This is the final entry in my series on relegation in college football, bringing us up to current.
In
the first season of the Mark Richt Era, the Hurricanes were a Top 25 team based
on F/+ but the success on the field was open to interpretation. One the one
hand, the ‘Canes outscored their opponent by double digits in all 8 wins and
were within a score of winning in 3 of the 4 losses. Read that way, this team
was unlucky and could easily have been 11-1 heading into the conference
championship game.
On
the other hand, before the season started everyone on the planet circled the 4
games stretch of FSU-UNC- Virginia Tech- Notre Dame as the most important of
the season, and Miami lost all 4 games.
My
personal read is that Richt struggled with something we see a lot of English
Premiere League coaches…even the great ones, like Jose Mourinho and Pep
Guardiola currently…struggle with in their first year at a club: how do you
find the proper on-field alignment to accommodate the prior coach’s players
while at the same time implementing your future system?
That’s
all well and good, and an optimistic read on the situation, but I don’t think
Miami would have been any better off in the Big 10 this season. Ohio State,
Michigan, Ped State and Wisconsin were all kickass teams this season, and Iowa, Pitt, Arkansas and Nebraska were tough in their own right. On top of that, mediocre teams like
Michigan State and Northwestern are always well coached, and when you are in a
transition period…as Miami was…coaching matters. To wit: there were only 4
coaches on the ‘Canes schedule this year I would put at or near the level of
Mark Richt, and Miami lost to all 4 of them.
Elsewhere
in FBS, this was the first time we saw a true tire fire at the bottom of the
SEC, while the ACC saw Ohio and Cincinnati battle to the death. Arizona was relegated
for the first time, while Bowling Green and Marshall saw their way out.
On
the other hand, Colorado had a massive resurgence and finished the regular
season ranked in the Top 10, which would have been enough to easily win them
promotion out of the Mountain West. Western Michigan dominated the MAC and finished
undefeated, with wins over Big 10 schools Northwesten and Illinois confirming
their ability to play with the big boys. Memphis won a surprisingly tough
competition against Tulsa, Louisiana Tech, Vanderbilt and Wake Forest to win
our version of Conference USA, and Appalachian State won promotion roughly 5
years after joining FBS. Washington State came out of the at-large playoff,
knocking off Troy and then Minnesota.
In
the expansion draft, the SEC grabs Memphis, the Big 10 gets a big win by
replacing Bowling Green with Colorado, the ACC gets Appalachian State, the Pac
12 reclaims Washington State and the Big 12 gets a surprisingly still-PJ
Fleck-coached Western Michigan.
---
And
that, my friends, brings us to the end of this experiment.
Going
back to our original questions, how different does college football look? A LOT
is pretty much the same. The core of these conferences didn’t really change; no
surprise. Sure, you get your big names here and there that drop off, but
whether through a flaw in this experiment or personal bias or the reality of
the conference setup, most of them end up back home. The biggest points of
controversy would have been the fluky promotions, which again, are completely
on-brand for college football, the silliest sport ever created.
Did
this system help the little guys that earned it? In the EPL, about 40% of teams
that are promoted stay up for more than one season. In this experiment, it was
actually more like 55%....these numbers don't square up, but then again, the
gap between the teams at the bottom of the BCS conferences and the teams at the
top of the lesser tier is probably not as big as the gap between Premiere
League and Championship squads.
The
little guys ended up being big winners here, and not just the usual suspects
like TCU, Boise, Utah and BYU, but also teams like Navy, Troy, Central Michigan
and Hawaii that had extended runs among the big timers. That is a lot of money
coming into their Athletic Department coffers, which ostensibly would add on
benefits to their Olympic sports programs in addition to the football teams.
Were
the big boys held accountable for losing? One thing the EPL does have in common
with my experiment is the following: it is REALLY hard to drop down a level and
immediacy come back up. In the EPL, 80% of the time a relegated team stays down
for multiple seasons, similar to our numbers.
Miami,
Tennessee, Ole Miss, Arkansas, UCLA, Stanford, Texas A&M, Washington...those are BIG
names, and they all spent at least one season at the lower level. For the fan
bases of those schools, I would argue that relegation would have been a great
thing (in theory). Almost every one of these schools held on to a coach for one or two
seasons too long. Whether it is Al Golden, Houston Nutt, Derek Dooley, Rick
Neuheisel or Mike Sherman, this system seems likely to have weeded those
coaches out in a hurry.
Finally,
how did Miami end up?
I would argue playing in the Big 10 is probably more interesting than playing
in the ACC in terms of conference play. Assuming the FSU rivalry would continue
uninterrupted, which in this day and age is not a strong assumption, I see no
downside other than travel for fans. Bloomington, Indiana in November is no one's idea of fun.
It
would have sucked to have to watch Miami play in the Sun Belt for a year. BUT
Miami fans spent the last decade ranting and raving about mediocrity, an
unsupportive administration, mis-allocation of talent and resources...and were
mostly ignored.
Trying
to fill Landshark Stadium against Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee State?
That might have gotten Donna Shalala's attention.
Losing
recruits because no one wants to play for a Sun Belt team? That might have
convinced Randy Shannon or Al Golden to change tactics.
Or
maybe, it would have convinced the administration to pony up for Gary Patterson
in 2007, or Brett Bielema in 2011. And think where we might be now if THAT had
happened.
No
Al Golden. We all win.
No comments:
Post a Comment