Life on the Outside

If you’re reading this blog, chances are that you’re a college football fan– that, or your Google search has gone horribly, horribly wrong. “College football fan” means different things to different people, though. The typical college football fan cheers for a big BCS school, watches College Gameday every Saturday morning to see a preview of their team’s game, and can track the whims of the players that their school is recruiting on any number of websites. They can see the highlights of their games on Sportscenter, read about their team in just about any paper in the country, and look for where their school sits in the top 25. This is the mainstream; the fan that the national media serves.

But there is another group out there. These people might watch College Gameday, but only with a passing interest; they know that their school won’t get mentioned (unless Herbstreit brings them up just to call them a fraud). Some fans can read countless interviews with their teams’ recruits that break down minutiae you’d never imagine to care about (BREAKING NEWS: Terrelle Pryor ranks his favorite desserts at the dining halls of schools he’s visited!). Other less-privileged fans have to scour the internet just to find a newspaper clipping that might have a sentence or two about a local high schooler who committed to play for their school. This congregation of college football faithful doesn’t worry about the top 25, because their schools are rarely included. News coverage for their schools is limited to papers in the immediate metro area of the campus– before the internet, these die-hards heard nothing if they lived too far away. They are the great unwashed, the low rung on the caste ladder of college football fandom. I’m talking, of course, about fans of the non-BCS conferences.

We are as hardcore about our college football as anyone– maybe more so, considering how hard we have to work to get our news– but sometimes it’s hard to convince other people of that. You know how it is. At work, everyone stands around the ol’ water cooler & talks about the weekend’s big games. One group is talking about the Illinois-Ohio State game, while another group is in the corner talking about Auburn & Georgia. A third group is talking about the latest BCS rankings and how they think the top 5 should shape up. You’ll walk up to one of those groups and listen, and when the conversation appears to be dying down a bit you’ll chime in by saying, “man, that Navy-North Texas game was a real scorcher, wasn’t it? 74 to 62!” At that point, everyone feels a bit awkward as they stare at you like you just chose that moment at the company water cooler to come out of the closet. After 5 seconds or so, they pretend they didn’t hear you and resume their previous conversations, while you slink away, dejected. If it’s outside of the BCS, people don’t want to talk about it.

There’s nothing wrong with that, necessarily; living in Jacksonville, I don’t expect people around here to care about Navy any more than I care about Florida. The problem is that my attitude isn’t reciprocated. Around here, if you don’t care all that much about the SEC, then you aren’t even a college football fan. No, tell someone that you root for Navy and you’re met with the most clever of responses, such as, “You mean they have a team?” followed by a hearty guffaw. With my pride crushed by such witty and stinging rebukes, I often escape to my elaborate fantasy land– otherwise known as NCAA 08 on Xbox– to alleviate my anger by building Navy into a national leviathan that tramples teams like Florida every week on the way to 9 straight national championships. Of course, even my fantasies have their limitations as I play my way to glory in some half-assed generic gong show of a stadium. It usually takes a year or two for EA to get around to including Navy-Marine Corps Menorial Stadium whenever the game moves onto next-generation consoles, while BCS conference stadiums are beautifully rendered down to the slightest detail from the beginning. But that’s life as a Navy fan.

So why do we do it? Why do we go through the trouble of unearthing scraps of information when we could have a bounty handed to us? Why put up with the indignities of national anonymity when we could instead revel with the fans around us? Wouldn’t it be easier to just put loyalty aside, find some typical bandwagon reason to like some other school (“my uncle went to Virginia Tech!”) and hop onboard the Mainstream Express? Yeah, it’d be easier. Easy, but empty. We don’t want to root for someone else. Nobody likes a bandwagon fan anyway. We are already as loyal and rabid about our team and the game as any other fan. We just happen to be loyal to schools that aren’t as celebrated. Our boosters might not maintain a log on how hard our coach is working based on on how late the light stays on in his office each night, but that doesn’t make us lesser fans. It makes us well-adjusted.

But this isn’t a plea for pity. As trying as it can be sometimes, there are perks to being a fan of a lower-profile school. The ability to afford season tickets without selling your children into slavery is a plus. And you’d be mistaken if you assumed that the on-field product was inferior. The BCS schools have the advantage in money, facilities, and for the most part, talent. But there’s more to college football than that. College football is more than the lowest-common-denominator world of ESPN, sports talk radio, and other hype outlets. Lost in the glamour of polls, highlights, and televised commitment announcements is the game itself.

We all love football, but we love it for different reasons. “College football” consists of so many different elements. We love the traditions, the rivalries, and the amazing athletes. Yet while each of these items are undeniably critical to the college football experience, they are only supplemental to the game. You know– the game. The coach at the chalkboard, Xs & Os kind of stuff. This is the cerebral component of college football, with coaches matching wits against each other in preparation for and during each game. It’s this clash of ideas that brings about the evolution of the sport, and it’s here that we find the true strength of non-BCS football. For those who enjoy creativity in strategy and scheme, this is the best show in town.

There’s a saying in football that gets tossed around a lot, almost to the point of cliché: “It ain’t about the Xs & Os, it’s about the Jimmies & Joes.” The expression makes the point that it’s talent rather than strategy that ultimately makes for a good football team. There’s truth in that. But for the coach outside of a BCS conference, it’s a truth he must disregard. In most cases, the talent won’t be going to his school. The talent is going to schools with glamour, big recruiting budgets, and posh facilities. But non-BCS coaches are under all the same pressure to win as their BCS counterparts. A lack of talent can’t be used as an excuse for losing. So what does the coach do? He hits the drawing board, and in doing so he begins the next cycle of football evolution.

The cycle goes something like this: faced with the pressure to win against more talented competition, a coach will devise a scheme that accentuates his team’s strengths while masking their weaknesses. Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention. At first, this new scheme is dismissed as a “gimmick” by media outlets and fans. But the more that team is winning, the more credible that scheme is in the eyes of the mainstream. Eventually, someone at a BCS school gets the idea that if a scheme works that well with lesser talent, it will be unstoppable with BCS talent. So the innovative coach is hired at a BCS school, where he installs his scheme and keeps on winning. Success breeds imitation, and other coaches start to incorporate bits of that scheme into their own systems. Eventually, what was once labeled a gimmick becomes part of the mainstream, and soon the non-BCS coaches are devising something else to overcome this new standard. The non-BCS coach subscribes to a slightly different bit of football wisdom: “Good football teams either do something different or they do it better.” Doing it better isn’t really possible without the best talent. That leaves doing things differently.

And when it comes to doing things differently, no place is better than the non-BCS conferences. This is the proving ground of football ideas. This is where Urban Meyer unleashed his offense before taking it to the SEC. This is where Paul Johnson did the impossible at Navy before taking his spread option to Georgia Tech. This is where Jim Grobe devised the schemes that would take Wake Forest to places it could never have imagined. This is where a school might be willing to take a chance on a high school legend like Art Briles at Houston or Todd Dodge at North Texas. This is the realm of Chris Ault’s pistol and Todd Graham’s Tulsa offense that leaves defenses cross-eyed. This is the last bastion of innovations past, with June Jones running the run & shoot to perfection and Ken Hatfield having clinged to the wishbone at Rice years after both were abandoned by everyone else. Innovation isn’t limited to the offensive side of the ball either, with coaches like Rocky Long perfecting his 3-3-5 scheme at New Mexico. The variety of schemes and ideas are what make the game of football interesting, and the laboratories for these ideas are the non-BCS conferences.

So why don’t more BCS schools innovate? Why don’t they take more chances? Sometimes they do, especially at schools that have traditionally struggled (Kentucky and Hal Mumme’s Air Raid, Duke with Spurrier’s fun & gun). But for the most part, BCS schools don’t want to innovate. It’s too risky. With the money at stake from boosters, TV, and ticket sales, there is tremendous pressure to win right away. That means hiring proven winners, not visionaries. Faith is something that doesn’t have a place in the BCS hiring process; they don’t want to believe that a coach can win games; they want to know that this coach will win games. And they usually have the money to hire someone who fits the bill.

That leaves the non-BCS schools to carry the flag of ingenuity. And that makes non-BCS football the thinking man’s game. Sure, nobody at the water cooler will care, but they aren’t football fans as much as they are fans of everything that surrounds it. Maybe you don’t have anyone to talk to, but hey– that’s life on the cutting edge. When we watch our games on Saturday, we’re watching the future of the sport.

Lax Opens Tomorrow

Lacrosse is a spring sport. Whoever makes the schedule didn’t get the memo, though, as Navy opens their 2008 campaign tomorrow at home against VMI. (Note to Navy– if you’re going to play this early, do it in Florida!) The Keydets, who were 2-12 last year, will be led by preseason all-MAAC attackman Kevin Hill, a 6-foot, 170-pound senior that has paced the team in scoring for the last two years (including a 50-point season in 2007). The game starts at noon (with pregame at 11:45) and will be carried by WNAV, with Pete Medhurst on the call.

Christian Swezey wrote a great Navy preview for Inside Lacrosse that you don’t want to miss. Also be sure to read this Baltimore Sun piece on the area’s new goalies, including Navy’s Matt Coughlin. Go Navy.

Loose Change 2/8/08

As it would be expected the week of signing day, this is going to be a recruit-heavy list of links. There are more stories on Navy recruits out there, too, which I might not get around to posting. Seriously, there are a lot of ’em. Those of you who pitched in with links, thanks! In case you didn’t know where the name of this blog came from, scouting for Navy recruits is what “Birddogs” are all about. Anyway, on to the news:

Wagner’s Recruiting Report

Bill Wagner’s signing day article is up at the Capital:

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2008/02_07-01/NAS

Along with some details on a few of the players, his list has a name two names we didn’t have:

Ryan Ackerman, LS, 5-11, 180, Clearwater Central Catholic, Oldsmar, Fla.
Austin Hill, LS, 6-0, 195, Mahopac, NY

If a player isn’t on Wags’ list, he’s probably going to NAPS. I’m going to leave the recruit page up until I-Day, when the official list is published.

Signing Day

It’s signing day, the first day that high school football players across the country can sign binding National Letters of Intent and officially commit to their colleges of choice. The service academies don’t participate in the NLOI program, but they still provide their recruits with certificates to sign at their high school’s ceremony so they can participate with their teammates. The Birddog Big Board at the top of the page is up to 38 players this morning, and I will be updating it throughout the day whenever the paying job gives me a chance. If you come across a name we don’t have up there, feel free to drop a name/link in the comments of this thread (you can leave all the fields blank if you want to remain anonymous). And of course we’ll all be waiting for Bill Wagner’s annual recruiting article in the Capital.

UPDATE: Up to 39 40 42 44 45 46 48 50 54 now.

UPDATE: According to this article we’ll have recruits visiting for at least one more weekend. It isn’t over yet! If our normal class is around 60, it looks like that’s about what we’ll hit again.

No Ring For Kyle

I wrote a few months ago after having given up on the Norv Turner-led Chargers that the only wish I had for this NFL season was for Kyle Eckel to get a Super Bowl ring. I certainly felt like an idiot after the Chargers advanced to the AFC Championship Game to face Kyle’s Patriots (I’m sorry, Norv!). While I was disappointed in the outcome of that game, I still felt good knowing that Kyle would get to go to the big one. Can you imagine? Kyle went from an 0-10 Navy team his plebe year to an 18-0 Super Bowl-bound juggernaut now. Talk about two different ends of the spectrum. And #38 was all over TV last night too, taking the field on special teams. It was great to see. Unfortunately, not only did Rodney Harrison not separate Eli Manning’s head from his neck, but the Patriots lost. Kyle didn’t get his ring. Fortunately, after his recent contract extension, we know he’ll get another shot next year.

On a tangential subject, watching the Giants win the Super Bowl made me glad that we don’t have a playoff for I-A football. How pointless is the regular season when a 10-6 division runner-up is crowned your champion? Not to take anything away from the Giants– they did what the NFL says they had to do. I’m just glad that college football is more do-or-die each week. There’s nothing like it.

Seeing Stars

Emmitt Smith isn’t big or fast and he can’t get around the corner. I know all the folks in Pensacola will be screaming and all the Florida fans will be writing me nasty letters, but Emmitt Smith is not a franchise player. He’s a lugger, not a runner. The sportswriters blew him out of proportion. When he falls flat on his face at Florida, remember where you heard it first. 

The above words of wisdom were brought to you by long-time recruiting analyst Max Emfinger back in 1987. I bring them up because it’s that time of year again. Signing day is fast approaching, and more and more college football fans are wired to their favorite recruiting service, obsessing over the ratings that “experts” like Emfinger give their school’s recruits and each team’s recruiting class. It’s modern-day alchemy; a pseudo-science that has turned into a thriving, multi-million dollar industry. With that kind of money changing hands, you’d think that people would dig a little deeper into how these recruit ratings are developed. But nobody seems to care, or at least care enough to raise their voice over the hype, anyway. But in my isolated internet kingdom/suicide hotline, I’ll try to convince you not to jump off of that bridge after some Scout 4-star linebacker commits to another school.

A lot of people put a lot of stock into recruiting rankings. Recruiting aficionados believe that recruiting rankings matter because, for the most part, the teams at the top of them are winning games. But does correllation imply causation? The San Diego Union-Tribune put together an analysis last year of teams and their recruiting rankings, and put their results into a lovely PDF for us all to admire: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070205/images/bluechip.pdf

Of the top ten recruiting classes in the years leading up to 2006, 6 finished outside of the top 10 in the AP poll. Two teams, Miami and Florida State, missed the top 25 altogether. You can read the paper’s conclusions here.

Even if you disagree with the U-T’s conclusions, think about what you’re really saying here. The recruiting rankings correctly predicted that USC, Michigan, Florida, LSU, etc. would be talented.

Wow. Stop the presses. Is it really much of an accomplishment on Rivals’ part to correctly predict that USC, Michigan, Florida, and LSU would be good? Who couldn’t predict that, even without these rankings? These teams are traditional powerhouses. It’s an anomaly when they aren’t the dominant powers in college football. So we’re left with a chicken & egg situation. Are teams good because their recruiting rankings are high, or are their recruiting rankings high because they are traditionally good teams? To answer that, one must look at how each individual player is rated.

The assumption amongst recruiting junkies is that each recruiting service’s team of about 20 experts analyzes each player’s ability and rates them accordingly. That’s pretty hard to believe. Most coaching staffs have a hard enough time evaluating the talent they’re targeting just for their school. The idea that this small team of “experts” can break down the relative ability of the thousands of recruits listed in their database, then rank them accordingly, is just slightly ridiculous. They obviously haven’t seen all of these players in person, and several of these players don’t have any video in their profiles. So how on earth can all these recruits be ranked according to ability? The answer is that they aren’t. Oh, they’re ranked, obviously… but it isn’t according to ability. It’s according to popularity.

It’s a subtle but important distinction. Ratings are not assigned by talent. Ratings are assigned based on which schools are recruiting a particular player. For example, a player with offers from USC, Notre Dame, and Ohio State will be rated higher than players with offers from Akron, North Texas, and Ball State. The clearest proof of this is that it’s fairly common to see a player’s rating change. For Navy fans who follow the recruiting scene, it’s almost an annual joke to see the way a player’s rating changes when he commits to the Naval Academy. A lot of the one-star players magically become two-star, and sometimes three-stars become two-stars, too. The best example of the latter is Bayard Roberts, the 3-star New Mexico LB/DE who became a 2-star after he committed to Navy instead of UTEP. Of course, most recruitniks scoff at Navy football as some insignificant outpost on the I-A recruiting scene. Fortunately, Lisa Horne provided us with a more high-profile example here. But if you follow recruiting, you don’t really need examples. You see ratings change all the time.

Great, but so what? Football coaches are the real experts, right? And if all these guys are recruiting a kid, then shouldn’t that be a good indication of how talented he is? Well, there are a few problems with that assumption.

First, it assumes that the recruiting analysts are actually getting their information from college coaches. But they can’t; NCAA rules prohibit coaches from talking about a recruit until he has either enrolled or signed a Letter of Intent. So where does the information come from? In a lot of cases, it comes from the player himself. Take the (in)famous example of Travis Tolbert. A little bit of self-promotion on a few internet sites, and things start to snowball. Eventually, other sites won’t want to miss the boat, and they’ll start hyping him too. Next thing you know, he’s making Top 100 lists. It all came crashing down once people actually bothered to talk to Tolbert’s coach. But there’s another problem; some coaches will be frank about their players’ ability. Others really want to see their kids get scholarships and will actively promote them. It’s no guarantee that you’ll get a straight answer from coaches, either. Of course, Tolbert’s example is clearly an extreme case. But you don’t have to take things all the way to the extreme to work the system.

Another fundamental flaw in recruit ratings is that they don’t take into account the wide variety in scheme that you find in college football. Let’s look at Sean Renfree. Renfree, listed as a 4-star quarterback by Scout.com, had committed to Georgia Tech before Chan Gailey was fired. Once Paul Johnson was hired, it was obvious to Renfree that he’d be a fish out of water in the spread option, so he de-committed. PJ then went out and got a commitment from a 3-star quarterback named Jaybo Shaw, whom he had recruited while still at Navy. According to Scout’s rating system, that’s a downgrade. But Shaw was a 1,000-yard rusher in high school. Georgia Tech will clearly be better served with him under center in their new offense. Renfree might be all-world to Scout, but to Paul Johnson he’s useless. It isn’t just quarterbacks, either. Different offensive systems place different priorities on certain skill sets, as do defenses– there is a difference between the ideal 3-4 and 4-3 player. But to recruiting services, one size fits all.

A recent column by Tim Stevens in the Raleigh News & Observer found that the average Scout.com rating of the All-ACC first-team was 2.77 stars. Along those lines, Andrew Carter of the Orlando Sentinel asks how on earth some of Florida State’s players could have been so overrated relative to other players within the ACC. After reading these, I decided to take a look at this year’s AP All-America team and the Rivals ratings of those players. Four first-team All-Americans were rated as 5-stars: Tim Tebow, Darren McFadden, Illinois guard Martin O’Donnell, and Penn State linebacker Dan Connor. There were seven who had a 2-star rating. Seven! It’s one thing to say that some fluctuation is inevitable and that maybe a 2-star guy should have been a 3-star. But to whiff on that many future first-team All-Americans? Come on. And I’m sure that the recruiting rankings of the teams that brought these players in would have received a boost if Rivals knew that the group included All-American-caliber talent.

Here’s another thought: if recruiting rankings were all that some people claimed they were, then there shouldn’t be any surprises in college football. Where was Miami’s slide in the recruiting rankings prior to this season? How about Florida State? Why did Nebraska actually regress under Bill Callahan despite the almost universal applause for his improved recruiting by Nebraska fans? Where were the steady recruiting ranking increases of Missouri and Kansas leading up to this season? Or Boston College and Wake Forest? Or Kentucky? Why haven’t North Carolina and Mississippi State ever lived up to the lofty rankings they’ve received over the years? The reason is that recruiting rankings are reactionary. If we follow the recruiting rankings, we should see things coming. Maybe not everything… But it’s disingenuous to ignore all this while hailing recruiting rankings for predicting which teams were going to be good. Every single person reading this blog could probably make correct predictions at the same rate as Rivals and Scout without having any idea of what players each team has recruited.

I’m not saying that all 5-star players are overrated and all 2-star players are underrated. I’m just saying that you need to understand what’s really being evaluated with these star ratings– it isn’t talent. But don’t take my word for it. Jamie Newberg, one of Scout’s top recruiting analysts, said this about last year’s Georgia recruiting class:

“From a rankings perspective, maybe it’s a little below the bar Mark Richt has set. But recruiting rankings don’t mean crap.”

Couldn’t have set it better myself.

Recruiting sites serve a purpose. Hell, I read them. It’s fun to get a look at the Mids of the future. These sites are a great source of information. Evaluation? Not so much.

Loose Change 2/1/08

Odds & ends you may have missed over the past week: