Modern Parity in NCAAF - Not A Coincidence

When the 2007 season started with a Michigan defeat in the Big House to Division 1-AA Appalachian State a lot of long-time college gridiron fans had a momentary case of shock. However, with 7 weeks gone by since that monumental game, this season continues to produce upsets like no season of recent memory.

USC 23 - Stanford 24

Texas 21 - Kansas State 41

Oklahoma 24 - Colorado 27

And now, this week...

California 27 - Oregon State 31

LSU 37 - Kentucky 43

These are just the most noticable, but there are many others including Duke ending their record losing streak (but immediately starting a new one) with a win against Northwestern.
What is happening in college football should be no real surprise in hind-sight, but it is fair to say most of us didn't see it coming. Even though schools not considered among the Blue Blood of the NCAA have always had their moments in the sun, the modern trend has been much more sustainable and the elite institutions would be wise to stand up and take notice...if they haven't already.

You'll hear a lot of theories about when this all started, but I tend to believe it was with Marshall Faulk at San Diego State. In 1993 he finished 4th in the Heisman voting after putting together an impressive resumé and he was subsequently drafted 2nd overall by the Indianapolis Colts. His efforts made good players realize they could make a name for themselves at less-traditional football schools, particularly if they put up big numbers.

Some might travel back a couple more years when André Ware (1989 - Houston) and Ty Detmer (1990 - BYU) actually won the Heisman, but their schools were a bit more historically tied to football than San Diego State.

The NFL has also played an important part in these changes. Players are being drafted more frequently from smaller schools as scouting has gone high-tech and talent is judged on many factors not earlier considered. 25 years ago Troy Smith would have been a first-round draft pick. In today's world, the 2006 Heisman winner was almost bypassed completely.

Coaching has also improved dramatically the last few decades. As football went through its evolution, the geniuses of the game were unique creatures that re-invented it and made their peers follow suit as the game got bigger, faster and more complex. Football has become an intricate chess game, yet the number of chess masters continues to rise and they have text books, game tapes and so many other tools at their disposal to chip away at the other team's advantages.

Due to this, the days that a few extra pounds on your front line meant you automatically pushed the other guy around are gone. Every team has a number of great athletes and you do not need to have a complete physical advantage to exploit your opponent's weaknesses. The victory of Appalachian State was a perfect example of this as they gave away a lot of size on the line, but were able to pick apart the Michigan defense at will while their own defense kept the damange of Henne, Hart and Manningham at a minimum.

There could also be a case made that today's young people have less respect for institutions making them oblivious to another school's perceived superiority. This attitude makes them much more likely to believe the coach when he reminds them that their opponent puts on his pants and shoes the same way they do. There is a certain cockiness in today's college athletes that transcends any history the Blue Bloods want to claim for themselves. Many of these athletes could simply care less and actually believe they are the better team and translate that into a victory on the field.

Yahoo! Sport columnist Terry Bowden, son of Florida State coach Bobby Bowden and brother to Clemson's Tommy Bowden addressed this issue in a recent article:

"Back when I played at West Virginia in the 70's we hated to play Penn State. They were ranked in the top five every year and we had lost to them about 25 straight games. I remember my father telling us players that they put their pants on the same way we did and all I could think of was how they had to slit their britches up the backside to get their legs in. We were usually beat before the ball was even kicked off."

While any one of these factors could lead to a few upsets, it is the combination of all that will allow it to be sustainable and I am certain the next few years will see quite a few more surprises on the field

Whether or not this trend is permanent is another matter. NCAA Football's elite already have so much invested in their football prowess and to have to share space with these "upstarts" will certainly eat into their bottom lines. High school players are already starting to expand their horizons as to the types of schools they want to join and being Michigan, Notre Dame or USC is no longer a guarantee you will end up with the best pickings. Teams like Boise State, Cincinatti, Wake Forest and Boston College have become legitimate options to further one's career and (especially at Boston College with a graduation rate for student athletes of more than 90%) education. The Blue Bloods are going to have to consider another approach if they ever wish to re-establish their dominance

Perhaps this will lead to another change in the traditions of the college game. This new equality could force the powers that be to consider again the need for a season-ending play-off and championship game. Surely, with so many schools and the likelihood that few seasons will end with two (and only two) undefeated teams this needs to be put back on the table.

Team U.S.A. - Choose Your Sport

In the U.S. where basketball, baseball and American football rule, the performance of our national teams in other competitions is sometimes overlooked. Considering the importance placed on sports in our society and the money and resources available you are left to wonder how we cannot be more competitive in sports outside of our "comfort zone".

The Rugby World Cup ended for Team U.S.A. today following a thrashing at the hands of South Africa. This was hardly a big surprise. The United States is not exactly a rugby nation while South Africa won the World Cup in 1995 and is a contender whenever it steps on the pitch.

Already this week, our women's soccer team was eliminated from the championship in "that other World Cup" by Brazil in a match where they didn't even resemble the team that had gone over 50 matches without a loss. Although they redeamed themselves with a solid performance for third place by beating Norway 4-1, there are many saying their period of dominance has passed and they can expect a harder road to any championships in the future.

Our men's soccer team always claims it is improving and it is true that we are no longer considered a pushover. We had some success in '94 while playing host and in the South Korean/Japanese Cup of 2002, but we still have not won a World Cup match when it is held on European soil.

Certainly, college sports programs in the United States present more visible opportunity to 18-22 year olds than those in most other countries. However, these sports are only open to students at the schools meaning many potential athletes are never exposed to the other sports that could launch them to the international stage. With the exception of church & factory softball leagues or an office bowling team, how many Americans have participated in a competitive sport outside of high school or college?

While European countries and many others have sports leagues with national and provincial levels allowing even a novice the chance to participate in the sport of their choice and to do so through any age, only the best get a chance to play their favorite sport at a competitive level in the U.S.. This is fine for basketball and baseball, but it means many high-quality athletes consider their sporting career is over when they leave school.

For the women's game, it would appear that college sports are still helping us keep our competitive edge. Since universities are required to pump the same amount of cash into women's sports programs as they do for the men, opportunities abound at U.S. colleges and women are encouraged to participate in a sport suitable to them. The success of our women's soccer team could be directly attributed to this. Our women's basketball team has won Gold in 5 of the last 6 Olympics and our softball team is utterly dominant, although softball is not really a world sport. Nonetheless, even in historically strong sports such as volleyball the U.S. is just average as our national team is currently ranked 8th, far behind leaders Russia, China and Brazil and still outclassed by smaller countries such as Italy, Cuba and The Netherlands.

The men, on the other hand, could benefit greatly from a club system that encourages non-students to still pursue sports at a competitive level.

At the end of the day, it is still about the money. To keep a competitive edge, many universities are recruiting student-athletes from other countries and most American athletes remain focussed on the sports that promise the most, long-term financial reward. This, once again, favors the women's programs as female athletes look less realistically at making sports a career and would be more likely to choose a sport ideally suited to them.

What would be great for the U.S. (and frightening for the rest of the world) is a new approach to high school athletes where, even at small schools not offering the fully array of sports, coaches and gym teachers are trained to keep their eye out for certain types of athletes. Running backs and linebackers in American football who might not have NFL credentials should be encouraged to look at rugby as a legitimate option for their future. A basketball player without NBA skills, but a great verticle leap could be guided towards volleyball. (It is notable that most high schools do not even offer men's volleyball outside of intramural competitions.) You have great hands with a stick, but lack the strength or skating talent of an NHL player? Why not try field hockey? An argument could even be made for encouraging pitchers and hitters from baseball to look at cricket.

If that athlete is not college material, there should still be avenues available for that person to pursue their sport of choice. Not only would this benefit the national programs for many of these other sports, but it would be good for the overall health and condition of the nation; something that would take up another article.

The world will always produce its Marta's and Ronaldinho's, its Federer's and even its Tony Parkers; but with the money, know-how and even the racial & cultural diversity in America, Team U.S.A. should always be respected as a potential winner when they take the field - no matter what the sport is.