Turning the corner

One of the most notable things about Houston's season-opening win over Texas State last Saturday had absolutely nothing to do with what happened on the field. It had to do with what happened in the stands. 32,119 people were in attendance Saturday night. That is the largest crowd Houston has ever had at Robertson Stadium since UH football returned to campus in the late 1990s.

We've come a long way.

This is what the west gradstand looked like for a game against Alabama-Birmingham in 2003. The attendance was rather generously announced at 15,120:
This is for a game against SMU a couple of years later. Attendance was announced at 14,650.
I could easily go through my photo collection and find example after example of UH football games featuring an almost-empty west-side grandstand. For so many years, that was just the way it was.

Fast-forward to Saturday night:
See that big block of red over there on the left side? Those are students. There was a time when you could not determine where the student section of Robertson Stadium was located. Students didn't attend the games. They didn't care.

That's changed.

Winning has a lot to do with it, of course. But I firmly believe the number of new on-campus housing developments that have been completed over the past several years has something to do with it as well. Generally speaking, students who live on-campus support their school's sports teams more than those that don't, because they're already on campus and already feel like they're part of the campus community. For many of them, that affinity for their alma mater and their sports teams will continue even after they graduate, meaning that they will continue to support the Coogs as alumni.

This is the key to building up a base of support for your sports programs. It's something the University of Houston has not historically done. But the times are changing.

Dustin believes that the University of Houston has turned the corner in terms of student support for its athletics programs. I'm not ready to go that far yet - it's probably a good idea to wait a few years to see if this trend is permanent - but, right now, something positive is clearly happening.

As a long-suffering Cougar fan, I'm very happy to finally see it.

Maybe I gloated too much

In the year since I wrote this post, I have not made any progress on my weight loss. I've been hovering at or above my current weight for the past year and right now I weigh about as much as I did exactly one year ago: less than I used to but more than I should.

Maybe I should try a little harder. And not gloat as much.

Belated 2010 Preview: University of Houston Cougars

Okay, so I admit that it's probably cheating if I put up a preview after the team's first game of the season. It's my fault for not finishing this entry before the Cougars took the field against I-AA Texas State last Saturday evening. On the other hand, the results of what was basically a scrimmage (Texas State is a respectable program, but they're still FCS) gives me a slightly better idea as to what things are going to look like for the Coogs this fall.

I think my 2009 season review did a pretty thorough job of exploring the improvements the Coogs need to make if they're going to have the conference-winning, ranked season they missed out on last year. Namely, they need to improve on defense.

About a month ago, ESPN's College Football Nation blog determined that "Houston needs better D." Really? In other news, the sky is blue! The issue for the Cougar defense isn't so much that it needs to improve as it is just how much improvement is needed. In Houston's case, the "how much" is a lot: the squad ended the season ranked 115th in rushing defense and 111th in total defense. If the Coogs can't do significantly better than that this season, they simply won't be worthy of a conference championship, a bowl victory or a season-ending top 25 ranking.

There are other areas of improvement I'd like to see this fall as well: the offense should run the ball more, if for no other reason than to milk the clock and give the defense time to rest. Special teams could use some work in the areas of punting and extra points. And the team, overall, needs to stay focused for every game and not allow momentum-killing letdown losses to occur. But none of these issues are as important as getting the defense to a point where it is at least respectable.

There are reasons to hope that the defense is indeed going to show improvement this fall. New defensive coordinator Brian Stewart is installing a 3-4 scheme that is supposed to be a better fit to the defense's personnel. Unlike last year, there are no true freshmen playing on the defensive line. Highly-regarded JUCO defenders such as DL Matangi Tonga and LB Sammy Brown are expected to provide some instant help up front. Senior LB Matt Nicholson is back from an injury that ended his season last year.

However, when the 2010 version of the UH defense nevertheless gives up four touchdowns and 345 yards (180 of them on the ground) to an FCS offense, as they did in Houston's 68-28 victory over the Texas State Bobcats last Saturday, there is still reason for concern.

To be fair, three of those scores and almost 200 of those total yards came in the second half, after Stewart had pulled his first-string defense and let the reserves, including a handful of true freshmen, play. The first-team defense allowed only 149 yards and one touchdown. They also forced four turnovers (one fumble, two interceptions and one stop on fourth down) and scored a touchdown of their own when Matt Nicholson returned an interception for 42 yards to the endzone. Nicholson also recovered a fumble and had 6 tackles; JUCO newcomer Sammy Brown had six tackles as well. LB Marcus McGraw was the star of the starting defense with eleven tackles and one sack. Given that the linebacking corps is the key to the 3-4 defense, it's great to see this kind of production.

All in all, the first team defense played admirably; I'm willing to overlook the 80-yard scoring drive that Texas State put together in the first quarter or the fact that the other heralded JUCO newcomer, Tonga, only recorded a single tackle (he might have been double-teamed; the two other starting defensive linemen, David Hunter and Tyrone Campbell, notched four tackles apiece). But the performance of the reserves in the second half still gives me pause. Granted, they were second- and third-stringers - some were true freshmen - and granted, the coaching staff itself admitted that the defensive strategy in the second half was "vanilla," as they wanted to see what the reserves could do in game situations. But if the Houston defense is to improve this fall, these backups are going to have to step it up when called upon to do so.

Anyway, I'll err on the side of optimism, since it really is too early to make judgments as to the 2010 defense. It takes time to adjust to a new defensive strategy, after all, and Stewart was probably also being conservative in his playcalling so as not to reveal anything specific to upcoming opponents UTEP or UCLA. We'll know a lot more about the defense after Friday's game against UTEP.

There were, on the other hand, no such concerns about the offense. There had been fretting among some UH faithful that the departure of last year's offensive coordinator, Dana Holgorsen, to Oklahoma State and the promotion of Jason Phillips to take his place would result in a disruption to the offense's efficiency. That was clearly not the case last Saturday, as the Cougars scored seven touchdowns before halftime. The second string offense led by Cotton Turner scored another two touchdowns of their own in the second half, and both strings combined for just under 500 yards of total offense.

Yes, I know they were playing against an FCS defense. And I still would like to see them run the ball and control the clock more, especially since the first team offense held the ball for a mere 7 minutes and 21 seconds in the first half. But otherwise the offense hasn't missed a beat. Case Keenum was 17 of 22 passing for 274 yards and two touchdowns before he was pulled at halftime. He had two interceptions, the first of which was tipped but the second of which was clearly telegraphed, but I'll chalk that up to opening-game rust. Bryce Beall appears to have recovered from the injuries that slowed him down last season; he carried the ball five times for 48 yards and two touchdowns. Not bad for one half's worth of work. The big surprise at running back was last-minute JUCO transfer Michael Hayes. His 18 yards and one touchdown on four carries might not sound like much until you consider that he also caught a 40-yard touchdown pass on his very first touch as a Houston Cougar. And although I usually try to avoid making superlative statements, I truly believe that the Coogs' starting wide receiver corps of Patrick Edwards, Tyron Carrier, James Cleveland and Kierre Johnson is as good as any starting receiving corps in all of FBS.

Special teams were a mixed bag: Matt Hogan missed two extra point attempts, but Jordan Mannisto's and Richie Leone's kickoffs into the endzone were a thing of beauty. Thanks to the offense's efficiency, the kickers didn't get to attempt a field goal and only punted twice. I would rather have not seen the bobcats return the second punt of the night 50 yards, but the game was almost over at that point so it's not a big deal.

So now that their first game is out of the way, what can the Cougars be expected to accomplish this fall? It's always interesting take a look at how other pigskin prognosticators think of the Coogs, and in that regard expectations for the 2010 University of Houston football team are pretty high. Six major preseason publications as well as NBC and CBS expect the Cougars to repeat as Conference USA Western Division. Sports Illustrated expects the Cougars to notch a 9-3 regular season record and win the C-USA title, while SouthernCollegeSports.come foresees a 10-2 regular season record for the Coogs. Among the computers, Sagarin's preseason ranking gives the Cougars a rating of 72.17, which when taking the home field advantage into account implies a 9-3 season (with losses to Texas Tech, UCLA and Southern Miss on the road). The Congrove system at CollegeFootballPoll.com predicts that the Coogs will go 10-2 during the regular season, but that one of those losses will be to SMU and that the Cougars will therefore not win the conference's Western Division.

So that's what everybody else thinks. Here's what I think, game by game:

Sept. 10, UTEP: Probable win.

It won't be easy. Last year Miner WB Trevor Vittatoe and RB Donald Buckram made life miserable for the Coogs, and both are back this year (Buckram was held out of last week's game due to injury but should be ready for Houston). But I think the revenge factor will make the difference in this one, especially before a rowdy Friday night crowd at Robertson Stadium as well as an ESPN TV audience.

Sept. 18, at UCLA: Toss-up.

I really couldn't get a good feel for the Bruins in spite of the fact that I watched some of their game against Kansas State last Saturday. The Cougars might be a better team on a neutral field, especially considering the issues the Bruins are having on defense, but playing at the Rose Bowl will be an equalizing factor so I'm going to call this a toss-up. This is a huge game for the Coogs, however, and it's also my designated road trip for the season.

Sept. 25, Tulane: Definite Win.

Tulane hasn't had a winning season since 2003 and there's nothing to suggest they'll break that streak this year, especially since they struggled to defeat FCS school Southeastern Louisiana last week.

Oct. 2, Bye.

I think one of the reasons the Coogs struggled last year was because their bye week came so early in the season. The team then had to go on a brutal stretch of 11 games without a break, and that wore down on players (especially on the defensive side of the ball). This year's bye week comes four games into the season - a much better spot.

Oct. 9, Mississippi State: Probable Win.

The Bulldogs are an improving program that features SEC talent. They dismantled Memphis last weekend and they are going to be tough to beat when they meet the Coogs. On the other hand, the Cougars are coming off a bye week and they're playing at home. It's going to be a hard-fought game, but I think Houston has the edge.

Oct. 16, at Rice. Probable Win.

I say "probable" because, as every UH fan has come to learn, a victory over Rice is never assured. The Owls will not be as bad as they were last year and they always give the Cougars their best shot. That's especially true when the game is played at Rice Stadium: the Coogs lost in 2008 and barely eked out a win in 2006.

Oct. 23, at SMU: Toss-up.

SMU looked pretty good in their 27-35 loss at Texas Tech on Sunday, and by most accounts figure to be Houston's toughest competition for the Conference USA West crown. Although the Cougars have won the last two times they've played at Gerald J. Ford Stadium, both games were nail-biters. This is a crucial game for the Cougars, but a victory is far from certain.

Oct. 30, at Memphis: Probable win.

This is going to be tough, as back-to-back games on the road always are, and the fact that Memphis is coming off a bye week doesn't help either. The Tigers will give the Coogs their best shot, and the outcome of the previous week's game against SMU will certainly factor into Houston's mental condition. But 2010 is going to be a rebuilding year for a Tiger team that only won two games last year and is adjusting to new head coach Larry Porter, while the Cougars are clearly the team with more physical talent.

Nov. 5, UCF: Probable Win.

This is a repeat script of the UTEP game: Friday night, on ESPN, with the revenge motive in play. The Golden Knights might be good this year, but I don't think the Cougars are going to allow them to win at home.

Nov. 13, Tulsa: Probable Win.

As I watched last Sunday's wild affair between Tulsa and East Carolina, I realized that the Golden Hurricane is a lot like the Cougars: lots of offense, but absolutely no defense. This game is going to be high-scoring, but I give the edge to the Coogs because they're playing at home and also because Tulsa head coach Todd Graham makes lousy game-day coaching decisions.

Nov. 20, at Southern Miss: Probable Loss.

The Golden Eagles are Houston's CUSA nemesis, and the Cougars have never won a game in Hattiesburg. While I can't say I was too impressed with USM in the drubbing they received at the hands of South Carolina last Thursday, they won't be nearly as bad by the time they get the Coogs late in the season. USM owns the Cougars at Roberts Field until proven otherwise.

Nov. 27, at Texas Tech: Probable Loss.

The thing about revenge games is that they work both ways. It will be cold, the Lubbock crowd will be loud and hostile, this game will be on national TV and the Red Raiders will be looking to avenge last year's loss to a Cougar team that is once again playing back-to-back games on the road.

If the Cougars win all the games they are supposed to win and split the toss-ups, they will end the regular season with a 9-3 record, which is my official prediction for the coming season. The only question in this scenario is whether one of those losses comes against SMU and costs the Cougars a division crown and a shot at the conference title.

Of course, if the defense doesn't improve, nine wins might simply be out of the question.

For further reading, take a look at the Cougar previews up at CollegeFootballNews.com, Pre-Snap Read and Bleacher Report.

University of North Texas 2010 Season Preview

Since Todd Dodge took over as head coach three seasons ago, the Mean Green have won exactly five games. That's going to have to change this season, lest the high school coaching legend be out of a job. In 2010, the choice is simple for North Texas: either win some games and go into 2011 (and a brand-new football stadium) with some momentum, or continue to lose and be forced start all over from scratch with a new coaching staff.

When North Texas opened last season with a solid 20-10 win at Bowling Green, it looked like 2009 might be a good year after all. However, the following week the team suffered a demoralizing 30-31 loss at home to the Ohio Bobcats and then went on the road to be drubbed by eventually national champion Alabama, 7-53. The Mean Green would then go on to lose 8 out of their last 9 games, their lone victory coming in a 68-49 shootout over Western Kentucky.

But even in such disappointment, there was a bright spot: the Mean Green lost six of those ten defeats by a margin of a touchdown or less. The same cannot be said for the dismal 2008 season, wherein of the 11 games North Texas lost only two were within a single-digit margin. If the team can turn what were close losses last season into close wins this season, they will be on their way to recovery.

Offense wasn't the problem for North Texas last year. The 408.67 yards per game was good enough for 36th in the nation in total offense, and the Mean Green ground attack ranked 28th in the nation at 185.25 ground yards per game. The North Texas passing attack wasn't bad, either; their 223.42 passing yads per game put them in the top half of the nation's 120 FBS teams at #51. And the Mean Green offensive line can be especially proud of their abilities to protect the passer: by allowing exactly one sack per game, they were tied for tenth-best in the nation. One area to work on in 2010 is scoring efficiency; UNT's 26.58 points per game were only good for 63rd in the nation in scoring offense.

The offense should be okay in 2010. Riley Dodge suffered an arm injury last season that ended his days as quarterback; he moves to wide receiver this season and Nathan Tune steps in to assume the role behind center. More importantly to the Mean Green is the return of Lance Dunbar, who was the 14th-best rusher in the nation last year, amassing a very impressive 6.89 yards per carry. Plenty of veterans return to the offensive line and the receiving corps as well. The biggest addition to the offense is a full-time offensive coordinator; Dodge has handed over playcalling duties to former South Florida assistant Mike Canales.

If the offense performed admirably in 2010, however, the defense was a different story (hmmm.. sounds like another Texas team I'm familiar with). The North Texas defense held their opponents to 412.33 yards per game (97th in that category) and 35.58 points per game (112th in that statistic). The squad was actually halfway decent in defending against the pass - they allowed 216.75 yards through the air, which is good enough for 54th in the nation - but fared rather poorly against the run: the 195.58 yards per game put them at 104th in the nation in rushing defense.

If North Texas is to improve in 2010, better defense against the run is a must. More backfield penetration is crucial as well; North Texas came in 116th in the nation in sacks recorded and 98th in the nation in tackles per loss. Is that possible, especially with the loss of key linebackers Tobe Nwigwe and Kylie Hill? The defense returns several starters, including senior LB Craig Robertson (who led the team in tackles last season) and sophomore DL Brandon Akpunku (who led the team in sacks), and a handful of JUCO transfers at the DL and LB positions are expected to provide immediate assistance as well. Given the narrow margins of defeat last season, it might not take much - a few runs stuffed here, another couple of sacks there - to turn some close Ls into close Ws this season.

The Mean Green's schedule is favorable. After they get the rent-a-win game at Clemson out of the way, they have winnable non-conference games against Rice and Army before easing into a conference slate that features three consecutive home games in October. Troy at home is going to be tough, however, and Middle Tennessee on the road is going to be really tough. And what's with the season-ending contest against Kansas State? All things said, contending for the Sun Belt conference title is probably not as big a priority for North Texas as is simply getting some wins under its belt. With this schedule they can do so.

Some in the national media expect some improvement from the Mean Green this fall. Sports Illustrated predicts a 4-8 campaign for UNT, while SouthernCollegeSports.com foresees a 6-6 record for the guys in green. NBC doesn't expect the Mean Green to do any better than 8th in the 9-team Sun Belt this fall, but CBS's three college football sportswriters wildly differ as to UNT's in-conference success. The computer rankings are less optimistic; CollegeFootballPoll.com (which has accurately predicted UNT's record each of the last three seasons) predicts a 3-9 record for the Mean Green, while Sagarin's preseason rating of 51.60 for North Texas implies an 0-fer season.

Obviously, a winless season would be a disaster for the Mean Green and would cost Todd Dodge his job, and given how unreliable Sagarin is at the beginning of the season I don't expect that to happen. But how many wins does Dodge actually need in order to return next season? While it's probably too much to expect North Texas to win the Sun Belt or go to a bowl this year, would a .500 season - a four-win improvement over 2009 - be enough? Would five wins even be acceptable, or is a losing record of any kind simply out of the question?

That's to be determined. What is for certain is this: after taking a step backward from 2007 to 2008, North Texas took a small step forward in 2009. They need to take a larger step forward in 2010.

Pre-Snap Read and CollegeFootballNews.com have 2010 Mean Green previews worth reading as well.

The elitist, cynical and flawed logic of the "superconference"

The conventional wisdom in the college football world is that the top tier of the sport, which currently "officially" consists of the NCAA's 120-team Football Bowl Subdivision, will one day grow smaller, to include only the most select "big-time" programs. The number being proposed for this new top tier is most often 64, but can vary from one proposal to the next.

College football is already moving in this direction. The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has already divided FBS into two de-facto tiers: the 66 current schools of the six conference that automatically qualify for a postseason BCS bowl as well as Notre Dame, and the 54 teams from conferences that don't. While schools from the "non-AQ" tier have qualified for BCS bowl berths with increasing frequency, there is nevertheless a clear gulf between the BCS "haves" and the BCS "have-nots" in terms of revenue and national media coverage. This is done purposefully; it is a system of collusion and exclusion that benefits one group of schools at the expense of the other, and it is self-reinforcing such that the gap between those two groups continually grows wider and wider. The eventual result, should certain legal and political obstacles be overcome, will be the de-jure creation of a new, top tier of 64 or so schools, while the rest will sink into obscurity or drop football altogether.

I am, of course, opposed to this eventuality, and it's not just because I a fan of one of the "have-not" schools. Quite frankly, I think the concept will be hugely detrimental to the sport of college football in particular and collegiate athletics in general. Nevertheless, the arguments of those who favor such an outcome is always fascinating to read, if even only because of the unbridled elitism, cynicism, arrogance and lack of logical thought they reveal.

Such is the case with this particularly vapid column from AOL Fanhouse writer Brian McMurphy, who thinks that the big-time programs in college football shouldn't even wait for the BCS process to reach its ultimate conclusion; they should, instead, just leave the NCAA and form their own football association now:

With each new speculated conference expansion plan emerging from sea to shining sea, it's never been more obvious what should be the next move for college football's elite football programs.

Leave the NCAA.

Just ditch it. They don't need college sports' governing body anymore. They've outgrown the NCAA's archaic system and rules.

Not all programs mind you, but only the crème de la crème – the top 60 or 70 college football programs that really, truly matter. The ones that have been or would be willing to make a serious commitment, the ones that spend the big bucks on their pigskin programs: the so-called football factories.

The programs that realize having successful, multi-million dollar head coaches prowling the sideline in front of a sold-out stadium each Saturday is much more important than some silly APR ranking or team GPA. Student-athletes? Shmudent-athletes!

These programs have already been compared to the minor leagues of the NFL. What's wrong with that? Embrace it. Let the schools not willing -- or without the resources -- to be a serious player in college football remain in the NCAA. The best programs can start up a new organization, for lack of a better name, called the NCFL: National Collegiate Football League.

With the NCFL, they won't have to worry anymore about a senator or attorney general threatening some frivolous lawsuit. The NCFL will create its own rules: no limits on the number of assistant coaches or practice time, give the players stipends or let the players sign early with agents, it doesn't matter. Remember, the No.1 reason they're at an NCFL school is football. If they want to go to class and get a degree, that's fine. Just don't miss practice.

Yeah, why make ensuring that these kids go to class and get an education a priority, anyway? What do universities think they are, actual institutions of learning?

The creation of the NCFL would also stop the current trend of conferences attempting to absorb other conferences like a scene from "The Blob." What is the main reason the Mountain West Conference appears to be trying to swallow the Western Athletic Conference in one bite? To keep BYU from going independent and therefore the MWC can keep alive its longshot chances to earn an automatic BCS bowl berth.

C'mon, who is the MWC kidding? The MWC doesn't deserve an automatic BCS bowl berth. Neither does the WAC, MAC, Conference USA or the Sun Belt. Let's stop pretending that the non-automatic qualifying BCS teams can or should compete with the automatic BCS teams.

Really? Why not? Last I checked, the MWC earned a BCS berth each of the last two years. The WAC earned a BCS berth three years out of the last four. As for McMurphy's sweeping generalization regarding non-automatic-qualifiers being unable to compete with automatic-qualifiers, well, I guess schools like BYU (beat Oklahoma last season), TCU (beat Clemson and Virginia, who also got beat by Southern Miss), Boise State (beat Oregon), Navy (beat Notre Dame, as well as Wake Forest and Mizzou), and yes, even Houston (beat Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Mississippi State) would beg to differ.

The players at the non-AQ schools play the same game as those from the AQ schools. If they can get the job done on the field, then they should have access to the BCS bowl system. McMurphy's suggestion that they can't or shouldn't is ridiculous.

Last year, Mark Shurtleff, Utah's attorney general, said that "from the very first kickoff of the college football season, the BCS uses its monopoly powers to put more than half of the schools at a disadvantage."

Schurtleff has it all wrong.

Those schools already are at a disadvantage because they don't (or can't) make the financial commitment or have the resources that the big boys do. In the college football arms race, those smaller conference schools, are France.

Actually, Schurtleff has it right and McMurphy is the one who's completely clueless. The non-AQ schools don't have the resources that the AQ schools do because the BCS system does not allocate those resources fairly. Give these non-AQs the same paychecks as the AQs get, along with some of the media attention that the AQs get, and a guarantee you that a lot of these "smaller conference schools" - obviously not all, but many - could make the financial commitment to football that McMurphy seems to think they should make.

Sure, a smaller conference school such as Boise State can pull off the occasional upset. But would Boise State, with a football budget that ranks about 85th out of the current 120 teams in the NCAA's upper division, deserve a spot or be able to compete in the NCFL? Doubtful.

However, in the current BCS format, all the Broncos need to do is win two tough games against Virginia Tech and Oregon State and then put it on cruise control through a patsy league schedule – which, Bronco fans, is why I picked them to win the national title this year. But even the biggest Bronco fan would admit they wouldn't sniff an unbeaten season if they played an SEC or Big Ten caliber conference schedule.

Well, at least McMurphy gets props for picking Boise to win the national title. But he conveniently overlooks the fact that Boise is trying to up their commitment to their football program: for example, their plans to expand Bronco Stadium. And why should the team be punished because the rest of their conference mates are a bunch of "patsies?" They have no control over how well or how poorly the other teams in their conference do (and even then, teams like Fresno State and Nevada are probably playing well enough right now to avoid the "patsy" label). All Boise State can do is win their games. Or move to a better conference, which they tried to do by making the jump to the Mountain West, only to see MWC teams Utah and BYU bolt because they themselves wanted something better.

And why should football budget be a factor at all in the equation? If the small budget programs can beat the big budget ones, then shouldn't they get credit for being able to do more with less? Games are decided on the field, not in the ledger book. And once again, why are these programs "small budget" in the first place? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they're excluded from getting the same BCS revenue streams that the big boys get, would it?

Not all of the big conference teams -- the current 67 teams from the six power leagues (SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 with Utah, Big East and Notre Dame) -- would automatically get a free pass into the NCFL.

Unless they increase their commitment to football, some current automatic qualifying BCS programs -- and I'm talking about you Ole Miss, Baylor, Washington State, South Florida and Minnesota -- don't deserve to be in the NCFL. Why should they? They don't spend even one-third of what Ohio State does on its football program. You're either all in or you're not.

At least McMurphy realizes that a few of the existing AQ teams might not belong where they are, although I'm not sure why he includes South Florida in his list - they averaged 52 thousand fans per game last season and have managed a .625 record since joining the Big East (including that win over traditional powerhouse Florida State last year). But again, we have McMurphy's strange obsession with football budgets. Who cares if some schools spend less than a third as much as one of the nation's strongest, most well-known and most historically successful programs? If they can compete, then it's irrelevant.

At least Murphy grudgingly accepts that at least a couple of the current non-AQs ought to get the chance for inclusion in his "NFL-Lite" association:

Probably the majority of the current non-automatic qualifying BCS conference teams, with the exception of TCU and maybe BYU, would need to remain in the NCAA -- not that there's anything wrong with it.

"Maybe" BYU? With their average home attendance of 64,236 last year and their 43-9 record over the last four seasons? I'm not going to defend the antics BYU has been playing regarding their desire to go independent and the instability they're causing out west as a result, but I don't think there's any "maybe" in the Cougars' worthiness in being included in the top tier of college football programs.

If schools remained in the NCAA, it just means those schools have different priorities than the NCFL schools. The NCAA teams will be able to compete on a more level playing field with their own kind -- the majority of the current C-USA, Mountain West, WAC, MAC and Sun Belt teams. Maybe even some FCS teams could move up to the NCAA's FBS division.

But that's not would happen. The more likely result of the split McMurphy advocates is that the majority of these "left-behind" programs would simply wither away and die.

Under the current FBS structure there exists the illusion of parity: that any of its 120 schools could, under the right circumstances, play for the national title. It is an illusion because it simply can't happen under the current BCS system, but it's nevertheless very powerful. It's the idea that these schools are in fact part of the "big-time," and it compels fans of schools like East Carolina, Toledo, UTEP Colorado State or Hawaii to support their teams. Take away that illusion, and whatever support these programs have evaporates. What's the point, after all, in supporting a program that no longer has a chance, even if a very theoretical one, to compete with the best?

Fan support for theses schools would then be limited to a handful of die-hard alums and students. The casual fan would ignore them. The media would completely ignore these schools as well, just the way they currently ignore the FCS in its entirety. The result is that these programs would either drop down to FCS or disappear entirely. And college football would be a lesser sport because of it.

Proposals to trim the world of big-time college football to an elite grouping of schools always seem to overlook the fact that the fortunes of football teams change over time. Programs ebb and flow, become dominant and then dormant. Fan support and TV ratings rise and fall with these cycles. There was once a time when Florida State and Miami were not considered football powerhouses, while schools like Rice and Army were. Just a few years ago it would have been absurd to think of Boise State and TCU as top-ten programs. And storied programs fall on hard times, as the recent history of Michigan and Notre Dame have shown.

The beauty of the college football landscape is that it changes over time, and the sheer number of programs participating make it dynamic and unpredictable. Reducing the number of teams to a handful of programs that currently meet a set of arbitrary thresholds turns college football into little more than a static and predictable business venture. If you want sterile, all-about-the-money football, you already have an option: its called the NFL.

The eventual result of the "superconference," by the way, will inevitably be even more stratification, as programs like Missouri, Maryland or Indiana find themselves falling behind schools like Texas, Florida State or Ohio State in terms of revenue or fan support. What then? Do we reduce the top tier of college football even further, until only about ten or twelve truly "top" schools - the ones with half-billion-dollar revenue streams and stadiums seating upwards of 150,000 fans - ultimately remain?

And what of the effect that a non-NCAA "superconference" for football, such as McMurphy's NCFL, would have on other sports? I doubt the NCAA would allow schools to leave for football but to continue to compete for other sports - they're either all in or all out. That means no Big Dance, no College World Series. Sure, the NCFL could create their own tournaments for these and other non-revenue sports. But it wouldn't be the same, especially since so many great current and historic basketball schools like Villanova, Georgetown, Xavier, Seton Hall, Butler or Gonzaga don't play football. And a college baseball tournament without Cal State - Fullerton or Rice? Snore.

Finally, there are the political obstacles that stand in the way of the "superconference's" formation, especially in regard to state institutions. For example, guess what happens in the Texas state legislature if, as McMurphy suggests, Baylor is left out of his proposed NCFL?

McMurphy's article is long on arrogance and elitism but is rather short on logic. I can't help but wonder, in fact, if his entire article was tongue-in-cheek (and if so, I obviously just swallowed it hook, line and sinker). But there's no doubt that the "NCFL" that McMurphy describes is clearly in the minds of many among the college football elite, whether it be network executives or conference commissioners or big-money alumni at big-time schools. Thanks to the BCS, this greedy, cynical and flawed vision of college football's future is already coming into fruition.

For the sanctity of the game, it must be stopped. The best way to do that is by scrapping the BCS and implementing a playoff that treats all FBS schools, as well as their fans and their players, equally.

Looking ahead at the 2010 college football season

This week is college football preview week here at MGCR. I'll have my 2010 University of Houston preview up in a few days, and a preview of the North Texas Mean Green is on its way as well. But first, I wanted to take a look at what are expected to be the top (and bottom) teams going into the 2010 season, and make a prediction as to which team will win the BCS National Championship at the end.

This year, I created my own list of what are expected to be the top teams going into the season by considering eight different preseason polls. I included six "human" preseason polls - the AP sportswriters' and USA Today coaches' polls, picks from from the networks NBC and CBS, and top 25 lists from online sports publications Athlon and collegefootballnews.com - and two preseason computer polls - the Congrove computer's preseason rankings available at collegefootballpoll.com, and Jeff Sagarin's preseason rankings posted at USA Today.

Thirteen teams were ranked in the top 25 by all eight of these preseason polls; another three were ranked by seven of the eight polls (Oklahoma was seen as a top-25 program by everybody except CBS Sports, while Sagarin didn't have Wisconsin or Pittsburgh in its top 25). I selected all fifteen of those schools, added all the rankings together and then divided by eight to come up with a "consensus" preseason top 15 for the 2010 season (click on it to read it better):

You can argue that I chose the wrong polls or should have weighted them unequally or included more schools or whatever. But this was just for fun, and besides: as Todd points out, preseason polls are wrong more often then they're right, so they should be taken with a grain of salt.

Alabama is the preseason favorite by all six of the human polls I selected. The two computer polls are slightly less impressed with the Crimson Tide; Sagarin has them 3rd and Congrove has them 4th. The same can generally be said for Ohio State; five of the six human polls have them second, but both computers put the Buckeyes sixth.

Florida averages third and is ranked in the top ten by all eight polls, including first by Sagarin. Boise State, which averages fourth, is ranked in the top ten by all the human polls. The two computer polls, however, differ dramatically as to the Broncos; Sagarin has them outside of the top ten while Congrove has them first. The two computers also like Texas, who average fifth: both of them rank the Longhorns second in the nation. The human voters are more varied in their preseason evaluations of Mack Brown's team, although the AP writers, the coaches and CBS all have Texas in the top five.

TCU averages sixth. All of the polls except for Athlon have the Horned Frogs in the top ten, with NBC and Congrove ranking TCU as high as 3rd. Six of the seven polls, likewise, have Oklahoma in the top ten, with NBC ranking them as high as 4th and CFN, Sagarin and Congrove all placing the Sooners fifth. CBS, however, is not nearly as impressed with OU: they don't even have them in the top 25.

Rounding out the top ten are Virginia Tech, Oregon and Nebraska. Iowa, Wisconsin, Penn State, Pittsburgh and LSU take spots 11 through 15 in my consensus top fifteen.

In case anybody is wondering, USC would have been 12th on this list had I included them. However, they were only ranked by six of the eight polls I picked; the coaches poll does not rank teams on probation and Congrove has the Trojans outside of its top 25. Miami, likewise, would have been 13th, but Athlon and Sagarin don't rank the Hurricanes in their preseason top 25.

On the opposite end of the Football Bowl Subdivision spectrum are what are expected to be the nation's worst football teams in 2010. For that, we have ESPN's famous preseason Bottom Ten, as well as preseason lists that rank all 120 teams, such as CFN, CBS, Pre-Snap Read, Congrove and Sagarin. The bottom line: if you're a fan of Eastern Michigan, Western Kentucky, Tulane, North Texas or any FBS school in the state of New Mexico, you're probably in for a long year (although I will explain in a subsequent post why there is hope for the Mean Green).

So that's the top and the bottom going in to 2010. Who is going to come out of the 2010 season with the BCS title? Here are my predictions for the season ahead:

1. Neither Alabama nor Florida will make it through the regular season undefeated. Yes, the Crimson Tide are the reigning BCS champions. Yes, they bring back eight starters including 2009 Heisman winner Mark Ingram on offense. But Alabama is replacing almost its entire starting defense. Florida, for its part, has to replace several of last year's key players, not the least of which is Tim Tebow. Furthermore, it's tough to go undefeated in SEC play: Florida didn't do it when they won the conference and BCS Championship in 2006 and 2008, and LSU didn't do it when they did the same in 2007. That the Crimson Tide managed to do it last season is a testament to how good they were last year. I simply don't expect them to pull off the same feat two years in a row, nor do I expect the Gators to be able to do so even if they can regain last year's form. One loss probably won't hurt either team's shot at the BCS title; however, and as with seasons past it's likely all going to come down to who wins the conference.

2. Ohio State won't go undefeated, either. Terelle Pryor and the Buckeyes are very good and in my opinion are deserving of their #2 preseason ranking. But they have road games against Iowa, which returns 14 starters from last year's 11-2 season, and Wisconsin, which returns practically everyone on an offense that led the Big Ten in both yards gained and scoring last year. Ohio State also has tough home contests against Miami and Penn State. That's not a schedule that's conducive to an undefeated season regardless of how good the Buckeyes are. Like Alabama or Florida, the question for Ohio State is if they can limit the number in their loss column to 1.

3. Nebraska, on the other hand, will go undefeated. No more Ndamukong Suh? No problem! Just take a look at the Huskers' cakewalk of a schedule. They play a bunch of patsies out-of-conference, the rest of the Big 12 North is weak, they miss Oklahoma this year and they get the Longhorns (less Colt McCoy and Jordan Shipley) at home one mere week after the Texas-Oklahoma showdown in Dallas. Sure, the Huskers have a big question mark at quarterback. And yes, that late-season road trip to Texas A&M is going to be tough. But if the Huskers can maintain a stifling defense and find something resembling an offense, they could enter December with the clearest shot at the BCS National Championship game.

4. No matter how well they do, neither Boise State nor TCU will play for the national title. Aside from the fact that I really don't see either of these teams going undefeated - I fully expect Virginia Tech to knock off Boise State this weekend, as a matter of fact - there is absolutely, positively no way that the exclusionary BCS system will allow a school from a non-automatically-qualifying conference to play for the national title.

5. Oregon and Virginia Tech will be good, but not national-title good. The Ducks and the Hokies both look to build on last year's ten-win seasons. But both schools nevertheless face tough schedules that will probably cost a loss or two. While I think that USC is overrated, Oregon nevertheless has hard road dates against Cal and Oregon State in the Pac-10. And even if Virginia Tech gets past Boise State this weekend, they're still facing formidable ACC matchups against Georgia Tech and Miami in November. Finally, while the Pac-10 and the ACC are both very solid conferences, neither conference is "top-heavy" in that multiple teams are highly ranked. That will lead to a perception, albeit unfair, that they played "soft" schedules.

So what's going to happen? Truth is, I foresee a logjam of one-loss teams going into conference championship Saturday after the final week of the regular season: Alabama, Florida, Texas and/or Oklahoma, Ohio State, and even Oregon and Virginia Tech could all be sitting at one loss, and the resulting implications regarding BCS chaos and controversy would be enormous.

But here's how I see things shaking out: Ohio State will be penalized by their idleness - their season ends two weeks before conference championship Saturday, which means they will be out of the minds of the voters - while Oregon and Virginia Tech will be passed over because neither of them faced any top-ten competition in-conference. That means that the Big 12 and SEC championship games will end up determining the participants of the BCS title game. Alabama will defeat Florida in the SEC Championship, while Nebraska will take care of either Texas or Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game. Alabama will then go on to hand the Huskers their only loss of the season in the BCS National Championship Game, thereby securing themselves their second consecutive college football championship.

Of course, I'll probably be wrong about this prediction, just as I have every season before.

Other preseason rankings worth reading are Andy's Staples' top 25 list at Sports Illustrated (I didn't include him in my list because he is already an AP voter) and the exhuastive 120-school countdown over at Pre-Snap Read. For more BCS bowl predictions, see the list that Sports Illustrated put together. Finally, for readers looking for a comprehensive list of each week's televised college football games, I recommend this site.

Let the fun begin!

Katrina, five years later

The full and lasting effects of Katrina on the New Orleans area and the Mississippi Gulf Coast cannot be measured or understood in years, but rather in decades. However, in reading today's Chronicle article regarding the five-year anniversary of the worst natural disaster in recent US history, I did want to look back at some predictions regarding that city's fate that, five years later, turned out to be rather wrong:

After Katrina, some pundits wondered aloud whether New Orleans was all but dead, or whether it was even worth rebuilding. Now such talk seems silly, not just because its beloved Saints are Super Bowl champions, and not just because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is building a $14 billion project, its largest ever, to protect the city from future storm surges. Katrina's wake exposed a vein of intense loyalty that runs deep, in many cases generations deep. Allowing the city to die or worse, contract into a living tourist attraction — the seedy sister of Colonial Williamsburg — was unthinkable.

I remember well some of the prognostications regarding New Orleans's eminent demise in the months after Katrina. I read numerous articles (here's one) suggesting that the city should not be rebuilt because it was in such a geographically-vulnerable area or because it was such a socioeconomic mess; that the diaspora of people - especially the poor - from New Orleans should actually be encouraged because, removed from an environment of concentrated poverty, crime, poor schools and corruption, those people would thrive; or that New Orleans was destined regardless of rebuilding efforts to become the underpopulated, economically-irrelevant "living tourist attraction" the article mentions. I recall reading numerous predictions that Baton Rouge would permanently surpass New Orleans as Louisiana's principal city, much the way Houston surpassed Galveston as Texas's principal city after the Hurricane of 1900.

That, of course, hasn't happened. New Orleans has regained over 70% of its pre-Katrina population - 2009 Census estimates put the city's population at about 355 thousand but more accurate numbers won't become available until this year's census results are reported - while Baton Rouge's 2009 population is estimated to be about 225 thousand. This article mentions that more than 90% of the entire metro area's pre-Katrina population has returned.

In retrospect, the idea that people would, or even should, decide to simply abandon an entire city - even in the face of the devastation wrought by disaster or the problems the city faced even before the disaster - seems pretty foolish. Aside from the social, cultural, familial, economic, legal, capital and generational ties that bind people to their city, there is also the very basic and powerful concept of "home." New Orleans, for all its problems, is "home" to a great many people, and that's why the overwhelming majority of them have moved back. While it's true that many pre-Katrina residents have yet to return - the Lower Ninth Ward, for example, has recovered less than a quarter of its pre-Katrina population - and while it's true that, as the residents have returned, so have the city's pre-Katrina problems - the city's poverty rate of 23% is double the national average and the Crescent City has resumed its role as the nation's murder capital - the simple fact is that New Orleans will not be the Galveston of the 21st Century.

There are post-Katrina success stories to be found in New Orleans - for example, a charter school system that is improving educational performance - but there is still a lot of work left to be done and a lot of questions left to be answered (including these five issues that will affect the city's abilities to withstand the next hurricane). The twin traumas of the recession and the BP oil blowout have hampered recovery efforts, and the psychological strain of a recovery that is now beginning its sixth year cannot be understated. But humans are nothing if not preserverant, and that's why, even after came Hell and high water, New Orleans remains.

USA Today has a rather interesting interactive multimedia site about the effects of Katrina and the recovery effort.

Our airports are better than yours

If at least one online travel publication is to believed, Houston has the best airports in the United States:

You don’t have to be an oil baron to get the most out of Houston’s top-ranked airports—but it helps. The Texas city tops the charts for its VIP-friendly airline lounges, found mostly at George Bush Intercontinental (IAH). For everyone else, both IAH and Houston Hobby came in at No. 2 in the AFC survey for their food and drink (don’t miss the Tex-Mex or Cajun fare at local chains Pappasito’s and Pappadeaux) and second for entertainment—which may reflect that free WiFi. Best of all, Houston’s airports get the job done: they come in third place for on-time performance and second for their competent and down-home-friendly staff.

WooHoo!

I think part of the reason why Houston's airports rate so well is because they are so comparatively modern; over the last decade or so, a great deal of investment has been made at both airports, including the opening of Terminal E and, more recently, significant renovations to Terminal C Bush Intercontinental; and the Central Concourse and new ticketing area at Hobby. These improvements aren't over yet; work on Hobby's new baggage claim area continues (hopefully it will be completed soon, because, the temporary claim area is kind of cramped). My only gripe about Hobby is that there needs to be more economy parking; otherwise, the airport is a breeze to get into and out of.

Airline staff has a lot to do with Houston's high ranking, as well. Southwest (Hobby's main carrier) has always made their staff's pleasant and cordial service a key part of their corporate, and as somebody who flies Southwest frequently I think that's generally true. Continental (Intercontinental's dominant carrier), likewise, seems to have a reputation for staff that is courteous, at least when compared to the industry average. Whether that changes when the merger with United (which does not have a reputation for good customer service) remains to be seen.

Local airports were rated on a variety of factors, including design and functionality, food and drink options, shopping, entertainment amenities (such as free WiFi or VIP lounges), on-time performance, ground transportation and the efficiency and demeanor of airport employees. New York, Los Angeles and St. Louis were rated the worst airport cities. A slideshow of the entire list is here, although for some reason many major airports, such as Detroit, Baltimore or Salt Lake City, weren't included.

Because you're never too old, Part III

Earlier this summer, while my parents were out of town on an extended vacation and I had free reign of their living room, I put up a new Rokenbok build. It was more extensive than the award-winning one I created last year, and was real challenge to make everything fit together. But I was pretty happy with the results. Click on any picture for a larger view.


It stayed up for several weeks and we got plenty of use out of it, but Kirby and I were nevertheless sad when it had to come down. Fortunately, it lives on in pictures, both here as well as on the Rokenbok Forum.

Cougar football: looking back at 2009

It's hard to believe that another college football season is upon us already, but it's true: the University of Houston Cougars kick off their 2010 campaign on week from tomorrow.

I realize that I never wrote an end-of-year review of the Coogs' 2009 season. For one thing, I had a lot going on earlier this year (as evidenced by my overall lack of posting in general this spring). For another, the Coogs' pathetic performance in the Armed Forces Bowl left such a bad taste in my mouth that I simply didn't feel like writing about a season that ended on such a sour note. My disappointment has waned with the passage of the offseason, however, and I'm hopeful that the Coogs can put the past behind them and embark on a 2010 season that ends on a much better note.

But before putting the past completely behind, it's useful to take a look at what happened last fall. 2009 was in many ways an amazing year for the Coogs. There were many fantastic victories: the amazing upset of then-5th-ranked Oklahoma State in Stillwater, the thrilling win over Texas Tech before a packed crowd at Robertson (these videos of the "Two Day Drive" still give me goosebumps), a quality win over Mississippi State on the road, a thrilling last-minute victory over C-USA nemesis Southern Miss on Halloween, and this come-from-behind performance at Tulsa that I would not have believed I not seen it with my own eyes:



With the euphoria, however, came the heartbreak. A week after the wild and amazing finish in the video above, the Cougars went to Central Florida and fell to the Golden Knights, 32-37. That loss could be excused by the fact that they were playing back-to-back games on the road, that they were emotionally spent after the miracle at Tulsa, and that the Central Florida team they were playing was pretty good (the Golden Knights ended the season with an 8-4 record). The Coogs' other regular-season loss, a crushing 41-58 defeat at UTEP, is less excusable. While they were coming down off their emotional win over Texas Tech the week before - I even wrote after that game that UTEP had "'letdown' and 'trap' written all over it" - the 2009 Miners turned out to be so bad (a 4-8 record with losses to C-USA cellar-dwellers such as Memphis, Rice and Tulane) that the Coogs should have handled them easily. Then there were the two losses to end the season: a bitter 32-38 result against East Carolina in the C-USA Championship, and of course the 20-47 meltdown against Air Force in the Armed Forces Bowl. While it's certainly true that the Coogs had trouble getting motivated for that game - their reward for their 10-win season was a trip to the same bowl game to play the same opponent - the fact is that the team still had a lot to play for: a bowl win, a final victory for the seniors, momentum heading into 2010, a probable end-of-season top-25 ranking for the first time in two decades, and good old-fashioned team pride.

A better understanding of what went right and what went wrong for the Coogs in 2009 can be gained by reviewing the statistics.

On offense, the Cougars were (literally) the best in the nation. They were first in the 120-team Football Bowl Subdivision in total offense (563.36 yards per game), tied for first in scoring offense (42.21 points per game; they also led the nation in touchdowns with 77), and first in passing offense (433.71 aerial yards per game). Quarterback Case Keenum led the nation in total offense for the second consecutive year, and was sixth in the nation in passing efficiency.

But even then there were some weak spots. The Coogs were only 83rd in the nation in rushing offense, managing 129.64 yards per game). The lack of a ground game was clearly a factor in Houston's losses to Central Florida and East Carolina, where they managed only 46 and 30 yards, respectively.

While the Cougar offense is clearly a pass-based operation, and while the fact that RB Bryce Beall was playing with injuries for most of the season was probably a factor, the fact remains that the Cougars could have used a more robust ground game in 2009 to keep defenses honest, eat up more clock time (Cougars were 114th in the nation in time of possession, holding the ball for an average of only 26 minutes and 51 seconds per game) and conceivably win those games against Central Florida and East Carolina. A stronger running attack is an offensive priority going into the 2010 season.

I do want to take a moment to recognize the offensive line. The line had lost three starters off the 2008 squad and was a point of concern going into the season, but they performed superbly, protecting Case Keenum by giving up 18 sacks all season - better than 2008's 27 sacks allowed and, at 1.29 sacks per game, good for 24th overall. (The Coogs were also second-best in the nation in tackles per loss allowed, but that's probably an artifact of the pass-oriented offense's ability to get the ball out of the backfield quickly more than it is the line's ability to protect the backs.) I'm hoping to see similar results in 2010, along with improvements in creating holes for the ground game.

While the offense was the nation's best, however, the defense was one of the nation's worst. The defense was 111th in total defense, surrendering 451.29 yards per game, and only marginally better in scoring offense, at 95th with 30.07 points per game allowed (and this average includes the good performances against some of the weaker teams on the schedule: 7 points to FCS Northwestern State, 14 points apiece to Memphis and Rice, 15 points to SMU and 16 points to Tulane). The rushing defense was particularly dreadful; they gave up 226.57 ground yards per game and ended the season ranked 115th. They were somewhat better against the pass, coming in 72nd with 224.71 passing yards per game allowed. One of the defense's problems was the inability to get behind the line; they were 85th in the nation in sacks, averaging only 1.64 per game, and 105th in tackles for loss, managing only 4.64 TFLs per game. The defense also had trouble getting the opposing offense off the field; they were 97th in third down conversion defense, allowing the opponent to convert 43% of the time, and even worse on 4th down, allowing the opponent to convert fully 50% of the time.

Of course, as everybody who followed the Coogs last season, there were reasons for the defense's dismal performance. They had very little depth or experience; three true freshmen were playing on the defensive line. The defense was battered and bruised - the fact that the team's bye week occurred early in the year, forcing the players to go 10 straight games as well as the conference championship without a break, might have played a role - and injuries, especially to the front seven, were especially painful. Notably, the loss of senior Matt Nicholson towards the end of the Texas Tech game robbed the squad of critical on-field leadership and experience.

Given those factors, Defensive Coordinator John Skaladany really didn't have a lot to work with and therefore felt limited as to what kind of schemes he could call. Even so, towards the end of the season I was one of many UH fans who begged for Skaladany to try something new - blitz more, take some risks - do something, anything - to stop the bleeding. The fact that he did not, as well as the fact that the defense's struggles were nothing new - they were 100th in the nation in scoring defense the year before - led head coach Kevin Sumlin to decide to make a change. Skaladany was let go after the season ended, and in his place the Cougars brought in Brian Stewart, a coach with NFL experience who set to work retooling the defensive squad over the offseason, notably by switching to a 3-4 alignment that should work to the defense's strengths.

As for the other aspects of the team's 2009 performance: during Art Briles' tenure I became increasingly frustrated with the "unholy trinity" of turnovers, penalties and lousy special teams play that perennially plagued the team. Under Sumlin, however, there has been vast improvement in those areas. For example, the Cougars were 8th in the nation last season in total penalties, averaging only 4.5 flags per game. That's a far cry from a few seasons before, when they were among the top ten most penalized teams in the nation. Turnovers have also been reduced; they lost the ball 26 times last year, which ranked 83rd in a category where a lower ranking is better (and 9 of those turnovers occurred as a result of Case Keenum interceptions the last two games of the season, which is hopefully just an aberration). The Coogs ended the season +4 in turnover margin (their 30 balls recovered were good for the 11th spot nationally), a good improvement over 2008's -6 margin.

Special teams have become markedly better as well, although there is still room for improvement. Houston has done well with kickoffs, coming in at 35th in the nation in kickoff returns with 23.21 average yards per return and five kickoffs run back for touchdowns, and ranked 44th in kickoff return yardage allowed, at 20.91 per opponent return and only a single kick return touchdown allowed. Punting is a different story, however, as the Coogs' punting return defense allowed 12.15 return yards per punt and ended the season ranked 101st, while Cougar punt returners averaged only 8.81 yards per return - 60th in the nation - and did not return any punts for touchdowns last year. Place-kicking could use improvement as well; Matt Hogan was a perfect 12 for 12 on field goals after replacing Jordan Mannisto, who had missed 4 of his 10 ten attempts, but Hogan was only 88% on extra point attempts, including those three misses against East Carolina in the championship game that were a factor in the Coog's six-point margin of defeat.

There's also the focus factor. In 2008 the Coogs had a problem with slow starts in games; oftentimes they'd come out flat, fall behind by several scores, and have to rally in the second half to try to win. That wasn't really an issue in 2009. What was an issue was motivation for certain games, i.e. UTEP and Air Force, where the team simply didn't come out to play at all. While keeping a group of kids motivated and focused for every game is a tough job for any coach, the momentum-killing letdowns like UTEP and Air Force were clearly dark spots on an otherwise-respectable 2009 season and Sumlin and his staff need to ensure that they don't happen again in 2010 if the Coogs are to achieve their goals: namely, winning Conference USA.

So that was 2009. Considering the team's defensive woes as well as the schedule they faced, I actually believe the Coogs overachieved last year (their ten wins were two more than what I had predicted before the season started). It's just too bad that the season did not end on a more positive note. However, perhaps the feeling of "not finishing the job" will provide the team with added motivation and incentive in 2010.

The offseason has generally been a good one for the Coogs, including an impressive signing day haul, the acquisition of a few JUCO transfers (such as DE Matangi Tonga and LB Sammy Brown) to plug some holes on defense, a good spring practice and recoveries to defensive players such as Matt Nicholson and Jackie Candy. There were some disappointments; WRs L. J. Castile and A .J. Dugat and OLs Ari Tatum and Jarve Dean left the team, and RB Charles Sims (ineligibility) and DL Zeke Riser (injury) will have to sit out the year. The losses of the two receivers and offensive linemen probably won't be much of a factor because the Coogs have so much depth at those positions, but the losses of Sims, who was last year's leading rusher, and Riser, who played admirably in spite of being a true freshman last season, will hurt. However, the Cougars got a late break when RB Michael Hayes transferred in from Blinn Junior College at the beginning of August. He was impressive during fall practice and his presence will at least somewhat mitigate Sims' absence.

Now it's time for the fun to begin. I'll have my 2010 preview up in the newxt few days.