While the hire would be anything but out-of-the-ordinary/surprising/unexpected/etc., Iowa's most recent offeree called LaVarr Woods, "Coach Woods, the defensive line coach at Iowa, stopped by today..." I know it's not news or noteworthy to most, but I do think it's interesting that, while there has been no official announcement*, Woods is telling players that he's the new D-line coach.

*Again, I may have (or probably) missed this somewhere.

pronounced, I believe: uh-KAK-uh-tee - said fast - per here - said and not corrected by him

Faith Ekakitie, 2012 DL from Lake Forest, IL, committed to Iowa today via a personal scout.com. Since I've spoiled the surprise, it's well worth the read. It gives an idea how a smart, honest kid comes to some of his decisions. Sometimes they're made by the football program (Oregon), sometimes by the academic institution (Northwestern), sometimes by his parents (GaTech).

In the end, it was the solid foundation and family-values atmosphere that won Iowa out. I wonder if he knew that Kirk Ferentz and the entire athletic department were transferring to Penn State. I wouldn't be surprised that if there is a big shake-up, that his is one commitment that re-opens. And based on the difficult decision and the way he came to it, I wouldn't be upset.

Like last year, when depth and quality leave, highly-touted recruits say, "Hello." That makes three 300-lb, quick, athletic, and strong defensive tackles to commit in the past two years in Darian Cooper, Jaleel Johnson and now Ekakitie. I'm sure Ross or someone else will have more.

I guess I'm not really trying to make excuses for them. I'm just trying to offer some alternative explanations. Eh. I guess it depends on what you define excuse as.

Scout.com put out an non-conference grade report for the offense today. The worst grade was for the TE position, claiming that only Derby's production and blocking has kept it from garnering an F. I find this wrong for a couple of reasons.

First
A couple of days ago, I looked at the percentage of passing yards gained by the WRs. So far this year, they have roughly 82% of all receiving yards. The next closest in the past 8 years were about 72-73%. After that, we're into the sixties. The lowest came in 2008 at 60% when the Hawkeyes featured three NFL tight ends in Myers, Reisner and Moeaki.

The chicken-or-the-egg question could arise here, asking, "Are the tight ends getting little notice because of wide receivers' abilities, or are the WRs getting more production because of the lack of the TEs abilities?" Because of my second explanation, I believe it's the former.

Second
Vandenberg locks onto one receiver and rarely through his progressions. Some (or one) has suggested this is by design: college QBs, at least Iowa's, are not generally asked to make progression reads; they look to see if the first receiver is open and if not, check down to the running back.

I do not believe this is true for a couple of reasons: first, my own logic and common sense (not to say that mine is any better than other, it's just what I believe) - I don't see how an effective "pro-style" offense can work with only one read and one check-down. Also, I have not heard this suggested by any coaches, players or writers. Third, it has actually been suggested (by Brian Billick in the case I can remember) that Vandenberg was locking onto one WR too much.

In his pointing this out, Billick showed two instances, just in the matter of a few plays, where the TE was wide open, meaning: people were running away from the TE to cover someone else, and/or there was no one within five yards of the TE. On one of the plays, Vandenberg forced it into coverage for an incompletion. On the other, he had checked down to Marcus Coker when he was well-covered for a one or two yard gain.

Third
The tight ends are being kept into block more than usual, at least a little. I don't have the numbers, so I can be completely wrong on this. This does seem true, however, in an anecdotal sense and in a common sense way. For one reason, the team has three viable WRs and a sure-handed receiver out of the backfield in Coker (not quite so shifty as a LeSean McCoy, but he has good hands). If this were true even without regard to the TEs' abilities, it would still make sense that it would be rare for the TE to go out. Now, whether the coaches have designed this because the TEs are lacking, is a question to be explored.

Also, and this is complete conjecture on my part, but it just seems true, Iowa is running fewer play-action plays off of the I-formation and single-back, and this seems to be a bread-and-butter pass play for the tight ends, especially on the seam routes.

So anyway, I'm not here to say that the tight ends definitely aren't performing up to par. These are just some of the things I noticed a lot more than any certain suckage by the tight ends. Thoughts?

No, of course not.

They're very forward thinking, and they were the ones who really started this conference alignment in the first place.

The Big XII is dead. That's obvious
If the Big East doesn't die, it won't live with its AQ status still intact.
Syracuse, Pitt to the ACC? Is UConn next? That gives the Atlantic Coast Conference 14, maybe 15 teams.
Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech to the Pac-12? It will then be the Pac-16.
With Texas A&M, the SEC will have 13 teams.
The B1G will have 12 teams.

My suggestions:

PAC-16           ACC-16                SEC                  B1G
USC              Duke                  Florida              Iowa
UCLA             North Carolina        Georgia              Indiana
Arizona          Wake Forest           South Carolina       Illinois
Arizona St.      Clemson               Kentucky             Purdue

Cal-Berkely      Georgia Tech          Tennessee            Northwestern
Oregon St        Florida St            Mississippi St.      Ohio St
Oregon           Miami                 Ole' Miss            Penn State
Stanford         Maryland              LSU                  Minnesota

Washington       North Carolina St.    Alabama              Wisconsin
Washington St    Virginia Tech         Auburn               Nebraska
Stanford         Virginia              Arkansas             Michigan
Colorado         ?????????             Vanderbilt           Michigan St

Texas            Boston College        Texas A&M            ??Rutgers??
Texas Tech       Syracuse              ?????????            ??Notre Dame??
Oklahoma         Pitt                  ?????????            ??Kansas?? (think basketball)
Oklahoma St      ??UConn??             ?????????            ?????????

The separated divisions are only for easier viewing purposes, although I guess Big XII teams in the Pac-16 will be in one division to assure they play each other every year.

Pac-16 is good. SEC needs 3 teams. Assuming UConn goes there, ACC needs 1 team. B1G needs 4 teams. What do you say?

Other possibilities (in no particular order and with the bare minimum of qualifications):
Missouri
Boise St.
Texas Christian
Nevada (okay in both football and basketball)
Fresno St
Louisville?(ugh)

There's really not much left, which is why I think the B1G should really push hard to get UConn. If AAU membership is important, then the following schools are possibilities: Kansas, Missouri, Tulane, Rutgers, Rice??? What does the B1G do? Do they just sit until they're basically made to switch to 16 teams, risking losing even these leftovers. In my opinion, I'd say that Rutgers, Notre Dame, Kansas and Missouri are the best bet. They're all known nationally. The expand the recruiting base (for what little they do), they're okay to very good academically. I think they each bring something unique. Except Missouri. not sure what they bring.

But anyway, just curious to what BHGPers think. Get the four best schools now (which ones?). Stand pat. If they have to take 16 in the future, they'll take what's left.

This is just an thought exercise that might give one a chance to evaluate their expectations.

First, saying South Carolina isn't quite accurate. "Steve Spurrier's Gamecocks" might be more accurate. But really LSU and South Carolina are short-hand for asking about more teams in general. The SEC and the B1G are the two best conferences in the NCAA Div-I (I don't recognize this "FBS/FCS" euphemisms as I think they're just an evil ploy of the powers that be of ingraining the Bowl concept in our brains so that we don't ask for change, and then... Whoa, I digress). I think it's interesting to think of the two and comparing their them in terms of "tiers." +

There are those in the lower tier: Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miss. St., Ole Miss, Arkansas and Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota. These teams may have been great at some point, may have had a good season somewhat recently, but from what little I know, it seems as though they haven't been legitimate conference contenders more than once, if that,  in the recent past.

There are those that are pretty inarguably the top tier: Florida, LSU, Alabama and Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, Michigan. This could be in terms of "perception" and national recognition or in terms of performance. I don't know enough about the SEC to say whether Auburn is in that category nor to know if Tennessee is just down or whether they've returned to their "normal" spot since Fullmer ha`s gone. Auburn has been undefeated 3 times in the past 20 years, but only claims one other Nat'l Championship in its history - 1957. (See why playoffs would rock?)

Then, in the middle tier are the teams that occasionally win the conference, rarely contend, but have contended, for a national championship. They rarely, if ever, have winless seasons or those with 1 or 2 wins. In this tier: Illinois, Michigan St, and Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn.

These tiers are imperfect at best, and just wrong at worst. Tennesse won a few nat'l championships and a lot of SEC conf titles. Georgia seems to get an unusual amount of attention despite their non-factor on the nat'l stage. Miss. State and South Carolina have been good under their current coaches. But the history and tradition of repeated above-average caliber is not there.

So it seems pretty obvious to me that Iowa is currently in the middle tier and before Ferentz one might say they were on the cusp of the bottom tier. If I remember the Director's (right? I can change this to whom it was if this is wrong) history correctly. Iowa had a really good team in the 30s and 40s and then a great team under Forest Evashevski before he unfortunately quit coaching. (It seems that one great run in the late 50s & 60s could have cemented Iowa on a nat'l stage. After all, Nebraska did it in the late-60s & 70s. Does Gayle Sayers go to Nebraska if Iowa is a repeated Nat'l Title contender? ::sigh::) After that is was a bad team followed by a great season or two under Fry with a number of above-average teams, but then sliding back to its badness of the 70s until the 3rd year of Ferentz.

So, are we satisfied with that? With mostly 7-6, 8-5, 9-4 seasons mixed in with an occasional 66 and occasional 11-2 seasons and, if lucky, once a decade being in the national title discussion? Because that's what Iowa has been under Ferentz, and based on a comparison of histories, that's what they "should be". Or do we want to expect a team that should win double-digit games every year and we're disappointed with anything less... like Nebraska? Because if Brady Hoke can continue to recruit like he has and actually develop the talent, if Ohio State bounces back from these sanctions, if Penn State continues to be good as they have been the past couple of years, if Nebraska is back to its prominence, and Bielema somehow, inexplicably, elevates Wisconsin past what Alvarez started, Iowa is going to consistently be in that middle tier of the conference with the occasional foray into the league elite.

What say you?

Being in Omaha, he is disappointed that das Huskers get so much media coverage both in Omaha and Lincoln.He would like to read about the Hawkeyes, I guess, every day, even if there’s nothing truly interesting-even if he doesn’t learn anything.

I suggested the East Iowa papers and even DMR, but he said, a) the DMR thinks they’re a state-wide paper so they don’t focus on Iowa any more than anyone else, and b) the East Iowa papers (I guess generally lumped together) don’t really have that great of writing on a consistent basis.

I find all I need to know here, so I have never searched diligently. Apparently, he doesn’t want to wait for INPIYL2I every day and would just rather search/browse himself. Can the BHGP community help out and give me some good links to papers and/or blogs and/or whatever else he should go to?

Thank you.

A friend of mine from junior high school works for a company called Narrative Science. What If Sports.com (the popular online simulation website), together with BTN, simulated the past 14 (15?) seasons, as if Nebraska had joined the Big Ten Conference and the divisions were split as they are now, beginning in 1996.

What If Sports simulated the games and seasons and provided the raw data (box scores and play-by-play information) to Narrative Science. Narrative Science has programs that then produce game stories from that data. It takes a combination of actual sports writers (not famous ones) and programs to read through hundreds of stories to design these programs. My friend, Tom Osugi, was responsible for the importing of the data from WIS to Narrative Science database.

Check out the first season's results.

(This actually reminds of the automatic song writers in "A Brave New World". Unlike songwriters, though, thank god, we will soon have no need for sports writers. (no offense to Jacobi or my friend who writes for the LJS.)

According to the Omaha Weird Herald, Brandon Wegher is planning on enrolling at Iowa Western Community College to play football. He has a few academic (indigestion?) issues to fix before he can officially, but that's expected (I wouldn't) to be cleared up soon.

In the article, the writers mention the two running backs that have left the team but did not mention Rodney Coe's name. This is probably just an oversight but I would have expected that another high-profile recruit would have got mention when one is discussing the running back situation.

This article, however, does mention, as an aside, Coe is already enrolled.

If Wegher never enrolled at Oklahoma, I would assume that he would be able to transfer to any Div. I school and play right away just like Dan Heier. If he did enroll at Oklahoma, I have no idea what the result would be.

So he apparently wants to still play football.

My good friend at the Lincoln Journal Star (Brian Christopherson) is the Huskers beat writer, and he was e-mailed by someone from the Columbus Dispatch asking about the Top 3 coaches in the B1G.

This is two different questions about basically the same thing.

First, who are the Top Three coaches in the Big Ten? You can use whatever criteria you want to define this. Answer this in the comments. I think success and a proven track record are both factors (but not necessarily equal), so I have:

Ferentz;  Bielema;  Paterno

I think D'Antonio and Pelini for certain, and probably Fitzgerald, Hoke and Kill, will all pass Paterno as "better coaches". If Tressel were still in the league, he'd take the place of Paterno and not Ferentz or Bielema, in my humble opinion.

Continue reading this post »