The BCS goes back to the alliance days which was a power grab and a money grab by certain conferences and it hasn't changed in its intent," Jackson said. "To add another game, will it resolve controversy over who's who and what's what? I really truly doubt it."

The Pac-10 and the Big Ten didn't start the fire.

They were plenty happy before the Bowl Alliance (or whatever it was called back then) came along.  They were less happy after it.  And they're a little less happy now with the BCS.  Here's guessing they'd be content with things going back to the way they were before the other conferences changed the composition of the game.  It was a bad move then and heading towards a playoff is an even worse move now.

Does anyone really think 12-team conferences are good for college football?  How about conference title games?  Schedules are finite.  College football simply cannot play a 16-week season like the NFL.  Flying in the face of logic, most of the same conferences that pushed us into this Alliance/BCS reality are also the conferences carrying twelve members.

It's obvious that round-robin play (or something close to it) is superior to split divisions (see SEC, Big 12, ACC) and possible repeat matchups in conference title games.  Can a team truly be its league champion if it hasn't faced all its league opponents?  Do you follow?

The major conferences most associated with sensible conference play (Pac-10, Big Ten, Big East) are the same ones treated as the villains in all of this, Big East excluded.  Amazing.  We had it right, once ...

I'm still convinced that USC - UCLA is the most purely bitter (not necessarily the best) animosity-filled rivalry in college sports.

HOWEVER

For singularly ridiculous and almost unbelievably ill mannered partisanship, this Missouri - Kansas thing may take the cake.

You can have your Ohio State v. Michigan or Alabama v. Auburn, but the last time I checked nobody from Columbus ever went to Ann Arbor and systematically executed every man they could find while burning the town to the ground. And certainly nobody made t-shirts later celebrating that fact.

But that did happen in 1863 in Lawrence, KS when William Quantrill led his band of "Bushwackers" to the "Jayhawker" stronghold and went on a 4 hour rampage that would become known as the "Lawrence Massacre" - one of the ugliest episodes of the brutal 10+ years of fighting along the Kansas and Missouri border. While the Civil War has become the South v. the North in most people's minds, the fighting in fact began as a violent guerrilla conflict between the abolitionists in Kansas and the slave holding Missouri settlers (more or less, like many guerrilla campaigns there were quite blurred lines at times). In many ways, those old wounds have never quite healed - Grandpa Simpson will be be deep in the cold, cold ground before he recognizes Missour-ah as a state, for example.

Those t-shirts seen above that some Missouri fans are making for the showdown at Arrowhead in two weeks are celebrating the Lawrence Massacre and in fact have Quantrill's visage and slogan emblazoned on the back - "Raise the Black Flag and Ride Hard Boys. Our Cause is Just and Our Enemies Many". Talk about going straight past normal levels of fan behavior and making a hard right turn into loony land, that might be the single most offensive gameday t-shirt I've ever seen. Kansas fans are now responding with t-shirts sporting noted violent Kansas abolitionist John Brown (who led a massacre of his own and the 1859 Harper's Ferry raid that really kicked off the Civil War powder keg) with the slogan "Keeping America Safe From Missouri Since 1854" - a mock-up of those t-shirts can be seen here.

On the one hand, this is cool because there's some true blue (ugly) American history linking those towns that host the colleges.  On the other hand ... there's so many things wrong with it.  So very, very wrong.

Shirt?

Shirt

Take it away, MGoBlog:

 

In two games Lloyd Carr has gone from a potential mini-Bo, pending the successful resolution of his final season, to a definitive mini-Bump and Michigan is searching for the man on the left again ten games too early. And while I would still give Lloyd Carr a sandwich, I no longer want him mucking around with my football program. This is an opinion now universally held by Michigan fans, and the alternative is too mindboggling to consider. So going forward, the assumptions:

• Carr will retire at the end of the season.
• His assistants will be given nice severance packages and a firm handshake.
• Martin conducts Michigan's first open, national search for a new football coach since 1968 [emphasis mine - CFR].

Carr's retirement seemed like a foregone conclusion in January, but the fact that it's a cold inevitability at this point is awkward.  Even more surreal: that last line.  Read it, re-read it, and read it again.

Martin conducts Michigan's first open, national search for a new football coach since 1968

Michigan is a mountain.  For the first time in almost 40 years, it's will get up and move its craggy construct someplace new.

Shock to the system?  Youbet.  Ohio State quickly shedded the Hayes identity and legacy after he punched that poor Clemson kid.  Not so for Michigan and Bo.  Bo may have stepped down in 1989, but in many ways he never left - until now.  The change from the dynastic cannot be overlooked.

By comparison, people complain about the American Presidency being in only three hands for the last 27 years:  Reagan, Bush and Clinton.  Fatigued of those guys (and maybe that gal and her seemingly inevitable 4-8 year run)?  Michigan's got that setup beat by a decade plus.  Only Penn State and Florida State have similarly unevolved leadership, and yet they both seem more modern, less rooted to that opening act of a very long play.  Neither can trace itself back to a Fielding freaking Yost the way Michigan does.

Mountains aren't meant to be moved.  They are the rock, you go around them.  Michigan's one giant rock, so you know this coaching search will be the very opposite of happenstance.  Besides Lloyd Carr's chances of hand-picking his successor, the biggest loser here is Jim Harbaugh.  Is there a less-welcome big-school alum other than maybe O.J. Simpson?  Pride came before that ill-timed fall, which makes the Les Miles name suddenly, inexplicably appealing (don't do it!).

There is no Lloyd Carr for Lloyd Carr to point to and say "he's next".  That House of Usher just fell, the bloodline ending with Lloyd Carr and no true heirs to the Yost/Schembechler line.  Somehow I doubt this is how Bo would have wanted it, but them's the facts and that mountain will be moved.  College football's Halley's comet has burst through the horizon and we are all witness to it.

College Football stat historial Tex Noel passes this along:

As our favorite time of the year draw near, the obvious question is Who will be #1?

But here's a stat you may not have been aware of:

Regardless of which team takes home the 2007 BCS title, its first game of the year is the one that will make college football history...

How is that, you ask?

Since 1936, when AP named college football's first champion through Florida's 2006 title, the composite total number of games a champion has been played is 999.  Of that total, it has been played by 131 different opponents played over the past 71 seasons.  While no team has compiled a winning record against a team that later was voted No. 1; 29 teams have garnered at least a win and/or a tie.

Of these 29 teams, 4 schools have won 2 or more games.  Notre Dame has 3 victories; while this year's Pre-Season #1 USC and 2006 Champion, Florida and Florida State each have a pair of victories.  Ohio State heads into the current campaign having played the eventual No. 1 the last two years.

The Buckeyes, however, have a long way to go: To equal the consecutive seasons that the Naval Academy accomplished. From 1943-49, the Midshipmen played that seasons No.1--and it was only two teams, Notre Dame and Army.

Interesting, of the next five teams to play consecutive champions, three (Michigan, Northwestern and Wisconsin) are from the Big 10 Conference and from the same era, 1940-43.  Another Big 10 team - Purdue - ended the '40s by playing a #1, 1946-49.  Sandwiched between the Big 10 runs was Pittsburgh, covering the 1941-44 seasons.

Career (collegiate) receptions:

Player A: 95 receptions, 1562 yards, 16.4 average, 11 touchdowns

Player B: 95 receptions, 1301 yards, 13.7 average, 13 touchdowns

Some clues:

1)Both players went to the same school
2)One is in the NFL Hall of Fame, the other is a current NFL player

Feel free to guess (or answer) in the comment section below.

Update: Drew Tater Tots rings in with the correct answer.  Player A was Lynn Swann, Player B was Reggie Bush.  Hard to believe, but both shared the same number of career receptions despite Swann being a receiver and Bush a tailback.

So here's a question for you - who had the best team in 1993: Florida State, Notre Dame or Auburn (or someone else)?

I've talked about the "Holy Trinity" of Alabama, Notre Dame and USC before.

In my ideal world, all three schools would play frequent or annual round-robin games.  These stories gives me hope.

"I'd like to play Notre Dame," Saban said after a speech to a packed room of members of the Rotary Club of Birmingham. "We played them three times at Michigan State and beat them three times. That was a great national game, it creates fan interest and TV will always jump on those games."

- Lakeland Ledger 

USC and Notre Dame already square off annually in college football's greatest intersectional rivalry.  Now we just need Notre Dame to play Alabama and USC to play Alabama and make history.

USC and Alabama have played seven times ('38, '46, '70, '71, '77, '78, '85), with Alabama winning five.

Notre Dame and Alabama have played six times ('73, '75, '76, '80, '86, '87) with the Irish winning five.

USC and Notre Dame have played 78 times (every season from 1926 to the present excluding war years 1943 to 1945) with the Irish winning 42 along with five ties.

As you can see we've come close to that round-robin several times, most prominently in the 1970's and 1980's.  It's time for a serious go at it as all three program appear to be simultaneously headed in the right direction for the first time in the era of scholarship limits.

Does he exist?  Is he endangered?  Is he extinct?

We've all read and heard from scouts, coaches and analysts talk about someone being a 25-carry back.  Such a player is given idealized status among tailbacks.  He is a heroic figure, durable and dependable and highly prized by fans and coach alike.

But is he real?  Are we being fooled?  Is the 25-carry-back a relic, a throwback?

After looking at some data, I was surprised to find he's still kicking around but not as we classically interpret him.  In my mind's eye, the 25-carry-back was someone like Marcus Allen.  A player who could be counted on to carry the ball nearly 30 times every game.  We can throw in names like Eric Dickerson, Walter Payton and Barry Sanders as well to give us an idea who exactly is being talked about.

Sadly, those guys are throwbacks.  The modern 25-carry-back does it different.

Among the NCAA's top 100 D-IA rushers in 2006, only Rutgers' Ray Rice averaged more than 25 carries a game.  Just one guy!

I went through the data and compiled a spreadsheet which recorded the number of games each top 100 rusher played and how many times he had 25 or more carries in a game.  The results can be seen in the chart below:

(Games with 25+ carries on the vertical, back NCAA rankings 1-100 on the horizontal)

Not one player reached the 25-carry mark more than six times.  Fresno State's Dwayne Wright had the best overall rate, but that meant he went for 25+ carries in only 50 per cent of his games.

Looking at the data, the conclusion I drew was that today's backs can still do the 25-carry-a-game thing, but not with the alleged regularity of days past.  He's not completely gone, but he's also a rare bird indeed.  When someone says a player is a 25-carry back and they're talking about someone who can't/doesn't do it at least 4-6 times a year, I now reserve the right to call BS.

Looking at my spreadsheet, I would only give that honor to a handful of backs, namely Dwayne Wright (six games with 25+ carries in 2006), P.J. Hill (6), Mike Hart (6), Garrett Wolfe (5), Ian Johnson (5), Ray Rice (5), Darren McFadden (5), Tony Hunt (5) and Tanard Choice (5).  And if we're feeling generous, maybe mention the following players (all with four games at 25+ carries): Dennis Kennedy, Mark Bonds, Branden Ore, Amir Pinnix, Kevin Smith and Damion Fletcher.  At most, that's 15 out of 100 backs who can do that 25-carry thing at a rate supposedly much lower than their forebears.

Why is this?  I'm not a rocket scientist but most of the reasons are obvious.

1. Passing's up.  The college game at present is quite pass-happy.  The days of Student Body Right and Three Yards and a Cloud of Dust have given way to the spread, Mike Leach's pass-pass-pass style and the west coast offense and all its variants.
2. Split backfields.  Many teams are opting for "thunder and lightning" tandems in their backfield.  This reduces the wear-and-tear on both backs and forces opponents to prepare for multiple running styles and abilities.  It also asks backs capable of being the workhorse to make like Marshawn Lynch instead of Mike Hart.
3. Backs as receivers.  Blame the west coast offense with its quick-hitters to backs and fullbacks.  As backs become more involved in the passing game their carries can go down either situationally or due to stamina issues.
4. Specialists.  If the split backfield wasn't enough, teams often utilize a waterbug third down specialist who can run and receive and log a few touches a game.  Again, this reduces carries for a primary back who might otherwise be having another 25-carry day.
5. Running quarterbacks.  The option is all but dead in college football, but running quarterbacks give defenses fits and steal carries from competent backfield mates.  Pat White's phenomenal run ability meant that teammate Steve Slaton was the only top-10 rusher in the NCAA to reach the 25-carry plateau just twice in 13 games.

Conclusion: nothing you didn't already know.  We're in a different ballgame but it's annoying just the same to hear commentators ramble on about 25-carry backs.  I've provided some data (in the chart and also in a rudimentary excel spreadsheet for download below) that is a snapshot of the NCAA's top 100 rushers from 2006 that shows most backs just aren't carrying the ball 25 times a game right now.  The best of them don't do it more than five or six times a season.  The result is not so much a bell curve but a small cluster near the top of the rankings followed by a lengthy tail of backs who are happy to avoid the 25-carry mark all but a few times a season.

***

The web camera is very helpful to provide visual accessibility to the users via World Wide Web.  The different kinds of helmet camera are introduced in the market of electronics, also known as CCTV.  The main function of the underwater camera is to capture the images under the water currents very clearly.  The digital camera memory encompasses the different storage capacity to preserve all visual data.

25 Carry Backs Spreadsheet

Maybe Pete Carroll will rip off several more championships in the coming years and render this entry moot, but consider:

After going on one of the more epic (short-term) runs in all of college football history, USC has now lost three of its last 14 games.  By itself that fact tells of a team playing at a high level of football.  But it's also a distinctive separation from USC's celebrated mini-run the last several years.

There were many reasons for USC's success these last few years but two were fairly critical: Pete Carroll ran the defense, Norm Chow ran the offense.  Carroll is simply one of the finest defensive minds anywhere and is the co-Godfather - along with Tampa Bay Buccaneers defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin - of the 4-3/cover two/Tampa Two defense so vogue in professional football.  The guy knows how to run a great defense that stops the run, slows offenses down, plays fast and forces turnovers.

In a stroke of genius he hired Norm Chow to be his offensive coordinator in 2001.  I don't mean to lionize the man but he's one of college football's greatest offensive coordinators.  Combined, the two coaches assembled top ten units on both sides of the ball and made playing USC particularly vexing.

The two parted ways after the 2004 championship season and USC's offense went on a tear in 2005.  However, the formula had been changed and what was once an offense directed by an elite coach instead leaned on bright but young coaches who more closely associated with coach Carroll's ideas of how an offense should run.  Gone was a lot of the presnap motion, formation shifts, funky looks and unusual tendencies for a more mundane (yet complicated) pro-style offense.

It worked in 2005 when USC had an overwhelming talent edge with Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart and LenDale White and 10 returning starters to its offense, but things have returned to the mean since.  In fact it appears as if the talent underachieved last year.  While the USC defense was able to return to dominance after a shaky 2005, the offense became more predictable and less able to control the trenches and dictate outcomes in obvious pass and run situations.

USC's offensive coaching hydra was unusual and perhaps telling of the eventual decline.  To this day I have no idea who did what among Lane Kiffin, Steve Sarkisian and Pete Carroll.  I hunch it was Carroll's effort to muddy the waters and shelter from criticism his young co-coordinators.  Kiffin's departure and Sarkisian's ascent clarifies the situation greatly but it is still Pete Carroll's offense and newspaper stories this spring told of an offensive scheme and approach nearly unchanged since last year.

This isn't an intent to slam the USC offense.  They were able to put up 30 points/game last year in spite of possession-eating clock rules, NFL departures, injuries and youth at the tailback position.  However, USC has "lost the initiative" to borrow a thought from my friend HeismanPundit.  They've settled for an offense more reliant upon talent to win the day than before and unlike previous years the talent hasn't delivered as often.  In fact, it took a Steve Smith bailout effort against Washington State from adding a third loss last year.  The bottom line is that a game's outcome more often becomes more reliant upon luck or a great individual performance instead of USC's own approach simply removing chance from the equation.

I mentioned Florida State up above because USC's trajectory might end up quite similar.  Florida State went on a run from 1987 until 1999 that saw them finish no further than fourth in the polls.  But they could only win two national championships during that time, missing out on the opportunity to establish their run as the greatest in college football history.  It was incredibly successful, yes, but not wholesale dominance.

As Pete Carroll and his defense is the constant, the rock for USC, Mickey Andrews and his defense are the rock for Florida State.  Both could be expected to produce at a high level with remarkably similar levels of talent on their sides of the ball.  But the difference-maker for each school would be on offense where these teams could elevate themselves as either almost good enough versus being a champion.

Florida State's "fast break" offense helped them earn their first championship in 1993 under quarterback Charlie Ward and several subsequent flirtations in the following years.  That eventually gave way to Mark Richt's more vertical offense.  That too would help them to a championship in 1999 after several near-titles the previous few years.

With Richt's departure the Florida State offense fell into decline and the team's fate is well evident today.  Mickey Andrews is still around and doing a hell of a job like always, but that great run ended when the decision was made to become more predictable and less aggressive on offense.

All of which takes me to my initial question, is USC going the way of Florida State?  I don't know, but last season's play suggests they've taken a turn away from dominance and innovation and are emphasizing maintenance instead.  Pete Carroll's still around to keep that defense humming (same as Andrews) but the other side of the ball might be hurting.  They may win another championship or two or place high in the polls like always, but that chance to be the undisputed face of an era is slipping away.

Was an opportunity lost when Chow departed in not hiring a coordinator who was more unpredictable?  Kiffin and Sarkisian clearly owed something to Carroll with their initial hirings (Sarkisian was plucked out of an obscure coaching job at a California JUCO and Kiffin is Carroll's Godson, hired away from a low level job with the NFL's Jaguars).  Things may have gotten too incestual much like the Jeff/Bobby Bowden situation at Florida State.

Again, I don't know.  I simply see some similarities (yay alliteration) between the two and scratch my head at that awful question for both: "what might have been?"

I hadn't really put two and two together at the time, but check this out: Several traditional powers lost to their "little brother" rivals this year.

UCLA beat USC
Texas A&M beat Texas
Auburn beat Alabama

The last time this confluence of events happened? 1997.  In total it's happened just five times since 1980 (2006, 1997, 1993, 1989 and 1986).

Name the year, opponent, final score and outcome of Tom Osborne's Nebraska debut?

Update

Dr. Sak's the big winner!

Nebraska beat UCLA 40-13 in Osborne's 1973 debut. 

Be sure and take a look at this cool writeup at Heisman Pundit (special guest author Chip Haunss) about 1936 and that year's Heisman Trophy winner---Yale's Larry Kelley.

Excerpt:

At the time New York Times reporter Allison Danzig called him a "genius who gets the touchdown regardless of the odds."

Strong praise!  I cannot imagine a modern sportswriter penning something so forceful about any of today's athletes.

By request...

California @ Tennessee
September 2, 2006

It's the [tired stereotype] tree-huggers from Berkeley[/sterotype] against the [tired stereotype] yellow-tooth brigade[/stereotype] from Rocky Top.  Pac-10/SEC madness in week one.  Rejoice!

This game should be the most anticipated of the three Pac-10/SEC battles this year.  Cal is getting top-10 hype and Tennessee's looking to disassociate itself from the disaster that was last year's 5-6 season.  The Volunteers fired offensive coordinator Randy Sanders and replaced him with former OC David Cutcliffe.  As such people in Tennessee have delusional visions of 1998 and that ill-gotten national championship that immortalized two absolutely forgettable figures in college football: Clint Stoerner and Marcus Outzen.

Cal must also escape strange ghosts, namely that ouch ouch ouch heartless effort against Texas Tech in the 2004 Holiday Bowl.  Mind you Cal deserved to be in the Rose Bowl and didn't unfairly leverage its connections with conference coaches and media friends into a suspicious last-minute poll boost to get into the game, but that's neither here nor there.  This game's in September and neither team has yet been cheated of its prestige---so play ball.

Aside from the obvious homefield advantage, I hunch Tennessee's coaches will prepare for this game with a healthy dose of realism and sobriety.  They know that their offense is fitful at best, and unlikely to outgun what should be a talented and legitimate California defense.  Quarterback Erik Ainge has been adeqate at times but is mostly scattershot and neurotic behind center, the SEC's answer to last year's Cal starter: Joe Ayoob.  For their part, the Vol receivers dunk their hands in country crock before taking the field most Saturday afternoons.  That's a bad mix when you're up against a team that can score points in a hurry.

Never fear, though, the Volunteers usually have a good run game.  Except when they don't.  Like last year, this year may be another "don't".  Le sigh.

Sophomore Arian Foster came on strong with five hundred-yard efforts to finish the woeful 2005 season, but the SID's don't want you to know those efforts came against matador defenses (ole!) South Carolina, Notre Dame, Memphis, Vanderbilt and Kentucky.  Shhh.  Foster doesn't have the look or feel of another all-SEC, future NFL great back from Tennessee, though.  He's got good size and can handle the workload, but lacks burst, elusiveness and a nose for the open field.  He's the kid who can get steady B's on his report card but the Volunteers desperately need that "A" student in the backfield.  Foster's not that guy.

Both the Tennessee and Cal coaches know what's coming here: ball-control, nose to the grindstone running game from the Vols, eating the clock and the goal of gradually overwhelming the talented Cal defensive line with a little boost from that 100,000 seat stadium and the South's magnificently humid September evenings.  It could work, especially if Ainge is having a good day, but neither the strategy nor the idea of successful quarterback play is a guarantee.

For Cal, they're going to be facing a very fast and athletic Tennessee defense.  The Vols graduated three starters from last year's defensive line that was a top-10 unit against the run and will probably start a very young group of linebackers, but their secondary can legitimately rotate a good 7-8 players in the four DB spots without much dropoff.  The numbers game in the secondary plays to Tennessee's advantage, as Cal's receivers likely won't out-athlete/out-number Tennessee's DB's.  They'll have to win with scheme, efficient quarterback play and enough balance from the run game.

As of today it's still a little unclear who Cal's starting quarterback will be, but I hunch it will be Nate Longshore.  He has a good arm and is in his third year in coach Tedford's system.  He lacks experience and that may cost him at times in this game, but he has the tools around him to direct what could be one of the nation's most explosive offenses.  For all the hype about Cal's passing game and quarterbacks, the power run attack has long been their bread-and-butter.

The obvious name to mention here is Marshawn Lynch, possibly the NCAA's best back.  He's a herky-jerky runner, but has great speed, strength, size, vision... everything.

Injuries have shortened quite a few of his regular season appearances, but when he's in the game he's making plays averaging a ridiculous 8.8 and 6.4 YPC the last two seasons.  He's backed up by Justin Forsett, the West Coast answer to Northwestern's Tyrell Sutton.  Both are elite college running talents and should find ways to challenge Tennessee's defense.

The big question here is what condition Cal's offensive line will be in.  They lost three very good starters to the NFL and must adjust on the fly for this game.  Expect a few breakdowns that kill a handful of Golden Bear drives, but not enough to put the brakes to their fantastic offense.

With all that in mind, I'm favoring Cal here.  Tennessee isn't Texas Tech, they aren't going to surprise California here or dazzle them with an unfamiliar offensive attack.  The Vols are certainly a talented and proud team and should put up a fight in this game and could indeed make this a very close matchup, but I think their winning options are limited.  I'd be very surprised to see Cal's balanced, diverse and efficient offense held under say, 20-25 points.

But I'd be equally surprised to see Tennessee score that many.  In other words, their window of opportunity to claim victory here is narrow.  They'll probably try to win with ball control, turnovers and intimidation and sneak out a 3-7 point victory or pray for a Cal meltdown that pushes that margin upward and onward.  We don't know until the teams hit the field how the Cal players will react, how confident they'll perform and if they get psyched out of this game.  If they aren't, they should all but assure themselves of victory.  Their defense doesn't appear to be a pushover, and has All America candidates at defensive tackle and corner and one of the nation's finest sets of linebackers.  They'll make the Vols work on offense just as Tennessee's defense will challenge Cal.

However, Cal has an efficient offense with schematic balance and very good offensive talents in players like Lynch, like Forsett, like receivers DeSean Jackson and Robert Jordan and tight end Craig Stevens.  It's a fine group whereas the opponent continues to sort out its offensive woes in real time.

If Cal's intimidated this game can and will go south on them, but otherwise I simply don't see a consistent offensive threat materializing from the Volunteers.  Cal's not the stereotypical Pac-10 team that is all-pass, no toughness along the lines and no run game.  They play physical, they do run the ball, they do have depth and speed along the defense and have assembled what looks like a top 10 team for 2006.  That cannot be ignored.

In other words, this matchup looks more like the 2003 (USC 23 Auburn 0) Pac-10/SEC opening week battle than 2004's (LSU 22, Oregon State 21), in my eyes.

There's a nice article by Paul Finebaum in the Mobile Register today reviewing a book about the USC/Alabama clash in 1970 that was one of the most important and symbolic games in college football history.

Didn't I just see a documentary or something on television a few months ago about this? Hasn't there been a jillion books referencing this famous clash? Haven't these stories been told and retold in the four million books currently out in the marketplace on Coach Paul Byrant?

True on all accounts.

However, much to my surprise, what I found was a startlingly fresh book which sheds a bright light on the unforgettable confrontation in 1970 between Southern Cal and Alabama -- the night Sam "Bam" Cunningham shredded the Tide's vaunted defense and many believe changed football around here forever.

Finebaum's right, the story's been told a thousand times over and as he notes in his article, the Cunningham legend has outgrown his true effort on the field that night (Bryant wrote he ran for 230 yards and three touchdowns, when he in fact ran for 135 and two touchdowns).  However, the game still vividly resonates with people.

It opens with an extraordinary scene from August 2003 in Montgomery. The night before Auburn's season opener against Southern Cal (also won handily by the team from the West Coast), two former Trojans went to a local steakhouse. Upon picking them up at the hotel, the cabbie noticed their USC colors and the conversation immediately turned to the game from 1970. The cabbie, who was black, began talking about Cunningham's celebrated performance.

After a brief period, [John] Papadakis gently let the man know he was in the presence of a legend. After dinner, the same cabbie picked them up and asked if he could take them by his neighborhood to meet a few friends. There were 50 neighbors all eagerly waiting too meet the legendary Cunningham, treating him like royalty.

Cunningham learned that many blacks in Montgomery -- and around the state -- had cheered for him at Legion Field and that his memorable game helped shatter the doors of racism and ultimately changed the lives of many in Alabama.

Be sure and read the rest of the article and perhaps the book.  It's always an interesting story and a reminder of what an impact intersectional games can have on the college football landscape.

I've said it on here before but its worth repeating, I'd love to see another series of games between USC and Alabama, with both teams at full strength.  They're two members of college football's "holy trinity" along with Notre Dame, and I only wish more such games would be played between such powers.  There's powerful history in such matchups, after all.

Last night, I watched the Sun Sports replay of the 1987 Orange Bowl between Oklahoma and Miami.

The game would pit Oklahoma's wishbone offensive machine and dominant defense against Miami's team speed on both sides of the ball.  Both teams were loaded with talent, but Miami clearly had the upper hand.  The Hurricanes completely throttled the Sooners' offense with their small, speedy linebackers and big, athletic defensive interior.

Miami boldly sat on the ball most of the second half, content with its 17-7 lead.  By the time the game reached 20-7 midway through the 4^th quarter, Miami relaxed and Oklahoma was finally able to move the ball after recording just 180 yards of offense to that point.  The Sooners would record a late score on a fumblerooskie play, putting themselves within six points.  Again, Miami maintained its swagger and calmly iced the game to win 20-14 for Jimmy Johnson's first national championship.

I mentioned this game to Heisman Pundit today, and he added a few relevant thoughts:

---Although Miami's defense was able to thoroughly dominate the Oklahoma offense, it is not a knock on what Oklahoma could do.  The wishbone remained an effective offense up to that point in college football history, particularly for teams with the kind of talent that could be found at a place like Oklahoma.

In fact, Oklahoma had the nation's No. 1 offense, recording 493 points (41.1 points/game) and topping 50 points an amazing five times (71 points, 69, 65, 59 and 56).  Their defense was no pushover either, having recorded two shutouts.

---Miami's matchup with Florida State earlier in the season was arguably the true national championship game.  Miami would win 26-25 in the first Wide Right game.

***
Notable:

---Miami's lone defensive shutout in 1987 was against Notre Dame, a 24-0 victory.

---Oklahoma went 33-3 between 1985 and 1987, with all three losses at the hands of the Hurricanes.

---The Hurricanes' coaching staff included Dave Campo (defensive backs), Butch Davis (defensive line), Dave Wannstedt (defensive coordinator/linebackers), Art Kehoe (offensive line) and a greenhorn graduate assistant named Tommy Tuberville.

Sun Sports is replaying the 1991 Florida/Florida State game tonight.

It was Steve Spurrier's second year in Gainesville, and the Gators were coming off four consecutive losses to FSU.  The Gators would go on to win this game 14-9 to snap the losing streak.

Notable Gators in this game:

Shane Matthews, Brad Culpepper, Errict Rhett, Darrin Mickell, Willie Jackson, Aubrey Hill, Ellis Johnson, Kevin Carter

Notable Seminoles in this game:

Casey Weldon, Amp Lee, Edgar Bennett, Carl Simpson, Kez McCorvey, Terrell Buckley, Marvin Jones, Matt Frier, Scott Player, Brad Johnson, Corey Fuller

What's interesting is the backbone of Florida State's superb 1993 team were freshmen and sophomores in this game (Derrick Alexander, Clifton Abraham, McCorvey, William "Bar None" Floyd, Charlie Ward, Kevin Knox).

That Florida State team was loaded, yet managed to lose, building the legend of The Swamp.  The Gators could credit a superb effort from their defensive line and secondary, muzzling the Seminoles' attack.

And no sooner do I finish typing this that the radio announcer says "coach Spurrier is about to kill his visor".  Please excuse me while I knock back a drink.

***
More: Old games are entertaining in the way they date themselves.  One of the home-made signs on the side of the field was "Party on, Steve [Spurrier]".  Party on, Wayne.  Yeah.

Also, many a Gator fan in the stands was rocking tie dyed t-shirts.  It was a 60's/70's fad, but also had a little peak in the early 90's if I remember correctly.  Ahhhh, Americana. 

 
The immortal Kez McCorvey 

For the informed college football fan, there is no greater time to practice one's eye-rolling skills than the offseason.

With rare free time and the troublemaking opportunities it presents, college football players inevitably get into trouble.  When you combine that inevitability with a bored and sensational media and illogical braying of some blogger/fans, the eyes get to roll in delerious pleasure several times a week.

In a classic case of karmic retribution to the naive and those who spoke too soon, athletes at UCLA and Texas were busted for off-field transgressions in the last week or so.

Riddle me this:

A bunch of off-field nonsense happened to UCLA's football program under Bob Toledo.  Now, similar nonsense has happened under Karl Dorrell.  What's the connection?  Well, since there are two different coaches, we can narrow this down to being an institutional issue.  That's it, it's a UCLA problem.  Those rascal Bruins, always up to trouble!

At least, that's the logic some employ.

In reality, UCLA's no different from anybody else, but their fan base and coaches are simply less willing to absorb the public relations hit that comes with winning football.  The difference between them and say, Miami, USC and Ohio State is that UCLA has a glass jaw and folds when the punches start coming---firing winning coaches and complaining to no end about the next set of coaches while demanding they make angels out of their players.

That's fine, that's their choice as a program but it's one reason they're not a top 10 historical football program despite the university's tremendous resources.  Every recent shot at winning football has been met with off-field issues.  The sooner a program recruits guys that get tired of playing in these types of games (and these types of games), the sooner a program has happy fans.  But there's a cost.  That's the way the game works. 

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

As I explained last week, these problems exist all over D-I college football, at every institution.

Is it any surprise that the majority of off-field news in the last eight years has dealt with players from Oklahoma, Miami, Florida State, USC, Ohio State, Tennessee and yes, Texas?

Notice a thread?  They've all won championships.  It's a not so dirty little secret that every elite team needs at least a handful (if not many more---see Ohio State) of kids who are rough around the edges but are great football players.

Vince Young's a good kid now, but he had a rough background and hasn't lived the most perfect life.  Think Texas wins last year's title without him or Ramonce Taylor?  Mack Brown knew what he was doing when he recruited both (and several other marginal characters) and assumed those risks.

Eric Wright and Winston Justice were guys who would need a lot of babysitting to keep on the straight-and-narrow.  That never happened, and they were a big headache for USC, but they contributed mightily to USC's football efforts in the last few years.  Pete Carroll knew what he was getting into when he recruited them (and many other questionable players).  He assumed the risks.

The bottom line is it's simply impossible to run a spotless program and win a national championship or ably contend for one.  Every team that's reached the game's greatest heights (or new heights for non-championship teams) has gotten there on the backs of a bunch of players who the program's fans would otherwise not let associate with their fine institutions.

Heck, earning a school's first 10-win season since 1998 meant playing knuckleheads like Maurice Drew, John Hale and Jess Ward, and Justin Medlock.

Is it any surprise, for example, that Georgia Tech's last 10-win season piggybacked various transgressions that put the team on probation?  The Yellowjackets have just seven seasons of 10 or more wins in their history (and just three since 1956).  Playing to the level of an elite team takes either a few miracles or mixing in players who are going to have classroom and/or off-field issues.

Say what you want about Mack Brown or Pete Carroll, Bob Stoops or Jim Tressel, but they're all shrewd, shrewd coaches, and know what it takes to reach the heights they've reached.  It's not pretty but then, they're not interested in being second-rate coaches and assume the consequences of getting where they've gotten.

I don't intend to excuse poor behavior in writing this, but it's up to the rest of us to recognize certain realities and get over our hangups about what's happening each and every year with this great sport that we follow.

It's up to each individual program to do its best to discourage poor conduct and punish it faithfully, but they're not going to stop recruiting the best football players---thus taking a flier on whatever potential transgressions they'll commit while at school.  Not when coach salaries are in the millions of dollars.  Not when the available talent isn't through natural selection out of a school's student body but through recruiting.  Not when ego is at play and the mood of a booster can determine the fate of a coach.

And even then, it's not always enough.  Not when high character guys (April 27 entry) get tagged for things nobody would have expected.

Even mighty Notre Dame isn't immune.  The last time they had a contender was 1993.  Remember the little brouhaha about players from that team that came to light?  Or how about the coach during Northwestern's miracle run in 1996?  One Gary Barnett.  Think there's a little more to his stay at Northwestern than what's been revealed to the press?  His downfall was at Colorado but he found the winning formula in Evanston.

These things come with the territory.  The bloodshed spilled all over the message boards, air waves and blog sites is thus frivolous (for the most part).  We're all guilty.  I just want to see great football, personally.

***
Update

Yes, I pulled this entry after writing it, as I continued to revise it over and over and over and finally just sat on it, figuring to keep working on it and maybe publish Tuesday...  problem was it was already published and copied elsewhere (gotta love the internet), and at this point I'm not going to continue to chase links to further augment the arguments.  Its' already out there, so here it is again, heh.

Peter at BON has a good point that it's about how you handle these situations that also matters (a point I make as well).  It's a nod towards the supposed "loosey goosey" way Pete Carroll has handled USC's off-field messes.  But in reading a lot of stories this offseason, it looks like he's got a policy of putting disciplinary matters into the hands of USC's Student Affairs office.  Occasionally he'll step in after the fact and have some kind of internal discipline, but mostly lets others determine his fate.  Interesting, and a bit risky if you ask me, but that's his way.

What I find notable is that a strict start doesn't always work.  Look at BN's rundown of early transgressions at UCLA under coach Karl Dorrell.  He suspended several players and sent a message that disciplinary issues would be met with severe punishment.  But yet, things kept happening!

Same at USC, where Carroll watched the school suspend players like Marcell Almond and Winston Justice, who had to jump through all kinds of hoops to get back into school once their punishment had run its course.  Allmond behaved upon his return, Justice didn't.  He also effectively gave back Hershel Dennis a permanent benching after his non-charge, but curfew breaking night that saw him alleged for rape in 2004.

You can do only so much, but when you've got troublemakers, things are not going to stop.  Phil Fulmer's been adding all kinds of new punishments over his career at Tennessee, but the bad conduct of a handful of his players never ceases.  We're in a bizarre reality where a lot of guys simply don't get it and maybe never will.

So no, this wasn't so much an excuse for Carroll (or other coaches), but kind of a reality check.  I simply get tired of reading all these nonsensical diatribes that some program is renegade and bad simply because of its name and a few knuckleheads that go there.  Last year the team du jour was Tennessee (Fulmer Cup! 10 offseason arrests!), this year it's USC, next year, who knows, but at some point people are just going to look stupid hyperventilating about what's happening.

***
Update #2

See, this is some of the idiotic nonsense I'm alluding to.

The 2006 class of College Football Hall of Fame inductees was announced today, headlined by the game's two winningest coaches, Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno.  Also announced among the 15 honorees are Heisman Trophy winners Mike Rozier (1983) of Nebraska and Charlie Ward (1993) of Florida State.

CFR congratulates all those who will be inducted in December and then enshrined at the College Football Hall of Fame in South Bend next summer.

The complete 2006 class is listed below:

Coaches

• Bobby Bowden-Samford (1959-1962), West Virginia (1970-1975), Florida State (1976-present)
• Joe Paterno-Penn State (1966-present)

Players

• Bob Anderson-RB, Colorado (1967-1969)
• Bennie Blades-DB, Miami FL (1985-1987)
• Carl Eller-T, Minnesota (1961-1963)
• Steve Emtman-DL, Washington (1989-1991)
• Thomas Everett-FS, Baylor (1983-1986)
• Chad Hennings-DT, Air Force (1984-1987)
• Chip Kell-OG, Tennessee (1968-1970)
• Mike Phipps-QB, Purdue (1967-1969)
• Mike Rozier-RB, Nebraska (1981-1983)
• Jeff Siemon-LB, Stanford (1968-1971)
• Bruce Smith-DT, Virginia Tech (1981-1984)
• Emmitt Smith-RB, Florida (1987-1989)
• Charlie Ward-QB, Florida State (1989, 1991-1993)

From the Paul Finebaum Blog:

In the wake of Mike Shula's new contract, worth nearly $2 million a year, what if everything goes right, except the most important thing? What does Alabama do if two years from now Shula is winning football games but is 0-5 against Auburn?...

...In fact, in the school's long football history, dating back to 1892, no Tide coach has ever lost four straight to Auburn.

Mr. Finebaum makes an interesting observation here, except he's being a little sneaky about it.

The bottom line is that Tide coach Mike Shula has lost three straight times to Auburn.  However, Alabama fans have a right to call shenanigans here.  Their 2002 loss (17-7) that started the streak was at the tail end of the NCAA/coaching carousel from hell.  There's little disputing that Auburn owns Alabama right now, but so do a lot of SEC teams over the last six years.  That's an intended byproduct of NCAA sanctions that are the incentive not to get caught cheating.

The Tide should have probably ended the streak in 2004 (a 21-13 loss) when they had several red zone scoring opportunities that collapsed into the muggy Alabama night.  That win would have also spared college football the disgrace of the "People's National Championship" and hay bail parade celebrated by Tiger faithful.

 
Slight exaggeration... but only slight 

Auburn v. Alabama (2002-2005)

2002: 17-7 Auburn
2003: 28-23 Auburn
2004: 21-13 Auburn
2005: 28-18 Auburn

Nice observation from Ohio State blog the 6-1-4:

I was thinking about Chris Wells and Antonio Pittman, and the whole issue of who'd start and when and who was better and all that jibber-jabber that we kill time with until the season actually starts, when something occurred to me: Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Reggie Bush, and LenDale White were collectively one of the best things to happen to the powerhouse schools in recruiting in years...

...Now a running back recruit can see an underclassman have a big season at his school of choice and still say "even if I split time, it doesn't have to hurt my draft stock." A prospect can choose on the basis of scheme, coach, and school, without having to worry much about the depth chart.

The end result? I wouldn't be surprised if we see more LenDale Whites and Reggie [Ed-Ronnie] Browns, and less DeAngelo Williamses. Bad for the second-tier schools, but good for us on the top.

Quite true. Although it has been done before, at times. I remember Brent Moss and Terrell Fletcher made a great tandem at Wisconsin, and Onterrio Smith and Maurice Morris shared a backfield on the way to twin 1,000 yard seasons at Oregon. I'm sure there are other examples, but 614 has it right, as USC and Auburn may have perfected the earlier models that came before them.