The State of Service Academy Football: Army

On By MikeIn army, football14 Comments

Well, we’ve reached the end of another college football season, my first as a blogger. And what a season to start blogging about Navy football. We had a new supe, some crazy games, wins over Pitt and Notre Dame, the departure of Paul Johnson, the promotion of Ken Niumatalolo, another CIC Trophy, and a trip to San Diego. Lucky me, I guess; there was never a shortage of stuff to write about. It’s probably going to be a challenge to find the same kind of interesting topics for a while, not that anyone’s confusing this blog with Pulitzer material to begin with. But it has been fun so far. Thanks to those of you who have found it worth reading. There will still be plenty of football items to write about for the next few months, with new coaches joining the staff, recruiting, and spring practice on the way. But before all of that, I thought I’d wrap up the 2007 season with a sort of “state of the union” series. Navy isn’t in a conference, obviously, but their relationship with the other service academies comes pretty close to those of conference members. Because of that, I thought it would be good to look back on each team’s season, take an early glance at next year, and evaluate how well Navy will stack up with the two teams they measure themselves against the most. We’ll start with Army.

I think there’s a point in time when you feel like it’s your time to retire, and I think I’ve reached that time. I think there is an issue of having a certain degree of energy, which I feel is important for anyone leading a college football program. I feel that I was lacking in that area as well. I don’t feel that it would be fair to our administration, our staff or our players, to give less than the full capacity the job requires.

Those were Bobby Ross’ words nearly a year ago as he stepped down as Army’s head football coach. There had been rumors throughout the 2006 season that Ross would retire. As the weeks following the season finale against Navy rolled by without an announcement, though, it appeared likely that the veteran coach would return for a fourth season at the helm of the Black Knights. Speculation ended when Ross retired suddenly on January 29.

The timing of Ross’ decision put Army AD Kevin Anderson in a bind. By that time, most of the hiring and firing in the annual coaching carousel had already taken place. Coaches weren’t looking to move into new jobs; they were looking to settle into the jobs they were just hired for and begin preparations for the next season. Not only that, but it was the home stretch of recruiting season with coaches making their final pitches before signing day. Had Ross made his decision sooner, perhaps Anderson would have looked elsewhere to find his new head coach. But given the circumstances, it wasn’t surprising that he would turn to a coach within the program. Anderson tapped offensive line coach Stan Brock to fill Bobby Ross’ shoes.

Brock’s first act as head coach was to fire offensive coordinator Kevin Ross and hire his own man, Tim Walsh. Walsh was the head coach at Portland State and led the Vikings to a 90-68 record over 14 seasons. Brock said of Walsh at the time,

Tim has the ability and the knowledge to spread things out and open it up a bit on offense. Our offense will still basically be a pro-set, and it will be a 50-50 run-to-pass ratio. But we will also have the ability to see different things from different angles. There will be some new elements, and we’ll also polish some of the things that we’ve worked on here in the past.

Despite the talk of new elements and “different angles,” Army’s offense didn’t look very different from what we saw out of the Black Knights last year. Maybe it was too hard to install a new offense when Walsh was hired so close to the beginning of spring practice. That’s what Anderson told GoMids.com’s David Ausiello in November:

We had thirty days, putting together a coaching staff, going into spring ball.  Instead of having everybody – all the coaches and all the players learn a new system we decided to have Coach Walsh run the system that was already in place.

Whatever the reason was for not changing, Army suffered for it. For the second straight year, Army started the season 3-3 on the shoulders of a very good service academy defense. And for the second straight year again, Army went 0-6 over the second half of their season to finish at 3-9. The defense couldn’t maintain their first-half performance after spending so much time on the field, thanks to an offense that ranked 116th in total offense, 115th in scoring offense, 105th in turnovers lost, and 118th in 3rd down conversion percentage.

It should be no surprise, then, that the focus of Army’s offseason has been change on offense. Anderson told Ausiello in that same interview about the nature of the much-publicized “retreat” that Army’s coaches would be taking after the season:

I can tell you that at the end of the year, the Superintendent, the head football coach and myself will sit down and we’re gonna talk and scrutinize this past season and then the staff is gonna go off and we’re going to devise – offensively and defensively – schemes that will best suit our talent level and put us in the best position to win.

Apparently, the rumor that this meeting has already taken place is untrue. It had been reported on the Army Rivals.com site that a decision had been made to transition to a spread option offense, but according to Stan Brock no decision will be made until after the recruiting season. That’s a rather curious announcement on Brock’s part considering the reason that Anderson gave for not moving to a new offense last year. Army won’t have any more time before spring practice to install a new offense now than they did back then, with recruiting lasting into February. This is either bad news for Army fans or evidence that their coach and AD were blowing smoke when they talked about how much time they needed.

In the end, does it matter what the result of this meeting will be? There seems to be a belief at West Point that the only differences between their football program and Navy’s are scheduling and the right offensive scheme; the talent, in their estimation, is about the same. Paul Johnson made a point about the schedules. And as far as talent goes, I don’t think it’s as close some believe. When Coach Johnson would give his updates to the Foundation, he’d talk a lot about going head-to-head recruiting against Air Force. But when someone would ask him about recruiting against Army, he said that he didn’t really see much of Army out on the recruiting trail. Not that Army wasn’t recruiting, just that they were going after different kids. Bobby Ross went about recruiting in much the same way that Charlie Weatherbie did; he assumed that he wasn’t going to win too many recruiting battles, so he didn’t really try. Instead, he cast a wide net and brought in as many lesser-recruited kids as he could, hoping to develop some diamonds in the rough while making the JV roster bigger. You can see the results on the field; Navy is much, much faster than Army. When one team’s fullbacks can pull away from another team’s defensive backs, you know that there is a big speed difference. This will be Stan Brock’s first real recruiting class, and it will be interesting to see if he changes the recruiting philosophy. Until Army beats Air Force and Navy for the same players, they aren’t going to compete on the same level.

Something else to consider about this “retreat” is whether Tim Walsh will be able to run whatever offense Stan Brock chooses. Walsh had a reputation as an offensive innovator at Portland State, but does that mean he can run any offense? Will he be able to learn the ins & outs of an offense that isn’t his own? How quickly can he learn the finer points of how to adjust to defenses within this new scheme? This isn’t an indictment of Walsh as a coach as much as it is respect for how difficult coaching is. It’s one thing for a coach to tweak his system and watch it evolve over time. It’s something else to dictate to him what offense he must run. I’m sure Coach Walsh will have input, so maybe “dictate” is the wrong word. But if some kind of option is indeed what Army wants to run, one wonders how much option is in Walsh’s arsenal.

Defensively, Army returns a few good players, particularly in the front seven with guys like Ted Bentler, Victor Ugenyi, John Plumstead, and Frank Scappaticci. Scappaticci was the team’s third-leading tackler in 2007, Bentler and Plumstead were 1-2 on the team in sacks, and Ugenyi led the team in tackles for loss. That group should be the foundation for another good service academy defense.

Many Army faithful look at the option as a panacea. I fear the meltdown if that magic elixir fails.

Bucknell Postgame

On By MikeIn navy basketballLeave a comment
Bucknell 85, Navy 77    (Team Stats)
Team
FG
FG%
3FG
3FG%
FT
FT%
REB
DR
OR
AS
TO
BK
ST
PF
BUCK 28-55 50.9 11-24 45.8 18-30 60 41 31 10 19 17 4 4 23
NAVY 25-65 38.5 12-34 35.3 15-22 68.2 35 22 13 12 13 1 9 26

The first half was a thing of beauty. The second half was the stuff of nightmares. That’s how it went for Navy in their Patriot League opener as the Mids fell to Bucknell, 85-77.

This game was an excellent demonstration of everything you need to know about Navy basketball. Navy’s offense consists mostly of setting picks around the perimeter, trying to create an open 3-point attempt; more than half of Navy’s 65 field goal attempts were from beyond the arc. When that doesn’t work, the Mids create their own “open” look by simply shooting from so far away that the defense doesn’t bother guarding them. When the 3-balls fall, Navy can hang with anyone. When they don’t, it gets really ugly, really quickly. Navy went into halftime with a 46-39 lead after shooting almost 44% from 3-point range in the first half. In the second half, Navy shot 28% from 3-point range and was outscored 46-31. I actually cringe when we make those long 3-point attempts because all it does is encourage the Mids to shoot more of them. It’s just unrealistic to expect the team to make those kinds of shots consistently, and when they don’t, they have nothing to fall back on. To compund the problem, how often does a missed 3-pointer turn into a long rebound and transition bucket going the other way? We see it in every game.

Navy played aggressive man-to-man defense for much of the game, and at times it was very effective, generating 9 steals and transition baskets of their own. But aggressive defense doesn’t have to mean reckless defense, and failing to recognize that distinction is what ultimately cost the Mids the game. While the defense did generate steals and turnovers, it also left Bucknell with some wide-open looks, allowing them to shoot 51% from the floor. It also led to some stupid, stupid fouls committed 20+ feet from the basket. Those fouls led to a critical 4-point play in the second half as well as two of Navy’s best shooters, Chris Harris and Greg Sprink, getting into foul trouble. Sprink committed his 4th foul only 3 minutes into the second half, and that was the turning point in the game. With Sprink forced to sit on the bench, Navy scored only two field goals over the next 11 minutes before Greg returned and hit a layup with 6:54 remaining. By then it was too late, as Bucknell had a 10-point lead that the Mids just couldn’t overcome.

As usual, Navy was outrebounded. As usual, Navy’s fortunes turned when the 3-point shooting dried up. But Navy still could have won this game if it played smarter defense. Unfortunately, the Mids made the same mistakes that we’ve seen for all too long, and an opportunity was missed. This year’s Patriot League season has started the way last year’s ended– with a loss in Sojka Pavilion.

Bucknell 85, Navy 77   (Navy Player Stats)
Team
MIN
PTS
FG
FG%
3FG
3%
FT
FT%
R
DR
OR
AS
TO
B
S
PF
K. Kina (G) 40 24 9-22 40.9 4-13 30.8 2-2 100 6 5 1 2 3 0 2 1
G. Sprink (G) 29 26 9-23 39.1 4-10 40 4-6 66.7 7 4 3 3 5 0 1 4
A. Teague 26 6 2-7 28.6 2-6 33.3 0-0 0 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 1
B. Richards 24 4 1-1 100 0-0 0 2-4 50 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4
C. Harris (G) 23 11 2-7 28.6 2-5 40 5-7 71.4 1 1 0 4 5 0 1 5
R. Garcia (G) 22 0 0-0 0 0-0 0 0-0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 3 4
C. Colbert 13 2 1-2 50 0-0 0 0-0 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 3
M. Veazey (C) 10 0 0-0 0 0-0 0 0-0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2
G. Brown 7 4 1-3 33.3 0-0 0 2-3 66.7 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2
T. Topercer 6 0 0-0 0 0-0 0 0-0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
TEAM:   200 77 25-65 38.5 12-34 35.3 15-22 68.2 35 22 13 12 13 1 9 26

Our Loss

On By MikeIn Uncategorized3 Comments

Adam over at Pitch Right has announced that he’s hanging up his cleats keyboard and taking what we can only hope is an extended break rather than a permanent departure from the blogging world. Adam was very supportive of this site from the beginning, and many of you only found it thanks to a link on Pitch Right. It’s our loss. Make sure to stop over and thank him for his work. Hope you jump back into the game soon, Adam. Thanks for your support.

Crunch Time

On By MikeIn navy basketballLeave a comment

Navy basketball wrapped up the non-conference portion of their schedule on Saturday night, winning the second of two games with Longwood, 73-55. After a sloppy first half that ended in a 23-23 tie, the Mids charged ahead in the second half, scoring 50 points to put away the Lancers (4-14). The win moves Navy to 7-8 as they closed out the first half of the season. That might be the shakiest 7-8 record in history, too. The Mids won 4 in a row after a 3-8 start, and those 4 wins came against teams that have a combined 9-56 record so far this season. Yes, every win is a good win at Navy. But let’s be real here; who didn’t expect to win these last 4 games, even when we were 3-8? Even before the season started I said that the last 4 games of our non-conference slate were going to be a cakewalk. And for the most part, they were. Now the real test begins, as Navy heads to Bucknell on Friday to open the Patriot League season.

Bucknell is not the same team that they’ve been the last few years. Gone are notorious goat-killers Abe Badmus and Chris McNaughton, although they are still a talented group. Nevertheless, at 5-9 with a 2-3 record vs. RPI 200+, this should be a game in which, at least on paper, Navy should compete. But paper only tells us so much. Six of Navy’s 7 wins (and two of their losses) have been against teams with an RPI of 200+. Yeah, a win is a win, but some wins tell us more than others. And when it comes to Navy’s 4-game winning streak, I don’t think we learned much.

With both teams relying heavily on jump shots this year, the edge goes to the team that rebounds better. That’s bad news for the Mids. In theory, Navy should match up better physically than in recent games against the Bison. We’ll see.

The Case for Hawaii

On By MikeIn bowls, football, navy football12 Comments

It didn’t take long.

After Georgia did pretty much whatever it wanted in a 41-10 win over Hawaii on Tuesday night, you just knew that people were going to start saying that Hawaii didn’t deserve to be in a BCS game. I haven’t seen entire columns dedicated to the subject yet, although I’m sure they’re coming. But we’re already seeing little comments sprinkled in here & there, such as in this Boston Globe piece: 

After their win over Illinois, which like Hawaii was not worthy of a BCS bowl, the Trojans were feeling confident.

And of course there’s the usual sniper shots aimed at Hawaii coming from the blog & message board world. That’s no surprise. Unfortunately, those who share this sentiment have fallen victim to the greatest fallacy in college football: that “deserve” has anything to do with the BCS. The BCS isn’t about competition. It isn’t about matching up the best teams to produce the most entertaining games. It is about one thing and one thing only: money. No, this isn’t going to be one of those cynical, oh-noes-there’s-money-in-college-football sermons. We all know that college football is a business, and I don’t lament that. I’m just putting Hawaii’s Sugar Bowl bid in the right perspective.

The BCS is the result of an evolutionary process that began in 1990. Colorado and Georgia Tech shared the national championship that year, as the Buffaloes were #1 in the AP Poll while Tech sat atop the Coaches’ Poll. The situation repeated itself the following year, as Washington and Miami each went undefeated and claimed a #1 spot in one of the two major polls. With two consecutive years of a split national championship, there was significant demand among college football fans for a way to determine a “true” national champion and end the phenomenon of split titles. Where there’s demand, there’s a business opportunity. The ACC, Big East, SEC, SWC, and Big 8 conferences, along with Notre Dame and 6 bowl games, looked to capitalize on that opportunity by forming the Bowl Coalition. The basic premise of the Bowl Coalition was that creating a #1 vs. #2 matchup in the Cotton, Orange, Fiesta, or Sugar Bowls would be a cash bonanza, as demand for the game would drive television money through the roof. (The Rose Bowl, along with the Pac 10 and Big 10, chose not to be involved and instead elected to maintain their traditional affiliations). The way the Bowl Coalition worked was that three conferences– the SEC, SWC, and Big 8– would maintain their traditional bowl tie-ins, sending their respective champions to the Sugar, Cotton, and Orange Bowls. If the champion of one of those three conferences was ranked in #1 or #2, their affiliated bowl would host the championship game. If both #1 and #2 were out of the SEC, SWC, or Big 8, then the team ranked #1 would play in their conference’s affiliated bowl, and the #2 team would be released from their traditional game to play the #1 team. If neither #1 or #2 was from one of those three conferences, then the championship game would be played in the Fiesta Bowl. The remaining slots for Bowl Coalition games would be filled by the ACC champ, Big East Champ, runners-up from the five coalition conferences, and Notre Dame. The third-place team from the SEC would go to the Gator Bowl.

The Bowl Coalition lasted for 3 years, ending in 1994. In its place came the Bowl Alliance. The premise of the Bowl Alliance was the same, but the rules were adjusted from those of the Bowl Coalition. The major rules changes were that the traditional affiliations between conference champions and bowl games were dissolved, the Gator and John Hancock (Sun) Bowls were no longer affiliated (leaving only the Cotton, Orange, and Sugar Bowls), and two at-large bids were available to teams that met certain eligibility requirements. The at-large bids were possible because of the demise of the Southwest Conference, and because Notre Dame was no longer guaranteed a spot (thanks to a 6-4-1 season in 1994). The Rose Bowl, Big 10 and Pac 10 were still not involved. The Bowl Alliance could not produce a consensus national champion in 1997 thanks to Michigan’s undefeated season and subsequent Rose Bowl berth, which precluded a matchup with the country’s other undefeated team that year, Nebraska. Both teams won their bowl games and shared the national championship, with Michigan atop the AP Poll and Nebraska taking the Coaches’ Poll. It became obvious that without the inclusion of the Big 10 and Pac 10, the legitimacy of the Bowl Alliance “championship game,” and by extension its television value, was in doubt. A solution needed to be reached in order to maintain the game’s appeal. The members of the Bowl Alliance made concessions to the Rose Bowl, allowing it to keep its own television contract and maintain its Pac 10-Big 10 matchup in years that neither conference’s champion is ranked #1 or #2. With that, the Rose Bowl, Pac 10, and Big 10 entered the fold, and the Bowl Championship Series was born.

The BCS consolidated the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta Bowls into one television package. The BCS Championship Game was added to this package after that game’s creation. Combining these games meant that one television network would be able to control the broadcasting rights for all of the major bowl games– a very valuable proposition. The combined value of the BCS games was more than the sum of its parts, allowing these games to give payouts far greater than ever before. But the rules were such that even if there was a demand for a team outside of the BCS conferences, it was far more difficult for that team to qualify for a BCS game and get access to this money. Under the old rules, a non-BCS conference school had to finish in the top 6 of the BCS standings to get an automatic berth. That is a much higher ranking than several BCS conference champions have had. The revenue created by the BCS was distributed amongst conferences that make up roughly half of all Division I-A teams. That isn’t necessarily bad in itself; that’s just capitalism. But structuring the system to ensure that bowl money is consolidated among a privileged group regardless of their performance is unfair. The BCS was essentially a monopoly, tolerated under the guise that it was all for the sake of creating a national championship matchup.

One look at the BCS rules and it’s obvious that the system has little to do with finding a champion and everything to do with money. The rules only make sense if you understand that. If the BCS was just about finding a national champion, then there wouldn’t be a need for the standings to matter beyond the #1 and #2 teams. After the top two teams were selected for the championship game, the rest of the bowls would be able to pick whatever team they wanted regardless of BCS ranking. The BCS isn’t about setting up good games to watch, either; if that was the case, then you’d just take the top 10 in the BCS standings and have them play 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, 5 vs. 6, etc. And why do you think that no conference is allowed to put more than 2 teams into the BCS? It’s so money is distrubited more or less evenly between BCS conferences, with no one conference hogging it all. If good football was the BCS’s motivation, then it would be no problem to have, say, 3 Big 12 teams in BCS games if they were the best teams available. For that matter, if the goal is to create the best matchups, then why even have automatic bids? Was Pitt one of the best teams available in 2004? They played in the Fiesta Bowl as Big East champions, but Navy actually finished ahead of them in both polls. How about a 4-loss Florida State team going to the Sugar Bowl as ACC champions in 2002 while Texas (10-2), Kansas State (10-2), and Notre Dame (10-2) were left out of the BCS? Or 1998, where 8-3 Syracuse won the Big East and got an Orange Bowl bid ahead of higher-ranked Arizona (11-1), Tulane (11-0), Air Force (11-1), Kansas State (11-1), and Georgia Tech (9-2)? Did they earn these BCS berths by virtue of their conference championship? Maybe, but that doesn’t mean that an 8-3 or 9-4 conference champ makes for a better game than undefeated Tulane or 11-1 Arizona. Pitt, Florida State, and Syracuse got those spots because the Big East and the ACC expect to get their share of the pie.

It’s this monopoly that Tulane University president Scott Cowen sought to break when he organized non-BCS university presidents into the Presidential Coalition for Athletics Reform in 2003. Cowen’s organization focused on two main issues; the first being access to and distribution of BCS money, and the second being the impact of negative perception that comes with being branded as a “non-BCS” school. Cowen’s organization met with BCS conference officials in 2004, and the result was the BCS system that we have in place today; a fifth BCS game and more accessibility for conferences outside of the 6 automatic qualifiers. Which brings us back to Hawaii.

The overwhelming concern of non-BCS schools was that the domination of bowl money by BCS members would create a de facto subdivision within Division I-A. BCS schools were generating enormous amounts of money and investing it in themselves, starting a sort of arms race of facilities, recruiting budgets, and coaches’ salaries. It’s a race in which schools on the outside of the BCS cash stream cannot compete. There might not be two better schools to illustrate this divide than Hawaii and Georgia. Take a look at Georgia’s football locker room. Heck, forget football… Take a look at what Georgia has for women’s basketball. Now compare that to this article in the Honolulu Advertiser in which Colt Brennan makes a plea for soap– soap–for Hawaii’s football locker room. Or consider each school’s recruiting budget. At Georgia, it’s half a million dollars. At Hawaii, June Jones couldn’t even afford to take trips to the mainland with his $50,000 recruiting budget— one-tenth of Georgia’s. Of course, not every team outside of the BCS conferences is in the quite the same financial situation as Hawaii. But they really aren’t that far from it.

And that’s the point. People are going to say that Hawaii didn’t deserve to be in the Sugar Bowl because they weren’t nearly as good as Georgia. Of course they weren’t. They weren’t supposed to be. Non-BCS schools didn’t get increased access to BCS bowls because they are good. They got increased access to the BCS to help them get good. Or at least to help them buy some damn soap. Now that’s not to say that there aren’t any teams outside of the BCS good enough to match up with the Georgias of the world. Non-BCS schools have still won more BCS bowl games than the ACC has. But with the enormous gap in resources between the automatic qualifiers and the outsiders, that success rate won’t last forever. The BCS generates about $100 million annually which gets divided between all I-A institutions. In most years, the BCS conferences get $91 million of it. Controlling that much of the money pie each year by rule virtually ensures that the BCS conferences will remain on top forever. I know what you’re thinking; they would always be the top conferences anyway, right? Maybe, maybe not. What if the BCS system was implemented 30 years ago? The Big East and Big 12 wouldn’t exist, the Southwest Conference would still be a powerhouse, Miami and Virginia Tech would probably be in Conference USA, and the Fiesta Bowl would still be a glorified Arizona State home game. Change did happen when schools and conferences competed on equal footing, but with non-BCS conferences only getting 9% of the money to split between themselves, it’s hard to imagine anything other than the status quo. Under the new BCS contract, an additional 9% is given to the non-BCS conferences when one of their teams play in a BCS game. That won’t be enough to turn the WAC into the Pac 10, but with a little bit of innovation, some of those schools can stretch their dollars enough that they can at least find ways to compete with the big boys once in a while. Who knows? With the estimated $3.5-4 million that Hawaii is expected to receive from their Sugar Bowl appearance, maybe they could afford soap and shampoo. 

As a fan, I was thrilled to see Hawaii in a BCS game. I wanted to see how they stacked up. Sure, Georgia could have played some 2 or 3-loss BCS team and perhaps gotten a better game out of them. Big deal. We see games like that every single year. It would usually be a more evenly matched game, but it would rarely be a better story. I hate seeing the little guy putting together a dream season only to be left wondering “what if” at the end of the season. I guess people just don’t like rooting for the underdog anymore. Besides, going into this year there have been 10 BCS bowl games that resulted in blowouts of 20 points or more, including losses by teams like Oklahoma, Ohio State, Iowa, and Nebraska. Were those teams undeserving of a spot in the BCS? Good games are no guarantee when you put big names in a bowl game.

If you’re a Navy fan, you should root like hell for teams like Hawaii to get a BCS berth. If Navy ever does the impossible and gets to a BCS game of its own, the Mids’ schedule is probably going to look a lot like the Warriors’. People will be talking about about whether or not Navy deserves to be there, too. Pray that we one day get a chance to defend a Navy spot in the Orange Bowl.

The Birddog Postseason Football Awards

On By MikeIn navy football17 Comments

It’s time for the first annual Birddog Navy Football Awards. They won’t get you a sword or a watch at the football banquet, but they’re easily the most prestigious Navy football awards to come out of Jacksonville. The players got digital camcorders from the Meineke Car Care Bowl and PSPs from the Poinsettia Bowl, but from The Birddog they get praise from an internet fan. And we all know that’s what really matters. I don’t have a name for these awards yet like the “Birdies” or the “Doggies” because I figure that having a blog already makes me enough of a nerd. If you can come up with a name that doesn’t suck, please don’t hesitate to suggest it. I won’t hold my breath. Anyway, on with the superlatives.

Offensive Player of the Year

QB Kaipo-Noa Kaheaku-Enhada

This one is a no-brainer. When the offense has to be perfect in order for the team to have a chance to win, it puts tremendous pressure on the quarterback. Kaipo didn’t just get by in these conditions; he thrived. He had long touchdown runs against Temple, Ball State, and Air Force. He threw the ball all over the place against Duke. He was unflappable against Notre Dame. His game against Pittsburgh might have been the most complete performance by a Navy quarterback in a generation, with 122 yards and a touchdown rushing on top of 9-12 passing for 166 yards and two more touchdowns. For the season, Kaipo ran for 834 yards and 12 touchdowns while adding another 952 yards through the air and 8 touchdowns.

But it isn’t individual statistical dominance that sets Kaipo apart. What makes Kaipo special is his mastery of the finer points of Paul Johnson’s offense. Kaipo might be one of the most underappreciated players in Navy history. He does all the little things that you can’t really see. Things like reading the body positioning of the pitch key to tell if it would be better to fake the pitch than give it to the slotback. Things like understanding the big picture of the offense. Things like staying in Annapolis all summer to run pass skeleton drills, which led to a 154.46 pass efficiency rating. Under Kaipo’s direction, the Navy offense broke a 90-year old school record by scoring 497 points. Good thing too, because anything less would’ve resulted in a very different season for the Mids.

Kaipo is Navy’s best option quarterback since Chris McCoy. If the offensive line can pick up next year where they’ve left off, then one day we’ll be talking about someone being the best Navy quarterback since Kaipo.

Defensive Player of the Year

LB Irv Spencer 

Before the start of the 2003 season, Paul Johnson talked a little about his decision to switch to a 3-4 defense:

I think it fits our personnel better. I think the one thing about recruiting here, we seem to be able to find a lot of guys that are 210-235 that are better athletes. It’s hard for us to find guys that weigh 275 and above that are good athletes here. It’s just not conducive to big guys. If you have three down linemen and four linebackers, it gives you more of a chance to put some of our better athletes on the field. It will give us more team speed. I think it just fits what we have personnel wise better.

Athletic defensive linemen are tough to find at any school, never mind at a service academy. It made sense to switch to a defensive alignment that emphasized linebacker play more than that of the defensive line. The result has been a long line of excellent linebackers in Annapolis; players like David Mahoney, Eddie Carthan, Lane Jackson, Rob Caldwell, Tyler Tidwell, and Bobby McClarin. It isn’t surprising, then, that the top defensive player in 2007 is one more link in the linebacker chain.

Irv Spencer was the lone bright spot of consistency on the Mids’ defensive unit in a season where consistency, to put it mildly, was hard to come by. Irv led the team with 95 tackles, including 4 games with 10 or more. No trait is more desirable in a defender than running to the ball, and Irv did it better than anyone; he showed tremendous ability in both attacking the line of scrimmage and dropping into pass coverage. Not only was he second on the team in tackles for loss (8.5), but he had more than twice as many pass breakups as anyone else on the team (7). Irv hit like a ton of bricks and stepped into a leadership position when team captain Jeff Deliz was lost for the season.

With the substandard performance of the defense as a whole, Irv might not get the credit that he deserves for the way he played this year. That would be a shame. When Navy fans talk about Buddy Green’s best linebackers, Irv Spencer’s name should be on everyone’s list.

Special Teams Player of the Year

PR/KR Reggie Campbell

For three years, Reggie Campbell has been Navy’s big-play man. Whether it was scoring 5 touchdowns in the 2005 Poinsettia Bowl, ripping off long runs against Army or Air Force, or streaking past the UConn secondary on a long TD catch, Reggie Campbell was a one-man momentum changer for the Mids. It wasn’t just the big plays that made Reggie special, either. Walk past football practice on any given afternoon and you’d probably hear coaches saying, “Slots, watch how Reggie does this.” Reggie got playing time for four years not just because of what he did with the ball, but also for what he did without it. Reggie was an excellent blocker, and never gave up on a play. How often did we see someone else break off a long run with a Reggie Campbell escort down the field? Number 7 did everything on offense.

Things were a little different this year, though. Reggie led the team in receptions and still ran for 522 yards and 5 TDs, but he didn’t seem to have the same kind of offensive impact that he did in ’05 and ’06. That’s kind of the way things go in this offense; when people key in on one guy, it opens up the door for everyone else. Even though the ball didn’t find its way to Reggie as often on offense this year, he still had a huge impact on the team. With the offense needing to score points in bunches, field position was crucial. That’s where Reggie made his greatest contribution this season. He averaged 27.45 yards per kickoff return, good enough to rank in the top 20 nationally. Before this season, Navy hadn’t returned a kickoff for a touchdown since 1996; in 2007, Reggie had two. And they came at very opportune moments. His first TD return sealed the victory against North Texas. His second crushed Army’s momentum after their only scoring drive of the game. That wasn’t Reggie’s only impressive return against Army; his sideline balancing act on a punt return at the end of the first half set up a Joey Bullen field goal that might have been the knockout punch in the game. Reggie was so effective that he gave Navy good field position even when he didn’t return the ball. Attempts to kick away from Reggie led to several kickoffs going out of bounds. For the first time in years, Navy had a return man that opposing coaches feared.

Reggie Campbell leaves Navy second on the school’s career all-purpose yardage list, behind only Napoleon McCallum. Considering that McCallum was the NCAA leader in career all-purpose yards by the time he graduated, that’s a pretty incredible accomplishment.

Most Improved Player

DE Michael Walsh

The ideal 3-4 defensive lineman is big. Really big. The main idea behind a 3-4 defense is for your linemen to absorb blocks so that linebackers are free to make plays. Bigger players tend to be better block sponges. In fact, many NFL 3-4 defensive ends, such as the Chargers’ Luis Castillo, played defensive tackle in a 4-3 alignment in college. So when Michael Walsh tips the scales at 6-2, 239, it’s safe to say that he isn’t exactly the prototypical 3-4 defensive end.

Even though he’s the size of the average I-A linebacker, Michael Walsh has become Navy’s best defensive lineman. He got better as the season progressed, and played his best in Navy’s biggest games. It started with a 10-tackle performance against Air Force, including three for a loss. He had a tackle for a loss against Pitt. He had two sacks against Notre Dame, including a forced fumble that was returned for a touchdown by Chris Kuhar-Pitters. He had 9 tackles and a sack against Northern Illinois, and 8 tackles against Army. In the end, Michael led Navy’s defensive line with 57 tackles and led the team in tackles for loss (10.5) and sacks (tied Matt Wimsatt with 3). Walsh’s performance was reminiscent of another undersized lineman at Navy, Jeff Vanak. Walsh is only a junior, so the improvement he showed over the course of this season is very encouraging for 2008.

Rookie of the Year

DB Wyatt Middleton

Wyatt sort of wins this award by default. Honestly, he had as many bad games as good games. But in a year where the defensive lineup was different every week, Wyatt Middleton was a constant. He registered 88 tackles, good for 2nd on the team. No freshman contributed as much as Wyatt this year.

The Jason Van Matre Award 

QB Troy Goss

Troy Goss was a star quarterback in high school. As a junior, he threw for 2,405 yards and 27 touchdowns. In his senior year, he exploded. Troy led Burns High school to a 12-2 record with 2,326 yards passing and 28 TDs while throwing only four interceptions. On the ground, he averaged more than 9 yards per carry, running for 1,668 yards and 25 more touchdowns. He was unstoppable, or as one writer put it, “the best quarterback in North Carolina not named Chris Leak.” The North Carolina High School Athletic Association agreed, naming Troy their 3-A Mr. Football award winner (Leak won 4-A that year). So it was with high hopes that he came to the Naval Academy.

Things didn’t really work out as planned, though. Following Troy through Gate 1 was another Mr. Football, Jarod Bryant, and Kaipo, whose ascension to the starting quarterback role almost seemed to be the product of destiny. With those two ahead of him, Troy remained buried on the depth chart.

Every once in a while, you’ll find a player that is determined to contribute. A guy who doesn’t care what he does as long as it helps the team. Troy became that guy. Last year, when it became apparent that he wasn’t going to factor into the quarterback depth chart, Troy switched to wide receiver. After Brian Hampton was lost for the season, he switched back to quarterback to be #3 behind Kaipo and Jarod. He did so well that when 2007 came around, Coach Johnson decided to keep him at QB rather than switch him back to receiver. But Troy was still intent on finding a way to get on the field. He found his niche on special teams. Troy was on the punt team, recorded a tackle, and even ran a fake. He was also Joey Bullen’s holder on extra points & field goals– and with the skin-of-our-teeth kind of games that Navy was involved in this year, that was a very important job. The icing on the cake was the final posession of the Army game, when Troy led the offense on a nice drive that ran out the clock.

It was a fitting way for a player like Troy Goss to go out. Troy Goss is the personification of turning lemons into lemonade. His devotion to the team is exactly what the Navy football brotherhood is all about.

(Jason Van Matre, for those who might be new to Navy football, was one of the players I grew up idolizing. An option quarterback under recruited by Elliot Uzelac, he didn’t really fit in George Chaump’s pass-oriented offense. He changed positions and became a pretty good tailback. This award is about swallowing your pride and putting the team first.)

Play of the Year

Like there’s any doubt:

There were actually a lot of huge plays this year if you think about it. Hell, there were a lot of huge plays in the Notre Dame game alone. But there’s one play that Navy fans will still be talking about 30 years from now. I suppose an argument could be made for the 2-point conversion stop, but the sheer badassness of Ram’s leap wins out. Here’s what I said about it at the time:

The way the Naval Academy motivates you to train is through fear. That sounds bad, but it isn’t. The very first thing that you’re taught as you walk through the gates on I-Day is that you, as an individual, no longer matter. You are simply a part of a team, and your own successes and failures are irrelevant next to those of the team. Ship, shipmate, self, as the saying goes. You train not to better yourself, but to better the team. And that’s where the fear comes in; you train because you are scared to death of letting down your teammates.

Enter Ram Vela. The Navy defense, leading Notre Dame 28-21 late in the 4th quarter, had forced the Irish to a 4th & 14 on their own 32 yard line. Ram came in untouched on a blitz. Just when it looked like he was going to get a sack that would have probably sealed a Navy victory, quarterback Evan Sharpley sidestepped the rush and delivered the ball to tight end John Carlson for a 1st down. Ram missed the tackle, and it gave Notre Dame new life. It could have been a catastrophic mistake. But on yet another 4th down play, Ram Vela was sent in on a blitz once again. This time, Vela had a blocker in his path. As the tailback went to block low, Vela would not be denied. The result was the above play, which will live forever as part of Navy football legend. Vela would not let down his teammates. He would not be stopped by any blocker. He would not be stopped by gravity. He would do his job. In the end, it was actually Chris Kuhar-Pitters who would get credit for the sack, which was a tremendous play of his own. But Vela taking flight will be the lasting image of the “not this time” attitude that defined the Navy team in this game.

This play is a symbol of the attitude of the Navy team, and is the easy choice for play of the year.

Game of the Year

9/22– Navy 46, Duke 43

I know, I know… How is this not Notre Dame? Especially since I just talked about Ram Vela’s play as the one that Navy fans will be talking about for years to come. Obviously, the same can be said about the Notre Dame game as a whole. Yet I chose the Duke game because, in my opinion, there might not have been a win over Notre Dame if Navy didn’t pull this one out. There might not have been another Commander-In-Chief’s Trophy or a trip to San Diego, either. Let’s set the stage.

Navy had lost two in a row coming into the Duke game. The second of those two losses was at home to Ball State, a game that Navy should have won in regulation but fumbled away in overtime. Again, what I said at the time:

The importance of this game can’t be overstated. The confidence gained or lost from winning or losing will have a huge impact in the first leg of the Commander-in-Chief’s Trophy battle next week. Win, and Navy is back on track. Lose, and you’re 1-3 with doubt creeping in and a likely 3-1 Air Force team coming to town. We hear Paul Johnson say all the time that the most important game of the season is the next one. This week, that couldn’t be more true.

(I apologize for recycling so much of my old stuff… I look at this postseason awards thing as sort of like a flashback episode on a sitcom. I’m definitely mailing it in on this one.)

How different would the season have been if Navy started 1-3 with losses to Ball State and Duke at home? Maybe you believe in momentum, maybe you don’t. But I think that a big reason why we didn’t see any offense vs. defense divisiveness in the locker room was because the team was winning. Winning keeps everyone in a good mood. Or, to paraphase something that Paul Johnson said, it’s easier to fix problems when you win. Not only that, but it was one hell of a game! Kaipo was slinging the ball all over the place. Unfortunately, so was his Duke counterpart, as Thaddeus Lewis threw for a career-high 428 yards and 4 touchdowns. Navy was down 11 in the 4th quarter, but a Ketric Buffin interception gave the Mids the opportunity they needed to get back on the pace.

If things had turned out differently against Notre Dame, then there were plays in this game that could easily have been called “play of the year.” Kaipo to OJ for 44 yards and Navy’s first touchdown. Bobby Doyle’s pass back to Jarod Bryant for a touchdown that tied the game after a 2-point conversion. Bryant’s incredible, winding QB draw after Ketric’s interception that went for 35 yards and set up Joey Bullen’s game-winning field goal. And then there was the field goal itself.

It was a huge game defined by huge plays and a spirited comeback that set the tone for the rest of the year. It didn’t end a multi-decade streak, but the Duke game gets my nod for Game of the Year.

OK, so that’s everything. Feel free to name your own, as well as give me some more categories for next year. I feel like I should be giving the offensive line an award because they were un-friggin-believable this year, but I don’t know how to categorize it. Suggestions for how I can remedy this oversight are more than welcome.

There Aren’t Too Many Bowl Games

On By MikeIn bowls, football20 Comments

Dick Heller at The Washington Times is the latest to join the choir singing about how there are, in his opinion, too many bowl games. For the life of me, I cannot understand this argument. The thinking goes like this: once upon a time, there were far fewer bowl games. Therefore, getting to a bowl game was a much bigger deal. Or as Heller says,

In bygone days, a bowl invitation was considered a nice reward for a team and school that had enjoyed a successful year — not merely a way to extend a pointless season and enrich an institution’s athletic coffers.

Maybe there’s a hint of truth to that. But so what? Does that mean it was better? I don’t think so. There is nothing wrong with having 32 bowl games. In fact, it’s a great thing.

Heller kicks off his column by recalling Maryland’s trip to the Peach Bowl in 1973, and the excitement it brought to the Terps’ program:

I remember how excited Maryland players and officials were in 1973, when the Peach Bowl crooked its corporate finger. There were only a handful of bowl games then, and Jerry Claiborne’s Terps had earned a spot with an 8-3 record. Moreover, the invitation reiterated that Maryland’s program was again respectable after nearly two decades in the dumps.

Yet towards the end of his piece, the Peach Bowl is one of the games that Heller proposes cutting:

Let’s do some arithmetic. There are 32 bowl games on the besotted 2007-08 football calendar and this season 58 Division I-A teams had winning records. So why not eliminate about 10 of the “classics” that nobody cares about except the cities, schools and corporate sponsors involved?

Unfortunately, this won’t happen, and you know the reasons: TV and money. All those ESPN outlets need something to show besides high-powered poker, even if nobody is watching. But do we really want the International, Capital One and Chick-fil-A affairs cluttering the holiday landscape?

Just about anyone who’s plugged into the world of college football knows that the Chick-fil-A Bowl is in fact the very same Peach Bowl about which Heller is reminiscing. The Peach Bowl entered into a corporate sponsorship with Chick-fil-A, and after being called the Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl for a while, was renamed as the Chick-fil-A Bowl in 2006. It’s the same game. So why is that game acceptable in 1973, but not in 2007? I suspect that Heller just picked some corporate-sounding names that he felt he could easily ridicule. Furthering my suspicion is Heller’s inclusion of the Capital One Bowl on his hit list. The Capital One Bowl is, of course, the former Citrus Bowl. That contest started in 1947 as the Tangerine Bowl and is another old and prestigious bowl game. How could Heller use two of the most coveted bowls to make his point? How could he make such a mistake? My guess is that he isn’t really a college football fan.

How can anyone who wants fewer bowl games truly be a college football fan? Heller himself says that if it wasn’t for bowl games, we’d have “high-powered poker” on TV instead. Is that better than any college football game? Would poker be better than Navy’s last-minute scramble to come back against Utah in the Poinsettia Bowl? Would an American Gladiators rerun be better than Central Michigan and Purdue lighting up the scoreboard in the Motor City Bowl? Would another World’s Strongest Man competition be better than East Carolina’s improbable upset of Boise State as time ran out in the Hawaii Bowl? Would some random figure skating event be better than UCLA fighting back to get a chance to beat BYU, only to have the Cougars make a dramatic last-second field goal block to preserve the win? Would another episode of The Bronx is Burning be better than watching Howard Schnellenberger lead Florida Atlantic, a school that wasn’t even a full-fledged Division I-A member until 2005, to the first bowl win in the team’s history? Which one of these great stories would those endorsing bowl contraction deny us? These were all entertaining games that any college football fan could appreciate. Some people, though, would prefer that games like these never happen.

Cut the number of bowl games, and you hurt all the wrong people. You hurt the little guy like Florida Atlantic and Ball State who see any bowl game as a huge opportunity. You hurt a school like Navy, an independent who needs these games to get around conference affiliations that dominate higher-tier bowls. You hurt a school like Indiana, whose berth in the Insight Bowl represents the fulfillment of a dream to “play 13” as laid out by their late coach, Terry Hoeppner. You hurt a team like Boston College that has put together some very good seasons, yet gets shunned by higher-profile bowl games because their fans don’t travel very well. You hurt coaches, who use the extra practice time to teach their younger players. And that’s not all.

Heller says that nobody cares about these smaller bowl games except “the cities, schools and corporate sponsors involved.” What, like that isn’t enough? Who else is supposed to care? Does Heller think that unless he has some kind of a stake in the game, it shouldn’t exist? That seems just the slightest bit arrogant. The $20 million impact on San Diego businesses is reason enough for San Diego to put on its two bowl games. Jay Cicero, president and CEO of the Greater New Orleans Sports Foundation, says that bowl fans have a greater economic effect than your average tourist.

Bowl visitors are fantastic. They’re all supporters of their schools. They’re willing to travel farther, stay a few more days, spend more  money. So, yes, they have greater economic impact.

So what’s wrong with that? Is it worth getting rid of tens of millions of dollars to local businesses just for the sake of making things the way they used to be? It’s only easy to say “yes” if you don’t own a restaurant that goes without business over Christmas. In the real world, things like money actually matter.

It is true that going to a bowl game– any bowl game– was a bigger deal when there were fewer games to go to. But does anyone really think that the existence of the Emerald Bowl somehow diminishes the prestige of the Rose Bowl? Somehow I have a hard time imagining a coach saying, “Well we were hoping to get to the Sugar Bowl, but the GMAC Bowl is close enough!” Let’s look at it a different way. Navy has been to 5 straight bowl games, each of which would probably be a prime candidate for contraction in Heller’s mind. If Navy put it all together next year and got a bid to say, the Orange Bowl, do you think that it wouldn’t be a big deal? I mean, it’s just one more bowl game. There’s really nothing special about the Orange Bowl after you’ve been to a couple of Poinsettia Bowls, right? Yeah, right. I know that people want to guard against rewarding mediocrity, and I can understand that. Nobody likes the whole Little League, everyone-gets-a-trophy mentality. But that’s not what we have here. Mediocre teams aren’t going to the Orange Bowl. They’re going to less celebrated bowl games. The best teams still get rewarded with the best bowls. The prestige of the higher profile games hasn’t changed.

Heller goes on to misrepresent Maryland head coach Ralph Friedgen:

The coach, who can spin with the best of them despite his ample girth, put it this way: “If we can finish 7-6 with all the stuff we’ve dealt with, it’d be a real tribute to our players and a real reward.”

Read my lips, Fridge: Balderdash! When Ralph and his assistants hit the recruiting trail, they’re unlikely to snare many blue-chippers by yowling “7-6!” or “Emerald Bowl!”

Cute, but that isn’t what Ralph said. Fridge didn’t say that the Emerald Bowl would be a boon to recruiting. Who’s doing the spinning here? All he said was that it would be nice for his players– not for himself– to be able to go out with a win after all they’ve had to deal with over the course of the season. Is that so hard to believe? I’m no expert on Maryland football, but that team suffered a lot of injuries this year and came under some pretty intense scrutiny from fans and the media. So yes, it would be a real reward to go out with a win after all that.

Perhaps the most offensive thing that Heller wrote– and I use “offensive” deliberately– is his description of smaller bowl games as “a way to extend a pointless season.” Pointless to whom? Grumpy columnists? It certainly isn’t pointless to the players. These players sacrifice their time and their bodies year-round for the opportunity to get onto the field. Try telling the seniors on these teams that their season, and that last bowl game, is “pointless.” How can anyone who has ever played any kind of organized sport not appreciate the desire to get onto the field one last time with your brothers? Cynics describe major college football as the NFL’s minor league, but that isn’t the truth. There are 32 teams in the NFL. There are 120 teams in I-A football. For the overwhelming majority of seniors, that bowl game is their last opportunity to suit up not only for their school, but for anyone. College athletes get four short years. Consider that most players don’t really see the field until their junior or senior year, and it gets even shorter. There is no such thing as a pointless game or a pointless season. College careers are too short to take any game for granted. Not only that, but bowl games are so much more than just the games themselves. The teams show up a week early, get treated like kings, get shown around town, get some serious swag, and basically get a key to the city. Players at the Poinsettia Bowl got PSPs. Other bowl games gave clothes, watches, iPods, sunglasses, XM radios, and more. Why would anyone want to take all this away from the players? It is supposed to be all about the players, right?

One of these “pointless” bowl games could be coming to Heller’s backyard next year if the DC Bowl Commission has its way. We will no doubt see another column then, as Heller will lament its creation for all the same reasons he listed here. But as you’re in your seat in either RFK or the new Nationals ballpark next year, watching the Mids take the field after you’ve spent a week around town with friends and classmates celebrating Navy football, you’ll know the truth. The truth is that bowl games are a great thing for those who get involved. If you don’t like them, don’t watch them. It isn’t that hard.

But it’s your loss.

Pylon-gate

On By MikeIn navy football, video8 Comments

Just in case you wanted to relive the pain.

It’s funny to lurk on Utah message boards and read some the comments about the play.  “The pylon was in the wrong place! It was placed out of bounds!” Some real football experts there. Oh well.

Wrapping Up the Poinsettia Bowl

On By MikeIn bowls, navy football2 Comments

It was a great night for football in Southern California; overcast with an occasional drizzle, and tempreatures in the 50s. There was definitely a big-game feel in the parking lots around Qualcomm Stadium as nearly 40,000 fans, including over 1,000 mids, tailgated before the game. The outcome wasn’t what we’d hoped it would be, but it was still a ton of fun.

Continue reading “Wrapping Up the Poinsettia Bowl” →

Killin’ Time

On By MikeIn bowls, Ken Niumatalolo, navy football6 Comments

I’m sitting at the airport right now. My flight is delayed, so I have some time to kill. I’m at gate 40; at gate 39 is the Delta flight to Salt Lake City, so I’m surrounded by Utah fans. It doesn’t bother me, though. Right now I don’t know if I could be more proud to be a Navy fan.

I was joking around with some friends this week about Zerbin Singleton’s story. His mother was shot by a bounty hunter, he was shipped across the continent to live with relatives, was hit by a drunk driver, and his father committed suicide. We asked ourselves, “At what point would you have given up?” Fortunately, Zerb never did. How appropriate was it, then, to see Zerbin Singleton cutting across the field to catch a pass, then beat a Utah defender in a race down the sideline to put Navy within a field goal of tying the game in the last minute? I had given up, but the Navy team never did. I should have known better. This team came back from an 11-point deficit in the 4th quarter against Duke, fought through multiple overtimes against Pittsburgh and Notre Dame, and rallied to beat North Texas despite trailing by 18 on 3 separate occasions. This is a team whose defense saved its best plays for the end of games, and who didn’t miss a beat when its starting quarterback missed a game. How foolish was I, then, to have abandoned all hope after Darrell Mack found the end zone with 1:27 left to play?

That will be the story of this 2007 Navy football team. The never-say-die attitude of Zerbin Singleton was carried on by his teammates until the last series of the last game. There were several points during the season where everyone might have understood if Navy just ran out of steam. They could have given up, and nobody would have thought any worse of them. But that wouldn’t have been acceptable to themselves, and that’s the attitude the Mids played with.

Hopefully my DVD recorder picked up the game, although my wife says that she isn’t optimistic. I have some thoughts on the game but I want to see it again to validate them. I also have some more pictures to upload, but my camera is in my checked bag. So for now, I just wanted to pass along how proud I am of these players. I wouldn’t trade these guys for anything. Beat Towson.