Say what you will (Michael Hunt) about the BCS, USC, Texas, Utah, the SEC, the MWC, fairness, money, legitimacy, mythical national championships, whatever . . . that bowl game last night was fantastic. That's what college football bowls should be. Two very good teams that can beat each other on any given night (and they could).
This is a Badger Blog, so here are some things relevant to the Badgers: the single most important key to the game was Oklahoma's two first downs inside the Florida 10 yielding no points. Bret!?! Listen up!! At the time I said, "yeah, Bob Stoops, slam that thing in from the 1 on 4th down. You can do it. Make a statement." I was wrong. Bob Stoops was wrong. Oklahoma fans everywhere were wrong. Take the points. Now, if you're in a bad spot, and you know that everything is stacked against you, maybe going for it is the right option, but I'll tell you what: if Oklahoma gets 3 points from either trip inside the 10, that's a very different ball game. And that early? You never know. Take the points.
Why? With another three points, is Sam Bradford forcing a deep throw with 5 minutes left in the game? No. Now, a bunch of things would've been different, but the bottom line is Oklahoma is up three in a close game. TAKE THE POINTS, Bret. I swear, as a Badger fan, I will never again question taking the points in a competitive game.
Ok, three more things that were "keys." (1) Defense getting off the field on third down. Florida did, Oklahoma didn't. The Sooners routinely allowed Florida to convert even third-and-longs. That, folks, is how you lose football games. (2) Percy Harvin. The kid is sick. Speedy and slippery. I wish we had one of him. (3) Tim Tebow. Solid arm, solid legs, silly size for a quarterback. Great player.
Now, onto the juicy stuff: Tebow, God, and idiotic sports announcers. This isn't a blog about Christianity, but . . . (here goes nothing) I practice my faith much differently than Tebow does. While we appear to agree on some fundamentals, his evangelicizing irks me. I don't like it. I don't like John 3:16 eye black. I don't like the religious gesticulations after touchdowns, and I don't like the, "first, I'd like to thank Jesus Christ for [choosing me over the Sooners]." But I'll take it a step further: it's not what I'd do, but it's also not right for me to judge him for his apparently authentic faith. (This does not mean that I no longer mind athletes prattling on about how Jesus blessed them because they scored a touchdown or made a tackle, then take their guns into night clubs, get a little too funky with the local ladies, and generally don't act Christian at all; deeds, not words, my friends). So I don't like it, but I also won't turn my back on the kid because he's different than me. So there.
Not that it isn't difficult. God didn't choose him over the Sooners (or at least I don't think so). And those announcers!?! Good God (to turn a phrase), get off his . . . um . . . lap. Seriously. These are the same people who tell us that Florida "throttled" Oklahoma (to use ESPN's terminology). Yeah, like George Bush throttled Al Gore in 2000. Folks, until that last pick-turned-touchdown drive, that game could've gone either way. Florida won, and good for them, but there was no "throttling." But this is about Tebow. When announcers, who are well known idiots for saying things that preposterous, can't stop fawning over Tebow the Messiah ("you'll be a better person for spending ten minutes in his precence"), it makes it easy to dislike the kid. Seriously, that kind of talk did Tebow's reputation more harm than good (at least with the 70% of Americans who recognize evolution occurs).
On the other hand, it's not Tebow that deserves the scorn, it's the announcers. So I will continue to think that Tebow is a good kid (even with the unsportsmanlike taunting -- he's a kid playing sports; I'm not proud of it, but I've done some taunting during a game this year, and I'm nowhere near as young). Really, it sounds like he's a genuinely good kid with an authentic faith (which I, for one, prefer to express differently). The announcers, on the other hand . . .
Final thought on the BCS title game: Congratulations Florida, Coach Meyer, Harvin, Tebow -- and Oklahoma, Coach Stoops, and Bradford. Well done.
PS. Remember when we went for it late against Tennessee in the '08 Outback? We should've taken the points. Then we wouldn't have needed a touchdown, just a field goal to tie it, when Donovan threw that last interception. So I repeat: TAKE THE POINTS. Badger fans? Take note.
Showing posts with label Rankings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rankings. Show all posts
All-Time Badgers by the Numbers
In case you missed this leading up to the Holidays, the Capital Times put out a pretty good list of the all-time Badgers, by the numbers.
Some honorable mentions from the Alvarez Era (given my age, that's what I'm competent to recall):
#1 Luke Swan (no argument with Brandon Williams): the Fennimore Flash didn't have the God-given talent that Williams did, but had the heart of a lion.
#2 Lee Deramus: Jamar Fletcher is the right pick here, but Deramus was a key cog in a hard-working team that brought the first Rose Bowl glory to Mad-town. Brian Calhoun would receive more votes if he had stuck around for one more year. Scott Starks had one of the great all-time Badger plays, returning Drew Brees's fumble for a touchdown to beat Purdue, vaulting UW to #4 in the nation (for a week or two).
#6 (pending) Isaac Anderson looks like he could be a great one. Better than Ike? That's a high bar, but I like what I see so far.
#9 Jonathan Orr: vs. Beckum? Tough call, I think. Two great ones.
#10 Taylor Mehlhaff: better than Samuel? No, but very important to the Badgers during his tenure.
#11 Darrell Bevell: 1993. 'Nuf said. Owen Daniels wasn't too bad, either. Either more important to the Badgers than their first black All-American (two times, too)? Probably not.
#14 John Hall or Kevin Stemke: apparently 14 is a [really good] kicker's number at UW.
#28 Anthony Davis: after his Freshman season, you always felt like there was a little more potential than he ever realized.
#29 Jeff Messenger: not at the front of the talent line, but a leader for the tough secondary for the '93 team.
#30 Zach Brown (also pending): I'm looking forward to seeing Clay and Brown as the two backs sharing most of the time. If he gets the snaps, he should take over the all-time #30 spot.
#33 Brent Moss: 1994 Rose Bowl MVP. "A tough out" as they say. A shame how his career went down, but before Fall 1994, he was as beastly a back as the Badgers had since Ameche and would've been a serious Heisman contender.
#39 PJ Hill: the Cap. Times limited this to players without any eligibility, surely PJ will take this spot when he leaves? I don't know. I've never been sold on him, and I'm still not.
#41 Terrell Fletcher: one of the better backs we've placed in the NFL; Chryst would drool all over a back like him. And he played second fiddle to Moss. Also at #41 Mark Zalewski: typifies the Wisconsin football story.
#44 Chris Pressley: for his academic exploits, but Donnel Thompson was a critical cog of those 98-99 teams, so academics alone don't get Chris there.
#45 Matt Berstein: beast of a fullback, but hard to say better than Greisen and his 7-year (and counting) NFL career.
#47 Eric Unverzagt: a staple for the '93 team, and an all-time linebacker name. Better than a 1937 first round pick for the Packers? Who knows.
Most of the lineman I recall made the list, but #67 Dan Buenning and #68 Mark Tauscher are notable exceptions on the offensive side. Two stick out on the defensive side (below).
#77 Anttaj Hawthorne: beastly defensive tackle. Difference between him and Wendell Bryant is Bryant played on a better Badger team.
#82 Elmars Ezerins: made some key plays in the 1963 Rose Bowl comeback including a fumble recovery that led to a touchdown; nearly blocked the USC punt at the end to give Wisconsin a chance to win. Besides, he's a friend's dad.
#88 Chris Chambers: didn't run great routes, but scored great touchdowns . . . and still does. Obviously can't beat out Pat Richter, but one of the better big-play threats we've had since I've been paying attention.
#89 (pending) Garrett Graham: a shoe-in; another in a recent line of great tight ends.
#90 Erasmus James: nasty at end; but for a nasty Gopher cut block, the 2004 sqaud might (and I stress "might") have made the Rose Bowl.
Some honorable mentions from the Alvarez Era (given my age, that's what I'm competent to recall):
#1 Luke Swan (no argument with Brandon Williams): the Fennimore Flash didn't have the God-given talent that Williams did, but had the heart of a lion.
#2 Lee Deramus: Jamar Fletcher is the right pick here, but Deramus was a key cog in a hard-working team that brought the first Rose Bowl glory to Mad-town. Brian Calhoun would receive more votes if he had stuck around for one more year. Scott Starks had one of the great all-time Badger plays, returning Drew Brees's fumble for a touchdown to beat Purdue, vaulting UW to #4 in the nation (for a week or two).
#6 (pending) Isaac Anderson looks like he could be a great one. Better than Ike? That's a high bar, but I like what I see so far.
#9 Jonathan Orr: vs. Beckum? Tough call, I think. Two great ones.
#10 Taylor Mehlhaff: better than Samuel? No, but very important to the Badgers during his tenure.
#11 Darrell Bevell: 1993. 'Nuf said. Owen Daniels wasn't too bad, either. Either more important to the Badgers than their first black All-American (two times, too)? Probably not.
#14 John Hall or Kevin Stemke: apparently 14 is a [really good] kicker's number at UW.
#28 Anthony Davis: after his Freshman season, you always felt like there was a little more potential than he ever realized.
#29 Jeff Messenger: not at the front of the talent line, but a leader for the tough secondary for the '93 team.
#30 Zach Brown (also pending): I'm looking forward to seeing Clay and Brown as the two backs sharing most of the time. If he gets the snaps, he should take over the all-time #30 spot.
#33 Brent Moss: 1994 Rose Bowl MVP. "A tough out" as they say. A shame how his career went down, but before Fall 1994, he was as beastly a back as the Badgers had since Ameche and would've been a serious Heisman contender.
#39 PJ Hill: the Cap. Times limited this to players without any eligibility, surely PJ will take this spot when he leaves? I don't know. I've never been sold on him, and I'm still not.
#41 Terrell Fletcher: one of the better backs we've placed in the NFL; Chryst would drool all over a back like him. And he played second fiddle to Moss. Also at #41 Mark Zalewski: typifies the Wisconsin football story.
#44 Chris Pressley: for his academic exploits, but Donnel Thompson was a critical cog of those 98-99 teams, so academics alone don't get Chris there.
#45 Matt Berstein: beast of a fullback, but hard to say better than Greisen and his 7-year (and counting) NFL career.
#47 Eric Unverzagt: a staple for the '93 team, and an all-time linebacker name. Better than a 1937 first round pick for the Packers? Who knows.
Most of the lineman I recall made the list, but #67 Dan Buenning and #68 Mark Tauscher are notable exceptions on the offensive side. Two stick out on the defensive side (below).
#77 Anttaj Hawthorne: beastly defensive tackle. Difference between him and Wendell Bryant is Bryant played on a better Badger team.
#82 Elmars Ezerins: made some key plays in the 1963 Rose Bowl comeback including a fumble recovery that led to a touchdown; nearly blocked the USC punt at the end to give Wisconsin a chance to win. Besides, he's a friend's dad.
#88 Chris Chambers: didn't run great routes, but scored great touchdowns . . . and still does. Obviously can't beat out Pat Richter, but one of the better big-play threats we've had since I've been paying attention.
#89 (pending) Garrett Graham: a shoe-in; another in a recent line of great tight ends.
#90 Erasmus James: nasty at end; but for a nasty Gopher cut block, the 2004 sqaud might (and I stress "might") have made the Rose Bowl.
The Cynic, Pre-Championship Weekend Edition
First, and foremost, Texas did not get screwed. Period. It isn't a two-way tie, it's a three-way tie. 11-1/7-1. That's how they all three teams look on paper. All those people screaming about needing playoffs, settling it on the field, and how Texas is getting hosed, enough. Texas Tech beat Texas head-to-head and Tech also has an 11-1/7-1 record. Sorry, but "settling it on the field" doesn't solve the three-way tie problem in the Big XII South. I don't know if Oklahoma or Texas, or Texas Tech for that matter, is more deserving, but screaming about settling it on the field than making subjective arguments about excluding Tech from the equation is incongruous and intellectually dishonest. Texas didn't get screwed, they lost to Tech. Get over it.
Speaking of the Big XII, does anyone care at all about the championship game (aside from Texas fans)? Seriously, we get to watch Oklahoma torch Missouri again? Oh, and #17 (9-3) Boston College playing #25 (8-4) Virginia Tech for the ACC championship (and the right to play Cincinnati in the Orange Bowl)? Someone hold me back, it's too much excitement to handle all in one week . . . yawn.
Actually, I like the ACC this year: very competitive conference, with no real standout. It makes for fun football, but not championship/BCS Bowl level football.
Speaking of conference evaluations, can anyone really say one conference is that much better than the rest? The ACC wins the depth award. 10 of 12 teams bowl eligible. Each of those 10 can reach out and bite someone on any given Saturday.
The SEC? Florida looks really good, but what's their defense like? Alabama? Who have they really beaten? LSU? Georgia? I like the Tide this season, and think they will give Florida a good fight, but their resume just isn't that impressive. Georgia is down (see loss to Georgia Tech), Tennessee is WAY down, Auburn is down, LSU is down, heck, even South Carolina is down relative to where they should be, which isn't that impressive. Kentucky and Vanderbilt? Please. Mississippi is up, so that's one.
The Big East? Don't get me started.
The Pac-10? USC is very, very good on defense, and their offense is better than you think. Still, the loss to Oregon State looks bad because, well, Oregon State just isn't that good. Neither is Oregon, Cal, or Arizona.
The Big Ten? Are we down because Michigan isn't any good? USC better not sleep on Penn State, but there's a reason the Rose Bowl isn't generating much hype. Ohio State? USC did destroy them (only a 3-point difference from USC's embarassment of Notre Dame). Michigan State, Iowa, and Northwestern, and heck, throw in our Badgers for kicks, are all good on the right day and poor on the wrong one (obviously that's a sliding scale).
So, back to the Big XII. Really? Do they play any defense down there? Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech make up the deepest bench of top-tier teams right now . . . I think. But I'm not at all sure their defenses are very good. Missouri is ok, but not great, same for Oklahoma State. So, yeah, I'll go ahead with conventional wisdom that the Big XII is the best (at the top) right now, but I won't be surprised if those high flying offenses get shut down come bowl season.
It brings me back to how conference comparisons are just pretty lame. They're all playing football and they all have good, mediocre, and bad teams.
By the way, what happened to Fresno State and Texas A&M?
This Saturday is the last chance for Ty Willingham to get a win at U-Dub this season. Without a monumental upset of Cal, the State of Washington won't have a single D-1 (FBS) win other than against itself (Wazzu over U-Dub in overtime). Ouch.
Last, but not least: Auburn. How do they justify firing one of their winningest coaches ever, with a 6-1 record against their most hated rival over the last seven years, who unbeaten and mere subjective sports writers' opinions away from a national title within the last five years? DUMB. Karma should relegate them to the SEC cellar for the next 20 years. And Syracuse's AD should be all over Tubberville like stink on stink.
Speaking of the Big XII, does anyone care at all about the championship game (aside from Texas fans)? Seriously, we get to watch Oklahoma torch Missouri again? Oh, and #17 (9-3) Boston College playing #25 (8-4) Virginia Tech for the ACC championship (and the right to play Cincinnati in the Orange Bowl)? Someone hold me back, it's too much excitement to handle all in one week . . . yawn.
Actually, I like the ACC this year: very competitive conference, with no real standout. It makes for fun football, but not championship/BCS Bowl level football.
Speaking of conference evaluations, can anyone really say one conference is that much better than the rest? The ACC wins the depth award. 10 of 12 teams bowl eligible. Each of those 10 can reach out and bite someone on any given Saturday.
The SEC? Florida looks really good, but what's their defense like? Alabama? Who have they really beaten? LSU? Georgia? I like the Tide this season, and think they will give Florida a good fight, but their resume just isn't that impressive. Georgia is down (see loss to Georgia Tech), Tennessee is WAY down, Auburn is down, LSU is down, heck, even South Carolina is down relative to where they should be, which isn't that impressive. Kentucky and Vanderbilt? Please. Mississippi is up, so that's one.
The Big East? Don't get me started.
The Pac-10? USC is very, very good on defense, and their offense is better than you think. Still, the loss to Oregon State looks bad because, well, Oregon State just isn't that good. Neither is Oregon, Cal, or Arizona.
The Big Ten? Are we down because Michigan isn't any good? USC better not sleep on Penn State, but there's a reason the Rose Bowl isn't generating much hype. Ohio State? USC did destroy them (only a 3-point difference from USC's embarassment of Notre Dame). Michigan State, Iowa, and Northwestern, and heck, throw in our Badgers for kicks, are all good on the right day and poor on the wrong one (obviously that's a sliding scale).
So, back to the Big XII. Really? Do they play any defense down there? Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech make up the deepest bench of top-tier teams right now . . . I think. But I'm not at all sure their defenses are very good. Missouri is ok, but not great, same for Oklahoma State. So, yeah, I'll go ahead with conventional wisdom that the Big XII is the best (at the top) right now, but I won't be surprised if those high flying offenses get shut down come bowl season.
It brings me back to how conference comparisons are just pretty lame. They're all playing football and they all have good, mediocre, and bad teams.
By the way, what happened to Fresno State and Texas A&M?
This Saturday is the last chance for Ty Willingham to get a win at U-Dub this season. Without a monumental upset of Cal, the State of Washington won't have a single D-1 (FBS) win other than against itself (Wazzu over U-Dub in overtime). Ouch.
Last, but not least: Auburn. How do they justify firing one of their winningest coaches ever, with a 6-1 record against their most hated rival over the last seven years, who unbeaten and mere subjective sports writers' opinions away from a national title within the last five years? DUMB. Karma should relegate them to the SEC cellar for the next 20 years. And Syracuse's AD should be all over Tubberville like stink on stink.
Preseason Hype . . . I mean Polls
Though I don't think they are quite useless, I'm not a huge proponent of preseason rankings. Last year the Badgers started the year overrated. This year the national media seems a bit more reserved about the Cardinal and White, but frankly, not by much.
AP has us at #13, USA Today/Coaches have us at #12, Steele has us at #13, Athlon at #12, CFN at #10, ESPN at #12, Sports Illustrated/Stewart Mandel at #12. That's pretty consistent, if nothing else. Only Ohio State is ranked above us in the Big Ten, with Penn State and Illinois generally next (not necessarily in that order).
The rankings are really more about national title shots than anything else, with BCS bowl implications being a distant second. While it's nice to have a high preseason ranking (as we do), playing it out on the field is what will determine our success, including our bowl picture. The BigTen Network has a decent discussion of our schedule:
The keys on the BCS side of things are Fresno State, and the gauntlet of Big Ten teams we start the conference schedule with. If we can go 2-1 to start conference play, we have a legit shot at sharing a Big Ten title, if not better. On the other hand, 1-2 or worse could mean another second rate bowl. Time to get playing . . .
AP has us at #13, USA Today/Coaches have us at #12, Steele has us at #13, Athlon at #12, CFN at #10, ESPN at #12, Sports Illustrated/Stewart Mandel at #12. That's pretty consistent, if nothing else. Only Ohio State is ranked above us in the Big Ten, with Penn State and Illinois generally next (not necessarily in that order).
The rankings are really more about national title shots than anything else, with BCS bowl implications being a distant second. While it's nice to have a high preseason ranking (as we do), playing it out on the field is what will determine our success, including our bowl picture. The BigTen Network has a decent discussion of our schedule:
The keys on the BCS side of things are Fresno State, and the gauntlet of Big Ten teams we start the conference schedule with. If we can go 2-1 to start conference play, we have a legit shot at sharing a Big Ten title, if not better. On the other hand, 1-2 or worse could mean another second rate bowl. Time to get playing . . .
Pre-Season Rankings That Matter
I'm not a huge ESPN guy, but ESPN's the Magazine just published a piece on stadiums and student sections. Camp Randall is listed as the second most spirited student section, behind LSU, and -- not surprisingly -- the nastiest stadium: ESPN's Sonic Youth. It's been a while since I last heard "shoot 'em like a horse," when an opponent went down, but maybe that one deserves to be left behind.
"earmuffs" indeed:
"earmuffs" indeed:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
