<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=0 width="98%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=storytitle colSpan=3>
Weekly Affirmation </TD></TR><TR><TD class=primaryimage vAlign=top>
</TD><TD noWrap width=3></TD><TD vAlign=top>
By
Matt Zemek
CollegeFootballNews.com
Posted Dec 10, 2006
Next week, the season-finale of this column tackles the bowls. This week, though, let's try something different, because "different" is needed in an industry--this could apply to both football journalism and college football itself--where cookie-cutter styles and thoughts are all too prevalent.
</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3>
By Matthew Zemek
After any game, fan bases of the two competing teams will likely have an issue with something a columnist says. I haven't had many, if any, columns or "Instant Analysis" pieces in which both fan bases wrote back in equal numbers and with similarly praiseworthy things to say. Ninety-nine percent of the time, a story or column gets good feedback from one fan base, while the other one responds with either silence or vitriolic rage.
As I look back on the 2006 season before turning my attention to the bowls, I want to address you, the readers who are so supportive and loyal to CFN. Yes, I wrote something of a "love letter" to all of you back in the middle of October, but in the heat of battle, such outpourings can either get glossed over or, worse, tainted by the fires of football frustrations. When the fresh pain of defeat lingers into that Monday when you read the Weekly Affirmation or the Monday Morning Quarterback, I couldn't blame you if those frustrations spilled into my inbox. I sincerely hope that those of you who vehemently aired your disagreements with me gained needed catharsis and relaxation after clicking the "send" button this past season (and in previous years, for that matter).
What's different about this week's column? Well, besides being a direct letter to you, dear readers, it's also an attempt to look at the dressed-down sport of football for what it is on the field, without the economic, ethical, social, cultural, racial, educational, and journalistic factors attached to the larger college football industry. This week's column is about the game and how to analyze it effectively, because everyone in the industry benefits when every human being--coach, fan, player, writer--can analyze the sport better.
The inspiration for this column was the Oklahoma-Oregon game from September 16, a game that--all controversy aside--forced any football fan to make some tough decisions as an analyst. Randall in Tulsa, Steve in Calgary, Frank in Florida, Jeff in Houston, Christy in Ohio, Andy in Atlanta, and all my other regular readers had to look at the amazing events of that afternoon in Eugene and decide, for themselves, how to analyze that profoundly puzzling pigskin passion play. So many competing tensions and realities filled the Sooner-Duck donnybrook that any analyst would have had a difficult time finding the right tone, tenor and pitch for a game analysis piece... on immediate deadline or even a few days later. And since every person's view of good football--and hence, good football analysis--is, like everything else in life, colored and shaped by personal experiences, every analytical perspective on the Oklahoma-Oregon game was going to be somewhat different in certain key respects. The challenging part of football analysis is that the facts of a situation extend beyond the ability of any one person to put them all together. Difficult analytical case studies in the world of college football are too layered for one person to line up all the facts on his or her side. The business of football analysis is much more art than science, because one must invariably pick and choose the particular facts that are more inherently central to the outcome in the eye of the beholder.
Astute readers will see what I'm getting at in this final season review of 2006. I want to leave all of you with something of value; more specifically, I want all of us--as football fans (and this includes myself)--to be better analysts, so that as the sport marches onward in the year 2013, we will be able to conduct football debates and discussions on a higher, more elevated level. If we all care enough about football to gather here, write (and read) columns, exchange hundreds of e-mails, and vigorously debate various issues, we all owe it to ourselves and each other to improve at what we're doing... just like the coaches and players who step between the white lines on Autumnal Saturdays. Each football season is precious, eagerly anticipated, and sorely missed when the tumult and the shouting subside. But that doesn't mean every season has to be the same. We don't have to have the same debates every year (though the BCS makes that very hard by always forcing the debate toward emotionalism and petty politics instead of allowing for debates to be settled on the field). We don't have to engage in the same circular arguments. We don't have to remain locked in the same defensive postures as communicators and correspondents. Football and journalism both become irritatingly stale and outrageously predictable when conversations always acquire the same shape with the same paramaters and contexts. True, there are some things about football analysis and fan-reader interactions that will never change, but there's plenty of room for improvement even while the nature of the beast remains fundamentally entrenched.
Dear readers, I'll put it to you simply: now that the season has passed, and since there aren't any games to review from the past weekend, you might be in a good emotional space to listen to me when I say that my analysis is not and has never been represented as fact. Can we get that straight?
There are many stock responses I get from readers, but the worst one is the charge of "failing to do your homework" for airing nothing more than a set of statements that a person strongly disagrees with. The whole point of referencing the Oklahoma-Oregon game was to show that the facts of a game are more numerous than any one viewpoint can contain. One could have chosen several different analytical approaches from that contest, and all would have been factual. Disagreements between Sooner and Duck fans centered around the weight, centrality or relevance of given sets of facts. The best argument from an Oklahoma perspective was that if the Sooners had been granted the ball after the onside kick, they would have won. The best argument from an Oregon perspective was that the Sooners still had multiple chances to win the game after the onside kick, but didn't come through. And in between those two overarching arguments, there were more nuanced and detailed assertions that could have supported middle-ground positions in the OU-UO debate.
One should be able to see--and acknowledge--the obvious: it's patently silly to think that an editorialist or news analyst--a person in the business of giving commentary or opinion--is failing to do one's job solely on the basis of his/her view on a topic or event. It's equivalent to saying that a political or ideological opponent hasn't "done his homework" on hot-button issues such as abortion or the death penalty: there are facts to suit almost any viewpoint, so the heart of the matter is not about doing the homework. It's about making careful, weighted judgments and establishing priorities. THIS is what the Oklahoma-Oregon game should teach us as football fans who are serious about our analysis, and therefore, it's the lesson the Sooner-Duck game can give to the nationwide college football community as it prepares for the bowls and the 2007 season.
Back in August, I issued the "Weekly Affirmation Instant Analysis Challenge," in which I offered you, dear readers, the chance to write "Instant Analysis" pieces on deadline--just as I do each Saturday during the season--with the possibility of having them published on Mondays in this column. Only two people took me up on the offer... even though thousands of folks have, over the years, told me that various Instant Analysis pieces haven't been worth a warm bucket of spit. (The problem might have been that CFN's transition to Scout.com, executed in late August, prevented many readers from finding the piece in which I gave readers this rare opportunity.) So with bowl season ahead of us, I come back with another offer: if you want to, pick one of the big bowl games--any of the January 1 games (they're all good), any BCS game, or the Holiday Bowl--and write an analytical piece. I don't know if I'll publish your offerings, but I would like to see fans making concrete attempts at taking the facts of a game, choosing the relevant ones, and making a strong argument for their game assessment in light of those facts. It would be a worthwhile exercise, and I could promise--at the very least--to read and respond to each submission.
If you're not inclined to write a piece--or if time doesn't allow--you can still do something important as you watch the bowls or reflect on the season just past: form your own priority system for making various football judgments. It is the most central thing a fan of this sport can do if s/he wants to improve as a football analyst.
Journalists such as myself will often be accused by fans of "letting a good story get in the way of the facts," or of arriving at a neat, tidy and convenient conclusion before a game ends. From what I read on Scout.com message boards during each season (yes, I'm always checking in at the sites where my pieces might be discussed...), journalists are seen as soulless drivers of controversy who want to stir the pot more than they want to get facts right. Well, there's no secret that writers like good, juicy stories, but just the same, no writer worth his (or her) keep will write about a controversy if: A) there isn't one; or B) there's no good reason for one to exist. Most writers will explore the "C-word" only if they see sufficient reason to do so. Again, doing homework--while, of course, necessary--isn't as central to the discussion as you might initially think. The big key in this and other football issues is the priority system of the analyst, the interior intellectual architecture in which judgments and analytical tacks are formed.
If you felt Oklahoma was robbed at Oregon, you felt (as I did) that an onside kick is the most important and weighty play in football outside of a game-ending play. If an onside kick stood at the top of your priority system on the matter of "important plays in a football game whose outcomes heavily influence the outcome," it would have been particularly important that the officials missed the call on the onside kick. If, on the other hand, "the ability to handle adversity" and "avoiding a prevent defense" were two very important priorities for you as a football analyst in your evaluation of teams that hold leads late in football games, you would have punished the Sooners for not making some basic plays late in the Oregon game. If you had always possessed an analytical inclination to look down on teams that squandered late advantages and allowed negative momentum to overwhelm them, it would have been entirely--and rightly--consistent to craft an analysis that, in tone and trajectory, lined up with the Oregon perspective in the game. Being right or wrong does apply to pregame statements and predictions, but not so much to postgame assessments. In the analytical world, one can simply take a large set of facts, choose the ones that are important to his/her intellectual framework, and write a piece in which the ultimate argument is supported by those relevant facts. That's all an analyst can ever do. There's no right answer, and analysts will not represent their pieces as factual compilations. They will only attempt to explain why their facts carry weight in ways that other available facts don't. It's not a battle between the realms of the factual and the non-factual; it's a battle between different points of emphasis and competing methods of interpretation--that's all.
So, CFN readers, what I want from you in the offseason requires some depth of thought--if you know anything about me, you know that I require depth of thought from my audience. (That you read my columns is a testament to the depth of thought you already bring to the table.) Formulate--if you haven't already--your priority systems for football analysis. Think about the statistics, trends and realities that matter most to you in a football game: Offense or defense? Potency or ball control? Running or passing? Blocking or skill position strength? Technical precision or emotional passion? Motivation level or pad level? Basic execution or play-calling creativity? First downs gained or third downs converted? Total yards, or total points? Time of possession, or points off turnovers? Onside kicks, or responses to onside kicks? The first 57 minutes of play, or the endgame phase? A quarterback's pocket presence, or his improvisational ability? A coaching staff's plan A out of the locker room in the first quarter, or a coaching staff's plan C out of the locker room at halftime? A team's ability to amass a big lead, or a team's ability to mount a big comeback? A massive breakdown that still ends in a close-shave victory, or a massive comeback that still ends in a narrow loss? These and countless other choices between different statistics, qualities and game narratives aren't quickly made or arrived at. You have to have a priority system in place that, through considered study and reflection, generally elevates some items above others in your own analytical pecking order. You can always make exceptions, and must say so when you do, but by and large, you need to have some kind of framework in place. This way, you can lay out your argument, root it in several key facts, and leave it at that. Another analyst will produce different arguments based on different facts with different points of emphasis, and leave the discussion table as well. Two analysts will disagree, but they'll both be factually-oriented while not needing to accuse the other of being divorced from facts or "not doing their homework." Such is the direction football analysis must acquire in future years.
Instead of jumping through the same old hoops and mouthing the same tired arguments, we can choose to do better... and learn from each other. That's not controversial, is it? Plenty of good journalists and game analysts will stir the pot only if they feel such an approach is warranted. On most occasions, football writers are just trying to paint an accurate picture of a game based on years of observations that are connected to their own experiences. A guy who's been watching SEC football since the early Bear Bryant days will have a different view from the new writer who's been watching Pac-10 football since 1990. At the end of the day, homework is overrated; points of emphasis and sets of analytical priorities are underrated. It's a personal, internal hierarchy that one needs in order to make sense of games as complex as Oklahoma-Oregon from 2006, or Texas Tech-Nebraska from 2005. My hope for all of you--and for the whole college football community--is that 2007 will bring a year of greatly elevated football analysis, based on personal growth in connection with the game on the field. Thinking about the game in an interior way will produce better exterior conversations when Labor Day weekend comes around in a little more than eight months.
As you begin your bowl season (or offseason) assignment and work to become a better football analyst, I leave you with the transcripts of two astute college football analysts, Gary Danielson and Kirk Herbstreit, from BCS-centered conversations they had on Detroit radio station WXYT last week. As you read the transcripts--and study them the way coaches would break down game film--notice how both men have mapped-out intellectual frameworks, and that while their opinions clash, they both cite a number of facts and realities to bolster their lines of argumentation. It is particularly interesting--and instructive--to note that both men agree with the view that Florida had the better schedule than Michigan. The difference is that Danielson thinks the resume should decide the issue, while Herbstreit feels that film study and a team-wide, season-long breakdown demand more weight.
Every single college football fan has a view on this kind of "debate-within-the-debate," but the larger point is that you can't label either broadcaster--both giants in the profession--as objectively right or wrong. I, for one, realize that the BCS exists to select the two best teams, which is more in harmony with Herbstreit's views. At the same time, though, I disagree with the aims and methods of the BCS system, which tries to quantify that which is unquantifiable. In this respect, I side with Danielson. Herbstreit is 1,000 percent correct when he says that Michigan would have been voted No. 2 had it played Ohio State on December 2 and not Nov. 18. Danielson, though, is just as correct when he says that one can't definitively know who the second-best team in the country is. (You need the empirical evidence of a game and/or a wider differentiation in overall won-lost record.) I think Gary Danielson is the best football analyst on the planet right now, and I generally sided with him in this larger Florida-Michigan debate. With that said, though, Herbstreit--who, to his great and everlasting credit, had the journalistic integrity to change his mind based on empirical evidence that was presented to him (in Columbus on Nov. 18)--has been unfairly savaged this season, shredded with a degree of intensity that, while perhaps not shocking in this polarized world of college football, is certainly disappointing. In future years, these transcripts you're about to read will hopefully become positive turning points in our ability to conduct rich, layered college football discussions worthy of adults. One certainly does not hope that these transcripts, in 2009 or 2013, will be viewed in one-sided or overly emotional ways.
Time for your version of "film study," CFN readers. Analyze these texts over the next several months... and check back with the Weekly Affirmation for next week's bowl overview.
Gary Danielson...
...On his campaigning for Florida: "I figure I have two more months to go to catch up with ABC and ESPN. They've been [campaigning for] the Big Ten since September."
...On the controversy over Michigan losing out to Florida: "That Michigan - Ohio State game in 1969. It wouldn't have been fair for Michigan to have to play them again, would it?
"Understand that winning it on the field is all that matters. There were only two teams all year that did not have to please voters - Michigan and Ohio State. They were ranked one and two for the last six weeks of the year – I don't know why, really. They were anointed one and two, they were undefeated and they deserved their rankings. I don't know how anyone knows they are the two best teams.
"I watch a lot of tape. I assume you guys watch a lot of tape. I'll bet you do. But I don't know who the best two teams are, and I'm sure no one else does. So I don't know how the Michigan argument goes that we are the only team capable of coming within three points of Ohio State. I don't know how you can justify that argument. I know you can't. You're telling the rest of college football we're the only team capable of coming within three points of Ohio State.
"My argument was that anyone was more deserving than Michigan. I would have voted Oklahoma over Michigan. Oklahoma got robbed. They basically lost one game, okay? I would have voted Louisville, anyone other than Michigan, because there was only one team in college football that had the opportunity to play their way into that game against Ohio State without having to please one voter. Not one voter. Michigan had a shot. They're obviously a very good football team.
"I think it's small minded to think that the two best teams just happen to play in the Big Ten this year. It reminded me of the Big Ten Conference in the 70s, where Michigan and Ohio State played every year with the two best records go out to the Rose Bowl then found the rest of the country isn't quite as easy as the rest of the Big Ten.
"Michigan and Ohio State didn't mind having the Sports Reporters [stumping for them]. ESPN and ABC had that clock running for over a month [for the OSU – Michigan game] while the rest of the country fumed about that. But the first time somebody says something about somebody else, oh, my, the whining starts. My drum was banging for college football. Now we finally got to a game here because of circumstances where everybody had to stand up and say, 'you mean there's another team besides Michigan Ohio State, Notre Dame and USC out there?' I think it's laughable, totally laughable that people think they know who the best two teams are. I know football pretty good, and I think I know how to watch film pretty well. If I don't know who the best two teams are, I don't see how anybody else can do it."
...On other factors that went into his thinking: "I look at it that the rest of the country really didn't give anybody else a chance except Michigan and Ohio State for a while. Then once they looked at USC, ESPN and ABC jumped on a new bandwagon. Bob Davie was on the front page of USA TODAY saying, "I watched college football all year, and I know the two best teams are Michigan and Ohio State. Then that horse gets a little tired and they go to USC and watch and go, 'you know? Now that I look at it, I think USC is the second best team in the country.' Then when USC loses they go, 'what do we do now?' And I think the rest of the country is out there saying, 'who anointed Michigan, Ohio State, USC and Notre Dame to run all of college football?'
"My stance has been consistent on this. I've been through this three times. I did the Colorado – Nebraska game, and you applauded me when I said the second place team should not play for the national championship. I did the Oklahoma – Kansas State, and you applauded me. Now all of a sudden when I make the same stance, do Michigan fans whine."
...On Florida's case: "The SEC had five teams in the top 20. Florida played the other four. Now what kind of system do you have when the best conference in the country doesn't have according to the polls for their team to play for the national championship? Or put it this way – an equal opportunity to play in the national championship game. This whole thing about No. 3 and No. 4 – I don't think anybody cared who No. 3 and No. 4 were until USC lost. Once that happened, I think people stood up and said, 'all right, what should I do?'
"As a broadcaster of this game, I banged on the table at halftime and said, 'we are not going to talk about Florida's national championship case until at least the fourth quarter.' But I did prepare in case this happen, and I put plusses and minues on both sides, said how am I going to make my argument? That's my job. My argument was to kind of compare the best thing to the worst thing for each team. I left a blank ballot up there for a whole series. I said, 'you make your own ballot out there.' I'm getting paid very well to give my opinion. My opinion was laid out the way I saw it. Now, if I convinced people, maybe I'm a good communicator."
... On whether his opinion is influenced by his employer [CBS]: "So is everybody else's, but that's not true. When I was working at ABC and ESPN I got called to the carpet because I was doing the national championship game and said I didn't believe a second place team should do it ... they had their chance. This is the same argument. I'm the ONLY one who has remained consistent. My old partner, Brent Musberger, anointed Michigan the second best team, then in the middle of the ND - USC game said, you know, I've always said a second place team shouldn't play for the championship, then doubled back and said, "I was off.' I don't know where other people stand, but I have been.
"If Michigan had beaten Ohio State, I would be making the same argument that it's not fair that one team only has to keep it close, the other team has to knock you out. Bo was against this thing, that's why Kirk Herbstreit was against a rematch before the Michigan – Ohio State game."
... On carrying on too long on behalf of the Gators: "It wasn't Florida, even. I don't even know how good of a team they are. They're a gamer. They remind me a little of that Ohio State team that won the national championship that everybody thought would lose every game, and somehow they found a way to win at the end. Nobody thought they could beat Miami, and they seemed to find ways to win.
"My argument was, and continues to be, that you can't anoint teams. No one knows who the best team is. The Sports Reporters don't know, Mitch Albom doesn't know, Kirk Herbstreit doesn't know, Bob Davie doesn't know, and I don't know, and Michigan fans don't know. You have to go then to a resume. Now you are telling people that because Michigan beat Notre Dame, who I think is an emperor with no clothes, and they played Ohio State close, they deserve the national championship.
"Now I look at the schedules and say, now wait a minute ... there are other teams out there that have a resume. Why aren't they being considered? I think college football deserves to have something more than they get. I have railed, and as I said, they should pass rules that don't allow a second place team to go. That's not fair. So what do you do? But it is interesting that a whole year goes by, and can you name me any player besides a quarterback who plays for an SEC team?
"It's out of mind's eye. If you look at what dominates college football, it's ESPN/ABC. That publicity machine has rolled and rolled and rolled and has tilted the playing field in my opinion. So now one time somebody has an opinion that's different people say, 'wow.' You want to know what it's like in the Big 12, Pac-Ten and SEC? That's what it's like, every week from September to Nov. 25.
... On the last time he talked to Lloyd Carr: "During the Michigan - Ohio State game a year ago. I respect Lloyd Carr. People can play out this stuff the way they want to. He's an excellent coach. I was one of his defenders. I'm a Jim Herrmann defender. I didn't think their defense was all that different this year, they just had better players than a year ago. They had a dominant defensive line and Lloyd always does a good job with his football team.
"Coaches can play out their campaign the way they want to. I think Jim Tressel was absolutely right on in the strategy he did. For him to have to try to determine the national ... I think to excuse yourself was absolutely right on. I think Urban Meyer played it the way he wanted to because nobody was talking about the SEC and he said okay, look at my team. We are a pretty good football team, too. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I think for Coach Carr to attack somebody over what somebody else says is wrong. I respect Coach Carr, but I don't think he should jockey both horses."
... On whether Meyer dragged Michigan into the conversation: "He could say anything he wanted to say. Here's my opinion after watching the Michigan - Ohio State game. If the same game was played with Louisville and West Virginia uniforms, everybody would have said there's no defense on the field. That 's number one. No. 2 is there were two outstanding teams with one great player. Same as last year's game. Ohio State has the best player on the field and when the best player is the quarterback, they have a great chance of winning. It's going to be very difficult to beat OSU because they have the best player in college football."
Kirk Herbstreit...
...On Danielson's lobbying for Florida during the SEC title game, which many feel helped get the Gators a bid to the national title game: "I've got to be honest ... I have so much respect for Gary and Verne [Lundquist]. When I saw watching that game that they put that graphic up, the only thing I could think of was that the coordinating producer would force them to do something like that to kind of destroy any credibility they'd all built over the years, just obviously by standing up and talking about an SEC school. I thought it was more behind the scenes than it would be with Verne and Gary."
... On Danielson's allegations that ESPN/ABC lobby for the Big Ten: "As far as what ESPN and ABC does, the one thing I could just tell you - and Gary should know this - I've never in my life at ESPN had anybody say, 'hey, can you do me a favor? I'm not really worried about your credibility, I want you to just go out and say this because it helps the network.' I can't even imagine somebody actually doing that, and how I'd respond if they did. I've never been approached by anybody saying, 'hey Kirk, we need you to defend Michigan, because they're with ABC.'
"Don't forget, Florida ... ESPN has a lot of SEC games. To even think about that ... whatever I see, I talk about. So I thought Gary would do the same thing. I'm just assuming to give Gary the benefit of the doubt based on his work over the years that that was something he had to buy into. I'm surprised to hear him say the ESPN/ABC guys do that to Michigan. I've never been in a meeting when anybody's ever said we need to so this because we represent that school, so let's take one for the team.
"I'm going to stick my head in the sand. I go on shows in the South, and they tell me a lot of the same things – 'what do you have against the SEC?' That's the one thing about this sport ... Gary is focused on one conference. With GameDay, we focus on every conference, every school and every team. You're kind of used to people over the years saying these kinds of things. There's always going to be somebody with their feelings hurt or upset. This year it's Florida fans and Michigan fans, and of course Florida got the last laugh because they're in. But I don't look at it as the nation wanted to send ESPN and ABC a message, and that's why they picked Florida. What happened is the nation didn't want a rematch. It had nothing to do with ESPN, ABC, Kirk Herbstreit, Gary Danielson, any idiots on the outside. It had everything to do with the matchup they wanted. They did not want to see Round 2, plain and simple.
"If USC beat UCLA by 30 points, which they should have done ... where would Michigan have been ranked in the BCS standings? Third. That tells you that if it was just based on the teams, Michigan is clearly the team that is the better team. The masses understand that. But once SC was knocked out, it gave the voters a chance to say we've already seen Michigan, we don't want to see it again. By golly, look at Florida, they went through the toughest conference, they're 12-1, they deserve it. That's what it was. It wasn't based on doing the right thing. It was based on Michigan had their chance – we don't want to see a rematch, so they're going to put Florida in there."
...On his opinion that Michigan was more deserving: "To me, you look at teams on paper, and it's clearly an advantage for Florida. There's no doubt. If you're going to look at how many bowl teams they beat, how many top [ranked teams].
"Here's the problem I had; I get paid to actually watch college football, from noon to 2 a.m. I watch every game there is, and I do that for 15 straight weeks. I'm in a position where I can make an opinion on more than, well right here on paper, it says Florida beat six top 25 teams ... I don't care. I don't care. I've watched Florida every week. Congratulations, 12-1 ... that's amazing. But am I going to penalize Michigan because the Big Ten is awful this year? Absolutely not. I don't care that they beat ND and ND is terrible. I don't care that they beat Wisconsin and we don't know how good Wisconsin is. I saw them play against every team this year.
"People can say look how they played against Ball State and look how they played against Northwestern. They were bored. The difference between that and Florida ... Florida was actually trying when they played and didn't execute against Georgia and Vanderbilt, and didn't execute against Kentucky and other teams they played. Their offense has been struggling all year, so the way I finally decided to evaluate it was to say, 'if you put this teams on a neutral field, who would win?' To me, Michigan would win that game.
"The last thing is, if Michigan had played Ohio State Saturday the way they played them two weeks ago, you tell me what the masses would have thought. It was out of sight, out of mind. Michigan was a forgotten team. The performance they put on that night was forgotten, and people saw Florida saw two weeks, and at the end of the day, that's what affected them. If Michigan would have played the No. 1 team in the country when Florida was playing Arkansas, I promise you Michigan would have gotten that next chance."
... On Danielson's comment about "whining": "Who's whining? Maybe there are some things going on I'm unaware of about the whining. I don't know any whining ABC or ESPN is doing."
... On Danielson's comment that Herbstreit didn't want to see a rematch prior to the Michigan – Ohio State game: "He's right. I went into that game thinking I don't want to see a rematch. Whoever wins the game, done. But when I watched that game, I wanted to see another quarter, another four quarters. That was the only way in my mind, no matter who won that game. You can imagine if Ohio State lost 42-39 and I were to say there needs to be a rematch.
"Guys, I'm allowed to change my opinion, reevaluate based on things I see. I thought West Virginia before they lost to South Florida, they deserved serious consideration. You reevaluate based on watching games. The backlash from Michigan is no different than any other year I get backlash from Michigan. If Michigan people are upset with me, they are upset with me. If they are happy with me, they are happy with me. If Florida people ... how do you think the conversation went when I just bumped into Urban Meyer a half hour ago? He was actually great. He hugged me. I had a blue and yellow tie on and he said, 'Oh, I see you've got your Florida Gator tie on,' and he kind of laughed. The guy was a GA when I was at Ohio State, so I know him really well. I said don't take it personal – I'm just telling you what I think. He said, 'I know that's you. That's your job. That's what you do.'
"I'm not going to stoop to that level and say I don't respect Gary, because no matter what he might say or feel about me, he and Todd Blackledge are the two guys I've always admired and looked up to, will continued to do so, maybe one day I'll get a chance to tell Gary what I felt. I may change my mind based on what I see in bowl games. My hope is, as a fan of Ohio State and Michigan and other teams – I'm a fan of Florida, too - I'd love to see Michigan play well in the Rose Bowl and Ohio State play well in the championship game, see what happens."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
UTEP (and former Alabama-for-like-a-day) coach Mike Price is rumored to be one of the leading candidates to take over at Arizona State. As reader Devil Grad pointed out to us in an e-mail, there couldn't be a more perfect match of coach and university.
Gil LeBreton, Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Beaches, mountains, gorgeous weather. It might be San Diego, but for Texas Christian it's bowl purgatory disguised as paradise.
Scott Cacciola and Tom Bailey Jr., Commercial Appeal: Good and bad news for Mississippi. Former Texas quarterback Jevan Snead is transferring to Oxford, but a Rebel recruit is facing charges that include intent to sell or distribute the drug Ecstasy.
