“Oregon Ducks need some help to make the Pac-12 nationally relevant” – The Rebuttal

            Canzano is at it again, at least this time he is not just attacking the Oregon Ducks and their head coach Chip Kelly. Now, he sets his sights on downgrading the conference as a whole. It is an acceptable notion that the Pac-10 (now Pac-12) has not been equal to the SEC in recent years, for the plain and simple fact that the SEC has won 5 consecutive national titles (LSU, Florida – twice, Alabama and Auburn). However, to argue that there are other conferences out there that trump the Pac-10 in performance is just ludicrous and I will explain why in this blog.

“Have to hand it to Pac-12 commish Larry Scott, he's negotiated rights that don't even exist yet. Also, beginning in August 2012, Scott announced on Wednesday, the conference will have a national channel and six regional channels… Brilliant package. Just one question: Will the football ever match it?

That's become the question to ask this week, as you look around a conference that has long been known around the country as thin. It's been USC and everyone else in prior years. And last season, Oregon and Stanford, then a puddle of questions.” (http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2011/07/canzano_oregon_ducks_need_some.html)

In looking at last season, it is easy to understand why there is speculation that the Pac-10 had a mediocre season. Heck, of the four major conferences (Big 10, Big 12, SEC and Pac-10) each one had 8 teams playing in bowl games, compared to only 4 for the Pac-10. So sure, when you just take things at surface value, like Canzano does, one would assume the Pac-10 is not on par with the other three major conferences. And no offense to the ACC, or Big East because they do receive automatic bids to BCS games; but when your conference champions lose 40-12 like Virginia Tech did to Pac-10 runner up Stanford, and 48-20 like Connecticut did to Oklahoma; you’re officially excluded from the debate.

As is typical in most of Canzano’s articles, he is missing some key facts that might change his own perception on things. Yes the Pac-10 only sent 4 teams to bowl games, and yes they only have 3 teams in Lindys Pre-season Top 25 poll (Oregon, Stanford and Arizona State). But he completely misses the chance for a valid argument as to why that is. The answer, my friends, is a nine game conference schedule. The Big 10, Big 12 and SEC all play 8 conference games a year, leaving room for 4 patsy, push over, Baylor school for the blinds to put on their schedule. So yes, the Pac-10 had a bad year, but let’s look at how “good” these other conferences actually were.

Beginning with the Big 12 (now only 10 teams after Nebraska and Colorado bolted), a conference that placed 8 teams in bowl games. Those teams and their record prior to their bowl game were; Oklahoma (Big 12 South and Big 12 Champion) 11-2 (7-2), Texas A+M 9-3 (6-2), Nebraska (Big 12 North Champion) 10-3 (6-3), Oklahoma State 10-2 (6-2), Missouri 10-2 (6-2), Texas Tech 7-5 (3-5), Kansas State 7-5 (3-5) and Baylor 7-5 (4-4). In their eight bowl games, the Big 12 went 3-5; 1-1 Vs the Pac 10, 0-1 Vs the SEC, 1-2 Vs the Big 10 and 1-1 Vs the Big East.

While there were definitely bowl deserving teams from the Big 12, I would like to take a closer look at Texas Tech, Kansas State and Baylor. Kansas State and Texas Tech went 7-5 overall, 3-5 in conference and 4-0 out of conference. Interesting… they managed to go 4-0 out of conference but couldn’t get about .500 in their conference games. I wonder why that is? Well, maybe because Kansas State played (and beat) UCLA, Missouri State, UCF and North Texas; none of which made a bowl game, while Texas Tech played (and beat) SMU, New Mexico, Weber State and Houston. Kudos to Baylor, for they went 7-5 overall, 4-4 in conference and only 3-1 out of conference mainly because they played an ‘actual’ game. They got stomped by TCU, but beat Sam Houston State, Buffalo and Rice.

How about the Big 10? They also sent 8 teams to bowl games, the teams and their records entering post season play; Wisconsin (Big 10 Champion) 11-1 (7-1), Ohio State 11-1 (7-1), Michigan State 11-1 (7-1), Michigan 7-5 (3-5), Penn State 7-5 (3-5), Northwestern 7-5 (3-5), Illinois 6-6 (4-4) and Iowa 7-5 (4-4). In their eight bowl games, the Big 10 went 3-5; 1-3 Vs the SEC, 2-1 Vs the Big 12 and 0-1 Vs the Mountain West Conference. Lots of crappy teams in there though, wouldn’t you say? While I hate to pick on Michigan State, because they had a great season going 11-1, but… they didn’t play Ohio State or Wisconsin and got beat 49-7 by Alabama in the Outback bowl, and they argued they deserved a BCS bid…

I again want to focus on the weaker teams, like Penn State, Illinois, Northwestern and Iowa. Penn State went 7-5 overall, 4-4 in conference (did not play Conference champion Wisconsin) and 3-1 out of conference; they did have a tough non-conference game getting pounded by Alabama, but they beat Youngstown State, Kent State and Temple to round out that 7-5 record. Illinois went 6-6 overall, 4-4 in conference (also did not play Wisconsin) and 2-2 out of conference, losing to Missouri and Fresno State while beating Southern Illinois and Northern Illinois. As for Northwestern, they went 7-5 overall, 3-5 in conference (did not play 11-1 Ohio State) and 4-0 out of conference beating Vanderbilt, Illinois State, Rice and Central Michigan none of which had a winning record. Iowa went 6-6 overall, 3-5 in conference, 3-1 out of conference, losing to mediocre Arizona while beating Eastern Illinois, Iowa State and Ball State. I generously gave a break to Michigan who went 7-5, because they beat Notre Dame and Big East Champion Connecticut out of conference and had to play both Wisconsin and Ohio State in conference.

Finally, let’s take a look at the SEC. Widely considered the best conference in all of college football and, unfortunately for the Pac 10, rightfully so. With five consecutive national championships, the SEC also sent 8 teams to the post season last year. The teams and their records were; Auburn (SEC Champion and SEC West Champion) 13-0 (9-0), Arkansas 10-2 (6-2), LSU 10-2 (6-2), Alabama 9-3 (5-3), South Carolina (SEC East Champion) 9-4 (5-3), Mississippi State 8-4 (4-4), Georgia 6-6 (3-5) and Tennessee 6-6 (3-5). In their 8 bowl games as a conference, the SEC went 4-4; 1-0 Vs the Pac 10, 2-1 Vs the Big 10, 1-0 Vs the Big 12, 0-1 Vs the Conference USA and 0-2 Vs the ACC. The SEC is clearly much stronger than the other conferences, but there were still 2 teams with questionable post season pedigrees.

Georgia and Tennessee both went 6-6 overall, 3-5 in conference and 3-1 out of conference. The Bulldogs lost to Colorado, that’s not a misprint, they actually lost to Colorado; and beat Louisiana-Lafayette, Idaho State and Georgia Tech. While Tennessee lost to Pac 10 Champion Oregon, and beat Tennessee-Martin, UAB (in overtime) and Memphis.

There is a point that I’m trying to make, though it has taken me some time to get there. I go back to the 9 game conference schedules that the Pac 10 plays, opposed to the 8 game conference schedules that the Big 10, Big 12 and SEC play. I wanted to make specifically clear how 3 of the 8 Big 12 bowl teams, 5 of the 8 Big 10 bowl teams and 2 of the 8 SEC bowl teams all played weak non-conference schedules and struggled through their conference games to limp into the post season. Now let’s take a look at the Pac 10.

The Pac 10 only had 4 teams make it to a bowl game; let’s look at the reason why. Those teams and their record were, Oregon (Pac 10 Champion) 12-0 (9-0), Stanford 11-1 (8-1), Washington 6-6 (5-4) and Arizona 7-5 (4-5). In their bowl games, the Pac 10 went 2-2; 0-1 Vs the SEC, 1-0 Vs the ACC and 1-1 Vs the Big 12.

There is no need to argue why Oregon or Stanford made a bowl game, but how about Arizona and Washington? Arizona went 7-5 overall, 4-5 in conference and 3-0 out of conference. They, however, beat a bowl game team in Iowa in non conference play. Washington, went 6-6 overall, 5-4 in conference and 1-2 out of conference. They played, and lost, to Nebraska (Big 12 North Champion) and BYU, also a bowl team in non conference play.

Yet unlike the other conferences, I want to take a look at the teams that did not make a bowl game from the Pac 10. USC went 8-5 (5-4), but because of NCAA sanctions could not play in the post season. Arizona State went 6-6 (4-5) but could not play in a bowl game because they played 2 non Division 1 opponents, and their only non conference loss came to Wisconsin (Big 10 Champion), 20-19 on a missed extra point. Then there’s Oregon State and California, who both went 5-7 (4-5). Oregon State lost to TCU (Rose Bowl winner) and Boise State, while beating Louisville. And California lost to Nevada (11-1), while beating UC-Davis and Colorado.

My point being, if USC were not faced with sanctions and if Arizona State had played one more Division 1 opponent, the Pac 10 would have had 6 teams playing in a bowl game. As for Oregon State and California, if both were able to play one more patsy in a non conference game (like teams from the Big 10, Big 12 and SEC), they both would have made bowl games. That would put the Pac 10 at 8 bowl teams, the same number as the Big 10, Big 12 and SEC.

Instead of focusing on why, on the surface, it appeared the Pac 10 had a down year, Canzano simply writes it was Oregon, Stanford then a puddle of questions. While that may be true, it is no different than the other 2 major conferences, besides for the fact they got to play one weaker opponent in non conference play.

Finally, I want to take a look at next season and explain why things will probably not change for the Pac 10, perception wise at least. I dissected the schedules for each of the teams from the Big 10, Big 12, SEC and Pac 10 for next year; and there were alarmingly similar trends. Compiled are their schedules and games against teams ranked in Lindys Pre-season Top 25.

Of the 12 teams in the Big 10, Michigan has a non conference game at home against #19 Notre Dame, Michigan State has a game at #19 Notre Dame, Purdue plays at home against #19 Notre Dame and Penn State plays at home against #2 Alabama. While Illinois, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota and Ohio State do not play a non conference game against a ranked opponent. All together, 4 teams play a ranked opponent (3 of which play Notre Dame) while 8 do not play a ranked opponent.

How about the Big 12? Of the 10 teams in the conference, Baylor plays at home against #15 TCU, Oklahoma plays at #5 Florida State, Missouri plays at #25 Arizona State and Texas A+M plays at home against #10 Arkansas. All while Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State and Kansas State do not play a ranked opponent. Just like the Big 10, the Big 12 has 4 teams playing a ranked opponent in non conference play, while 6 teams do not.

As for the powerful SEC, of their 12 teams; Arkansas plays at home against #13 Texas A+M, Florida plays at home against #5 Florida State, Georgia plays at home against #6 Boise State and LSU plays in Dallas against #3 Oregon (which I would argue is a home game). While Auburn, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt and Alabama do not play a ranked opponent in non conference play. So the big, bad SEC also has 4 teams playing ranked opponents (all at home) with 8 teams not playing a ranked team. Sounds fair huh?

How about the Pac 10, which Canzano considers a “weak” conference. Washington plays at #9 Nebraska, Arizona plays at #17 Oklahoma State, Arizona State plays at home against #23 Missouri, Oregon plays in Dallas against #4 LSU, Stanford plays at home against #19 Notre Dame, Colorado plays at #14 Ohio State, Oregon State plays at #17 Wisconsin and USC plays at #19 Notre Dame. With California, Washington State, Utah and UCLA (who plays at home against an unranked Texas team) not facing a ranked opponent in non conference play. All in all, 8 of the 12 teams play a ranked team (in one of their 3 non conference games, not 4) and 4 teams do not. So while having one less non conference game to play, the Pac 10 has 4 more teams playing a ranked opponent than the Big 10, Big 12 and SEC. What?

So while it is easy to consider the Pac 10 a “weak” conference compared to the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12, it is important to understand why it appears that way. Canzano looks at the surface of the issue, instead of actually looking at the facts. Instead of focusing on how Pac 10 teams play a far tougher schedule than the rest of college football, Canzano writes a pointless column without any factual evidence to back it up. And unfortunately for the Pac 10, it appears that we will have to read this same garbage column a year from now, unless they’re able to knock off some of their ranked, non conference opponents. 

“As Willie Lyles Talks, Chip Kelly losses some Credibility” – The Rebuttal

This article was published Friday, July 1^st and is filled with hypocrisy, rationalization and jumping to conclusions with a basic guilty verdict being placed on Chip Kelly and the University of Oregon football program.  Take it easy there big fella. Let’s take a step back and look at what Canzano had to say:

“Because what we have in Kelly is a guy with no prior experience as a head coach who took over the job while a pair of inexperienced athletic directors (Pat Killkenny and Mike Bellotti) were on watch. And you can't help but connect all of that and wonder if Oregon simply lost its way for a couple of years. 

Was the lack of experience in those key positions how the Ducks ended up here today? Was anyone at all paying attention? And if this Kelly thing blows up in the worst way, is it possible that Bellotti could end up back on the sideline at Autzen? 

All fair questions. And all of them will wait until after the NCAA sorts through the wreckage behind Lyles, and determines which rules were broken, and which were simply circumvented craftfully. 

I covered Jerry Tarkanian for three seasons, and encountered characters such as Lyles in droves. Tark knew the rules and lived comfortably in the gray areas. A wise newspaper editor, frustrated with Tarkanian's ability to slip the blame, announced in the newsroom, "We only go to print if it's a shot to the heart." 

That Yahoo report was a kill shot.” (http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2011/07/canzano_chip_kelly_loses_his_f.html)

            Whoa, those are some rather large assertions Mr. Canzano. Let’s take a complete look at what the allegations actually are, and what facts do exist in examining the NCAA investigation into Lyles and his relationship with the Ducks football program.

We all remember when the original Yahoo story broke, which was the first media organization to shine light on the $25,000 paid to Lyles and $3,745 paid to Baron Flenory of New Level Athletics. The original story stated, “If Lyles and Flenory aided in or were involved in any way in the recruitment of student athletes to Oregon, they would be classified as boosters by the NCAA, and any payment to them from the school would be considered a violation of Bylaw 13. Bylaw 13 prohibits boosters from directing a recruit to a school.” (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=cr-oregon030311)

            The original story was able to contact Flenory, who attempted to clear his name from the mess; “Flenory said he played no part in players either visiting or signing with the University of Oregon, and didn’t understand why the NCAA would have a problem with him.” Though the accusation was easy to make, due to the fact that he played football for Kelly when he was the offensive coordinator at New Hampshire, the NCAA has all but dismissed the claims placed on Flenory.

            However, the situation around Lyles is a tad more complicated. What we do know, is that Oregon paid Willie Lyles and his scouting company, ‘Complete Scouting Services’ in Houston $25,000. We know that Oregon did not attempt in any way to hide the payment, which is why it was so easy for reporters to find. What we don’t know, is what the money was for. Did Oregon pay Lyles for him to steer players such as Seastrunk and James to the Ducks? Did they pay him for the influence that he had over these kids? Or was the payment for his scouting services, in which he ‘retroactively’ sent hundreds of pages of documents to the school with information on recruits from 2009-2012 that came from the Texas, Louisiana area. That’s what the NCAA is currently trying to figure out.

            The more recent Yahoo article, published on July 1^st, in which Canzano is referring to, shined a deeper light into the issue because they were able to sit and talk with Lyles for hours on end. The article states, “Lyles insists Oregon did not make a direct request or payment to steer recruits to Eugene. However, he now says Oregon did not pay him for his work as a traditional scout, but for his influence with top recruits and their families and his ability to usher prospects through the signing and eligibility process.” (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ys-robinson_scout_details_deal_oregon_kelly_070111)

            At the heart of the issue, was Lyles’ relationship with Seastrunk and James and the ways he went beyond the role of a recruiting service to help them sign with the Ducks. Let’s take a look at what he actually did.

            During James senior year, he had yet to pass the standardized Math test required to graduate from high school in the state of Texas. Though he had passed all other standardized tests, James struggled with math. The idea? Lyles asserted he advised James to transfer a few miles across the border into Arkansas to graduate from Texarkana High School were James would not have to pass the math test. James did so, and was free to sign with the Ducks upon his graduation.

            Does anyone really believe this to be a crime? Here is a high school senior, a three-star rated football recruit being pursued at the time by TCU, Minnesota and Oregon who was not going to graduate. He would have not been able to attend college for at least another year, and likely would have been forgotten by many major football programs. Lyles helped him find a way to graduate, and what is the end result? This past season, on top of finishing 3^rd in the Heisman Trophy voting, winning the Doak Walker award for the nation’s top running back, earning First team all Pac-10 and an All-American honors; James also finished as the First Team All-Academic Pac-10 running back with a GPA above 3.2.

Ask yourself this, does James finishing on the All-Academic team mean he is a serious student, who takes great pride in his academic work? I think so. In my mind, this greatly nullifies that assertion that Lyles ‘broke the rules’ or did a ‘bad thing’ by getting James to graduate. He helped a kid, without a father figure, who otherwise probably would not be known; obtain a national name and most likely a future NFL career. Sure, this can easily be seen as an NCAA violation. But to what extent? Lyles did not help James transfer to Texarkana High with the idea that he would then go on to play at Oregon and it would result in a $25,000 pay check. He helped out a kid without a father figure who needed some guidance. And I am of the opinion that while it may be breaking a rule, there is no legit wrongdoing in this case.

Now, onto his relationship with Lache Seastrunk, who was widely considered one of the nation’s top running backs a year ago coming out of Temple, Texas. Entering his senior season Seastrunk met Lyles at a 7 on 7 summer tournament and the two hit it off. A little background info on Lache, his father was never in his life and his mother was constantly in legal trouble during his childhood, so he lived for long, extended periods of time with his grandparents. The controversy surrounding Lache is all based on his National Letter of Intent (NLI). The NLI rules state that an athlete under the age of 21 must have a legal guardian sign the letter, consenting to let their child attend that school.  In Lache’s case, his mom, Evelyn demanded her son stay in the south east and attend Louisiana State University (LSU).  The only problem being, Lache wanted to sign with Oregon.

Here’s what Lyles had to say about the situation, “Lache came to me and said his mother was threatening him, saying she wouldn’t sign his letter of intent unless he went to the school she told him to go to. He was worried about it because he wasn’t of age to sign the letter of intent himself. He wanted to find out how he could get his grandmother to sign the letter of intent instead of his mother, because his grandmother is the one that raised him in the first place.”
            So Lyles contacted Oregon, more specifically Josh Gibson the assistant director of football operations (who has recently been fired) and they contacted the NCAA about letting a grandparent to sign the letter. Seastrunk and his grandmother also personally contacted the NCAA NLI office, and in the letter, “Seastrunk conveys several personal issues, mentioning his mothers legal issues and states his mother shouldn’t be allowed to sign his letter of intent because, in part, ‘she is only worried about herself and what she might be able to get from me going to school or playing in the pros’.” Lache sent that letter with the help of Temple High School administrator Deanna Carter, and the NCAA agreed with his cause. With that, Lache was free to sign with Oregon.

Again let me ask you, do you see any wrongdoing in that scenario? Here is a kid, whose mother will not allow her son to attend the school of his choice, so Oregon and Lyles worked around that to help him out. I am of the opinion that the student athlete should be free to sign with whatever program he desires, which wasn’t going to happen in Lache’s case without the help of Josh Gibson and Lyles.

While you may be reading this and thinking, well you’re just a Duck fan who refuses to accept the fact that Oregon did anything wrong. I argue to the contrary. I am an Oregon fan, but when you take a look at the facts do you honestly think Oregon was in the wrong in this situation? Sure, paying Lyles $25,000 for his help in these situations is considered and NCAA violation. But the fact that Canzano claims that Kelly should step down, or Oregon is running a ‘shady’ program, just aren’t true. What we have here is a case of two high school athletes, who without the connection with Lyles and Oregon either would not have been able to go to college, or choose the college of their choice. So I am of the belief that Lyles relationship with Oregon was to the benefit of these two kids; and obviously to the benefit of Oregon and Lyles business.

So what will the end result be? In no way, shape or form are any of these allegations a ‘kill shot’ for Kelly or the Ducks. Will they be reprimanded? Of course they will. Will Kelly keep his job? Of course he will. Simply put, what we have here is a case of a major college program side stepping some NCAA rules in order to help out two young men in the process. Canzano, however, chooses to write an article with an anti-Oregon bias in order to get a few thousand more hits on his website. Instead of leaning towards sensationalism and rushing to judgments, Canzano should instead focus on facts in the future when he is writing his articles. He is out for a guilty verdict on Chip Kelly and the Ducks football program, and will put anything in print to attempt to achieve his goals.