To say that this bowl season has been a boring one is to say that football is boring. Most of the bowl games have been awesome, and we continue to be amazed at how the game of football is changing. I have learned about 500 things from this bowl season, but I have broken it down to five things that I think need to be reflected on about the bowl season.


Being a native Iowan you might be able to feel my pain watching both teams in my state combine for 600 yards, 27 points and two losses in their bowl games this year. Losing bowl games is already known to be one of the best ways to lose interest for potential high school prospects, but having a team that is hard to watch is murder. Kids from Georgia, Florida and Texas don't want to play for a team that scores 20 points a game. They want to play for Oregon, Clemson and Michigan.

 Lou Holtz and other 55-year old white males can be disgusted with the lack of defense in some of these games, but the fact of the matter is that the game of football is changing. People want to watch Cam Newton. They want to watch Robert Griffin. They want to watch Justin Blackmon. And there is a reason why these teams with offensive powerhouses are winning, and that is because defenses just aren't as important. The New York Jets, Iowa Hawkeyes, and Ohio State Buckeyes (to some extent) can ground and pound all day long, but the fact of the matter is that these teams more often than not underachieve when given expectations. 

Teams that are dynamic on and off the field are the teams that are having success. You can hate Oregon's jerseys all you want, but the fact of the matter is that 4.3 running high school studs from Texas like the jerseys more than the Penn State ones, and it shows in recruiting. So you can hate on the lack of defenses in football, but you have to realize that football is changing, and offense is taking over. You should keep your eyes out for quite a few updates in ourdraftology section over the next few months because we will have quite a large analysis of how the game is evolving, and where it will be in the future.


I have said over and over again that teams are stupid to not recruit (and draft) punters and kickers in football. The kickers in football are way too valuable for teams to not recruit/draft them because they are involved way too much. Kellen Moore had three losses in college, and two of them were because his field goal kicker missed and easy chip in after he led the team to a comeback. In retrospect the kickers for Boise State lost two BCS births with potentially one BCS Championship birth for the team. 

I don't dislike kickers, and I don't dislike field goals, but there is something disappointing about two teams fighting for 59 minutes to have a field goal kicker miss a last second kick. The first game of the season between LSU and Alabama was a bit silly because Alabama's kicker consistently missed kicks which would have won the game. Then after a short batch of issues the kicker for LSU booted a game winner which just made the game end on a sour note. Think about how many of the bowl games have ended on sour notes because of field goal issues? 

The entire process has become as watered down and boring as the gatorade bath. Teams drive hard down the field until they get into field goal range, and then they slow down, center the ball, and take a time out with 5 seconds left. The kicker comes out to the field and the opposing team 'ices' the kicker with a time out. Sound familiar? 

Again, I don't think that the field goal needs to be abolished, but it needs to be changed. Change it to be worth only 2 points with it being worth 3 from 50. Take away the extra point because a missed extra point is a freak accident that too often bites a team. And most of all take it out of overtimes. Sure the 55+ year old white males will say that it takes away from the game, but the game has been evolving from the foot since the start. Did you know that originally a field goal was worth 5 points with the TD being worth only 3 (the extra point was worth 3 though)? It was eventually moved to 4 points and then to just three, so there is no reason that it couldn't be lowered again.


College football's overtime is 200 times better than the crappy unfair one that the NFL uses, but it could be so much better. First off we already know that the kicker can't be involved. If a game ends in a tie then it is unfair to have it come down to a missed kick one way or another. Teams need to get into the endzone if they want to win. Second off it can't start at the 25 yard line. The game cannot come down to what equates to essentially a redzone stand. Start it at the 60-yard line, and make them score a touchdown. Want to have the best scenario? Make it a 2-minute offense which would keep it interesting.


Coaching is one of the toughest things in the world, but there are just way too many things that happen each and every year that consistently make me vomit. Here are just a few:

A) Kickoffs before the half

If you get a kickoff before the half and you plan on taking a knee, then why wouldn't you let your return man take the ball out? If you return the kickoff well then you might get instantly a free field goal before the half, or even better a return touchdown. What do you have to lose anyways, you are taking a knee to go into the locker room anyways!

B) Time wasting with punts

If you have the lead and you are looking to kill the clock, then why would your players ever touch the ball on a punt? You see it 80% off the time where the team punts with less than a minute left, and the players let the ball roll and then down it. But why? Let the ball roll and make the ref stock the clock, because you would be able to kill another two or three seconds. Also if you have a shorter punt, why wouldn't you teach your punter to kick it high to waste a few more seconds (and reduce the risk of it going for a touchback)?

C) Not trying to win

We already know that I hate putting the ball in the hands of the kicker, but more often than not we saw teams put more effort into getting into FG position to tie the game rather than going for the win. Stanford and Georgia lost their games because of this, and Oklahoma State could have done the same after doing it.

D) Being too conservative

I know Lou Holtz has heart attack about teams being too risky, but I just don't get why more teams don't go for it on 4th down. I'm not taking about the Oregon extent of the situation, but I don't get why a team won't trust their offense on 4th and 2 at the 35 yard line. Sure you can boot it and maybe nail the team back, but if they don't then the teams starts on the 20. Trust your offense (and I don't mean trust it with that crappy obvious rush up the middle), and try for it. 


About two years ago I wrote a column for about the Big East and how it actually is one of the best conferences in terms of results, and since then we have seen much of the same. The Big East get complaint after complaint after complaint about how weak they are, but they are 23-9 in bowl games over the last six years, which is about as good as any conference out there. Oh, and the "much more powerfull" ACC is 19-30. But the Big East faces bad teams only and the ACC has big matchups. Well the ACC has a career 2-13 record in BCS games, while the Big East is 7-7. I still have no idea how Virginia Tech got an at-large bid this year with their 1-5 record in BCS games. I just don't understand why the Big East is hated as much as it is.