<
>

ACC mailblog

8/28/2014

Are you ready for some more football?

Ethan in New York writes: OK. Let's say that at the end of the regular season, we have two undefeated teams: Alabama and Baylor. Oregon is a one-loss Pac-12 champ. Ohio State is a one-loss BIG champ. Florida State runs the table in the regular season. Virginia Tech beats Ohio State, but loses to, say, North Carolina. However, the Hokies defeat the Seminoles in the ACC championship game. So you have Ohio State (BIG champs) at 12-1 with a loss to VT; VT at 12-1 (ACC champs) with a loss to UNC; Florida State at 12-1 with a loss to VT; Auburn at 12-1 with a loss to Bama; Alabama at 13-0 (SEC champs), Baylor at 12-0 (Big 12 champs) and Oregon at 12-1 (Pac-12 champs) with a loss to, say USC. For fun, let's throw in Michigan State at 11-1 with a loss to Ohio State, Stanford at 11-1 with a loss to Oregon, and Oklahoma at 11-1 with a loss to Baylor. In this scenario, who would YOU (not the selection committee) pick as the four teams in the playoff?

Andrea Adelson: This scenario needs a tweak, because Michigan State and Oregon play in Week 2. So let's just say Oregon's loss is to the Spartans instead of USC to make this slightly more accurate. My final decision ... my head hurts. In all seriousness, it is really tough to even make a guess because there are so many other factors at play. How do these teams actually look? Were the losses blowouts or close? How did the rest of the schedule shape up? Is it better or worse than it looked in the preseason? Those should all come into play when starting to compare one-loss teams against another. Having said that, I would give conference champions the first look. In this case, Alabama and Baylor are unbeaten and conference champs, they get in. Oregon gets in because it's a conference champion and lost to a high-quality team early in the season. Virginia Tech would look appealing in this scenario, too, with wins over No. 1 Florida State and ranked Ohio State, plus Miami and an ACC championship. The bottom line is strength of schedule is going to be quite different at the end of the season than it is today, and there are too many unknowns to start guessing which one-loss team would make it in. Can't wait to see how it all plays out.


Ken in Savannah, Georgia, writes: Andrea, could you please help in dispelling the myth that Bobby Petrino's offense throws the ball 75 percent of the time? I think people, even so-called experts, believe this because they score on a lot of those plays. The best description I have ever heard of the coaches' offense is "Power Spread." In his best years at Louisville, I believe the run-pass split never got past 55 percent. The coach relies on big backs (power) to wear down opposing linebackers, then uses his receivers and tight ends in multiple packages (spread) to take advantage of the gaps in defenses.

Adelson writes: I looked back at the rushing attempts and passing attempts on Petrino-coached teams at Louisville, Arkansas and Western Kentucky. In his first four seasons at Louisville, Petrino's teams ran the ball slightly more than they passed it. In four seasons at Arkansas, they passed the ball slightly more than they ran it. Last season, Western Kentucky ran the ball slightly more. You are correct that whether the run or pass was favored, the split hovered around 55-45. In 2004, 60 percent of the Louisville offense went to rushing attempts. That's the highest it ever went. Last year at Western Kentucky, rushing attempts accounted for 53 percent of the offensive plays. As you point out, the reason people think Petrino chucks it all over the field is because his offenses are more effective at throwing the ball regardless of the split between run and pass. In those nine seasons, the passing offense ranked higher than the rushing offense six times in the NCAA stats. Louisville has depth in the backfield and should be good on the offensive line, so make sure to keep an eye on the Cardinals' running game Monday night.


Cody in Gainesville, Florida, writes: When will the ACC get the credit it deserves in the polls? Texas A&M had to come back from way down to barely beat Duke in the bowl game, then lost their QB, top WR, and others to the draft and are still ranked higher than a Duke team that returns most of their best players. Does this make sense to you?

Adelson: Generally, the polls make little sense. SEC teams get the benefit of the doubt always. Good thing, then, that polls are virtually meaningless in the new College Football Playoff era. I am most interested in see how the selection committee ranks its Top 25. The first set will be unveiled Oct. 28.


Tim Griffith in Blacksburg, Virginia, writes: This new contract won't quell the talk about Frank Beamer. On that I agree. But this season will.

Adelson: As athletic director Whit Babcock told me, time will tell. But as I mentioned last week, this Hokies team is looking like a better choice to win the Coastal with each passing day. We will see whether that is an accurate assessment soon enough.


Richard in Raleigh, North Carolina, writes: Would love to hear your reaction to your colleague's fearless predictions article. I think he might check in at a 20-percent success rate at the of the season, but they were certainly bold.

Adelson: I actually agree with most of what David wrote. I think voters will find a reason not to give Jameis Winston the Heisman unless he is far and away the best candidate in the country. I do not envision that being the case with some of the talented players back for this season. Virginia Tech has grown on me; Jacoby Brissett and Tyler Murphy are good additions for their respective teams. I don't think Stacy Coley will catch passes from three different quarterbacks, and I'm not ready to call UVa a bowl team -- though I think the Hoos will get to five wins. Not sure on six.