Sunday Morning Quarterback: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Cottagers Confidential for Fulham FC Fans!

BCS BUSTIN': THE WEEK IN REALPOLITIK or DO NOT ACCEPT THE PREMISES

With two of the three teams currently in spots 3-5 guaranteed to be weeded out, it’s getting a little clearer:

Updated BCS Standings, 11-10
Rank Team BCS Pts. Harris Coaches Comp. Avg.
1. LSU .980 1 1 1
2. Oregon .938 2 2 3
3. Kansas .909 3 3 2
4. Oklahoma .854 4 4 7
5. Missouri .810 6 6 5
6. West Virginia .786 5 5 8
7. Ohio State .774 7 7 6
8. Arizona State .750 8 8 4
9. Georgia .672 9 9 9
10. Virginia Tech .613 10 10 10

I’m a little surprised personally that OSU fell below West Virginia, especially given the Buckeyes’ advantage according to the computers, but such is the pull of Pavlovian Drop Syndrome among the hu-manns. It doesn’t matter the sense this makes, or the justice of a team’s standing hinging so much on when it loses rather than on the circumstances of the loss or the rest of its body of work – at any rate, Ohio State is gone gone gone from the race barring a series of events too unlikely to consider here. For our purposes, there are really only five teams left standing:

BCS Top Five: Remaining Schedules (Points Back)
LSU (-) Oregon (-) Kansas (– .029) Oklahoma (– .084) Missouri (– .128)
at Ole Miss at Arizona Iowa State at Texas Tech at Kansas State
Arkansas at UCLA vs. Missouri Oklahoma State vs. Kansas
SEC Champ. Oregon State Big 12 Champ. Big 12 Champ. Big 12 Champ.

And only one significant question: can a one-loss Big 12 champion catch Oregon?

I think it should be understood that Kansas, by virtue of getting two top five teams as its final hurdles to full respectability, is a no-brainer if it finishes 13-0; Oregon does not have enough pull with its brand (yet – Just do it Nike!) and cannot get enough value from beating UCLA and Oregon State to fend off the Jayhawks if they run the table. As I said earlier today, the nature of this beast ensures that somebody gets screwed, and right now, Oregon is bent over the table. Ohio State and Arizona State, deserving teams whose main demerit re: Missouri, Oklahoma and West Virginia in front of them is that the Buckeyes and Devils lost to good teams in November rather than mediocre teams like Colorado and South Florida in September, don’t even get that much respect – they could play in the Rose Bowl, a nice consolation, but they’re out of the self-declared title game barring a miracle. The Ducks, on the other hand, will be made to suffer the pain of speculation, hope and heartbreak for the second time in seven years, and there is no hope despite their current standing if LSU and Kansas roll on through their last three unblemished. The BCS homepage has this line that will probably be repeated this week, "If the Ducks struggle to a victory, it coudl open up an opportunity..." but don’t buy that. The Tigers and ‘Hawks clearly control their destinies here.

The dilemma comes if Kansas loses to Missouri and/or Oklahoma, leaving the one-loss Tigers and Sooners head-to-head with Oregon for the number two spot. And thus into the long annual tradition of two-three clashes hearkening the system’s imminent doom steps Big 12 vs. Pac Ten, and the absence of a championship game has a good chance of killing the latter (again). They’re a double-edged sword, these conference championship games – Nebraska, Kansas State, Tennessee and Texas have all lost certain mythical title bids over the last ten years by losing on the "extra" weekend, but Florida last year proved the value of adding another quality win while the opponent a few scant tenths away in the polls sits at home. This is Oregon’s problem: the computers will still respect the Ducks’ strength of schedule, but come December, they will have gone nearly a month since their last game in the national spotlight, during which time Kansas and/or Missouri will appear at least twice in marquee national games and voters will have just seen one of those two or Oklahoma lope to an impressive win in the Big 12 Championship. If it comes down to that, much like Michigan last year, I think there’s a very good chance Oregon will simply be forgotten. If I was Mike Bellotti, I would ignore the current, seemingly comfortable lead over Missouri and Oklahoma as well as the computers’ absurd disregard for margin of victory, assume the trailing position at the last leg of the race and go bombs away against L.A. and Oregon State. Pull no punches, show no mercy, and leave no doubt in voters’ minds that the Ducks are at their swoosh-stamped core the dominant team they saw against Michigan, USC and Arizona State. Because you won’t get another chance while the Midwesterners are hogging the attention; Dennis Dixon’s H*i*m*n moment will come too late, and you don’t want Phil Knight to start buying ads the week before the final poll comes out. That would probably backfire. Although a nice gift basket to the right newsroom, maybe...


I implore you, Bellotti, your mission is clear: leave the starters in.
- - -
West Virginia is not completely dead, assuming the obvious: everyone in front of the Mountaineers loses. Well, not everyone, but four of the top five; two of them (some combination of KU, Mizzou and Oklahoma) are guaranteed to bite the bullet, but forecasting the other two will require some imaginative stretching. If, say, LSU were to go down to Tennessee or Georgia in the SEC Championship, and, I dunno, Oklahoma State were to upset Oklahoma, but the Sooners still went on to win the Big 12 as two-loss team, WVU would probably slde into the number two slot behind Oregon. Or Oregon could lose rather than LSU, or they both could lose. One of them has to lose, and so does the eventual Big 12 champion before the championship game. Any number of improbable scenarios can get the Mountaineers there if they keep winning, including – and this would be the best thing that could happen to WVU – Kansas State or Iowa State upsetting either of the North frontrunners this week. Voters have made abundantly clear they will not tolerate a loss if that loss occurs past a certain point in the season, so Kansas is hereby on thin ice. Why is West Virginia in this position ahead of Ohio State and Arizona State? Again, kid, don’t ask so many questions – Look! That guy got JACKED UP!

On that note, I’d like to take off the scheming Machiavellian hat for a second and return to the notion of an Ohio State-Arizona State or (especially) an Ohio State-Oregon Rose Bowl as a "consolation" game. The way these scenarios are shaping up, nothing could be further from the truth, unless you are a Grade A sucker for this mass-marketed "national championship" bullshit. Under none of the situations laid out above is there a compelling or even mildly convincing case that any two teams in the discussion will really separate themselves from the pack, much less a consensus about the matter. The only possible overriding argument for any of them is "Well, Kansas is undefeated," which is not guaranteed to last, and if it does, taking the Jayhawks without serious scrutiny based on record alone is total capitulation to the practice of scheduling worthless scrimmages outside of the conference.

That’s not to say that KU won’t be deserving if it finishes 13-0, only that the entire process is arbitrary. And championships are not arbitrary. If Ohio State and Oregon line up in Pasadena, there will be nothing less championship-worthy about that game than Oklahoma and LSU lining up in New Orleans except the paint on the field, and the endless hype. But hype, as you know, is bullshit by definition; we do not elect champions according to hype. Well, except when we do. But if we’re going to operate under the notion the sport should have a national champion, and that the champion will be selected by opinion polls rather than in a playoff like every other sane sport, this facade of a single, monolithic "championship game" is not acceptable. If the voters still matter – and under this system, they most certainly do, and god bless the AP for opting out of it – then every game still matters, and no one should be cowed into casting a championship vote because some company calls its bowl game "the championship." It’s a blatantly fraudulent label. Any honest person will recognize in January that in all probability there will be more than two bizarrely-selected teams playing for the right to be voted number one, and anyone who doesn’t admit it is a shameless huckster, shill or boob. Or an LSU fan, since the farce seems to work for them.

- - -
Hawaii Watch. It is the standing opinion of this blog that Hawaii has done nothing to warrant consideration for inclusion in anyone’s top 25, and cannot do anything to warrant consideration against its impeccably lame schedule until it beats Boise State and Washington to finish a perfect regular season. The Warriors hold at 16, moving in front of sliding Boston College, Michigan and UConn but leapt by USC, Virginia and Clemson; notably, this is only two spots in front of Boise State, up three from 21, and three spots ahead of Illinois. Hawaii does get its first bit of digital love: where the humans continue to slide UH up the ladder (11th in the Harris, 12th according to the Coaches), the only computer that’s ranked Hawaii in its top 25 to date is that of Peter Wolfe, and even that ranking was tossed as the "high" outlier of the six, so the Warriors’ official percentage of the machine vote has remained steady at 0.0000 percent. No longer: the green mark of shame appears this week in the final spot of Richard Billingsley’s top 25 while remaining at No. 12 in Wolfe’s algorithm, and the Billingsley vote bumps Hawaii’s computer score all the way to 0.010. Math, oh math, why hast thou forsaken us?

0 recs  |  Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Ohio State's non-con schedule
Far be it for me to say anything positive about KU, but Ohio State played Youngstown State, Akron, Washington and Kent State.

Youngstown State: 7-4 (FCS)
Akron: 4-6 (MAC)
Washington: 3-7 (Pac-10)
Kent State: 3-7 (MAC)

Honestly, is that any more impressive than the teams KU played?  KU played one FCS team, two MAC teams, and a Sun Belt team.  So the difference between OSU and KU is Washington, and a bunch of blowouts?

Ohio State was and is overrated, and with a loss, whether in September, October or November, does not deserve to be playing for the national title.  I'd put any of LSU, Oregon, KU, Mizzou, Oklahoma and West Virginia up against an Ohio State University and take my chances.

We'll carry the banner high! http://www.bringonthecats.com

by TB on Nov 12, 2007 12:59 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

YEA!
first lou holtz, and now a wildcats fan.

that is when you know you are for real, when rival schools start pleading your case.

in all seriousness though, allegiances aside, ohio state has been overrated all season long. they are good, sure, and the best team in the big televen, but no way they are top 5 nationally. i would take all of the above mentioned teams against ohio state, and add in arizona state.

by rockchalk on Nov 12, 2007 2:41 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

OSU
By no means am I saying they deserve to be #1 or whatever, but to read "no way they are top 5 nationally" is disappointing because most of what you write in this site's comments is on point.  Having watched all of these teams fully at least once, plus every second of OSU's season, I can say without a doubt that the Buckeyes can beat any of them.  Do I know for a fact that they can win six of ten against each?  No, but no one can say that about anyone (especially this year).

As to the overrated aspect, it's a wild mischaracterization to say they've been "overrated all season long."  They started around 12th or 13th in every poll and moved up because the polls move up undefeated teams and drop those with losses.  Everyone complained when OSU "backed" into #1 and whined that they wouldn't be worthy of the "title game" (whatever that means, like SMQ rightly points out).  Now that they've lost, everyone gets to say "I told you so."  Point being, OSU never really got the true love that an overrated team gets (like, say, South Florida - remember that craziness?) and to say otherwise is to misconstrue the angle of the national media for the past however many weeks.

by osuvandy on Nov 12, 2007 11:25 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

you are probably right...
but the reason they backed into number one is a perfect example of why i hate preseason polls.

no one knew how good ohio state would be, but they lost a lot so they came in around #13. then, when every team in front of them lost, they hopped up to #1.

ohio state is a good team, and it is unfair for me to say 'no way', but i would take 7 teams in front of them.

kansas
oklahoma
missouri
lsu
west virginia
oregon
arizona state

by rockchalk on Nov 12, 2007 1:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Agree to disagree
I obviously disagree with your assessment of seven in front of the Buckeyes, but I wholeheartedly agree that preseason polls are awful and get us into these messes, though truth be told, I'm not sure waiting until week eight would really help as much as we'd all like - OSU/LSU/OU/USC, etc. would get the benefit of the doubt due to name recognition and KU/Mizzou/BC, etc. wouldn't.

Playoff anyone?

by osuvandy on Nov 12, 2007 2:21 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

you are probably right...
but the reason they backed into number one is a perfect example of why i hate preseason polls.

no one knew how good ohio state would be, but they lost a lot so they came in around #13. then, when every team in front of them lost, they hopped up to #1.

ohio state is a good team, and it is unfair for me to say 'no way', but i would take 7 teams in front of them.

kansas
oklahoma
missouri
lsu
west virginia
oregon
arizona state

by rockchalk on Nov 12, 2007 1:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It feels like the mid-90s again
Your last two (non-Hawaii) paragraphs really sum up the whole BCS mess quite succinctly.  With no real dominant teams, this season's Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta are gonna feel like those #3 vs. #12, #2 vs. #4, #1 vs. #5 type games that settled things (with full admissions of arbitrariness) a decade and a half ago.  The barely-there separation between the top 8 or 10 teams suggests that this year's big games are all going to seem a whole lot more important than usual, to both fans and the players.  I'm really happy about that, even if the "national championship" is a mess as a result.

by HooShotYa on Nov 12, 2007 1:39 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Agree wholeheartedly
While the BCS has allegedly sought to crown a legitimate "National Champion" it has in the process sucked a lot of life out of the other major bowls.  Although I'm sure just about everyone reading this blog has and will watch those games with interest I recall somewhat fondly the time when they had real significance. I believe they still should, the advent of the BCS notwithstanding.  This year that significance should certainly be greater than in, say, 2005.

While I adamantly oppose an 8 team playoff (would like to see a 4-team or a plus 1 in the bowl context) I cannot but reject the exlusivity of the BCS claim to deciding  the "real" National Champion.  

For the record, as an LSU fan I am rooting for them to win the whole thing this year and am glad they shared the 2003 title but, in the spirit suggested, above, absolutely reject the feteshism of many LSU fans with respect of the sanctity of the BCS championship designation.

by marcillac on Nov 13, 2007 5:23 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

SMQ is certainly right in the scenario he
posits with the tOSU/Oregon winner being a plausible national champion as well as the winner of the prospective LSU/Big 12 shindig in NOLA.  The championship need not be split but it certainlymay, with perfect legitimacy, be so split depending on the performance of the two winners over the next 3 to 4 games.  

I'd love to see a game between the two winners though not, as stated above, the dreaded 8 team playoff.

by marcillac on Nov 13, 2007 6:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

the timing of losses
and its impact is retarded in college football. granted, i dont mind west virginia over ohio state because i think the 'eers are the better team, but the arbitration involved in the human polls is largely sickening.

when you lose should be regardless, taking into accounts injuries and such, all that should matter is who you beat, who you lossed to, and, least important of all, where the game was played. the date on the calendar should mean next-to-nothing.

by rockchalk on Nov 12, 2007 2:46 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

sorry i forgot something...
a perfect example of this is virginia.

they were absolutely embarrassed on opening weekend against wyoming, something like 100 total yards, but because of their relative anonymity it went unnoticed. then, they reel off 8 wins in a row, most of them by 1 or 2 points, and jump back into fringe BCS bowl territory.

but lets say that they start out 7-0, get all excited, gain national attention, then take a trip out to laramie and get their butts kicked. there is exponentially more ramifications, because of the extra room to fall, and they fall off the face of the earth.

by rockchalk on Nov 12, 2007 2:51 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

LSU
If Oregon should be mad at anyone it is LSU -- there's a team that did not drop as far as it should have after three weeks of close wins and close losses. Say what you will about all their 4* and 5* guys but does anyone have confidence that LSU is really the "best" team in the country?

And your last few graphs are spot on, re: how ridiculous the system is. The notion that "every week is a playoff" is such BS, because if that were the case then Kansas v. Hawaii would be in the MNC (assuming they both win out).

Basically, every week is a playoff, but some teams get into the losers bracket: i.e., those teams with the names (LSU, Michigan, tOSU, Florida) and those teams that lose early/middle of season. Oh, and the "winner" of the losers bracket is chosen at random.

And for those who say a playoff would make the regular season less exciting, that would make sense if the playoff were 64 teams or even 16.  But if you limit it to 4, 6, or 8 teams, you are telling me that the current top 4-8 playing a couple games in December and January would not be more exciting than March Madness?

by CardsFan922 on Nov 12, 2007 7:13 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Playoffs
LSU gets a free pass on a loss because it plays in the SEC.  Basically LSU is being held to a different standard because of last year's Florida team.

Whatever complaints you may have about March Madness, at least it (theoretically) gives the little guys a shot.  Here, we're asking a bunch of college kids to be perfect (or as close to it as possible) for twelve weeks just to get a shot, and even then it's not guaranteed: 2006 Boise State, 2004 Utah and Auburn, and a score of others prove that sometimes being perfect isn't even enough.  Even if you don't really think that Boise State was the best team in college football last year, at least in basketball they would have gotten a chance to prove it.  Instead, they got an essentially meaningless win in the Fiesta Bowl that may have upped their program's status but didn't give them a shot at winning it all.

Playoffs don't make the regular season meaningless.  Would Kansas be undefeated if it had played LSU's schedule?  Probably not.  But Kansas (so far) has proven that it deserves a shot at the national title.

by Tom on Nov 12, 2007 10:44 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Come on
Why are y'all singling out LSU here?  Do you want to take your argument up with the computers too?  Do they all have an algorithm built in that says to automatically give a few more points to every SEC team?  As far as the last sentence of your post, I think most rational people would argue that Kansas has not proven that they deserve a shot at the national title.  They may prove it over their next few games but they haven't yet.  And most pundits think they will be given a chance if they win out.

I guess it's human nature to attack the team at the top of the polls.  But if you take a closer look at them, it's pretty clear LSU is not getting a unanimous nod there.  If Kansas, LSU, and Oregon all win out, I'll feel sorry for whichever team is left out.  A pox on the BCS system!

p.s.  SMQ, do you have any basis for singling out LSU fans as approving of the BCS system?  I can't speak for them all but nobody I know prefers it to a playoff.

by crepuscular on Nov 12, 2007 11:11 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The LSU comment
LSU fans' claim to the REAL 2003 national championship is based entirely on the legitimacy of the BCS. Most Tiger fans as far as I can tell deny USC (#1 in the AP) a share of the championship that season because "the system we all agreed upon" came out in the Tigers' favor. I'm sure that doesn't apply to every LSU fan, but I surmise it is the majority opinion even among people who say they want the BCS replaced by a playoff. If the BCS championship isn't THE championship, LSU has to share that title.

by SMQ on Nov 12, 2007 12:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks for clarifying
What you say is true.  I would just add that, had that played out with any other team where LSU was that year, their fans would resort to the same silly argument.

by crepuscular on Nov 12, 2007 12:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

LSU - USC
My take is that the LSU "system we all agreed upon" argument is more a reaction to the popular notion that USC was the real champion in 2003 with LSU the "so-called" champion elected by flashing vacuum tubes and random number generators.  That popular notion was strongest around 2005 when ESPN was busy trumpeting that year's USC team as the greatest team in the history of organized sports.  During that season it felt like LSU's 2003 title split was ignored to trim the fat off the infinite Three-Pete stories that were everywhere.

by Gator Cub on Nov 12, 2007 12:22 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Playoffs
I totally agree on the concept of a playoff.  My favorite concept is an 8 team playoff utilizing the existing 4 BCS bowls plus three others e.g., Peach, excuse me, Chik-Fil-A, Capital One, Cotton, Holiday, etc.

However, I have to take exception with Tom on his LSU and Kansas example.  Using Sagarin Strength of Schedule rankings, (pick your own pundit)Kansas, and Oklahoma have all played much weaker schedules.  The real question is how has Oklahoma retained their ranking in the face of their loss.  No real explanation other than program prestige and timing of their loss.

Oregon actually has a more credible argument today IMHO than anyone else over their poll ranking.  And as an LSU fan, it kills me to say that.

Team  Schedule Strength
Oregon    12
LSU        19
ASU        27
WVU        50
Mizzou     52
Ohio State 55
Oklahoma   82
Kansas     97
Hawaii    157

If Kansas beats Missouri and Oklahoma, I don't think anyone (reasonable) will argue with their inclusion in the mythical title game, but as long as their schedule strength is closer to Hawaii than to Oregon, they're not going to get a lot of props from the rest of the country.  

And please note that I haven't said a word about conference strength.  

by DallasTiger on Nov 12, 2007 12:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Oregon's SOS
...will take a bigger hit than LSU's, since they have 3 games left against not-so-good teams and LSU has 2 games left (1 gawdawful team and 1 that won't hurt too much in the SOS).

That could be a problem for Oregon if Kansas wins out, since I think LSU vs Oregon is the best matchup of the remaining possibilities just from a fan's standpoint (Kansas v LSU being a real close 2nd).

by JPK on Nov 12, 2007 12:31 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Right
Throwing out the computers for a second -- which are increasingly irrelevant in all of this, since they're only one third of the BCS equation -- you get the sense that Kansas isn't getting that much respect because they're Kansas.  Take Kansas's resume, but change the name on the uniforms to Oklahoma, Texas, or even Nebraska (who's obviously been down the last few years, but still retains a lot of "street cred"), and you're looking at the undisputed number one team in the nation according to the pollsters.  The problem I have right now is that the courtesy that had been extended to OSU for being undefeated isn't being extended to Kansas, because Ohio State is Ohio State and Kansas is Kansas.

One thing you can say for KU is that they've won away from home.  Since Big 12 play started, they've played four of six away from home, and none of those four were pushovers.  Aside from dodging Oklahoma and Texas from the South, KU's Big 12 schedule isn't that favorable: they get both of the pushovers (Baylor and Iowa State) at home, and most of their tough games have come on the road with the exception of the Missouri game (and that's a neutral site game.)

by Tom on Nov 13, 2007 8:55 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Ohio State
Why are you assuming Ohio State fell to 7 because of the late-season loss penalty?  My reaction upon seeing the new polls was: what has OSU done to deserve being ranked ahead of Arizona State.  I'd love to see your rough resume ranker for all the one-loss teams.  It might take some doing to convince me that Ohio State has any victories even as good as West Virginia's Miss St. win.  

And what makes Illinois "good" and USF "mediocre"?  Illinois is probably better, but are they that much better?  I just don't understand why you think 7 is so far for Ohio State to fall.

by Gator Cub on Nov 12, 2007 9:19 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Um ...
>>> It might take some doing to convince me that Ohio State has any victories even as good as West Virginia's Miss St. win.

Wisconsin?
@ Penn State?

I'd argue that both of those are clearly better than beating Miss St. Certainly the latter, though I can see the argument against Wisconsin being in there since they were missing their top two RBs for that game (didn't seem to affect them against Michigan, though).

by SpartanDan on Nov 12, 2007 7:01 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Late Season Loss Syndrome
Well that was hyperbole, and you're right, those wins are better than the Miss St. win.  But my point is that Ohio State, with its weak schedule, is eliminated from MNC consideration unless there are only 2 1-loss teams.  Even if WVU has a weaker resume, none of the other 1-loss teams do, and Michigan wouldn't be a good enough win to change that.  

I agree that the when you lose thing is a little ridiculous, but other than Virginia, are there really any teams getting blatant benefit from it?  USF is definitely getting burned by it, but they could also be getting burned by the fact that their jerseys still say USF, despite what they did earlier in the year.

by Gator Cub on Nov 13, 2007 6:44 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Oregon Schedule
In the remaining schedule grid you neglected to include Oregon's upcoming Thursday night game against Arizona.  The combined record of Oregon's remaining opponents is 15-15.  Not great, but certainly not a bunch of push-overs.

by jfwells on Nov 12, 2007 1:10 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Forgot to mention
The Civil War (Oregon/Oregon State) is on the same weekend as the conference championship games, so there is less of a chance that Oregon will be forgotten (a la Michigan, 2006) provided they take care of business.

by jfwells on Nov 12, 2007 1:18 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Fixed, JF
Thanks. Oregon's bye week is to blame for that oversight (well, I'm to blame, because the bye week threw me).

by SMQ on Nov 12, 2007 2:12 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

College Football Coverage
Start posting on Sunday Morning Quarterback »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
SB Nation Survey + Chance to donate $500 to a charity of this community's choice

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SBNation.com Recent Stories

FILE-In this  Sept. 13, 2008, file photo shows Oregon coach Mike Bellotti joining his team as they take the field for an NCAA college football game against Purdue in West Lafayette, Ind. Oregon athletic director Mike Bellotti is stepping down after less than a year in the position to become a college football analyst with ESPN. Bellotti was head coach of the Ducks for 14 seasons before he formally took over as athletic director on July 1. He'll make his debut on ESPN on April 17. (AP Photo/Tom Strickland,File) link

More Bad News For Oregon: Bellotti Resigns As AD To Work For ESPN

Tennessee running back Bryce Brown (11) runs past Ohio's Melvin Payne (55), Dak Notestine (51) and Lee Renfro (32) during the first half of an NCAA college football game Saturday, Sept. 26, 2009 in Knoxville, Tenn. Tennessee won 34-23. (AP Photo/Wade Payne) +1 updates

Bryce Brown Leaving Tennessee? Former 5-Star RB 'Not A Part Of The Team'

Ohio State head coach Jim Tressel, left, jokes with offensive lineman Bryant Browning (70) before taking the team picture during an NCAA college football media day, Thursday, Aug,13, 2009, in Columbus, Ohio. (AP Photo/Terry Gilliam)

Jim Tressel Receives Two-Year Contract Extension, No Raise

More from SBNation.com >


Official Partner of CBS Sports