Sunday Morning Quarterback: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: GoldenBlogs Interview With Gary Tyrrell Bar-right-arrows



In the BCS, Scarlet Billows Start to Spread

SMQ and all partisans of chaotic, playoff-inducing BCS meltdown crown their patron underdogs tonight in Rutgers, the scrappy, ointment-ensconsed fly that assured indecipherable controversy in all things mythical championship by rallying to bump off the last, best hope at a defensible counterpart to the Ohio State-Michigan winner. The Knights their own selves may raise a futile ruckus for inclusion, solvable by upcoming trips to Cincinnati (watch out) and West Virginia, but by any spin, the blood strewn on the wall is clearly that of the BCS orthodoxy.


Long live offsides on errant field goals!

Its primary function in the gradual erosion of the system now complete, Rutgers basks in its greatest glory and begs one of sports' most improbable all-time questions:

Is Rutgers good enough to play for the mythical championship?

Star-divide

This seems the more relevant question than "Can Rutgers play for the championship," again, because, like Louisville before Thursday's loss, the Knights' fate on the matter is sealed; where the Cardinals were undoubtedly en route to No. 2 regardless the protest, though, it's no secret Rutgers has pretty much zero opportunity to persuade the hu-man polls it can hang with the frontrunning teams that began the season 50 or 60 spots ahead of it, and that only among the conscientious enough to consider where Rutgers fit in related to those teams to begin with. If some pundits expressed doubt over the championship merits of an unefeated Louisville, a virtually unanimous top 20 and sometimes top 10 pick before the season, what prayer could vouch for a team that began the year 38th by Athlon, 58th by Phil Steele, 66th by The Sporting News and mostly ignored by everyone else?

Outside of the unambiguous realpolitik view, the problem remains the one SMQ presented with the entire Big East before Thursday's game, which is that the league exists in a sort of vacuum, almost in a limbo all its own, because - with Miami flopping away a chance at a serious non-conference win of merit for Louisville, at least - the schedules offer no adequate way to compare the conference with the other traditional major conferences. Check out Rutgers' resume and come up with a coherent assessment, SMQ dares you:

    at North Carolina WIN 21-16
    Illinois WIN 33-0
    Ohio U. WIN 21-7
    Howard WIN 56-7
    at South Florida WIN 22-20
    at Navy WIN 34-0
    at Pittsburgh WIN 20-10
    Connecticut WIN 24-13
    Louisville WIN 28-25
    at Cincinnati
    Syracuse
    at West Virginia

This is not the creamiest of cream puff schedules. The Knights were trying, at least, by scheduling North Carolina and Illinois, far as those programs have plummeted since they were put on the agenda, and there is a respectable three-game road stretch against South Florida, Navy and Pittsburgh, all currently bowl-eligible teams, if not juggernauts. But the final judgment on this matter, and on all others concerning the Big East, is exactly how much credit to give beating Louisville and, by extension, West Virginia. Because the Cardinals can hardly be measured up on a national scale outside of their win over WVU, but the Mountaineers their own selves have little to recommend them unless one is willing to look all the way back to last year's Sugar Bowl - which many voters, it seems, were doing in the preseason and most of the year until WVU went down last week, but SMQ considers much more warily.

If an open-minded, methodical voter is willing to consider the Cardinals and Mountaineers at face value - that is, their very high poll positions - then Thursday's win and a hypothetical (though hardly assured) Dec. 2 victory over the Mountaineers could be enough to sway that voter into taking a flier on the Knights as a championship participant. Except at this point - in large part because of the inevitable lingering doubt over the Knights' actual virtues - few voters are going to maintain that regard for Louisville and West Virginia, and Rutgers will suffer as a result.

As of this late second, SMQ has no idea yet where he falls in this mix; in such cases, the middle is a good bet. He will concede, at the least, that Rutgers should be given its fair due until it goes down to defeat, however much that due is judged to be worth.

For Thursday and Thursday alone, he is impressed with the Knights, especially the pass rush, which made Brian Brohm, most recently the Terminator against West Virginia, seem like a shaky underclassman making his first tough start. And that's a pass rush that lost a huge amount of production from last season, most of which seems to have fallen to Eric Foster to make up. Earlier in the season, SMQ remembers flipping over to a couple plays of the Knights' win over Pittsburgh, and every time, the then-hottest quarterback in the country, Tyler Palko, was fuming in frustration over another failed possession, once even trying to force his offense to stay on the field for a ludicrous fourth down attempt deep in Pitt territory before being overruled by coaches. Brohm, either hit, forced to pull the ball down and run for nothing or dump it off very quickly for nothing on nearly every pass attempt over the final two and a half quarters, was more outwardly composed than Palko, but the general effect was the same. Any SEC or Big Ten defense entering ranked second nationally in total yards and scoring that held Louisville - second in total offense coming in, fourth in scoring, averaging just shy of 40 points and 500 yards - to seven straight punts and 54 total yards in a second half shutout, even while failing to produce a turnover, would be proclaimed dominant and one of the very best in the country, and so should Rutgers'.

It's a resilient team, too, as overachievers tend to be, to come back from 18 down when all the momentum was pulling in Louisville's direction. For his part, Mike Teel was far better and more efficient than his numbers would ever suggest, and after an early, terrible interception on Rutgers' second series, the main knock against him was that his receivers couldn't hang on to the ball. Hardly spectacular, but Teel's numbers (8-21, 19 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT) bely a steady, Krenzel-esque performance. He wasn't overwhelmed, carried much more of the load than SMQ could have guessed was possible in a Rutgers win - especially when the Knights lose time of possession by almost ten full minutes - and deserves a lot of credit for this game, as an apt symbol for the whole workmanlike outfit, if nothing else.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

And here we go
Well written expose on what just transpired, SMQ, and at this late hour, I'm in agreement that I don't know (yet) what to make of it.

Nonetheless, the turnaround that we saw from the Rutgers defense after that not at all innocuous start was remarkable. From a seemingly impending blowout to a dominant second half and victory? Three cheers for Rutgers, whatever their fate the rest of this season.

by PB @ BON on Nov 10, 2006 2:26 AM EST   0 recs

Rutgers
Your condescension is reprehensible.  The beauty of college football is that previous years' performances are discounted, if not eliminated, from consideration regarding the best teams in the current year.  What other team beat a #3 ranked team, who beat the #3 ranked team the week before? Did Florida do that?  Did Auburn do that?  Did Arkansas do that?

You do not hold a monopoly on high-quality college football.  That is why WVU was held in such high regard this year (beating a now-weak-Georgia team), deservedly or not.  If the SEC is so tough, why did they lose to an OBVIOUSLY inferior Big East team last Sugar Bowl? Why did Ohio State struggle with a team (Illinois) that Rutgers had NO PROBLEM dispatching earlier in the year by a score of 33-0?

Get over yourselves...Rutgers is more than a legitimate national contender

by RutgersRealist on Nov 10, 2006 3:38 AM EST   0 recs

Reprehensible condescension!
Wow, Realist, you've never read this blog before, have you? What am I supposed to get over, my raging Conference USA bias?

by SMQ on Nov 10, 2006 10:05 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Actually...
...now that I read the post again, Realist, I'm not sure you even read it past the first paragraph.

by SMQ on Nov 10, 2006 10:09 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

I read it over, too, SMQ...
...and you definitely seem to unobjectively hating on Rutge-

Wait, no, what the hell is that guy even reading?  Well put-together, and yet another big game springs up on December 2nd.

by CW on Nov 10, 2006 11:18 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Friday Quarterback?
SMQ?

Some of us look forward to this weekly feature.

by PB @ BON on Nov 10, 2006 3:05 PM EST   0 recs

Why FMQ?
Just call it Louisville Recap Friday. Why does Louisville insist on playing all their games on Thursday? If Penn State played a Thursday night game the boosters would revolt.

I'm starting to think SMQ is a closet Louisville fan.

by Mike on Nov 10, 2006 3:36 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Rutgers vs. Georgia
One thing I think particularly interesting in this conversation is the perception of Georgia's exemplary defense prior to all those loses, when they were busy pitching shut-outs at teams and everyone thought Georgia had a "typical dominant SEC defense." Compare this to the perception of Rutgers' defense, which is as statistically dominant as Georgia's was, but which has no tradition of "typical dominant Big East defense" to draw on.

As there will never be enough cross-comparison between teams in college football (with over 100 teams in play and only 12 games per year for any given team), these sorts of perceptions are the precept on which most conclusions are based. Even the comparative method fails in the face of this: if Louisville's offense is really that good, the Rutgers' defense should get comparatively as much praise (55 yards and seven straight punts is pretty impressive against anyone, as Georgia can attest).

by CMGayley on Nov 10, 2006 3:17 PM EST   0 recs

hmm
The calls for Rutgers as a national championship callibur team tends to highlight how rediculous the BCS debate can be during the middle of a season.

I'll wait until Dec. 4th before deciding if Rutgers is a 'great team.' After last night, I see Rutgers as a very well coached team with a good running game that can play good defense.

While one win doesn't earn any team a national championship ticket, I think Rutgers has earned a top 10 spot, not only for last night, but additionally for not losing to any of eight obviously inferior teams, something at least one worthy top 10 team (USC) can't say.

"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." - #14 Dilbert's 35 Rules Of Order

by Raymond on Nov 10, 2006 9:01 PM EST   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

College Football Coverage

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Tucsonroyal_small
Question: What percentage of teams win based on the Vegas point spread?
Javierbardem-no-country-for-old-men_small
It doesn't have to be Sunday to talk about the sham that is the BCS!
Small
OU 42 UT28
Small
College Football Question: Penn State University
Small
Tiger Walk
Small
USC Song Girls
Small
College Football Question: The Big East
Small
College Football Question: Thursday Night Football
Small
The New Location for SMQ!
Rockmnation_small
Beyond the Box Score: SEC Edition (Part Two)

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Site Meter