Mark Schlabach does his thing with Mike Leach for the Worldwide Leader, and it is, not surprisingly, pirates galore.

Not that there's anything wrong with that (well, except the Margaritaville bit. Yar).
- - -

I like Schlabach, as far as severely space-limited mainstream columnists go, and he does a fine job here. (the most interesting quote has nothing to do with pirates, or personally commissioned Van Gogh ripoffs: "If you're getting to the office at 6 a.m. and getting home at midnight, well, then you're wasting a lot of time," Leach said. "That's just a failure to manage your time. What are you doing in the middle of the day? Are you having a siesta?" I can relate to this.) He's no Michael Lewis, but that's not a criticism - ESPN.com is not The New York Times Magazine. Consider this official notice, though: everybody's favorite eccentric cap'n is about to be quirkin' it up all over the damn place. I get the feeling following Texas Tech this fall is going to feel like those handful of Seinfeld episodes around Season Three where the studio audience goes crazy with applause every time Kramer skidded into the scene. That is, for Leach devotees who've celebrated the scurvy dog since Lewis' legendary profile came out in 2005 - the real fans, man - kind of awkward.

There's one other great coaching profile out there in the last couple years, the much harder to find LAist anti-profile of Pete Carroll by Pulitzer Prize winner J.R. Moehringer, the one that painted him as a manic obsessive who never sleeps, visits South Central ganglands at all hours of the night and who, when challenged, possesses the water retention of a camel (the direct story link to that one has been down for ages). If it weren't for moments of genuine, sublime weirdness from both of them, like this, or this, I might think the right author with enough access could pass Joe Paterno as Willie Nelson.

The genius of this approach is that coaches are so overwhelmingly coach-like in the public mind that the concept of a Renaissance man in the profession - which includes Paterno, who once wrote in one of his books he'd rather his players spend the offseason reading than lifting weights -distracts from the reason people really pay attention to them, which is that they are winners. The tipping point for the oncoming Leach love is the apparent growing Red Raiders bandwagon for the upcoming season, which, after hitting new levels in the Schlabach piece, might soon border on hysterical:

In a couple short looks at Tech I'm writing for the most literate, long lasting, hair-growing, minty fresh sports annuals on the market, I note that the program is on its longest sustained stretch of success in its history under Leach: since 2000, the Raiders have reeled off eight straight winning seasons, six straight eight-win seasons, beaten Oklahoma twice in three years, beaten Texas A&M six out of seven, just won its first New Year's Day game since 1953 and finished in the final AP poll three times in the last four years. On those merits, less than a decade in, there's argument to be made for Leach as the best coach Tech's ever employed; he's certainly on the track, all the moreso because, after shunning UCLA in December, it doesn't seem like a stopover job anymore. These kinds of pieces, complete with that bit of over-optimistic mythical championship buzz, make it feel like Leach's baby, or Frankenstein, or whatever.

It also seems a little crazy. Tech is a consistent winner for the first time in a long time, yes, but it's also finished third place or worse in its division every year but one, 2005, when it was the most distant possible second to the Vince Young Experience. The unprecedented murmurs only mean it's Breakthrough Time, that precipice where the slope gets a little steeper and, without at least a division title on the horizon, a bridge to the next hill, the boulder is suddenly a little heavier, in danger of rolling back in the opposite direction - can't put it all together, can't win the big one, etc. This is the first Leach team to face any kind of expectations of that sort, or of any sort, really, coming into the year - none of his previous outfits have been ranked entering the season, but Buckeye Commentary has a roundup of the early top 25 polls, and four of five (all but The Sporting News) have the Raiders in the top twelve - and on paper, it deserves them. The offense is, you know, the Texas Tech offense, only better, with probably the best pass-catch combo (Graham Harrell and Michael Crabtree) not only in Leach's tenure, but probably anywhere to be found in the country for the coming year. The defense got itself a new coordinator after allowing 45 to Oklahoma State, improved somewhat and has ten starters back; you'll be reading everywhere (Schlabach included) that that side, too, will be the best Leach has had. Though, of course, the competition there is significantly less than on offense.

So that's the thing about being a beloved character - everybody knows you, they applaud and dig the catchphrases, but they expect the best, too. If the early polls are right, Tech will match the 1973 team for the highest finish in school history. Two of that group think the Raiders will finish ahead of Texas, which has not happened once since the formation of the Big 12. That - winning or at least legitimately competing for the South division - is the next peak to plunder. These visions of crystal balls, they be tempting, but fanciful. The cannons don't reach that far yet.

No one can accuse SMQ of piling on the underdog: I'm an avowed mid-major fan who last year devoted 1,500 words and a running weekly item to Florida International, which stands at 1-3 as a favorite in six years of I-A play, straight up. We are all for the little guy.

Being bad on the field is one thing, and even among the tiniest dwarves of the Sun Belt, FIU has been horrifically bad. The Panthers finished 0-12 in in 2006, went a full calendar month without reaching the end zone in any fashion and ultimately averaged  less than a touchdown per game on offense. Under a new coach, they started 0-11 last year, losing their first eight by 33 points a pop en route to running up a 23-game losing streak that only ended with a new quarterback in the lineup and an equally impotent team, North Texas, wobbling into FIU Stadium in the finale (permanent seating is only 7,000 for now, but highlights include superb drainage and restrooms).

But being that bad off the field is something else entirely, and FIU, if possible, has been even worse in the non-bodily-kinesthetic realm of its transition to the quasi-big time. Florida International is already an obscure, sketchy-sounding college (the spring roster lists a dozen players from hometowns outside the state of Florida, none remotely approaching "international" status) in what appears to be one of the sketchier areas of the sketchiest big city in America, and thus far it appears dedicated to the shiftless, swampy, laissez faire cliché. The football team is noted mainly for throwing down with Miami in the OB two years ago, thereby giving the world immortal soldier A'mod Ned, then losing a staggering nine scholarships in football alone in the first round of the NCAA's APR crackdown last summer, twice as many as any other program except San Jose State, which lost seven. Now this year's round of APR scores is out, and... It seems FIU was "not ready for the move" in a lot of ways: failing on the field, failing in the classroom (in the bureaucratic aspect, at the very least), failing in the stands (attendance last year for five home games averaged 8,120, announced, barely half of what the NCAA requires of I-A schools over a rolling two-year period). All of which would be fine if the Panthers were sticking to the Sun Belt, where all the teams are just up from the minors and in that murky in-between stage that's really just I-A in name only.

Over the last two years, though, in which time the program is 1-23 and not even keeping its head above water, Florida International's non-conference schedule has included South Florida, Alabama, Penn State, Kansas, Miami (twice) and Maryland (twice). In 2006, `Bama and Miami both made bowl games with bare minimum, 6-6 records that included wins over FIU, clearly a glorified I-AA team, even though Miami already counted a win against an official I-AA team (Florida A&M) that year. Maryland finished last year at 6-6 with wins over I-AA Villanova and over FIU, both of which counted to get the Terps into the Emerald Bowl, even though only one I-AA opponent is allowed to count toward bowl eligibility and FIU has not met a single standard - not on the field, not off - for I-A eligibility. It doesn't really even qualify for "in-name-only" status. The sum impact of its football existence is to get a paycheck from marginal teams with some status in return for padding said teams' stats and records - Kansas, for example, which also beat the tar out of helpless I-AA Southeast Louisiana last year, built its awesome statsheet in part with a 55-point, 615-yard beatdown against the Panthers. Arkansas, which also had its way with I-AA Chattanooga, got a lesiurely blowout with its backups taking a hefty load of the snaps with FIU in for homecoming. This fall's schedule for FIU includes Kansas, Iowa and South Florida, all three of which have actual I-AA teams (Sam Houston State, Tennessee-Martin and Maine, respectively) elsewhere on their schedules.

FIU is not the only bad team, nor the only team that falls short of its various extracurricular benchmarks; most of the SBC and a dozen or so other perennialy feeble programs probably aren't worth the ink that sets them apart from the lower divisions. It is, for now, the worst on both fronts, and easily taken advantage of, like a sick, feeble herd that keeps on giving to the bigger, quicker predators in the bush. Is there any reason at all Florida International's continued existence in I-A does not constitute a dilluting of the sport's gene pool and a waste of its time?

The Norm. To say Missouri was in a rut during Gary Pinkel's first six seasons would be an understatement. In fact, it goes back quite a bit farther than that: Missouri's last conference title was in 1969, in the Big Eight, a conference subsequently dominated by Nebraska, Oklahoma and Colorado as the Tigers remained in mystifying mediocrity. Take the trend pre-2007 and extend it back 35 years:

As for Pinkel, his team's annual Big 12 marks heading into last season were 3-5, 2-6, 4-4, 3-5, 4-4 and 4-4 beginning in 2001. There was some hint Mizzou was good enough to compete for the title in a watered-down North division; there was none at all it would run roughshod over every team it faced in the conference that wasn't Oklahoma.

Get Used To It. The Tigers outgunned seven non-OU opponents in-conference by 15 points and 110 yards per game and set new school records for wins, conference wins, passing yards, total yards, scoring and final poll finish (fourth by the AP after a Cotton Bowl blowout of Arkansas). They beat Nebraska by 35, Texas Tech by 31, Colorado by 45, Arkansas by 31, Texas A&M by 17 and Kansas State by fourteen. They bookended the regular season with wins over two teams that ended in the BCS (Illinois and Kansas). By margin and degree of difficulty, Missouri was as much a non-flukey powerhouse as anybody.

If Chase Daniel was truly a one-man show, it might make some sense to question the offense's sustainability, like a one-shot supernova. But back alongside Daniel is Jeremy Maclin, who set a new I-A record for freshmen with almost 2,800 yards rushing, receiving and returning, and three other receivers (Danario Alexander, Tommy Saunders and tight end Chase Coffman) who combined for 130 catches. Other than Maclin, who can properly fly, these are not extraordinary talents. Daniel is an accurate, first-rate decision maker, and as long as he's well-protected - and Pinkell's system continues to make defenses pay for their aggressiveness with a lot of screens, misdirection and a deceptive, trap-heavy running game - the offense might as well be on high-scoring autopilot.

Enjoy It While It Lasts. The balance of power depends on the sustainability of Kansas' rise - which is shaky - and the durability of Nebraska's sense of entitlement, at least where recruits are concerned; in that regard, the stockpiling of talent, the Huskers reasserted themselves under Bill Callahan after some really mediocre efforts on the trail by Frank Solich's staff. Missouri's recruiting has been a little better the last two years, but still just so-so - Pinkell hasn't brought in a class ranked higher than fifth in the Big 12 according to Rivals, which is roughly how his teams have usually fared. Missouri hasn't won in Lincoln since 1978, and its time at the top may only last as long as it takes Bo Pellini to slam the door.

Approximate Staying Power. As long as Daniel is quarterback, with a threat like Maclin around, the offense will purr. So at least one more year of the good life, generally. What separates Missouri at this moment from, say, Texas Tech, is that it might also field its best defense of the Pinkel era. Personnel-wise, the Tigers are set in the front seven, where four all-conference candidates are among six returning starters, and at safety, where William Moore projects on more than a few summer all-America teams if he returns from a spring injury at full speed. In the losses to Oklahoma, Mizzou gave up 41 points the first time and 38 in the Big 12 Championship. In the other eleven games, it was the stingiest in the league. If scoring is steady - it should be, based on personnel - those numbers only need to come down a little to make the Tigers legit mythical championship contenders. It could have been them, after all, rather than LSU, playing Ohio State if not for the flop against OU in St. Louis.

Beyond this fall, though, probably not much, not on elite level. Missouri's had good, productive quarterbacks before - Brad Smith, Corby Jones - and been thoroughly mediocre, anyway, because they had to handle everything themselves (Brock Olivo could squat the statehouse, but he was just an OK running back). The current supporting cast seems like an elite group because it has an elite quarterback who can get everyone involved. When Daniel is gone, there's no reason to expect any sustained fireworks on the order of last year's (and this year's, most likely). If the conference title drought doesn't meet its demise with the current group, there's no end in sight.

Here's a meta, philosophical question out of the break: what are we refering to, exactly, when we say a player or a team is 'consistent'?

This is basically asking, 'What makes a player good?' since, once they reach a certain level, every athlete is physically capable of carrying out his assignment, or occasionally going beyond that. I was thinking about this when comparing a couple of very similar players for a post that might go up later today. Virtually the same skill set, the same capacity for success, but one guy is "consistent," the other guy isn't. The difference in this case is probably something like a 70-75 percent success rate vs. a 60-65 percent success rate. Both guys are good a majority of the time. So what is the difference?

Even the worst players make good plays; even the best players make bad ones. Sometimes the relatively mediocre guys do amazing things at the expense of players who are usually, by any objective measure over a long period of time, 'better' players.

Is this just a random burst of the split-second combination of firing synapses, fast-twitching muscles and hand-eye coordination, or is it `clutch'? Did David Tyree just find himself in the right place at the right time, facing the same long odds of making the play that any other person with the physical and mental skill set to become a pro wide receiver would have faced under the same circumstances? Or is there something inherent about his mind or body that increased the odds he would make the catch?

If success is the former, a totally random act, why do some players - Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Robert Horry - find themselves performing those acts so much more often than others? If it's the latter, some inherent trait in the individual, what is it? Could it be identified on a brain scan (if such things actually existed)? If not, then what do you think you're talking about?

This doesn't just go for the extraordinary plays. Since the question is really about consistency, apply it to the every-down routine: why do the same guys make blocks sometimes and miss them other times, catch difficult passes sometimes and drop easy balls other times, make perfect breaks on an out route sometimes and get completely burned other times? And why do some players - sometimes the guys with obvious physical advantages, sometimes not - succeed a much greater percentage of the time than others? Is there any actual difference in the .265 hitter and the .305 hitter?

On a fundamental level, it's a simple matter of practice, of conditioning the body to perform these tasks routinely - some players practice harder than others and have a better mastery of technique and a better understanding of what's happening, strategically. This only takes you so far, though, since the advantage is not perfect: sometimes the smaller, slower, less prepared guy wins. What's happening then? Why can't it happen all the time?

Beyond that, the physical and mental level of the vast majority of players is roughly equal. On any given play, unless the physical disparity is extreme, there's no way to tell which player or which team will `win' that specific play. What varies is the consistency of their performance over a large number of plays, the odds that a player or a team will be more successful a greater percentage of the time. Assuming everyone has talent and everyone is running his wind sprints, what is that? Strategy? Uh, "moxie"? Explain.

Just something I think about whenever I'm about to write 'Player X isn't special, physically, he's just consistent.' I know what I mean based on the results, but the notion of "consistency" as a cause, as a trait that leads to results, does not exactly compute. Consistency is an effect. But of what? This is the territory of psychologists and neuro surgeons, I guess, and most people probably don't want to know the answer. If there is one. But there must be an answer, because otherwise...it's random, right? And it's not random - if it was, all the records over time would be the same. I dunno. Maybe I'm listening to too much Radio Lab.

Also: Tim Tebow MD spent time this spring circumcising some Filipino kids, whose genitalia will be heretofore worshiped as a golden gift from heaven by the most fertile women of the land. That is all.

This week is bearing down like Planet X's unstoppable gravitational pull as it shifts the axis of the planet and turns sweet waters bitter. Back to rap at y'all Monday.

Another quick thing on the draft before I get back to what I'm supposed to be doing...

One of the standing beliefs of SMQ is that, while far from perfect in the micro, recruiting rankings are very reliable indicators on which to base expectations. I've tried to show again and again that the guru predictions come out looking very solid overall, when you take the entire picture into account and not little slice like "Experts suck because Tom Brady." This fairly obvious point gets undermined on a pretty regular basis by our preternatural love of the underdog, who is not without his share of evidence.

2008 Draft by Recruiting Ranking (Rivals)

Round	0	1*	2*	3*	4*	5*	Avg.*
1	1	0	4	6	13	5	3.5
2	3	0	6	9	10	4	3.1
3	3	0	6	12	9	3	2.9
4	3	0	14	13	4	2	2.6
5	6	0	5	8	5	4	2.6
6	10	1	11	8	8	0	2.1
7	6	0	16	13	9	0	2.4
Total	32	1	62	69	58	18	2.7

Most of the guys under '0' come from I-AA schools and weren't rated out of high school/prep school/junior college at all; a couple others were walk-ons who weren't rated. The data on both groups was inconsistent (I-AA Domonique Rodgers-Cromartie was rated; I-AA Tim Hightower wasn't. Walk-on Jordy Nelson was rated; walk-on Owen Schmitt wasn't. Etc.). If you're wondering who the lone one-star guy was, as far as my accounting goes, it's Kansas receiver Marcus Henry, who went to the Jets in the sixth round.

As I pointed out in March, though, the raw numbers have to be taken in the context of the number of stars awarded to each category. Over the last five years, Rivals has consistently reserved its five-star designation for the top one percent of I-A recruits. Four-stars only make up a little over ten percent. A substantial majority (almost 60 percent) of the incoming rabble is rated two stars or lower. Their numbers on all-America teams and in the draft are naturally higher than the number of blue chips, but they are not even close to being proportional.

Taking the combined numbers from Rivals' 2003 and 2004 classes, I get 65 guys rated as five-stars, 509 four-stars, 1,512 three-stars and 3,206 two-stars or lower. Based on those numbers and the round-by-round breakdown above, the per capita odds of a player in each rating category hearing his name called last weekend broke down like this (kickers, punters and one long snapper excluded):

There are a couple problems here -- not every player drafted was a part of the 2003 and 2004 classes (I used 2005-06 JUCO ratings where applicable), and large segments of those classes have been and will be taken in other drafts. That's why it's phrased the way it is: 27.7 percent of players rated as five-star guys in 2003 or 2004 were drafted on this specific weekend. Over the course of several drafts, the percentage will be much higher.

Semantics can't hide the trend: five-star recruits have roughly a one-in-four chance of eventually being drafted, twice as high as four-star recruits, who themselves are about three times more likely to get picked than three-star prospects, and so on. Five-star kids are substantially more likely to get picked at any point in the first five rounds.

It's easy to forget how high the failure rate is for everyone. Very few make it to the league, and many fewer stick. This is the case across the board. The only reason we remember Ryan Leaf and Blair Thomas, and not the thousands of also-rans who barely set foot on a pro field, is that they had high expectations to begin with. Most of the time, by the nature of the business, high expectations will be wrong. Low expectations are hardly ever wrong, though you'll never hear the end of it on the rare occasion they are. In either case, the conventional wisdom has a better chance than flipping a coin.

The pro draft is an annual mystery to college fans. It's not that we really know the players better than the scouts - most Saints fans with any clue about the SEC probably groaned when the Saints traded up to pick Jonathan Sullivan in 2002, but I guessed Alan Branch would instantly dominate the league after inexplicably falling to the second round last year, and he finished with nine tackles as a backup. Predictably, the real scouts are better than their armchair counterparts.

If I'm forced to concede to their wisdom, though, I still don't understand it sometimes. Take these two quarterbacks, both multi-year starters, in non-yardage or attempt-based passing categories:

	QB A	QB B	Advantage
Height	6-5	6-4	Push
Weight	228	229	Push
40 Time	4.95	4.84	Eh...Push
2006 Rating	126.7	154.5	QB B
2006 TD%	3.5	7.4	QB B
2006 INT%	2.4	1.7	QB B
2006 Comp. %	61.7	63.0	QB B
2006 Yds./Att.	6.9	8.4	QB B
2006 Oppts. Eff.*	48.8	43.1	QB B
2007 Rating	127.0	144.5	QB B
2007 TD%	4.7	7.8	QB B
2007 INT%	2.9	2.1	QB B
2007 Comp. %	59.3	63.1	QB B
2007 Yds./Att.	6.9	7.2	QB B
2007 Oppts. Eff.*	42.2	49.7	QB A
Team PPG as Starter	27.2	31.6	QB B

* Average of opponents' national rankings in pass efficiency defense.
- - -

Add one more line to "Advantage," this time in favor of Quarterback A: salary. It's not that Matt Ryan (QB A) was drafted ahead of André Woodson (QB B) despite being ostensibly outplayed by his physical equal according to every possible measure against comparable competition two years in a row. It's not really even that Ryan went 195 spots ahead of Woodson, along with two I-AA players, Joe Flacco and Josh Johnson, and a conference rival, Erik Ainge, who failed with better surrounding talent to match Woodson's stats or estimation in the eyes of league coaches (it was Woodson, not Ainge, who was second team all-SEC the last two years, behind JaMarcus Russell in 2006 and Tim Tebow last year). Flacco was a late riser, but Ryan, Johnson, Ainge and every other quarterback drafted fell more or less (within a round, at worst) where he was expected to fall.

What's really weird is that, after he played his last college game in December, Woodson was considered a first rounder, more or less the equal of Ryan and Brian Brohm. He didn't even have a bad workout - he didn't run at all at the combine in February and seven teams had already lost interest enough to skip his pro day workout in March. Almost literally nothing happened, and Woodson fell from would-be savior of a borderline playoff team to late-round afterthought.

The only explanation seems to be momentum and groupthink - once a couple teams soured, nobody else wanted to be the sucker. Think about it this way: if Woodson had been hyped as a first round stud the way Ryan was through the entire process and been picked in the top 20, would you, college fan, have blinked once? If Ryan had fallen to the fourth round because of questions about his deep ball and unusually high interception total? Whatever separated them was not evident on the field in any way that mattered.

The same thing happened to Dan Connor, a sturdy, consistent linebacker projected in the top ten in January who wasn't actually selected until the third round. At least in Connor's case, there were only two middle linebackers picked in front of him, suggesting teams just weren't in the market for middle linebackers. At least he wasn't passed over for the likes of Timothy Hightower, Xavier Omon and Furman fullback Jerome Felton at his position, like Mike Hart, who finally fell to the Colts in the sixth (too small? Too slow? Jacob Hester went in the third).

At least both of them were picked:

Undrafted Players on BCS All-Conference Teams

Jamar Adams	Ali Highsmith	Erin Henderson	Darrell Robertson
Yvenson Bernard	Jo-Lonn Dunbar	Adam Kraus	Jonal Saint-Dic
Barry Booker	Keilen Dykes	J Leman	Dantrell Savage
Adarius Bowman	Eric Foster	Rafael Little	Jamie Silva
Titus Brown	Nate Garner	Marc Magro	Dorian Smith
Dorien Bryant	Wallace Gilberry	Durrell Mapp	Pedro Sosa
Andre Callender	Michael Grant	Chris McDuffie	Adam Speiker
Simeon Castille	Marcus Griffin	Ben Moffitt	Kevin Tuminello
Johnny Dingle	D.J. Hall	Derrick Morse	Eric Wicks
Derrick Doggett	Vince Hall	Martin O'Donnell	Lorenzo Williams
Wesley Woodyard	Jonathan Hefney	Darius Reynaud	D.J. Wolfe

Some of those also-rans are understandable for obvious size/speed reasons (see Dorien Bryant, Andre Callender and Marcus Griffin), and all-conference teams should be taken with a lot of skepticism to begin with. But a couple snubs (Adarius Bowman, D.J. Hall, J Lemen, Vince Hall, D.J. Wolfe) should make no sense at all to the people who have been watching them play throughout their careers. I'm pretty certain Bowman and Vince Hall at some point were "sure things" destined for early round stardom. The coaches and media around them in college obviously didn't see any difference while the games were still going on. But the scouts are probably right.

 was set to mock some of the annual oddities of draft opinion, from a college perspective, but since the definitive headscratcher has already been covered in adequate depth (among guys with the requisite size and style of play for the pros, does any college fan think Matt Ryan and his 61st-ranked efficiency rating were appreciably better than André Woodson? The scouts didn't, either, around the time the last games were played), and since there is so much to do off the blog, I'm putting SMQ on the shelf again for the coming week. I know, I know, I just did this, but multiple deadlines loom like vultures.

I may be back with some notes on the weirdness of the draft, or on its utter predictability in light of old recruiting rankings. This is uncertain. Once things get back in swing, though, the summer program is on like Donkey Kong.

In the meantime, keep the questions for CFB Explainer (anybody know much about the Pistol?) and Ask Mike Leach and anything else you'd like to pass along coming, and be back to rap at y'all in a few days.