11 Non-Conference Games To Watch This Fall

With exactly 2 months until the start of the college football season and not a truly meaningful sporting event until then, it's time to look ahead. Last year nearly every preseason discussion was "Is this the year a non-BCS school makes the title game?" Or something similar. It got old. Part of me was glad #4 Boise State was upset by Nevada at the end of the year. They won't be in that position this year, but they do have a non-conference game against Georgia that's worth watching. Here's 10 more.


11. Missouri @ Arizona State (Sept. 9): Mizzou doesn't leave the state much in the non-con, only twice in the last 4 years. Quarterback play is also a question mark for the Tigers with the departure of Blaine Gabbert to the NFL. Starter James Franklin only attempted 14 passes last year, and a Friday night start against a pretty good Arizona State team will be a good early challenge.

10. Ohio State @ Miami (Sept. 17): Rematch of the 2001 National Title game as well as a bout last season in Columbus in which Ohio State won 36-24. Any match up of historic programs is sure to get ratings and this is no different. It will also be interesting to see how Ohio State is handling things post-Jim Tressel/Terrell Pryor.

9. Oregon State @ Wisconsin (Sept. 10): Wisconsin has a chance to be really, really good this year. The transfer of former NC State quarterback Russell Wilson to Madison is huge. After landing Wilson last week, Wisconsin's odds to win the BCS title dropped from 30-1 to 15-1. Beating Oregon State will get them a little closer to that goal.

8. Notre Dame @ Michigan (Sept. 10): Notre Dame is probably overrated again, and with a new coach, Michigan will have plenty of question marks as well. But aside from the historical aspects of the match up, there's something else to watch. It will be the first night game in Michigan's history.

                                                             Turn on the lights

7. Boise State @ Georgia (Atlanta, Sept. 3): Boise State won't make the national game this year, but they do know how to knock off top BCS teams, as they did to #10 Virginia Tech last season. Georgia isn't as good as last year's Virginia Tech team, but they aren't bad. Probably just outside the top 25.

6. LSU @ West Virginia (Sept. 24): Any time a potential title contender travels to a hostile environment early in the year, it gets exciting. West Virginia has a new coach and won't be on any preseason polls while LSU should be in the top 5. The atmosphere in Morgantown will give this one some drama, though.

5. Alabama @ Penn State (Sept. 10): National title contender from the SEC West traveling to a rough environment to face a fringe top-25 team? Sounds familiar. However, this match up gets the nod in the head coaching and home field advantage departments.

        

4. Florida State @ Florida (Nov. 26): This has the potential to be #1 on the list, but things have to fall into place just right. Regardless, Florida State is looking to repeat last year's 31-7 rout. Florida's new head coach and former Texas D coordinator Will Muschamp knows pressure, but now he's the head guy in Gainesville.

3. Texas A&M @ Arkansas (Cowboys Stadium Oct. 1): The former Southwest Conference foes should be in the top 15 heading into the season, but both loss key players from last year's teams. Arkansas is replacing quarterback Ryan Mallett while A&M linebacker Von Miller was the second overall pick in this year's draft. Both teams also share the misfortune of having title contenders within their divisions (Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama). Both teams should still be ranked heading into this one, though.

2. Oregon @ LSU (Cowboys Stadium Sept. 3): Two top-5 teams selling out this monstrosity will be awesome.

Oregon fans bought 15,000 tickets, only to be outdone by the 37,000 snatched up by LSU. The remaining tickets were bought pretty quickly, and if I wasn't biased, this would be the #1 game to watch by far. But I am, so it's not.

1. Oklahoma @ Florida State (Sept. 17): Florida State got pounded by Oklahoma last year in Norman, 47-17. They went on to win 10 games and return 20/22 starters from last year. Aside from quarterback Christian Ponder, everyone else is back. They've also had a top 10 recruiting class each of the last 4 years. With the returning starters as well as the influx of top talent, The Seminoles are my pick to win the BCS title this year, IF they can get by top ranked OU in week 3.


                                    

Top 50 Coaching Jobs

The annual coaching hires and fires among college basketball coaches got me thinking. What are the 50 best college basketball head coaching jobs?

I looked at:

-Prestige
-Overall success
-Success the last decade
-Ability to recruit



First Class:

1) North Carolina
2) Kentucky
3) Kansas
4) Duke
5) UCLA
6) Indiana

Indiana barely made the first list, but they get in by reputation alone. At least for another 5 years.


Business Class: 

7) Louisville
8) Ohio State
9) Arizona
10) Michigan State
11) Syracuse
12) Illinois
13) Uconn
14) Villanova
15) Georgetown

16) Texas
17) Florida
18) Maryland
19) Pittsburgh
20) St. Johns
21) Notre Dame


Economy Class

22) Oklahoma
23) Marquette
24) North Carolina State
25) Wisconsin
26) Arkansas
27) Washington
28) Purdue
29) Oklahoma State


Stand By:

30) USC
31) Michigan
32) Stanford
33) LSU
34) Tennessee
35) Missouri
36) Memphis
37) Oregon
38) West Virginia
39) Texas A&M
40) Kansas State
41) Cincinnati
42) Clemson
43) Wake Forest
44) Vanderbilt
45) Butler
46) Alabama
47) Xavier
48) Georgia Tech
49) Virginia
59) Gonzaga

Bracket Predictions

My Super Bowl prediction was within 1 point, so I'll try this again.

There's still 2 days left of conference tournaments, but here's my bracket:

1 seeds:
Ohio State
Kansas
Pittsburgh
Notre Dame

Team that could fall: Notre Dame

Ohio State and Kansas are locks. That's not changing one bit. Duke has a shot to steal a 1-seed from the other two, however. Especially with Pitt's 76-74 loss to Uconn today. Kemba Walker is nails, by the way. Big East Player of the Year, no question about it.

2's:
Duke
North Carolina
Purdue
Syracuse

Team that could jump up: Duke
Team that could fall: Syracuse

North Carolina's 12-1 ACC finish surprised everyone I think. Kendall Marshall's move to starting point guard played a big part in that run.

3's:
San Diego State
Uconn
BYU
Texas

Team that could jump up: San Diego State

4's:
Wisconsin
Florida
Louisville
Arizona

Teams that could fall: Arizona

5's:
Kentucky
St. Johns
West Virginia
Xavier

Team that could jump up: Kentucky

6's:
Texas A&M
Georgetown
UNLV
Vanderbilt

Team that could jump up: Texas A&M
Teams that could drop: UNLV, Vanderbilt

7's:
Old Dominion
Kansas State
Cincinnati
Temple

8's:
Missouri
George Mason
UCLA
Utah State



The top 4 seeds were fairly easy to choose from. After that it got a little tedious, but we'll see what happens on Sunday at 5.

Big 12 Wrap Up

Back in early January I predicted the Big 12 standings here.

What I knew all along:

-Kansas would capture its 7th straight Big 12 title, albeit a very tough road after trailing Texas by 2 games midway through the conference schedule.

-Rick Barnes would pull a Rick Barnes. The Longhorns started the Big 12 season 11-0 only to lay eggs against Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas State. Way to go, Rick.

-Kansas State wasn't as good as everyone wanted to believe. However, they did rally big time after starting 2-5 in conference play to finish 4th. It's not the season they hoped for, but a Big 12 tournament 4-seed is better than the NIT.

-Texas Tech isn't very good at basketball. Shocking, considering their ridiculous home atmosphere down in Lubbock.

I had no clue:

-Colorado would finish 8-8, good enough for a 5-seed in the Big 12 tournament. Tad Boyle can coach, so the Pac-10 better watch out. Also, Buffs guard Alec Burks will be in the NBA sooner rather than later.

Here's how they finished:


1) Kansas: (14-2) Predicted finish: (1st)

2) Texas (13-3) (2nd)

3) Texas A&M: (10-6) (4th)

4) Kansas State (10-6) (5th)

5) Colorado: (8-8) (10th)

6) Missouri: (8-8) (3rd)

7) Baylor: (7-9) (6th)

8) Nebraska: (7-9) (8th)

9) Oklahoma State: (6-10) (9th)

10) Oklahoma: (5-11) (12th)

11) Texas Tech: (5-11) (11th)

12) Iowa State: (3-13) (7th)


So I was perfect on 5 teams, within 1 spot on 3 teams, and missed badly on Colorado, Iowa State, and Missouri. I would predict the Big 12 Tournament which starts in 9 hours, but frankly, I don't care about conference tournaments.

The Big Least

I hear every year how The Big East is the most amazing basketball conference in the history of basketball conferences. Sure, they have a lot of teams getting into the tournament, but the conference is home to nearly every team on the eastern seaboard. Of course they get more teams in.

But what do they do in March?

I looked up Big Least performances in the NCAA tournament since its expansion to 16 teams in 2005 and I wasn't surprised.

-The obvious number is the zero national champions.
-Even with a much larger conference, they've only had the most Elite 8 teams once. (4 teams in 2009)
-They had 2 Final Four teams in 2009, but the Big 10 and SEC have done the same. (2005 and 2006)

And because conferences have different amounts of teams, I looked at percentages.

-The Big 10, not the Big Least, has had the highest percentage (from 2005-present) with 27% of its teams in the 2005 Elite 8.
-The Big 10 also had 18% of its members make the Final Four in 2005. The SEC had 16% of its members make the Final Four in 2006. Both are above the Big Least's best year, which was 12% in 2009.

When averaged out from 2005 until now:

-The Big Least has had 4% of its teams make the Final Four, tied for 3rd with the SEC and PAC 10.
-The ACC has had more with 5%.
-The Big 10 has the most with 7%.


In title games since 2005:

-Big 10 is 0-2
-Pac 10 is 0-1 
-Big 12 is 1-0.
-SEC is 2-0
-ACC is 3-0

The Big Least hasn't made the title game since expanding to 16 teams in 2005.


I don't see that changing this year either. The Big Least once again has a lot of good teams like Pittsburgh, Villanova, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and St. Johns. They might even get 11 teams in the tournament.

But don't expect any of them to win it all.

Speaking of baseball....

 Here's what MLB needs to do. Preferably yesterday.


1) Get rid of the DH. Sorry, David Ortiz. If you can't even play first base, it's time to retire. Believe me, I played first base. It's not hard at all.

Don't look shocked. Grab a glove.

2) Reverse the All-Star game rule. That game shouldn't mean a thing, and I think 90% of Nostradamus I mean Bud Selig's motivation was to erase the 2002 All-Star debacle. Great idea, Bud. Next time I get a paper cut I'll cut my leg off.

This sums up Bud's tenure pretty well.
 

3) Contract the regular season. 162 games is way too long. I'd be okay with between 135 and 145 games. June baseball is terrible. The honeymoon from Opening Day is over and the pennant races are 3 months away.

4) Fix inter-league play. Last year, the Cardinals played the Mariners, Angels, A's, Royals, and Blue Jays. What? Why not switch the Blue Jays for the Rangers to play the entire AL West? I like how the NFL schedules its games. 1st place teams should match up with the other division's 1st place team, etc. Then throw in a rivalry series if you want. Under that rule, the Cardinals would play the Yankees, White Sox, A's, and Royals in 2011.

5) Handle the steroid situation completely different. MLB didn't begin steroid testing until 2001 I believe. What exactly did they expect? This quote explains the steroid era perfectly. "Commissioner Fay Vincent sends a memo to each team announcing that steroids have been added to the league’s banned list. No testing plan is announced." Maybe they went by scouts honor or something.
Here's how they fix it:
Label about 1988-2010 the steroid era in the Hall of Fame and elect the guys who put up the numbers. Roger Clemens and Andy Petite showed us that pitchers were doing the stuff too. Who can blame them if baseball decided not to test them for over 10 years? So A-Rod and Clemens are both juiced and face each other. Who wins? I call it a wash. Instead of Clemens throwing a 94 MPH fastball and A-Rod hitting a 405 foot homer, Clemens is throwing 97 and A-Rod hits a 425 foot homer. No one had an advantage, the skills were just increased. And if these guys were so evil, why are they on Hall of Fame ballots? And when the hallowed records from past eras are brought into the discussion, I laugh.
I don't disagree that juiced players had advantages in breaking records, but you know who else had advantages in breaking records?

Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and Joe DiMaggio.  They never faced black or latin players. Let's see all the pitchers they didn't have to face:
-Bob Gibson
-Satchel Paige
-Juan Marichal
-Pedro Martinez

The pitchers were no different. Christy Mathewson, Lefty Grove, Walter Johnson, and Cy Young never had to face guys like:
-Josh Gibson
-Roberto Clemente
-Albert Pujols
-Manny Ramirez
-Willie Mays
-Frank Robinson
and on and on and on...

Players in the pre-WWII era didn't seem to have a problem with baseball denying black and latin players a chance to play with them. Why crucify guys who took advantage of this guy for a decade?

6) Let this guy in the Hall of Fame:

 I know Pete Rose was an idiot, and probably still is, but any baseball Hall of Fame void of arguably its all-time best hitter is incomplete. I don't have any stories of any Hall of Fame members with questionable morals, but they're out there. It isn't the Hall of Very Good and it isn't the White House. Let the guy in.

Blame your owner, not theirs

Why do people blame the Yankees when their small-market owner is cheap? I hear this a lot, especially as Spring training is getting underway and everyone's making predictions for the season. If you listen to some people, you'd think teams with lower payrolls are barred from winning anything, and the Yankees and Red Sox are guaranteed a World Series every year.

The Yankees have had baseball's No. 1 payroll for the last 10 seasons. All that money got them 1 title.
In that same time period, the Marlins have just as many rings. They won it all  in 2003 with a payroll of $48 million, good enough for 25th in the league.

In the last 10 years, the average payroll of the World Series winner is 10th in league, barely in the top third of payrolls.

How about the Mets? They had the National League's highest payroll every year from 2003-2009, only to miss the playoffs all but one of those years. And when they did make the post-season, they lost in the 2006 NLCS.

Just last season, the Texas Rangers won the AL with a payroll of only $55 million, 27th in baseball.
They did that with smart decisions by this guy,

 good defense and great pitching.




So it can be done. And for small-market fans are upset with their team's payroll while watching the Yankees and Red Sox pick up whoever they want, don't blame guys like the Steinbrenners.

What's wrong with spending your own money to make your team better? Nothing but bitterness from fans with cheap owners like David Glass of the Royals or Bob Nutting of the Pirates.


So don't blame the Yankees for spending their own money in an attempt to get better. Blame the owners who take fans' money and hoard it while filling their roster with AAA-caliber players.

They all have plenty of money. It's not the Yankees or Red Sox's fault they actually spend it.