Football Notes

- We're just a week away from finding out who will play in the B(C)S bowl games (and others). I watched the BCS Countdown Special on ESPN last night. I find it funny how Craig James was so adamant about TCU being title game worthy following their 47-7 trouncing of then 5th ranked Utah and now believes their only chance is if #1 Auburn and #2 Oregon lose next week. Rod Gilmore stated that Boise State had been dominant all year, have a non-conference victory over Virginia Tech and TCU doesn't have either. Gilmore didn't even rank the Horned Frogs in his Top 5, opting to go with Auburn, Oregon, Stanford, Michigan State and Wisconsin, I believe, before the 12-0 Horned Frogs.

It's true, outside of their wins against Virginia Tech (33-30) and Oregon State (37-24), Boise had been dominant until their loss to Nevada last Friday. At the same time, going into championship week, Boise has beaten just four bowl-eligible teams (Fresno State, Hawaii, Toledo and Virginia Tech). Oregon State and Louisiana Tech could become bowl eligible with wins this upcoming weekend, but Oregon State would have to defeat in-state rival Oregon, whom is unbeaten and playing for a spot in the National Championship Game and Louisiana Tech would have to beat Nevada. So, in all likelihood, Boise will finish the year 4-1 against bowl eligible teams. Eight of Boise's games have been won by 29 points or more, with the battles against the Hokies, Beavers and the loss this past Friday to Nevada being the exceptions. Boise ranks 2nd in points for (46.4 per game) and 4th in points against (13.5).

Comparing those numbers to Boise State's, TCU has beaten six bowl eligible teams, seven if Oregon State beats Oregon this next week, but that's unlikely. So, in all likelihood, going into the bowl games, TCU will have defeated two more bowl eligible teams than Boise State (Baylor, SMU, BYU, Air Force, Utah and San Diego State). Nine of TCU's twelve victories have come by 27 points or more, with the exceptions being a 5-point win over San Diego State, a 9-point win against Oregon State and a 17-point victory against SMU. TCU is ranked 4th in points scored (43.3 per game) and 1st in points against (11.4 per).

So, what's the big difference again? Boise has beaten two fewer bowl eligible teams than TCU, have won one fewer game by 27 points or more (could tie that mark by defeating Utah State this next week by 27+) and have similar numbers in points scored and allowed (46.4 - 13.5 = +32.9 for BSU and 43.3 - 11.4 = +31.9 for TCU). Boise State may have the most impressive win between the two teams, with their 33-30 victory against Virginia Tech, but as far as I see it, that's all they have on the Horned Frogs. If either Auburn falls to South Carolina or Oregon loses to Oregon State, I think an unbeaten TCU team deserves to play in the title game.

- It really is a shame we don't have a playoff in college football. I don't see there being a "great" team this year, but see several very good teams. An 8-team playoff could showcase the following teams: Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Stanford, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Arkansas and Michigan State, the only 2-loss team amongst them being Arkansas.

- Is calling it, South Carolina will beat Auburn next week. The Gamecocks played with the Tigers the first go-round and actually had a lead late, but Stephen Garcia threw some picks, which led to the Tigers winning by eight. I like how the Gamecocks are playing right now and think they have a good enough defense to limit Cam Newton's explosiveness. He'll make some plays, there's no question about that, but I think Carolina will prevent him from dominating the game as he's done quite frequently this year. Auburn's defense is very average, to be kind and I really think the 'ol ball coach will have a few tricks up his sleeve as he attempts to win South Carolina their first SEC Championship. So, if that does happen, we'll see what takes place. Oregon would jump back up to #1, but who would they face in the title game? Stanford and Wisconsin are arguably playing better than anyone right now, but Stanford already faced (and lost to) Oregon, so I'd think they wouldn't jump up to #2. I'd have a tough time seeing Auburn in the championship game, since they wouldn't have won their conference title game. Wisconsin tied with two other teams (Ohio State and Michigan State) for the Big Ten title. Since they didn't win it outright, would voters not be satisfied? I'd think TCU may wind up in the title game, but have no idea what the computers (or humans, for that matter) would have to say. Regardless, if South Carolina beats Auburn next week, expect controversy with the final numbers/decision.

- I think it's incredible how much parity is in the NFL. I also find it funny how these talking heads want to point to one team or two as the dominant clubs in the league. I'm sorry, that's not going to happen. New England (9-2), NY Jets (9-2), Pittsburgh (8-3), Baltimore (8-3) and up-and-comer San Diego (6-5) could all represent the AFC and Atlanta (9-2), New Orleans (8-3), Chicago (8-3), Philadelphia (7-4), NY Giants (7-4) and Green Bay (7-4) could all potentially represent the NFC. There are 11 teams I can still see winning the Super Bowl. Atlanta, New England and the Jets may be the favorites and are all very solid teams, but I still don't see them as dominant. The Jets' offense is inconsistent at times. The same can be said about the Patriots' defense. Atlanta may be the most well-rounded of the three, but I still don't see them as the ultimate favorite yet, even in the NFC.

- Some of the Eagles/Bears commentary is cracking me up. Don't get me wrong, Chicago outplayed Philadelphia and deserved to win the game. There's no question about that. But, I'm hearing that Chicago found the blueprint for stopping Michael Vick. The Bears are faster than the Eagles. Former Bears' coach, Mike Ditka, said the field didn't play a factor at all in the Bears' win and compared it to hockey, saying every team plays on ice. The Bears' deserved to win, but let's be serious for a second, they call it home-field advantage for a reason. You can't compare a football field to a hockey rink. The Bears' play eight games there. They are more familiar and more comfortable with the soft turf, which, as many could see yesterday (for both teams), results in players sliding all over the field. This did play a factor in the game. The Eagles are known for their speed, especially on offense, with: Michael Vick at quarterback, LeSean McCoy at tailback and DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin at receiver. The field's condition really neutralized the club's speed. It's no excuse for them to lose the game, but it did play into their major strength on offense, which is their speed. Also, if the two teams played on a neutral field, where the turf wasn't torn up due to a high school game that had been played 36 hours prior, we'd be able to garner a more accurate measurement of the two teams' speed. Is it possible Chicago would showcase they are just as quick, if not quicker than Philly? Sure, but I have a hunch that wouldn't be the case. Finally, outside of one play, Michael Vick played well. Before this game, the most any one team had scored against Chicago was Seattle, whom put up 23 points on the Bears earlier this year. Only two teams had put up 20 or more on the Bears' defense (Dallas scored 20 in week 2). So, the 26 points the Eagles' put up was the most anyone had scored on the Bears in their first 11 games this season. It's true, the Eagles scored 6 times, but didn't make the most of those opportunities, as four of those scores were via kicks by David Akers. But, at the same time, if a team scores 26 points against the Bears, that team should win most times and Philly allowed 31, a season-high for the Bears. I'll be curious to see how Chicago's offense and Philly's defense plays following this game.