SB Nation User Blog: LondonRaider

The Real Story About Strength of Schedule

LondonRaider — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:05:52 -0000

I wanted to gain a better understanding about our scheduling behavior and to see if what we do varies that much from our competition in the Big 12.

Afterall, I don't know about you, but scheduling the likes of Florida International doesn't exactly raise expectations for a great football game. It also opens up the program to criticism by our detractors.

Is that criticism deserved? Is our approach to scheduling really that much different than other programs?

I have put a chart together (I'm getting better) which looks at the Strength of Schedule (SOS) for each Big 12 team from 2003-2008. The last column shows the average SOS during that period. I've ranked the teams according to this last column.

The results speak for themselves.

	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Average 2003-2008
OU	19	13	22	30	42	1	21.2
UT	17	5	17	26	61	4	21.7
OSU	21	7	60	36	31	5	26.7
TTU	13	16	40	47	57	3	29.3
TAMU	45	1	29	41	38	62	36.0
MU	44	54	59	50	2	12	36.8
NU	29	40	43	27	49	33	36.8
CU	31	18	31	61	48	39	38.0
KSU	3	26	61	59	55	69	45.5
BU	71	21	46	53	65	23	46.5
KU	70	24	47	66	58	20	47.5
ISU	33	38	52	67	59	63	52.0

Despite scheduling some lackluster competition in the past, we actually outperform all but three teams in the Big 12.

Do I wish that TTU would schedule opponents more worthy of its stature? Of course.

However, I would raise a few points to better explain why teams (especially Big 12 teams) seem to schedule so many non-conference patsies. The short answer is that it is smart.

Kansas State and Coach Bill Snyder was one of the first teams to recognize this in the 1990s.

The Big 12 is one of the top 3 conferences in college football. For about 75% of a season, teams can expect the going to be extremely rough. The down sides of scheduling tough non-conference opponents early in the year include:

Early losses which could prematurely ruin a national title run or a chance at a high ranking and premier bowl appearance
Prematurely exposing a potentially talented team to excessive competition before working out the 'kinks.' The team you start with in September by definition is more immature than the team you end up with in November/December (this makes particular sense for TTU).
Losses (whether good or bad) are weighted more than victories.

Given that Coaches (even the Aggies) are well versed in how the polling system works, the rational thing to do is to schedule weaker teams at the beginning of the year, win all of those games and win as many games as possible in the Big 12.

This year we play what-is-expected-to-be a very good Houston team and UT in the month of September. It will be interesting to see how we perform that month, given that it usually seems to take us a few weeks to get the ball rolling on offense and defense.

Go Red Raiders!!

Less is More?

LondonRaider — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:35:39 -0000

I was just reflecting on yesterday's Diatribe in which Seth C comments on some guy named John Lopez and his absurd comments about why Texas A&M has performed so poorly in recent years.

To explore these claims, here are a few facts in a chart that looks at various factors in the Big 12 since 2000. (it's my first time to use a chart, so here goes nothing. Seth C, I could use some formatting help with this one please):

Team	Winning % Since 2000	Number of Coaches Since 2000	Current NFL Players
UT	84%	1	48
OU	84%	1	40
TTU	66%	1	12
NU	65%	3	41
KSU	58%	3	25
MU	56%	2	16
OSU	53%	3	18
TAMU	52%	3	29
CU	49%	2	27
KU	48%	2	12
ISU	44%	2	12
BU	29%	3	12

A few fact-based observations:

Since 2000, TAMU is the 7th ranked team in terms of winning percentage in the Big 12. Forget about state supremacy and all of that nonsense, TAMU has been firmly entrenched in the bottom half of the Big 12 since the beginning of the decade. Re-establishing mediocrity is a bigger priorty.
To support Seth C's argument, TAMU has had three coaches since 2000. The league's top performers (UT, OU and TTU) unsurprisingly have benefited from consistency in their coaching ranks. Their athletic directors were able to find the right coach for their program and invest in their success. Nebraska is a bit of an exception and shows what happens how a poor decision by a University can impact the success of a program. Getting rid of Frank Solich was clearly a bad move. Bo Pelini seems to have the program back on the right track, but not before costing the program over half a decade of success. You can make the same argument for KSU and TAMU.
Because of TAMU's built-in advantages, it will always be able to recruit strong talent. If we use the number of active NFL alums as an indicator (one which I have notably criticised in the past, but nevertheless is still an indicator), no team has done less with more talent in the Big 12 over past 9 years than TAMU. Recruiting talent is not an issue for TAMU, despite the program's long slide into nether regions of the Big 12. Finding the right coach and having the patience to stick with him has been TAMU's real achilles heal.
Needless to say, in contrast to TAMU, no team has done more with less than our own Mike Leach (by a factor of 2.5 times).

Go Red Raiders!!

Why Leach is Wrong, Harrell won't make the NFL and the Red Raiders are more than alright

LondonRaider — Wed, 20 May 2009 10:33:50 -0000

[Note by Seth C, 05/20/09 11:53 AM CDT ] Promoted to the front page earlier this morning. Tremendous work, definitely front page worthy and cannot recommend enough that everyone take the time to read this.

Much has been made about Mike Leach’s comments about the NFL draft process which started with Michael Crabtree’s slight descent in this year’s draft and culminated with his frustrated remarks over Graham Harrell’s non-selection.

Leach’s comments fuelled a war of words with a rival coach, set the blogosphere ablaze and provided Texas Tech’s detractors with an opening to disparage the team’s recent successes, as well as question the quality of its players (never mind that Tech had four players drafted in this year’s NFL class, only one less than Big 12 leader Oklahoma).

Now that the din has subsided somewhat, I wanted to take stock of Coach Leach’s now infamous comments "The truth of the matter is that the NFL drafts quarterbacks notoriously bad. . . that's indisputable."

Could Coach Leach be right? Is the NFL draft process really that indisputably bad?

Not only that, but how could NFL scouts possibly overlook one of the most prolific quarterbacks in NCAA history?

Now that Graham Harrell has suffered the indignity of being undrafted and has thus far failed to make a roster as a free agent, what are his chances of making the NFL?

Finally I wanted to understand whether or not our detractors have a point. Is there something unique about Tech quarterbacks, and its players in general, which makes them seemingly so undraftable?

To better understand these questions and more, I took a look at the current roster of 126 quarterbacks on teams across the league (including this year’s draft picks), and used it as my sample to assess these questions. This selection of players spans 16 years (the league’s current oldest quarterback is Mark Brunell who was selected in the 1993 draft). I also looked back at each draft dating back to 1993 to understand how well draftee quarterbacks over the past 16 years have actually fared. I have confined most of my analysis to the draft years 2000-2009 because so few quarterbacks drafted during the 1990’s remain in the league.

After what turned out to be some pretty time consuming work (significantly more than I had anticipated), I’ve came up with – what I hope are - some pretty interesting explanations.

Let’s start by looking at Coach Leach’s comments.

Is the NFL really that bad at selecting quarterbacks?

Of the 126 quarterbacks drafted since 2000, 79 players (or 63% of all drafted quarterbacks) are still in the league.

This number is probably as a good an indicator as any about the quality of the NFL draft process. Today, 90% of quarterbacks selected from 2005-2009 are still in the league. This seemingly high percentage is inflated by the fact that every one of the current year’s draft picks are on NFL rosters today. Similarly, NFL teams are still nurturing the growth of players selected during its most recent drafts. Many of these same teams have committed to multi-year contracts which are still in effect.

It is interesting, however, to see the dramatic decline in the retention rate of players drafted from 2000 to 2004.

Only 41% of quarterbacks drafted from 2000 to 2003 remain in the league. The relatively poorer showing reflects a combination of factors – primarily that the career of the average NFL quarterback is remarkably short and that the NFL tends to give its draftee quarterbacks two to three years to develop. Should the draftee fail to develop sufficiently, teams understandably move on to newer prospects.

The worst year for selecting NFL quarterbacks was in 2004. Currently just 6 of 17 selected quarterbacks from that draft are still in the league. This poor showing reflects a few things. Firstly, 17 quarterbacks represent the highest number of quarterbacks selected from any year in our sampling of drafts from 2000 to 2009 during which the average number of quarterbacks selected per year was 12.5. Six of the 17 quarterbacks were taken in the 7th round (including our own B.J. Symons). Not one of these 7th round selections remains in the NFL today.

2004 may have been the year when the practice of taking a flyer on a quarterback with a late draft pick officially ended. Just 35% of all quarterbacks drafted in that particular year are playing in the NFL today.

Another way to appreciate the competence of NFL quarterback selection process is to examine the current roster positions of quarterbacks and compare those to when the quarterback was drafted. In other words, how many 1st round picks are now starters, occupy the second string or worse. By this measure, 1st round draft picks have proven to be extremely good bets. Of the 27 quarterbacks selected in the 1st round, 18 (67%) are projected as starters; while 5 (19%) are second string and 4 (15%) are third string. Those are pretty impressive numbers.

It is in the subsequent rounds where the drop-off becomes dramatic and the performance more erratic. Of the 11 quarterbacks selected in the 2nd round from 2000 to 2009, only 2 (or 18%) are listed as starting quarterback today. Fifty percent of 4th round draft picks (4 out of 8) are projected as starters, while none of the quarterbacks selected in the 5th round are NFL starters. Only one 7th round draft pick is projected as a starter.

Of the 23 first round draft picks selected from 2000 to 2009, 19 are still in the league (a retention rate of 83%). Once you get to the second round picks, this figure falls to 50% (5 out of 10); rises to 62% in the third round, resumes its decline to 44% in the fourth round, and accelerates dramatically to 16%, 26% and just 14% in the fifth, sixth and seventh rounds respectively. Only 3 of 21 quarterbacks selected in the seventh round since 2000 are still in the NFL.

So is Leach right? Is the NFL quarterback selection process ‘indisputably’ flawed? Well, as this evidence suggests, not exactly. What the discussion above instead implies is that the NFL is actually very good at selecting first round talent. It is in the subsequent rounds where the hunt for talent becomes far more elusive. This drop-off is as much a reflection of the disparity in talent from the first round to the following rounds as it underlines just how few players have genuine NFL ability. After the first round, you enter the realm of true speculation.

When one looks at the evidence, in this instance, Coach Leach’s comments, while understandably heartfelt, were not actually grounded in the facts as much as they should have been. It is unfair to point to spectacular failures like a Ryan Leaf as evidence that the entire NFL evaluation process is flawed. Of course over time some mistakes will inevitably be made (injuries, psychological factors, intangibles and a host of other immeasurables constitute the significant unknown risks that accompany any draft pick). What is undeniable – to borrow Coach Leach’s phrase – is that judging NFL talent is an imprecise science at best (and after the first round more like a roll of the dice).

What are the chances of an undrafted quarterback making the NFL and what does this say about Graham Harrell’s chances?

Of the 126 quarterbacks on NFL rosters today (including 2009 draft picks), 29% went undrafted. That sounds like an incredibly high percentage of undrafted players and to some degree might even give credence to Mike Leach’s sentiments that the NFL has a poor track record selecting quarterbacks.

Let’s not get too excited.

Only 4 of the current 36 undrafted quarterbacks are listed as starters (a mere 11% of undrafted quarterbacks), while 25 of the 36 undrafted quarterbacks (69% of non-drafted quarterbacks) occupy the third string position or worse.

These numbers suggest that while it is certainly possible that a non-drafted player may start in the NFL, the odds are long at best. The four starting non-drafted quarterbacks are Kurt Warner, Jake Delhomme, Tony Romo and Shaun Hill. Of these players, only one, Shaun Hill of Maryland, actually played at a major FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision) team. The others were quarterbacks on genuinely obscure college teams (Delhomme played for the then Southwest Louisiana State Rajun Cajuns, which at the time was a member of the Big West Conference).

I raise this distinction to make the argument that it is virtually impossible for a quarterback from a major FBS program who goes undrafted to ultimately become a starting quarterback in the NFL. Shaun Hill is truly a rare specimen.

Why is Shaun Hill’s situation so unique? Firstly, the NFL gets a chance to evaluate quarterbacks from FBS schools more than other players from non-FBS programs. FBS players are on television, play the best competition, and have a high profile body of work which scouts are best able to evaluate. Everyone scrutinizes the same guys – particularly the top performers in the FBS. They are in almost every way impossible to miss.

Shaun Hill, however, was a bit of an exception. He played two years for a junior college, was a backup his junior year and only started in his final season as a senior when he led his team to the top of the ACC, a trip to the Orange Bowl and a number 13 ranking. Despite his success as a team leader, he only played in 14 college games during which he averaged a pedestrian 216 passing yards per game. By FBS standards, Shaun Hill was about as underneath-the-radar-screen as it gets for an NFL prospect. He was literally hiding in plain sight. Shaun Hill’s tenure as a starting college quarterback was so brief that, even as a leader of a successful team, there simply was not a lot of evidence to suggest that he might one day be an NFL-quality quarterback.

Shaun Hill went undrafted in 2002 when he was signed as a free agent by Minnesota. Based on his performance in minicamps and preseason workouts, he was just good enough to earn the third string role. In 2003 he played for the Amsterdam Admirals of the now defunct NFL Europe where he led the league in passing. In 2006 Shaun Hill was signed by the San Francisco 49ers as a third string quarterback behind Trent Dilfer and Alex Smith ( the overall number one selection in the 2005 draft). As in Minnesota, Shaun Hill did not play a single down that season either.

Shaun Hill finally made his NFL debut in December 2007 when Dilfer went down with a concussion. (If you are keeping score, Shaun Hill is now in his fifth year in the NFL). Hill played well enough to start for the rest of the season before missing the final game due to injury. Despite his performance, in 2008 Hill was made a back up to the great J.T. O’Sullivan (who incidentally is playing for his 9th NFL team since 2002 – 11th if you count two tours with Chicago and a stint in NFL Europe). It wasn’t until Mike Singletary took over as interim head coach that Hill was inserted into a late October game after what was becoming a weekly display of gross underperformance by O’Sullivan who by that point was leading the league in interceptions and fumbles. In week 10 of the 2008 season, Hill was finally named the starter, a role he has managed to hold onto for the remaining 6 games prior to this season.

O’Sullivan has left for greener pastures, making the starting position Shaun Hill’s to lose. Shaun Hill’s quarterback competition now includes the former number one draft pick, Alex Smith, who is currently listed as a third string quarterback, having suffered a broken shoulder which may likely end his career prematurely . Smith restructured his contract just to stay on the team. The other quarterbacks are Damon Huard (a 13 year veteran from Washington – who was also undrafted), Kirby Freeman (an undrafted free agent from Baylor), and Nate Davis (a 7th round pick in the 2009 draft out of Ball State). Shaun Hill is starting on a team with arguably one of the least competitive quarterback situations in the league.

So what have we learned from the Shaun Hill case study? How can we extrapolate those lessons to future undrafted quarterbacks from FBS programs might who one day might be able to emulate his success? Here’s the formula in summary:

Win an opportunity to join a team as an undrafted free agent
Make said team as a third or fourth string backup
Avoid being released over the next 3 to 4 years despite never playing a down
Be sufficiently attractive to another team which covets the services of a fourth or fifth year career backup with a limited NFL track record to serve as its own backup.
Ideally join a team with a uniquely bad quarterback situation (in Hill’s case he had the good fortune to join a team with a flame-out first round draft bust, a brittle former Super Bowl MVP and an inexperienced career journeyman.).
Hope for timely injuries to the preceding quarterbacks and/ or excruciatingly poor performances from same quarterbacks
Presto! - within a mere 7 years, even you can become a starting NFL quarterback (we assume that in the course of those seven years, future prospects will not suffer a career ending injury)

Its safe to say that based on the above case study, Graham Harrell’s chances of starting in the NFL are sadly about as close to nil as it gets. To claim that Graham Harrell suffered from anonymity would be ludicrous. He was the NCAA’s most prolific quarterback, leading the country’s most prolific offense, on the most prolific team in the Leach era. He was on television every week (much of it in prime time), played against the best competition in country in the Big 12 and was the third runner-up for the Heisman. Can you imagine a scout explaining to his GM why he might never have bothered to monitor one of college football’s most productive passers ever? What possible excuse could he or would he come up with? At least with Shaun Hill there is a reason why teams might have overlooked him (Graham Harrell – not so much). It is probably safe to assume that everyone and his mother had more than ample opportunity to evaluate Graham Harrell’s capabilities in great detail.

Furthermore, for Harrell, the situation with the Cleveland Browns was not exactly overly competitive either (although Jacksonville with its three undrafted back up quarterbacks may have been the best situation for Harrell to join a team). In Cleveland, he was competing with two other undrafted quarterbacks with lesser pedigrees (Utah and Tarleton State) for a roster spot. Furthermore, the current incumbents, Brady Quinn – whose own NFL talents remain a question mark – is locked in a battle with Derek Anderson who generated a whopping efficiency rating of 66.5 in 2008 – the worst rating in the NFL. In other words, an unsettled quarterback scenario, such as the one in Cleveland, offered a better than average situation for Harrell to gain a roster spot. As we now know, he was unable to do so.

Of course, who says Graham Harrell should be an NFL starter anyway? Isn’t being a backup good enough? Again let’s look at the numbers.

Fifty-five percent of current 36 undrafted quarterbacks occupy the fourth (or in some cases fifth) spot on the depth charts. It is likely that once NFL rosters are trimmed further, almost all of those quarterbacks will be cut from their respective teams.

That leaves 12 undrafted quarterbacks occupying the second and third roster spots (one-third of all undrafted quarterbacks in the NFL). Only one of the seven undrafted second string quarterbacks comes from a prestigious school - Damon Huard from Washington. The other quarterbacks are all from far more obscure schools (ie Central Washington, Arkansas State, etc). Three of the five undrafted quarterbacks who are listed as third string have an FBS background (Oregon State, Utah and Northwestern). Two of these quarterbacks (Brett Ratliff of Cleveland and Matt Moore of Carolina) have had career trajectories similar to Shaun Hill – college transfers with one good season against FBS completion. The third, Brian Basanez, was a highly successful quarterback at Northwestern whose situation is most similar to that of Graham Harrell – with the obvious caveat that he actually made the team during try outs.

Judging from what we’ve analysed in this discussion so far, Graham Harrell’s best bet is to become the NFL’s next Damon Huard. Like Harrell, Huard was a highly successful college quarterback who kept a nationally prominent Washington team at the top of the polls for most the year. When Huard graduated, he was ranked first in Washington Huskies football history in Total Career Offense, Career Passing, Passing Yards per Attempt (8.41), etc. Despite his unquestionably successful college career, and the fact that every NFL scout was familiar with his abilities and achievements, Mr. Huard somehow went undrafted.

Just how rare is a player like Damon Huard? He is the only active quarterback remaining from his draft class of 1996 (Tony Banks, Bobby Hoying, Jeff Lewis, Danny Kannell, Jon Stark and Kelly Wachholtz are now long gone). Only two other quarterbacks selected between 1994-1997 remain in the league.

Huard began his NFL career in 1996 as an unsigned free agent with the Cincinnati Bengals. He then played for the Miami Dolphins for 3 years where he got a break to play following an injury to Dan Marino. Huard next signed with New England where he spent 2 years and won two Super Bowl Rings as a backup to Tom Brady. After New England, Huard joined the Kansas City Chiefs where he was an on-again, off-again starter for three years during which in his best season he averaged 205 passing yards per game, to his now current team San Francisco.

So let’s see, for Graham Harrell to enjoy a role in the NFL as a career backup, all he would have to do is sign with a team as an undrafted free agent; make the team as a third or fourth stringer; somehow manage to stick with the same team without ever playing a game for 3 years; seize his opportunity to play when the starting quarterback succumbs to injury; impress enough people that despite his limited playing time, he could still be an asset for another team; back up one of the league’s most dominant players for two years with minimal playing time; join a team with a dysfunctional quarterback scenario and play just well enough to convince yet another team that even after 13 years as a career backup that he can still be a valuable asset. Sounds plausible, doesn’t it?

It is fair to argue that Damon Huard might almost be as a rare a specimen as Shaun Hill. Needless to say, both Huard and Hill’s career paths underscore that it is highly improbable for an undrafted major college quarterback to have a meaningful career in the NFL, let alone make a team.

Why are there no Texas Tech quarterbacks in the NFL?

Graham Harrell’s predicament should not be that surprising. The odds of making the NFL are incredibly long in the first place. Since 2000, an average of just 12.5 quarterbacks has been drafted each year.

There are 633 college football programs in the country, comprised as follows:

120 FBS teams (i.e. about half of which are considered major programs)
126 FCS teams (think Sam Houston State, Texas State, Ivy League etc)
147 Division II schools (Tarleton State, Central Washington)
240 Division III schools
93 NAIA football programs.

Of the 126 quarterbacks currently on NFL roster, 20 have come from non-FBS schools (16% of all quarterbacks). Six of these quarterbacks are from Division II schools and only one is from a Division III school (Justin Goltz, a non drafted quarterback from Occidental College who is currently 4th on Detroit’s depth chart). Nine of the non-FBS quarterbacks were actually drafted.

Using the 2009 NFL roster as our sample, assuming that 13 quarterbacks are drafted each year of which about 2 are from non-FBS teams, we can begin to calculate the odds of even making an NFL team. We also assume that only starting quarterbacks would be considered (with players like Matt Cassell, a backup QB while at USC, being an obvious exception).

9.0% of FBS quarterbacks are likely to be drafted in a given year
1.0% of FCS quarterbacks are likely to be drafted in a given year
0.3% of Division II quarterbacks are likely to be drafted in a given year
0.04% of Division III quarterbacks are likely to be drafted in a given year

The fact that Division III Occidental’s Justin Goltz even made an NFL team pre-camp roster is as close to a miracle as one can get (perhaps even moreso than the aforementioned Shaun Hill or Damon Huard).

Graham Harrell is not the only highly successful NCAA quarterback in the 2008 class who failed to get drafted. Of the top quarterbacks who finished in the top 10 in passing efficiency in 2008 and were draft eligible, only one (Mark Sanchez) was drafted. Harrell’s draft performance was matched by fellow top 10 quarterbacks Chase Daniel, Chase Clement (Rice) and David Johnson (Tulsa). In a manner of speaking, Harrell is in good company.

While we’re on the subject of Graham Harrell’s credentials, let us put one particular argument to rest. Graham’s standing in the Heisman race is hardly an indicator of future NFL success. Since 2000, Heisman quarterback winners include Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, Carson Palmer, Jason White, Matt Leinhart and Troy Smith (Tim Tebow and Sam Bradford are still in college). Of these winners, only Carson Palmer is a starting quarterback. Chris Weinke is out of the league. Eric Crouch never played as a quarterback. Jason White was not even drafted. None have yet to leave their mark on the NFL in any meaningful way. Should Tim Tebow be drafted at all, it will likely be as a utility player – not as a quarterback.

Some of our rival fans who have indulged in their own bit of schadenfreude over a 23 year old college student’s near-term career prospects (seriously guys, get a life) by criticizing the inability of Tech quarterbacks to translate their success at the next level. However, when we look at the current roster of NFL quarterbacks, no college team can claim to have a monopoly on quarterback talent. USC-alums make up the highest number of quarterbacks in the NFL with a grand total of 5 quarterbacks (just 4% of all quarterbacks, 3 of which are projected as starters). Even the claim that USC boasts 3 starting quarterbacks in the NFL might prove to be a bit tenuous. Carson Palmer’s durability is an ongoing concern and Mark Sanchez has yet to play a single down. While we’re at it, the schools with the most number of alumni quarterbacks in the NFL are:

USC: 5 (3 projected starters)
Oregon: 4 (0 projected starters)
Michigan: 4 (1 projected starter)
Boston College: 4 (2 projected starters)
Purdue: 3 (2 projected starters)
Louisville: 3 (0 projected starters)
Fresno State: 3 (0 projected starters)

As we can see, seven schools are responsible for 21% of the NFL’s quarterbacks and 25% of its projected 2009 starters. Boston College and USC are known to run pro style offenses, Purdue, Louisville and Fresno State run some version of the spread offense, and Michigan was a run-first offense during the tenure of its current NFL alums. What does any of that tell you? (Hint: the correct answer is not very much).

A player’s NFL abilities may depend somewhat on where he went to school, but only somewhat.

There are few conclusions one can draw from the above data other than that a player’s selection into the NFL really is ultimately weighted to physical factors more so than where he went to school, success enjoyed while at school, the type of system he played in or the quality of the competition.

In this respect, the NFL is to college football what the NBA is to college basketball, to what becoming a Hollywood star is to a drama student, to what becoming a multi-millionaire is to most college graduates – there is little correlation between the two sets of experiences, although having success in the latter helps with the former (yet is hardly a guarantee).

Coach Leach’s program will breed NFL quarterbacks in the future. He’s had two drafted already. Graham’s status is disappointing, but if everything else we hear about Harrell is true, he sounds like an outstanding guy who will likely succeed in whatever he chooses to do – whether football related or not. What more can a kid out of Ennis, Texas want than that?

Leach is building a program for the long term. His winning percentage, college graduation rate and ability to elevate Texas Tech into the discussion of the elite college programs are truly testament of his talent as a coach.

Whether Texas Tech players, in particular its quarterbacks, are drafted into the NFL is not a true reflection of his program, nor should it be. No school has a monopoly on NFL talent, and to claim otherwise is misleading. Some college programs such as Ohio State, USC, Florida State do have a high number of representatives in the NFL. Still, as a percentage of overall alumni from those respective programs or when judged as a percentage of any particular position, these numbers are not ultimately meaningful. To argue that one school’s ratio of NFL representatives is more or less statistically meaningless than another school’s is the ultimate exercise in futility.

Tech’s detractors (and supporters) are better off spending their time on more legitimate measures of Texas Tech’s progress and success such as Texas Tech’s overall defensive performance or winning percentage against OU and UT than whether or not its players get drafted.

In the final analysis, let’s hope Coach Leach reconsiders his earlier position, wish Graham Harrell well despite the incredibly long odds of his making it in the NFL, and let’s ever so politely be sure to inform our detractors that their comments about our team and our players are both unwarranted and based on very flimsy facts - if any.

Mike Leach Mourns Pirate Slayings, Loss Of Somali Recruiting Pipeline

LondonRaider — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:48:52 -0000

Now this is funny.

Seth, you've got to get this on the main page. The image of Leach is an instant classic...

"“The brotherhood of the pirate is a world fraternity,” said Leach in his Tuesday morning press conference. “Today I mourn for the three lost members of the Habar Gidir clan. May Allah place acid-dipped scorpions in the rectums of their traditional enemies, the Hawiye. Although as an American citizen I oppose teenage gunmen attacking, killing, kidnapping, and ransoming personnel from international shipping freight. . . ." - Mike Leach http://www.barkingcarnival.com/scipio-tex/mike-leach-mourns-pirate-slayings-loss-of-somali-recruiting-pipeline

BCS - Why I'm OK that Tech Won't Be Playing

LondonRaider — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:30:54 -0000

I am ecstatic that Texas Tech will not be playing in the Bowl Championship Series. The reason is that, contrary to popular belief, the BCS is not a reflection of the best teams in college football. As Groucho Marx once famously observed, “I don’t care to be part of a club that accepts people like me as members.”

The BCS is instead nothing more than a convoluted system that allows the top two teams to play for the national championship while guaranteeing that certain stake-holder conferences get their chance to feed at the television trough.

The BCS is comprised of 5 bowls: The Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl and BCS National Championship Game, which can only accommodate 10 teams.

Of these ten teams, 2 team play for the national championship, while 4 teams are guaranteed to play in the BCS as champions of their respective conferences.

The champions of certain conferences which are guaranteed participation, regardless of BCS ranking, include the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC.

The four remaining selections are euphemistically described as ‘at-large’ (the word ‘large’ clearly stretching the definition to absurd subjective extremes).

As it currently stands the likely BCS match ups stand as follows (I’ve assigned rankings on current polls or reasonable approximations of rankings based on yesterday’s games):

BCS Rankings and Bowls

1. Oklahoma - BCS National Championship (Automatic Bid)

2. Florida - BCS National Champtionship (Automatic Bid)

3. Texas - Fiesta Bowl (Big 12 representative guaranteed)

4. Alabama - Sugar Bowl (SEC representative guaranteed)

5. USC - Rose Bowl (Pac 10 representative guaranteed)

6. Utah - Sugar Bowl (At Large)

7. Texas Tech - No BCS

8. Penn State - Rose Bowl (Pac 10 representative guaranteed)

9. Boise State - No BCS

10. Ohio State - Fiesta Bowl (At Large)

12. Cincinnati - Orange Bowl

19. Virginia Tech - Orange Bowl (ACC Representative guaranteed)

Guess which two teams seem out of place in these so-called Championship games.

By virtue of the BCS rankings Texas Tech (No. 7) and Boise State (No. 9) are excluded to make room for the juggernauts that would be the (No. 12) Bearcats of the mighty Big East and (No. 19) Hokies of Virginia Tech.

Texas Tech is particularly discriminated against due to a technicality that for some inexplicable reason restricts BCS participation to two teams per conference. This rule unduly punishes teams for doing nothing more than playing in a high caliber conference. Therefore, we are not able to participate in the Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl or Fiesta Bowl.

Furthermore, the BCS does not allow two teams from the same conference to play again in a bowl game which does not decide the national championship. So despite our BCS ranking, Tech loses its chance to play in the Fiesta Bowl in any case and a 10th ranked two-loss team from Ohio State goes instead.

Boise State is excluded because only one team from a non-BCS conference is allowed to be represented in any given year. These conferences include Conference USA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt and the WAC. So Utah goes bowling while Boise State stays home despite both teams being undefeated and top 10 members of the BCS.

The next most attractive bowl for Texas Tech is of course the Cotton Bowl, where we have a decided advantage with a huge fan base and opportunity to showcase the team to new recruits in the area. However, I would be disappointed if our opponent winds up being the lowly (unranked) Ole Miss Rebels. I would much rather see a match-up that pits us against fellow also rans (No. 9) Boise State. However, because the Cotton Bowl is also tied to the lecherous conference tie in system, we instead would be obligated to play - as it stands - the fourth best team in the SEC instead of (No 15) Georgia who instead will seek victory in the Capital One Bowl against a mediocre (No. 18) Michigan State team to prove - well absolutely nothing.

The solution to this dilemma in my view is not a play-off. I think the regular season has proven to be a challenging enough process that ultimately reveals who the best teams are. At this point in the season, I don’t need to see (No. 1) OU and (No. 8) Penn State to understand who the better team is. No matter what process you define whether it be the top eight teams, 16 teams or 32 teams there will be some degree of subjectivity – just as there is in the NCAA basketball selection process. Somebody always gets left out.

The regular season is good enough provided that we remove the ridiculous guarantees to the so-called power conferences and the pointless restrictions as I have described above and allow the Top 10 finalists to play in the BCS. At the end of a long season, I think football fans across the country would rather see the 1 versus 2, 3 versus 4, 5 versus 6 and so on. If three of these teams are from the top conference in the country so be it. If two of these teams are from non-BCS conferences so be it. If the possible participation of two or more non-BCS teams proves to be too extreme a suggestion for the BCS powers, then modify the weightings to place more emphasis on victories over BCS conference teams (a measure I think would also force the BCS teams to play better non-conference opponents – ie a loss to a BCS conference team is worth more than a victory over a non-BCS team ranked outside of the BCS top 25).

Does the Orange Bowl really believe it is going to have a ratings bonanza on its hands this year? Give me a break. Let’s not be too disappointed that we won’t be attending a BCS game. With only eight of the top ten teams participating, the current BCS, hardly lives up to it billing. There are two changes which could be made to ensure that 10 of the top 10 teams make the BCS. It’s pretty clear to me what those ought to be.

Perhaps, we can start by changing the BCS to its more simplified initials BS which would be the best and most accurate description of what the process really reflects.

Go Red Raiders.

TTU-OU Number Crunching (Advantage TTU)

LondonRaider — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:26:13 -0000

I’ve had some time to crunch some TTU and OU numbers by comparing both teams’ performance to their six opponents in the Big 12 this year. TTU and OU have now played five common opponents (UT, NU, KSU, KU, TAM) so there is quite a bit of data to draw upon.

I have not included non-conference opponents, mainly because neither TTU’s or OU’s non-conference opponents are particularly good teams (with the exception of OU’s victory over a very solid TCU team).

I have also opted not to include national figures for defense, because they are a bit misleading. For example OU is currently ranked 51st in the country in overall defense, surrendering 354 yards per game. However, in the Big 12 to date OU is giving up 407 yards per contest. Conversely, Texas Tech is ranked 57th overall giving up 351 yards per contest . In the Big 12 rankings for defense, TTU is actually playing better defense than OU.

I did include the national figures for offense, because those production figures have remained consistent over the course of Big XII play.

The results of the analysis are fairly surprising. I toyed around with the idea of replacing Baylor with TCU, which would have made OU’s numbers worse, but to keep things simple I elected to go with the averages based on Big 12 performances only.

Key Findings

My key conclusion is that our overall chances against OU are much better than the prognosticators are predicting. In fact if this game was not being played in Norman, I am pretty certain we would be favored in this game.

Avoid Turnovers. Our main key to victory will be to avoid turnovers. OU has been extremely effective at generating turnovers, and this ability has been OU’s key to putting opponents away early and often. OU is +10 in turnover margin in its last 6 games, and has generated 4 or more turnovers in its last three victories.

OU's Defense is Vulnerable. Overall OU’s defense is weak. TTU is by far the strongest offense OU has faced this season. OU is giving up an average of over 400 yards per contest. Our advantage on offense is significant. TTU scores more points per possession and does so more frequently than OU.

OU's Offense Tends to Score Early and Often. Despite playing so well in recent weeks (it is time to acknowledge Ruffin’s success), our defense still remains our largest question mark. OU has a tendency to score early. If we are able to contain them in the opening quarters, our probability for victory should improve immensely.

Neverthless, these teams are tightly matched-up, but I think we have a chance to do something special this year. Go Red Raiders!!

Overall

Average Margin of Victory: Tie

(TTU = 23, OU = 22).

Against five common opponents (UT, KSU, KU, NU, TAM) TTU’s aggregate margin of victory is 103 points, while OU’s aggregate margin of victory is 99 points.

Defense

Total Yards Against: Advantage TTU

TTU is yielding an average of 355 yards per contest, while OU is yielding an average of 407 yards per contest.

TTU’s best performance was holding Kansas State to 296 yards. OU’s best performance was holding Baylor to 269 yards. TTU’s worst performance came against Nebraska when the defense yielded 471 yards. OU’s worst performance came against Kansas State when it yielded 550 yards (although OU did generate 5 turnovers in that contest).

Against five common opponents (UT, KSU, KU, NU, TAM), TTU has yielded 352 yards per game while OU has yielded 435 yards per game.

In Big XII contests to date, TTU is yielding slightly less points as a defense than OU. TTU is surrendering an average of 25.2 points per game while OU is giving up about 28.3 points per game.

Turnovers: Advantage OU

OU’s defense has created 15 turnovers, averaging 2.5 take aways per game. TTU has created 13 turnovers averaging 2.2 take aways per game.

However, OU’s takeaway margin +10, while TTU’s is +5.

OU’s defense is opportunistic and dangerous. In OU’s last three victories against KSU, NU and TAM, OU’s defense created 4 turnover or more which has resulted in more possessions for OU and higher overall offensive outputs against its opponents.

Offense

Offensive Efficiency: Advantage TTU

TTU’s offense is far more efficient than OU’s. TTU is averaging 4.10 points per possession while scoring an average of 64% of its possessions. OU is averaging 3.34 points per possession while scoring an average of 50% of its possessions.

TTU’s best offensive showing came against OSU when it scored on 80% of its possessions, while its worst showing came against UT when it scored on 50% of its possessions.

Likewise, OU’s best offensive showing came against Baylor when it scored on 58% of its possessions, while its worst showing also came against UT when it scored on 42% of its possessions.

OU’s poorer offensive efficiency is partially explained by its ability to generate large leads early on in its contests, enabling it play less aggressively in later quarters.

On average OU has scored on 74% of its possessions in the first quarter; 52% of its possessions in the second quarter, 52% of its possessions in the third quarter, and just 10% of its possession in the fourth quarter. By comparison, TTU has scored on 77%, 67%, 65%, 59% of its possessions respectively by quarter.

In OU’s loss against UT, the Sooner offense managed to score on 52%, 52%, 67% and 0% of its possessions respectively by quarter.

For TTU fans, limiting OU’s scoring opportunities early could be a sign of good things to come.

In five games, OU has outscored TTU 294 points to 287. However, OU has benefited from 18 more possessions than TTU which is partially accounted by its ability to create more take aways.

So far this year, OU is ranked second in scoring with 51.4 points per game, followed by TTU which is ranked third at 47.9 points per game.

TTU is ranked second in the nation (behind Tulsa) in overall offense averaging 593 yards per game. Oklahoma is ranked third in the country at 550 yards per game.

TTU leads the nation in average passing yards per game with 433.7 yards per contest, while OU is ranked third in the nation averaging 355.5 yards per game.

OU averages 194.3 yards per game rushing, while TTU averages 132.6 yards per contest.

TTU is ranked third overall on third down conversions - converting on 57.8% of its snaps. OU is ranked 23rd nationally - converting 46.4% of its third downs.

Neither team is shy about going for it on fourth down. TTU has gone for it on 15 occassions and has converted 10 tries succesfully. OU has gone for it on 16 occassions and has converted 8 of its attempts successfully.

Special Teams: Slight Overall Edge to OU

Kick Off Returns: Slight Edge TTU

TTU is averaging 24.7 yards per kick off return. OU is yielding 25.7 yards per kick off return.

OU is averaging 26.7 yards per kick off return. TTU is yielding 22.5 yards per kick off return.

OU has allowed one kick off return for a touchdown (UT – Jordan Shipley). TTU has not allowed a kick off return touchdown this year.

Punt Returns: Advantage OU

TTU is averaging 4.5 yards per punt return. OU is yielding 0.7 yards per punt return.

OU is averaging 11.3 yards per punt return. TTU is allowing 10.9 yards per punt return.

TTU has allowed one punt return for a touchdown (UT – Jordan Shipley). OU has not allowed a punt return touchdown this year.

Field Goals: (Are you ready for this?) Advantage TTU

TTU has scored on 75% of its field goal attempts (6 out of 8 attempts). OU has scored on 50% of its field goal attempts (3 out of 6 attempts).

Extra Points: Advantage OU

OU has scored on 95% of its extra point attempts, connecting on 42 out of 44 attempts. TTU has scored on 90% of its extra point attempts, connecting on 36 out of 40 attempts and has surrendered a two-point return on a blocked field goal attempt (-6 potential points). TTU’s kicking game, however, has improved. TTU is 21 for 21in extra points over its last three contests.

Punting: Tie

OU is averaging 35.3 yards per punt with 8 punts placed within the 20 yard line. TTU is averaging 37.0 yards per punt with 4 punts placed within the 20 yard line.

Our Defense

LondonRaider — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:09:49 -0000

Our Defense

As we all know, our defense continues to disappoint. The play of our linebackers and secondary has just been horrible. I am not sure how to diagnose our problems, but can only hope that the second half of the A&M game is a harbinger of better things to come. I can’t understand how our secondary and linebackers always seem to be caught out of position. Personally, I think the schemes are not effective, and the talent level is not of a high enough caliber. Having said that, I think the scheme is more important than talent, and to me so far our performance is not acceptable. To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, you play with the team you have – but, that doesn’t excuse poor coaching.

Against A&M, the defensive line played well, but the linebackers and secondary have to do their jobs and make plays.

Our defense has surrendered 400 or more yards against Nevada (488) and Nebraska (471). We held KSU to less than 300 yards and A&M to 307 yards. It’s hard to tell what that means, other than our defense is capable of playing very poorly, but has showed some glimpses of being a solid squad.

We are giving up an average of 350 yards a game, which includes our soft preseason schedule, and ranks us at number 58 in the country between Duke and North Carolina (not exactly the best company) - just inside the top half of college football.

According to Fox Sports, we are number 12 in the country against the run (yards per game), but 104th in the country against the pass (yards per game). I think it is fair to say that our rank against the run is probably a function of our rank against the pass (why run when you can pass all day long).

We rank number 43 in points allowed per game, putting us a couple of slots down behind OU and OSU. The 31 points we allowed against Nebraska, was our highest of the year (14 points higher than Missouri allowed).

Needless to say the jury is out on our man Ruffin.

In absolute terms, our defensive numbers are not impressive. However, what the numbers tell us below is that relative to our Big 12 counterparts, our defense is not all that dissimilar in performance thus far. When seen through the lens of defensive performance, our chances of running the table - still a distant thought at this point – actually look somewhat plausible.

Kansas

Kansas is a very winnable game, more so than we may think.

In its losses, Kansas’s defense gave up 674 yards of offense against OU and 458 yards of offense against South Florida. In victories against Iowa State and Sam Houston State, they gave up 375 yards.

Kansas is a worse defensive team than we are. Kansas ranks number 65 in total yards allowed per game; number 30 in rushing yards allowed per game; number 100 in passing yards allowed per game; and number 47 in points allowed per game.

Like us, Kansas has a prolific offense, but also suffers from a weak defense.

If our defense shows up like it did against Kansas State and second half A&M, we should win this game in a walk. If we have a Nebraska-like performance, then it will be up to our offense to win a shoot out (which we are capable of doing).

I think the odds-makers are seriously underestimating our ability to win this game.

Texas

Texas’ defense gave up 435 yards against OU and 412 yards against UTEP, but held Missouri to 350+ yards and has manhandled everyone else.

Texas is ranked 39 in yards allowed per game; number 2 in rushing yards allowed per game; but 112 versus the pass – slightly higher than SMU; and 25 in points allowed

Should we beat Kansas, this is a game where there is complete asymmetry - our number one passing offense against UT’s terrible passing defense.

If our defense holds up – a huge IF at this point – this is a game we can steal.

With home field advantage, we have a better chance of winning this game than we think.

Oklahoma State

Oklahoma State’s defense has given up 400 yards plus of total offense to Houston, Troy, Texas A&M (who we held to 306 yards), and Missouri. In games versus inferior teams (Washington State, Missouri State and Baylor) Oklahoma State held their opponents to around 200 yards.

However, the defense is opportunistic. Against Troy and Missouri, the Cowboys created 3 turnovers. Against Texas A&M, they created 5 turnovers.

Oklahoma State is ranked number 47 in yards allowed per game number 35 against the run; number 78 against the pass; and number 40 in points allowed.

My final analysis is that OK State’s ranking is pretty flimsy. Like us, they have a prolific offense, but also a weak defense. In a shoot-out, I take TTU at home.

OK State’s biggest victory has been against Missouri, who should finish 10-2 - so we have to acknowledge that it’s a big win, and the reason why they are now ranked ahead of us for the moment.

OK State still has to play UT, Tech and OU (not to mention @ CU). They also play ISU. I predict losses against the first three and a loss at CU. That should take OSU down to 8-4 for the year – ranked, but not the 7th best team in the country.

This is a game we should win at home.

Oklahoma

OU has the best defense in the Big 12 South.

OU ranks number 34 in yards per game; 32 in rushing yards allowed per game; 62 in passing yards allowed per game; and 41 in points allowed per game.

In my mind, it is too early for predictions at this point. This one’s on the road, and we’ll just have to see where our team is at that point.

Go Tech!!

House of Cards?

LondonRaider — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:28:26 -0000

I''ve got this bad feeling in my stomach that I just can't seem to get rid of.

I have the same feeling about Tech as I did about the housing market two years ago. The record might look good, but there is something seriously wrong with the fundamentals.

Let's start with obvious, our defense.

Rah Rah Ruffin Doctrine

Is there a more impotent defense amongst the Top 10 teams than Tech's? I saw three fundamental things last night that I'm not sure are correctable.

1) Lack of talent. Our corners are incapable of covering receivers. We play 5 to 10 yards off the ball, and routinely allow 8 and 10 yard catches. There is no bump and run. No physical play whatsover. After the first five games of the season, Ruffin must have concluded that if we can't cover man to man (and risk giving up the big play) then we will keep everything in front of us. Of course our secondary can't stop the short game either.

So if we can't cover man to man, and we are not fast enough to run a shut down zone defense, where does that leave us? I'm not a defense coordinator, but what prevents the defensive line, and maybe an extra linebacker from blitzing when the secondary is playing zone? If you can't apply the rush, then all you are doing is giving the opposing team's qbs and receivers all day to find a lane, pick a spot and fire the ball. How does that package allow you to stop the running game?

2) Fear. The defense has no pride. Every close up shot I saw of the defense, showed players with either the deer-in-headlights or the emporer-has-no-clothes look in their eyes (take your pick). The last touchdown with two minutes left when Nebraska marched down our home field and tied the game showed absolutely no heart. Rah rah only takes you so far.

3) Poor Coaching. It's time to find a new defensive coordinator. Ruffin has been a disappointment since last season. Ruffin has publicly stated that he has reduced the number of packages to allow the defense to play more aggressively and instinctively. Did anyone see either of these benefits last night? Over the past six games?

Ruffin's other stated approach is to constantly rotate bodies as much as possible to the keep the defense fresh. If I'm an offensive coordinator (which I'm not), the first thing I do is run a hurry-up offense to keep the defense from rotating players (which is precisely what Nebraska did).

Defense is not just about naked aggression, it requires strategy and outthinking the offense. How many times did we get burned on misdirection plays (that is when our secondary was not being surgically picked apart by Ganz)? Imagine applying the Ruffin Doctrine against a more talented OK State and Texas team.

Did anyone have any doubt that Nebraska would go for the fake field goal down 24-10 and facing the prospect of trading field goals for touchdowns the rest of the game? How many brain cells does it take to not see that one coming. It's not just gut check time. It's brain check time too.

Clutch?

Our offense was superb, BUT I am getting a little tired of the drive-killing third down and 2,3 or 4 where we hand off the ball to Shannon Woods and he gets tackled for a 2 yard loss leading to a three and out series. With the momentum swinging to Nebraska, and the game being a difference between a three and out, and marching down the field to emphatically put the game out of reach, we call a draw play (by the way, if you routinely call the same play in the same situation enough times, I don't think it counts as a draw play anymore).

Can you imagine, with the game on the line, Brett Favre handing off the ball to his smallest contact-shy running back? Is that what champions do? Harrell and Crabtree are All-Americans. Batch is a bull who had shown no fear about going up the middle. So that's the play we call? At what point do we not call Shannon Woods out for being soft? At what point do we recognize all of the above and stop running the same useless play?

Before the incredible 4th and 4 play call, we ran the same sort of shovel pass draw on the preceding third down (if memory serves) . That play could have been our entire season. How many times do you think we can afford to call these sorts of timid plays (not to mention heroic-but-low probability desperation heaves) and still go to a BCS game?

I truly wonder if Harrell has the killer instinct to make him a true champion. The Insight Bowl comebacks only happen when you are inconsistent in the first place. I would have expected our All American to put the game on his back with everything on the line, show leadership poise, and take command. What is behind Harrell's sudden gunslinger-to-girly-man transformations that he seems to experience at least once a game?

"Special" Teams

Corona should have cost us the game. Not on field goals, mind you, but on two extra points. I can't remember a worse kicker at Tech going back to - hell, have we ever had such a lousy kicker? The only kickers I vaguely recall being this bad were the Florida State kickers from the early nineties that cost Bowden his championships then.

Why are the snapper, the holder and the kicker not up 24 hours a day perfecting a 15 yard kick? Corona's performance would not be acceptable even at the high school level. He had the Shaquille-O'Neal-I-sure-hope to-God-this- free- throw-goes-in-look on his face everytime he kicked the ball.

Whoever the other kid is, however bad he might be in practice, he deserves a shot on the field. Corona may nail every kick in practice, but he has demostrated - amply - that he can't do the same thing during the game.

This is not the season where I want to end up having to get bailed out by the (Paulson) Poulon Weedeater Bowl.

Like the housing market over the past five years, Is our 2008 season built on nothing more than a house of cards?

Preseason is Over

LondonRaider — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:14:15 -0000

Looking ahead to our next few games, I’m feeling alot better this week than I was after the Nevada game.

It’s never 100% accurate to look at how your competition fared and extrapolate those results to how you might might play against the same teams, but nevertheless, I’ve always found it to be a useful indicator.

Missouri’s dismantling of Nevada still greatly concerns me, especially considering our struggles against Nevada’s inexperienced defense. Our defense surrendered 488 yards to Nevada, while Missouri’ defense allowed 362 yard. Fortunately, we won’t be playing Missouri until the Big 12 Championship game, and even Missouri is capable of having a bad day (see this week’s Buffalo game).

Kansas State lost badly to Louisville this week. Their three touchdowns, however, came on 50+ yard passing plays, so our defense will have to be sharp. We’ve shown a weakness against the big play in our first two games, and I hope we’ve gotten better in this respect.

Nebraska has done nothing to impress me just yet – pedestrian wins versus Western Michigan, San Jose State and New Mexico State. Let’s see how they do against Virginia Tech next week, before we’re really able to say anything (you might same the same thing about us, but I’d like to believe we’re a much better team).

Texas A&M just looks awful. I don’t think we’re looking at a ‘Norman Dale at Hoosiers turnaround scenario’ . They remind me a lot more of Notre Dame and Charlie Weiss.

Finally, Kansas lost a tough one to South Florida. But this week, South Florida beat Florida International (hey, didn’t we hang 70 on those guys recently?) by a paltry 17-9. Although I am still convinced that Kansas will suffer a big drop off this season, Kansas looks more beatable to me than they did a couple of weeks ago.

If we play to our potential, I think we’ve got a legitimate shot at 8-0 heading into the Texas game, but now we’re playing against ‘real’ teams, so let’s hope a lot of the kinks have been worked out of the offense (I thought the earlier post on the route running problems by the inside receivers was really interesting).

Let’s also be honest, our defense remains a big question mark. Even though they’ve played well against SMU and UMass (I would characterize the perfomance against Nevada as ‘gutsy’, but that’s different than being dominating or even solid), I don’t think we know enough still.

Go Red Raiders. Stay focused!!

(I posted this in another section, but I am not sure if it got posted, so sorry for the duplicate)