better player, but in the end, both guys will probably be long-time successful pros. There aren't a lot of ways to go wrong in this draft, especially early on. Tampa, like Detroit, should just be looking for talent, and McCoy has it in spades.
4. The Washington Redskins select Russell Okung, offensive tackle, Oklahoma State. The more I read about Okung and the other tackles in this draft, the more I want the Redskins to find a way to reasonably trade down. None of these OTs is an elite, Jonathan Ogden/Orlando Pace caliber player, and there look to be four or five potentially very good tackles. If the Redskins hold onto the pick, Okung is the closest to a sure thing, so he's the pick.
5. The Kansas City Chiefs select Eric Berry, safety, Tennessee. A lot of the talk has been that Berry would be the best player available, but that Kansas City would be concerned about giving "top 5 money" to a safety. Hogwash, I say. It would be much more costly to pass on a premier player and watch him return interceptions for touchdowns for the Browns. The first non-Big 12 player will be Berry, here at #5.
   
6. The Seattle Seahawks select C.J. Spiller, running back, Clemson. I do think that the Seahawks will look long and hard at the various offensive linemen available, but with a new coach, especially a coach from college like Pete Carroll, I just expect him to want to go out and get a new toy for his offense. Spiller is highly rated, and I think he's their main target. With another pick later in the round, I imagine they'll be hoping that one of the top offensive tackles falls to them, which is a fair guess.
7. The Cleveland Browns select Dez Bryant, wide receiver, Oklahoma State. This doesn't feel like the pick that the Browns will make, but every time I run through the logic in my head, it makes the most sense. Their offensive line is actually pretty good, so I don't see them going after one of the remaining tackles. Mike Holmgren apparently doesn't think much of Jimmy Clausen, or so people tell me. And the intriguing defensive options don't seem to have enough value to take here. Bryant could help a lethargic Browns offense to actually scare some folks, and after signing Jake Delhomme, you'd better get him a weapon.
8. The Oakland Raiders select Jimmy Clausen, quarterback, Notre Dame. After last year's selection of Darrius Heyward-Bey, and the selection of Sebastian Janikowski in the first round of the 2000 draft, the Raiders have this aura of unpredictability around them. But as you look deeper, that's just not the case. While Darren McFadden, JaMarcus Russell, and Robert Gallery may not have turned out, they were all very reasonable picks, even "safe" picks. You can't blame Al Davis for trying to think outside the box. I think this year he stays reasonable, and sees Clausen as a guy who put up great numbers against top competition in college. He's a completely fair pick.
9. The Buffalo Bills select Brian Bulaga, offensive tackle, Iowa. A pretty boring pick for a team that's been pretty boring the past few years. New head coach Chan Gailey has been coordinating offenses for long enough to know the value of a strong offensive line, and if Brian Bulaga falls to their pick at #9, I'd be pretty shocked if the Bills didn't snag him.
10. The Jacksonville Jaguars select Jason Pierre-Paul, defensive end, South Florida. The Jags registered a measly 14 sacks in 2009, so obviously getting pressure on opposing quarterbacks is a desperate need. I've seen Pierre-Paul, Derrick Morgan, and Jerry Hughes all mentioned as the top DE in this draft, so any of them could go here. I mostly picked Pierre-Paul because he went to USF, and so he could maybe generate a little more buzz by staying in-state. Unlike some pundits, I don't see Tim Tebow as an option here.
11. The Denver Broncos select Rolando McClain, linebacker, Alabama. Every "big board" I've seen has McClain lower than this, but every mock draft I've seen has the Broncos taking him here. I'm not going to pretend I know something that the experts don't. McClain was the anchor for a sensational Crimson Tide defense last year, and everything points to him being a high character guy as well. Denver recently acquitted themselves of Brandon Marshall, so you have to think character is a factor for them.
12. The Miami Dolphins select Dan Williams, defensive tackle, Tennessee. The Dolphins run a 3-4 defense and don't have an elite nose tackle, so Williams is a nice fit. There was some thought that Dez Bryant was a perfect fit at this pick, but A) I've already got him well off the board, and B) the Dolphins just acquired Brandon Marshall, so wide receiver is suddenly not a need.
13. The San Francisco 49ers select Trent Williams, offensive tackle, Oklahoma. Just a couple years ago, the 49ers took another workout warrior, tight end Vernon Davis. Williams was impressive at the combine, as well as already being a highly touted tackle. Honestly, after seeing Williams fall this far, I went back over my draft board to make sure I didn't miss something, but this is how I see things playing out, which would be a coup for San Francisco.
14. The Seattle Seahawks select Anthony Davis, offensive tackle, Rutgers. Remember when the Seahawks reached for C.J. Spiller in the hopes that one of the top tier offensive tackles would fall to them? Well, hello Seattle, Anthony Davis just so happens to fall into that category. He's actually got the upside to be the best tackle from this class if he can overcome maturity concerns. Davis or Trent Williams would be a great result here if the Seahawks go for Spiller with the #6 pick.
15. The New York Giants select Derrick Morgan, defensive end, Georgia Tech. The sports talk radio interviews I hear suggest that Osi Umenyiora may be dealt, possibly on draft day, which would create a distinct need for a defensive end. Morgan and TCU's Jerry Hughes are both on the board here, but Morgan's quality has been better publicized, so I'll go with him. Hey, the Giants are still a New York team. They still react to public opinion on some level.
    

I'm holding out hope that the Redskins are able to find a way to trade down a few picks and get back into the second and/or third rounds. Everyone says this is one of the deepest drafts in years, and given the fact that the Redskins seem likely to select merely the best of several offensive tackles, the opportunity for creating some value by trading down seems distinct.

NCAA Tournament Expansion "Probable"

I read on ESPN today that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany indicated that expansion of the NCAA men's basketball tournament from 65 to 96 was "probable." It sounds like a big mistake, for two major reasons.

First, the basketball side of things. Further diluting the tournament doesn't seem like my idea of making the tournament more fun. And you have to think that a lot of those teams will be the middle-of-the-pack power conference teams. I know that, because 14 of the 32 NIT teams were from BCS conferences. You'd also presumably be giving some teams a first round bye, which means that a lot of those bottom-seeded teams, the 14, 15, and 16 seeds, won't get a chance to play Kentucky or Duke. Instead, they'll have to face off against N.C. State or Dayton just to get a chance to get walloped.

Will it create the opportunity for more upsets? Sure. Siena has a much better chance of beating Northwestern than they do of beating Syracuse. But you watch because every once in a while, you get a game like Ohio vs. Georgetown this year, or Iowa State vs. Hampton from back in 2001. You watch because the upsets seem so improbable, and the big ones are so rare.

Additionally, from a business standpoint, I think expansion is a mistake. You've got a great thing going, where the first round games account for over a billion dollars in lost productivity, a tremendous amount of Internet traffic, a massive afternoon ratings boost for CBS, and probably increased business for sports bars and restaurants. It's essentially a sports fan's holiday. And I haven't heard any logical way for that excitement to be preserved in an expanded bracket.

Speaking of brackets, how on Earth are you going to fit 96 teams on one sheet of paper so you can cross off your picks as they (inevitably) get bounced?

The one thing that's been good about Delany's comment is the discussion it's prompted in the sports world. Doug Gottlieb has his opinion, all of my local sportscasters have theirs, and I had a discussion in the office today with a couple of co-workers about positives and negatives. One suggested that he'd be alright with adding more teams as long as there was some effort to ensure that most of those additional bids went to schools in small or mid-major conferences, and I echo his sentiment on that. Teams should have to earn their way into the tournament; Kent State (24-10, 13-3 in the MAC) accomplished more in 2009-2010 than N.C. State (20-16, 5-11 in the ACC), so they are more deserving of an NCAA tournament bid in my book.

One thing we can all agree on, though. Even 96 teams would be better than the BCS.

BCS Rantings and Ravings

I'm going to try to not go all the way off about the BCS and what a joke it is, because I've done that here, here, and here. Additionally, Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports did a great job of spelling out all of the different ways that colleges, fans, and teams could benefit from a playoff system in this article, posted a couple weeks ago. I'm just going to talk about this year, and the different games that led us to our current BCS bowl lineup. And, what the heck, make some picks too.

Rose Bowl
(8) Ohio State vs. (7) Oregon

This feels like the least nationally relevant Rose Bowl in a long time, but maybe that's just because USC was bad this year. "Bla bla, they still went 8-4 and beat Ohio State." Yeah, and they lost to Washington and Arizona. Don't argue with me; using USC's standards, they had a terrible year.

Anyways, this game seems to be Oregon's to lose. They're one of the hottest teams in college football, and their offense has posted 37+ points in six straight games. The coolest thing, though, is that at the end of the season, we might be able to look back at the Oregon/Boise State game in week one as a matchup of eventual top five teams. Makes me almost wish I had watched it...almost. It was 19-8, that doesn't look like the kind of score that I want to see.

Prediction: Oregon 34, Ohio State 17

Sugar Bowl
(5) Florida vs. (4) Cincinnati

This game probably spells the biggest trouble for defenders of the BCS. While TCU certainly has a valid gripe, Cincinnati is an undefeated team from a "power conference" (as long as the Big East gets an automatic BCS bid, you can't argue me on that). Like the 2005 Auburn team, Cincinnati has a chance to be an undefeated team from a BCS conference that never got a chance to play for the championship.

By the way, one of the clearest ways that you can tell that there's a problem with the BCS is that the team that loses the BCS title game doesn't finish the season ranked #2. If the title game is supposed to be between the #1 and #2 teams, doesn't that mean that the loser is the #2 team? Does anyone think that the Cardinals weren't the runner-up team in the NFL last season? Sigh, ridiculous.

It probably won't matter, though. Florida should beat Cincinnati and wrap up one of the great college careers of all time for Tim Tebow. I don't know how good he'll be in the NFL, but I definitely look forward to it.

Prediction: Florida 35, Cincinnati 25

Fiesta Bowl
(6) Boise State vs. (3) Texas Christian

Undefeated TCU takes on undefeated Boise State in what I am now calling the Joe Mattingly NCAA Championship game. Alabama and Texas can fight for the intercontinental title; this game is for the heavyweight belt. Because this game should be awesome.

TCU has one of the strongest running attacks in college football, with three different players averaging at least 50 yards rushing per game, plus 43 more yards per game from their quarterback. Oh, and said quarterback, Andy Dalton, has a ho-hum passer rating of 159.6.

Meanwhile, Broncos quarterback Kellen Moore has 39 touchdowns and only 3 interceptions this season, and they've scored 42+ in ten of their thirteen games. Did you catch that? Par for this team is six touchdowns. Their competition is a little suspect, but they beat currently 7th-ranked Oregon in their season-opener, so they're at least pretty good.

I have more faith in Boise State being able to close the deal, because they've been playing big teams in big games for a few years now. They know how to react to big game situations, whereas I could see TCU getting a little star-studded.

Prediction: Boise State 44, TCU 39

Orange Bowl
(10) Iowa vs. (9) Georgia Tech

In the "who gives a damn" BCS game, Iowa plays Georgia Tech.

Prediction: Iowa 24, Georgia Tech 22

BCS Championship Game
(2) Texas vs. (1) Alabama

It's hard not to look at this game and only think about the last game each of these two teams played. Alabama handled Florida with relative ease, and it took Texas three different bonehead plays by Nebraska to pull out the Big 12 title. Honestly, the Cornhuskers looked like the better team in that game. So how can I look at this game and see anything but a rout by the Crimson Tide?

Trick question; I can't. There's just so much talent on both sides of the ball for Alabama, and Texas' best player (Colt McCoy) seemed lost during the Big 12 championship game. Some of that can be attributed to playing against perhaps the most skilled player in the country, Nebraska defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh. But it's not like McCoy will be facing my Magruder High School Colonels in the BCS title game. They allowed the fewest points per game and second fewest yards per game in the country this year.

It's gonna be a bloodbath.

Prediction: Alabama 33, Texas 6

Enjoy the games, everybody. I mean, as much as you can enjoy an essentially meaningless collection of postseason games.

I Don't Need A Playoff Anymore

Don't misunderstand me, I still loathe the BCS system. It's completely dishonest and a total farce; it's a fallacy that it can even create a valid national championship game, let alone crown a champion. But I'm done demanding a college football playoff, for two reasons.

1. I don't care about college football. Anyone who listened to our radio show from last week (which featured mostly NFL discussion) knows that we were broadcasting right in the middle of the BCS National Championship game, and that didn't bother us one bit. Like most faux fans, I'm excited when my alma mater (Penn State) does well, and I have a sufficient level of fatalism when talking about them (as in, I told everyone that USC was going to crush the Nittany Lions in the Rose Bowl). But when it comes to tracking the season-long progress of various teams, I don't do it. And when it comes to watching the championship game, I don't do it unless I care about one of the teams, which we've already established is pretty rare. The last one I watched was that barn-burner between USC and Texas, which might be the best college football game I've ever seen. So they've got that going for them. But really, I'm just not that interested in the whole scene.


2. The playoff would still be wrong. There are a lot of ways you could set up a playoff in college football: anywhere from four to sixteen teams would work, bye weeks could be integrated (to keep the regular season meaningful), etc etc. But the reality is that, whatever system gets put into place will have its flaws. How will it reward conference champions? Will there be sufficient at-large bids to ensure that the very best teams are in the mix? How will the system confound potential problems with teams of identical records, or teams who play particularly weak or strong schedules? Will computers get involved? There are so many questions, and not a lot of reasonable answers. A playoff would be better, but it wouldn't be a final solution, because the determination of who gets into the playoff would still be based on opinion, a natural flaw of the college systems.
   

There are other issues that are often cited when explaining why a playoff system would be bad for college football, and I'm sure you've heard many of them:

• Missing class time. There's always an argument that missing class time in late December/early January is a detriment to student-athletes. Please feel free to check the University of Maryland's academic calendar (and remember that only dummies take class for the brief Winter Term). Most students aren't going to miss much/any class time.


• De-valuing the regular season. This might be true on a rare occasion. However, how can you say that de-valuing the regular season is a concern when we've had multiple teams in recent years go undefeated during the regular season, but have no chance at the national title? Also, does the NFL, which has a playoff system, suffer from a meaningless end-of-season?


• The eventual demise of the bowl system. This argument actually holds some water for me. Certainly, if we start taking the best eight to sixteen teams out of the regular bowl system, we're going to reduce the luster of the biggest bowls. Additionally, the single postseason game for each team in the current system allows alumni and fans to make a single, special trip to the bowl site for the festivities and the game. Multiple playoff games would likely result in corporate purchases and outrageously priced secondhand tickets for fans, which hasn't ever been the nature of college football.
  

The reality is this. While I'd probably prefer a playoff system as a casual fan, I am just that: a casual fan. For people who really love college football, the playoff system may deprive them of the ability to see their favorite team in their final game of the season (often a much stronger attachment than you'll find in professional teams' fans). The old system, without any mockery of a national championship game, gives each team's fans a decent chance to catch the game. You also keep the ticket prices low enough (at least the student tickets), and have enough lead time before the games to allow students to make travel plans and buy tickets, keeping the classic college football atmosphere.

When you think about it, some of the resistance of college football against a playoff system might be in deference to its most rabid fans, and in the interest of maintaining the things about college football that it's most staunch supporters love. I can't be too mad about that.

The BCS is still a joke, though. The national championship game that the purport to create is an absolute farce. Do you know how I know that? Because after the game, there are still lots of questions as to who the best team in the country is. You ever hear that after the Super Bowl or World Series? No sir. Personally, I'd rather have no championship game at all than a championship game that doesn't give me a feeling of having declared a champion.

Hawaii Isn't So Sunny These Days

What a load of crap. As you might have guessed, I'm talking about the BCS system that has produced a title game of Ohio State versus Louisiana State.

Now, I have no problem with those two teams going head-to-head, and in fact, I'd probably venture to say that they're the two best teams in the country, at least based on the limited information I have, as a casual NCAA football fan. Sure, Hawaii is undefeated, but their schedule very weak, having only played one team viewed as a top 25 team this year (last year's Cinderella Boise State). Georgia looks to be on fire, but the fact is they aren't the champion of their conference. Virginia Tech is the ACC champion, but they lost (handily) to LSU earlier in the year, so it seems silly to send them to the title game ahead of LSU.

But hang on a second. Why does it seem silly to send VT over LSU? Could it be because we think that, when two teams "settle it on the field," the team that won is the better team? Doesn't that capture the entire idea behind a playoff system? And doesn't a system that fails to give a championship opportunity to an undefeated team seem to miss the whole goddamn point? Every chance Hawaii has had to "settle it on the field," they've come out on top. I know it doesn't look good if you put a team with such a weak schedule into the championship game, and the pressure on Hawaii (and on everyone who picked them to play in that game) would be immense, since it'd be an unconventional pick. But sometimes you've got to go with what makes sense. I applaud the few voters who gave Hawaii their first-place vote.

Here's my biggest problem. Was there any way Hawaii could've played its way into the title game? Last year's Boise State team was dominant and went undefeated, but didn't play any ranked teams. They were left out of the championship talk. Hawaii defeated a ranked Boise State team this year, but still didn't get any serious consideration for the BCS championship game.

I'm not someone who tends to think that playing fields should be leveled. I'm not crazy about affirmative action or quotas, or the concept that you can improve your stock when applying to colleges if you're able to legitimately classify yourself as Black, Hispanic, or Native American. But the reason I don't like those things is because we've got lots of examples of minorities who have achieved. Certainly not enough to be able to say that we, as a nation and as a species, have grown beyond the stigmas based on color, creed, or anything else, but enough to say that most everybody has a shot.

But that's not the case for non-BCS schools. They simply have zero chance of being able to play for the championship of their own league. That's insane. It's one thing to say, "We know we're not good enough to win the title, but we're going to go out there and play our hearts out and try to win some games." But that's entirely different from, "We're as talented as anybody, and we can win every game on our schedule. But even if we do, we won't be given the opportunity to play for our championship." If I were anyone of influence at any of those schools, I'd start telling people that we need to try to get sent back down to 1AA, so that we can have a shot at a title.

This year was like a perfect storm for a non-BCS conference team to sneak into the title game. Everybody relevant lost at least 2 games except for Ohio State, who had a notoriously weak out of conference schedule and played in a Big Ten that endured a down year. Nobody looks all that good, but Hawaii still gets no "dap." What would it take? Would a team like Hawaii, Boise State, or Utah need to schedule multiple out of conference big time BCS teams? Say something like playing Arizona, North Carolina, and Texas A&M? Oh, you mean like the Utes DID in 2004, and then they went on to wipe the floor with Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl.

How do we not learn from that? Or from Boise State/Oklahoma last year? Do people really think that the best team can only be one of the 65 teams in BCS conferences? And do we really think that, by picking teams only from those conferences, we're assuring ourselves of a great, competitive, memorable championship game? Let's explore the history of BCS title games, shall we? To make things easier, I've bolded the games that were won by 17 points or more:

• 2000 - Florida State 46, Virginia Tech 29
• 2001 - Oklahoma 13, Florida State 2
• 2002 - Miami 37, Nebraska 14
• 2003 - Ohio State 31, Miami 24 (2OT)
• 2004 - LSU 21, Oklahoma 14
  
• 2005 - USC 55, Oklahoma 19
• 2006 - Texas 41, USC 38
• 2007 - Florida 41, Ohio State 14

That's four out of eight that were blowouts. And I'd venture to say that a 13-2 game tends to not be particularly entertaining.

I'm not going to argue that there haven't been a couple of tremendous games. Ohio State/Miami was a classic, and Texas/USC was perhaps the greatest college football game I've ever seen. But it is by no means a guarantee that, when you match up two BCS teams, you'll have a highly competitive, down-to-the-wire game. So why not give Hawaii a chance?

I'll tell you why. Because nobody gives a shit about Hawaii. Hawaii doesn't have the storied history of LSU, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, and on and on. So when you poll coaches to figure out who the best teams in football are, is it any surprise that they go with the big name programs? As a matter of fact, why in the hell are we asking NCAA coaches, 95% of whom have their jobs on the line for the entire season, to make objective evaluations of every other college football team in the country? Steve Spurrier makes no secret of the fact that he votes for Duke as the #25 team in his poll until they lose. Granted, that's usually week one, but the fact that that's even possible is evidence of how flawed the system is. Whatever happened between the colleges and sports writers to cleave the writers from the evaluation process has got to be buried in the interest of a more perfect system.

Is a playoff system the answer? Probably. It's worked for every other sport I've ever watched or cared about. There isn't a playoff system out there that I've ever seen or heard of that hasn't worked, that hasn't accomplished its precise goal of making sure that the team it declares as champion had to go through the other contenders.

Oh Dear, the BCS Again.

What if.

Those two words are scaring the pants off of people who back the BCS system in college football. People who've resisted a playoff for one reason or another may have some reckoning coming their way this season, and if so, it's about time.

What if USF runs the table, and we're stuck putting them in the national championship game? What if more than 2 teams finish undefeated...again?

The BCS has always been purported as being the way to "finally" determine who the #1 team in the country is, and crown a national champion. The group that put together the BCS system acknowledged that the previous system was flawed. They realized that the system works better when fans, sportswriters, and players could feel confident that the team declared as "champion" deserved the moniker. Declaring a true national champion was (and still is) in the interest of the perpetuation of the sport.

But somewhere along the way, someone messed up. The current system still has bowl-style flaws. At the end of the year, only 2 teams get a shot at the national title. The path to the national title game passes through Columbus and Pasadena, but also passes through the evaluative minds of coaches, computers, and the American media machine. What sort of strange world do we live in where the championship decisions of a sport (even an "amateur" sport) are decided by people making guesses as opposed to playing head-to-head games, and getting your winners from their actions on the field?

"But Joe, the NCAA tournament uses a selection committee to determine who's eligible to play for the national championship." Right you are. In the end, even professional leagues have to make concessions; in the NFL, tie-breakers are used to determine playoff teams occasionally, and the tie-breakers are probably equally effective in choosing a playoff team when compared to a voting body of experts. But we're not talking about a field of two here. We're talking about a field of 12 in the NFL, or 65 in college basketball. We've acknowledged that it's inappropriate to have every team play every other team and hold a 300-team tournament at the end of the season. But we've also acknowledged that more than two teams are worthy of a chance.

Here's the kicker, a la Tim Cowlishaw on Around The Horn (and various others): "The college football regular season is essentially a playoff system. For the most part, it's 'win or go home' all year long." For the most part, yes, it's win or go home.

Except, Boise State went undefeated last year and never got a shot to get into the title game. So they defied logic, by winning and going home.

Except that Michigan's only loss last year was to #1 Ohio State by 3 points, but got squeezed out of the title game. (Don't talk to me about Michigan ending up losing in their bowl game and Florida winning the title; ask any poker player if the results justify the tactic, and they'll tell you the right move is always right, and the wrong move is always wrong, regardless of the results).

Except that, in 2004-2005, Auburn, Utah, and Boise State all went undefeated, and none of them were afforded the opportunity to play for the title.

Except...except....except....

Now look at this season. Right now, the following six teams are undefeated: Ohio State, South Florida, Boston College, Arizona State, Kansas, Hawaii. Of those six, five are in BCS conferences. Could we again be looking at a situation where an undefeated team from a top-caliber conference gets left out of a championship game? I wouldn't be surprised. Arizona State has a brutal schedule coming up, and Ohio State has some very loseable games, but there's a very real chance that we'll have 3-4 no-loss teams come bowl bid time.

And that's where the concept of the "year-long playoff" fails. In every other sport, if you never lose a game, you've got a shot at the title. College hoops, if you win every game, you earn an automatic bid, either through your season or your conference tournament. College football is the only sport where you can win every single game you play, and still be considered only the 4th best team at the end of the year. If it's a year-long playoff, then every undefeated team is still alive.

So BCS, I wish for you that Ohio State loses (I wish that for myself as well, just as a selfish Penn State fan), and all five of the other teams run the table. You'll get to enjoy Boston College vs. South Florida as your marquee title game matchup. You'll see Kansas vs. Arizona State in one of the other BCS bowls. Hawaii will take on South Carolina. Your ratings will go in the tube, and you'll keep paying $1.8 million to Notre Dame for the luxury of being able to include them in the BCS system.

Without question, a true playoff system is the answer. It vastly reduces the impact of politics, biases, and television exposure in the determination of who'll play for the title. Grab the top 16 BCS-rated teams, seed them according to ratings, and let 'em go at it. The fact that this is somehow difficult for college chancellors or athletic directors or anyone else to grasp is a testament to the total ignorance of the general American population.

I'll leave you with this. Beano Cook, ESPN analyst, said, "The BCS is college football's equivalent of prayer in school. There's always got to be a debate about it." He forgot to add, "It's something that only idiots think is right."

Does Louisville suck?

The short answer is yes, but there's more to it than that.

The big news Saturday night was that Syracuse managed to play Louisville's kind of game and edge them out for a victory, putting a serious damper on the Cardinals' chances to go to a BCS game. But this loss shouldn't have been as surprising as people thought.

First, Syracuse may have been 0-3 coming in, but they played...just kidding, Syracuse got crushed by three currently unranked teams: Washington, Iowa, and Illinois. And Kentucky appears to really have something going this year, a pleasant surprise for the people of the bluegrass state who've been disappointed with Louisville so far.

But let's look farther back, at a game that screamed to us that this Louisville team wasn't the superior team of last year. I give you exhibit A, Louisville vs. Middle Tennessee State, a team that lost to Florida Atlantic by 13 the week before they played Louisville. The Blue Raiders put up 42 on Louisville, scoring on plays of the following distances: 78, 23, 24, 39, 1, 79. It was clear after looking at this game's stats that, barring some complete transformation, Louisville was going to have trouble beating any teams with reasonable talent. And go figure, Kentucky and Syracuse edged the Cardinals.

What I found amazing was that at the half against Syracuse, Louisville was down 21-7, and on ESPN News, Robert Smith declared that Syracuse would get blown out of the game. It wasn't even like he was meaning to be bold or anything, he just completely discounted the Orange's ability to play football. Somehow, Smith seemed to be oblivious to the fact that Louisville couldn't stop anyone, despite back-to-back games giving up at least 40 points.

Is the entire country retarded like this? Are wins and losses and rankings the only things that people look at when trying to evaluate teams? Louisville should've gone down in the rankings after their suspect game against Middle Tennessee, and they should've dropped out of the top 25 after they lost to Kentucky. They're obviously unranked now, but the rankings have made a lot of people more surprised than they needed to be. Louisville is the new Kansas State. They have a potent offense, but can't really stop anyone, so get used to some .500 seasons down south.