2016, man. What a year. First Tom Brady got suspended, then Pro Sports in Hingham closed, and now Claydro Buchholz is on his way to Philadelphia. Not much else happened, but those three events alone really tarnished an otherwise fine year.
Anyways with Buchholz, I'm sure gonna miss those Tuesday nights in July when the Red Sox are playing some anemic offense like the Athletics or Rays, I look away for a few minutes and the next thing you know, Buchholz is pulled after 2 2/3 and six earned runs on seven hits.
Fair or unfair, Buchholz was the de facto compensation the Red Sox received when Pedro Martinez signed with the Mets after the 2004 season. The Red Sox received a 'sandwich pick,' No. 42 overall from the Mets, and drafted the bullfrog out of a JuCo in Texas.
He was one of five Red Sox first round picks in '05, including Jacoby Ellsbury, Craig Hansen, Jed Lowrie and Michael Bowden.
Some people will remember the Clay Buchholz era for the no-hitter he threw in his second career start vs. the Orioles. Others will remember his very good 2010 season or his very good half-season in 2013. Some may even remember him as the 2015 Opening Day starter, just one year after Jon Lester held that role.
Me? I'll remember Buchholz as a god damned Twitter hero.
You know who would have been a prime candidate to pitch in a 4-run game in the 9th inning? Clay Buchholz.
But you wanna know something really crazy? I would have preferred the Red Sox dealt away Drew Pomeranz than Buchholz. At least with Claydro, you know what you're getting: you don't know what you're getting. With Pomeranz, you also know what you're getting: mediocrity and way too many curveballs and inevitable elbow reconstructive surgery. There's a reason he's on his fifth organization at age 28. Something tells me a Twitter search of "@jakelevin477 pomeranz" this time next year will yield a whole lotta negativity.
So thank you, Clay, for somehow surviving parts of 10 seasons in Boston. If Ortiz doesn't unretire, Dustin Pedroia is now the last member left of the 2007 World Series team. And with the recent defections of Koji and Taz, we're down to Pedey, Bogaerts, JBJ and Brock Holt as members of the 2013 team. Mind-bottling stuff.
Jan. 10, 2010. Ray Rice had an 83-yard touchdown run on the first play from scrimmage at the Ravens beat the Patriots, 33-14.
That was the last time New England played on wild-card weekend.
By almost any metric, the 2009 Patriots were the worst team of the Belichick era. Sure, they missed the playoffs in 2002 and 2008, but 2009 represented rock bottom in a number of ways for New England.
Six seasons have elapsed since then, with a seventh nearing completion. All seven of these seasons will have ended with the Patriots securing a first-round bye.
Eight teams, or exactly one quarter of Roger Goodell's professional football league, also have not played on wild-card weekend since then: the Buffalo Bills, Cleveland Browns, Jacksonville Jaguars, Tennessee Titans, Miami Dolphins, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, St. Louis Los Angeles Rams and Las Vegas Oakland Raiders.
Of course, none of those teams have made the playoffs at all in these last seven seasons (Oakland clinched a berth today, and actually may well avoid playing on WC weekend again).
There's no shortage of ways to describe what the Brady/Belichick era has been like, but if that little tidbit on the merits of not playing the first weekend of January doesn't do it for you I don't know what will.
Wild-card weekend really just serves as a way for the rest of the NFL to showcase just how far 31 other franchises lag behind the Patriots.
Admittedly, I haven't been paying as close attention the NFL this season as I have in year's past. All those fancy talking points you heard about with ratings declining back in October, with theories such as Kaepernick's protests or the election leading the charge, do not apply here. Can't really explain it...I do love the idea of Roger Goodell's world crashing and burning, which is maybe subliminally why I haven't tuned in to many games not involving the Patriots.
But one thing I have noticed from (somewhat) afar is the plight of the Carolina Panthers, who actually improved to 5-8 today with a win over the San Diego Chargers. Carolina has the fourth-worst point differential in the NFC (minus-26), while Cam Newton is 27th in the NFL in passer rating (80.6), behind quarterbacking luminaries such as Sam Bradford, Cody Kessler, Trevor Siemien and yes, even Colin Kaepernick. His completion percentage (54.7) is 31st out of 32 qualified passers...ahead of only Kaepernick. He's behind Ryan Fitzpatrick, Brock Osweiler and Blake Bortles, for example.
What a mess. Is it my fault for wearing this outfit during Super Bowl 50?
Probably not. And I discovered this year's Panthers, even though they already have eight losses, are already assured of not being the worst Super Bowl runner-up by means of won-loss record the following year. That would be the 2003 Oakland Raiders, who finished 4-12 after being blown out by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
Prior to the salary cap era (1994-), I could find only two teams that lost the Super Bowl and didn't finish the following season with a winning record (the 1988 and 1990 Denver Broncos, which finished 8-8 and 5-11, respectively.
With the advent of the salary cap, and the difficulty of retaining that mojo year to year, unless you're the New England Patriots? It's been a tad more difficult to get back to the big game...or do anything noteworthy, for that matter.
Only twice in Super Bowl history has a franchise lost the game in one year and gone on to win the next. And it hasn't happened since the 1972 Miami Dolphins.
I won't go back quite that far, but here's a look at how the teams of the salary cap era have done following a Super loss - not just the following season, but the long-range impact of the loss:
1994 Buffalo Bills (lost Super Bowl XXVIII vs. Cowboys, 30-13)
Record: 7-9, missed playoffs
Give the Bills all the credit in the world, as the 1993 version was the last team to return to the Super Bowl following a loss, just like the 1992 Bills before them, and the 1991 Bills before them. Those Buffalo teams lost four consecutive Super Bowls, which is almost as unfathomable as the fact the Bills haven't even been to the playoffs since 1999.
1995 San Diego Chargers (lost Super Bowl XXIX vs. 49ers, 49-26)
Record: 9-7; lost in AFC wild-card game vs. Colts, 35-20
Unfortunately, this wouldn't be the only time Rodney Harrison and Junior Seau had to rebound from a Super Bowl loss.
1996 Pittsburgh Steelers (lost Super Bowl XXX vs. Cowboys, 27-17)
Record: 10-6; lost in AFC divisional round vs. Patriots, 28-3
People forget that Drew Bledsoe torched the Steelers in the playoffs long before he relieved an injured Tom Brady in the 2001 AFCCG. That back shoulder toss to David Patten still gives me chills.
1997 New England Patriots (lost Super Bowl XXXI vs. Packers, 35-14)
Record: 10-6; lost in AFC divisional round vs. Steelers, 7-6
People also forget that Mike Vrabel sacked Drew Bledsoe in this playoff loss.
1998 Green Bay Packers (lost Super Bowl XXXII vs. Broncos, 31-24)
Record: 11-5; lost in NFC wild-card game vs. 49ers, 30-27
The legend of Terrell Owens was born when the Niners eliminated the Packers, who somehow never made it back to the Super Bowl with Brett Favre...and somehow still have been only once with Aaron Rodgers.
1999 Atlanta Falcons (lost Super Bowl XXXIII vs. Broncos, 34-19)
Record: 5-11; missed playoffs
Falcons safety Eugene Robinson was arrested for soliciting a prostitute the night before the game...just hours after accepting the Bart Starr Award as a player who "best exemplifies outstanding character and leadership in the home, on the field and in the community." Atlanta finished 4-12 the following season, securing a high enough pick to trade up to No. 1 overall for a certain quarterback who was later spent 23 months in prison for running an outfit called "Bad Newz Kennels." Had the Falcons stayed at No. 5, they could have drafted LaDanian Tomlinson, as the Chargers did, instead of Mike Vick.
2000 Tennessee Titans (lost Super Bowl XXXIV vs. Rams, 23-16)
Record: 13-3; lost in AFC divisional round vs. Ravens, 24-10
Believe it or not, Jeff Fisher's Titans made the playoffs five more times after coming up one yard short vs. the Greatest Show on Turf.
2001 New York Giants (lost Super Bowl XXXV vs. Ravens, 34-7)
Record: 7-9; missed playoffs
Color me shocked, a Giants team that was inconsistent from year to year.
2002 St. Louis Rams (lost Super Bowl XXXVI vs. Patriots, 20-17)
Record: 7-9; missed playoffs
Marc Bulger, a forgotten member of the "Brady 6," supplanted Kurt Warner as the starter midway through this season. Bulger led St. Louis to a 12-4 record in 2003...which is the last time the Rams franchise posted a winning record, and also about the last time anyone deemed it sensible Bulger was selected 31 picks prior to Brady, at No. 168 overall in 2000. One could argue Adam Vinatieri's right foot sent the Rams back to Los Angeles all these years later.
2003 Oakland Raiders (lost Super Bowl XXXVII vs. Buccaneers, 48-21)
Record: 4-12; missed playoffs
As stated earlier, this is, by means of record, the worst Super Bowl runner-up of all-time. It's a common misnomer that the Tuck Rule is what led to the Raiders' demise; they recovered quite nicely, for one year at least, before not posting a winning record again until this season and potentially moving to Las Vegas. The Tuck Rule was more of a delayed reaction, akin to memes kids make about the Molly hitting.
2004 Carolina Panthers (lost Super Bowl XXXVIII vs. Patriots, 32-29)
Record: 7-9; missed playoffs
Carolina didn't exactly fall off the face of the earth after the Patriots knocked them off in Houston - they went 53-43 prior to a 2-14 season in 2010, enabling them to draft Cam Newton - but it sure doesn't feel like these Panthers are trending in a similar manner to the Jake Delhomme teams of the mid-2000s.
2005 Philadelphia Eagles (lost Super Bowl XXXIX vs. Patriots, 24-21)
Record: 6-10; missed playoffs
The Terrell Owens driveway press conference was the immediate fallout. The faces have changed, but the dysfunction has remained more or less the same.
2006 Seattle Seahawks (lost Super Bowl XL vs. Steelers, 21-10
Record: 9-7; lost in NFC divisional round vs. Bears, 27-24
Did the Patriots steal a Super Bowl from the Seahawks with Malcolm Butler's pick? Perhaps, but if you really think about it, it was payback for Seattle stealing Super Bowl XLI from the Patriots. But wait, XLI was Colts-Bears, right? Well it should have been Patriots-Bears, but the Seahawks had to go out and trade for Deion Branch during his holdout, thus leaving Tom Brady with Reche Caldwell as his No. 1 receiver. Indeed, the ends justified the means on the goal line in Arizona eight years later.
2007 Chicago Bears (lost Super Bowl XLI vs. Colts, 29-17)
Record: 7-9; missed playoffs
If only Devin Hester had returned a few more kicks for touchdowns, "Trent Dilfer has more rings than Dan Marino" would have become "Rex Grossman has more rings than [generic QB X]."
2008 New England Patriots (lost Super Bowl XLII vs. Giants, 17-14)
Record: 11-5; missed playoffs
One quirk of the Patriots' dynasty is that it includes a season in which they were the best team ever to not win the Super Bowl (18-1), followed by a year in which they were the best team ever to not make the playoffs at 11-5. The Browns also had an 11-5 playoff-less season in the '80s, but they most certainly were not coming off the best regular season in NFL history, either.
2009 Arizona Cardinals (lost Super Bowl XLIII vs. Steelers, 27-23)
Record: 10-6; lost in NFC divisional playoffs vs. Saints, 45-14
'Member Kurt Warner? His second act as a Cardinal wasn't all that shabby, especially considering he was behind Matt Leinart on the depth chart at one point. Somewhat related: now that the Bruce Arians Cardinals appear to be a flop, I'm so ready for the return of "Larry Fitzgerald to New England" rumors. Those used to be as automatic as a first-round bye for the Pats.
2010 Indianapolis Colts (lost Super Bowl XLIV vs. Saints, 31-17)
Record: 10-6; lost in AFC wild-card game vs. Jets, 17-16
Peyton Manning's final season in Indy ended in the most fitting of ways: with a one-and-done vs. Mark Sanchez...who would also send Tom Brady to a one-and-done the following week. Of course, Peyton's teams went one-and-done NINE times. Brady, to date, just twice.
2011 Pittsburgh Steelers (lost Super Bowl XLV vs. Packers, 31-25)
Record: 12-4; lost in AFC wild-card game vs. Broncos, 29-23 (OT)
Long before Tim Tebow was batting .125 in the Arizona Fall League, he was winning playoff games vs. Ben Roethlisberger.
2012 New England Patriots (lost Super Bowl XLVI vs. Giants, 21-17)
Record: 12-4; lost in AFC Championship Game vs. Ravens, 28-13
Just another quirk of the ol' dynasty: the Patriots became the first team in the salary cap era to get as far as the conference championship game the season after losing a Super Bowl. During a season which Aaron Hernandez played after (allegedly) killing two people in Boston the summer before. That is going to be among the more fascinating chapters of Belichick's autobiography post-career, by the way.
2013 San Francisco 49ers (lost Super Bowl XLVII vs. Ravens, 34-31)
Record: 12-4; lost NFC Championship Game vs. Seahawks, 23-17
The 49ers sure feel like the next team to fall into an abyss a la the Raiders or Rams. It's hard to believe this team was in the NFCCG just three short years ago. Until you consider they forced out the best coach in football not named Bill Belichick.
2014 Denver Broncos (lost Super Bowl XLVIII vs. Seahawks, 43-8)
Record: 12-4; lost in AFC divisional round vs. Colts, 24-13
Give Peyton Manning credit because those coattails he rode rebounding from this loss and winning a Super Bowl the following year is just part of what makes him so great.
2015 Seattle Seahawks (lost Super Bowl XLIX vs. Patriots, 28-24)
Record: 10-6; lost in NFC divisional round vs. Cardinals, 31-24
The Seahawks, similar to some Patriots and Broncos teams on this list, have some staying power. The Malcolm Butler interception is the most improbable play in Super Bowl history made by a defensive player, and yet the team was still talented enough to return to the playoffs and win a game the season after. This time, sans Marshawn Lynch and now Earl Thomas, too, suddenly? We'll see.
The Panthers could run the table and get to .500, which would put them right in the middle of the pack in terms of Super Bowl losers of the salary cap era. But the headline for that team, no matter what, will be the regression of Cam Newton. And perhaps their season won't be the worst encore off a Super Bowl loss, but the franchise itself could morph into one of the most disappointing one-hit wonders of all-time. I know I've already used "people forget that" several times in this blog, but did you even somewhat remember the Panthers were 15-1 last season regular season? And that loss came in the season finale? What a strange team indeed.
Just about two weeks ago, I wrote a post titled, "The College Football Playoff Picture Isn't As Confusing As You Think." I consider myself an honorable guy, and I'm here to tell you that I was very, very wrong. The College Football Playoff picture is giving me some PTSD from the Biology For Non-Science Majors course that I earned a barely-passing grade in. Just couldn't figure it out. The playoff landscape is essentially the same as Westworld at this point. I watch, I enjoy, the games/episode ends, and I feel dumb and confused.
We've been presented with a scenario that even the legendary Madame Zeroni couldn't advise a solution to. This mass hysteria was most significantly triggered by Saturday's classic of Michigan vs. Ohio State. Due to Ohio State's controversial victory, Penn State has earned a spot in the B1G Championship Game against the Wisconsin Badgers.
In regards to the controversy in Columbus, I'm on Team "Barrett was stopped short on fourth down." It's a shame that the outcome had to come down to something so highly questioned. If they had ruled it short to begin with, the replay didn't show enough evidence to overturn it. But unfortunately for Michigan, that was the same case for overturning the first down. Personally, I thought the visual displayed that Barrett was stopped short, but I think I just convinced myself of that because I didn't want to see Urban Meyer come out on top.
Having said all of that, I thought it was incredibly lame of Harbaugh to blame the officiating for the loss. Want to know what actually caused the Wolverines to lose the game? The three turnovers. Simple as that. When you come into Columbus for a game of this magnitude, you need to play mistake-free football, NOT mistake-three football. They were in complete control of the game until that pick-six. Not to mention that Curtis Samuel's wild third down gain, which set up Barrett's controversial first down, should've been stopped behind the line of scrimmage. So as much as I wanted to see Michigan in the playoff, they're not getting any sympathy from me.
So as I mentioned before, we'll have Wisconsin facing off against Penn State in the BIG 10 Championship, with both teams being 10-2. Penn State's victory over Ohio State is the reason we're not seeing the Buckeyes in this game, which is unfortunate for Ohio State since that was their lone loss. The Buckeyes could be considered a better team than the Nittany Lions in every sense, other than the major fact that Penn State beat them head-to-head. Often times we get stuck in debates of which team is better than which because we haven't had the opportunity to see them face off. But in this case, throw away everything else; Penn State beat Ohio State and are therefore a better team. It's hard to argue against that. So if Penn State ends up being the BIG 10 Champ, you kind of have to put them in. And if Wisconsin wins? I mean, I think they would deserve to be in the playoff, but I could see the committee then putting in Ohio State over them (which I would not want to see), as Wisconsin's two losses came to Michigan and the Buckeyes. But then again, the B1G Champ deserves a playoff spot in my mind, regardless of how that came to be. Which leads to more confusion/hypocrisy because Ohio State beat Wisconsin head-to-head, so it's really just a vicious cycle.
I think it's pretty damn safe to say that we'll be seeing Alabama and Clemson in the playoff, a foresight that depends on Clemson taking care of business as scheduled against Virginia Tech. However, Clemson has looked shaky in multiple games this season, including their loss to Pitt. But I think the Tigers have plenty of momentum after spanking in-state rival South Carolina last weekend, and that'll carry over into their matchup against an inferior team.
So let's say 'Bama and Clemson are both in, and the BIG 10 Champ gets in, who's the fourth team? I think if Washington wins against Colorado, they absolutely get the fourth playoff spot. But Colorado is a good team this year, and if they beat Washington....I just don't know. I think maybe at that point two B1G teams could get in? It'd probably have to be Penn State/Wisconsin and Ohio State.
What makes this playoff picture so confusing is the fact that we're not entirely sure how the committee will exactly select these teams. Some people feel that it should be four champions of their respective Power 5 Conferences. Some people feel that the eye test should rule all. Some believe that a fluke loss shouldn't heavily influence your chances. We've been presented with a scenario that will combine every facet of evaluation, and it's going to come down to what the committee finds to be the most important criteria. At this point, I'm lost. I truly am. But just for the hell of it, here's my prediction:
#1 Alabama (risky prediction) vs. #4 Wisconsin (because why not?)
#2 Clemson vs. #3 Washington
And for the record: NO. I refuse to believe Oklahoma will sneak in. And that is the only time I will address that subpar team from a subpar conference.
This past weekend was easily the craziest so far this college football season, as we saw No. 2 Clemson, No. 3 Michigan, and No. 4 Washington all got hit with their first L of 2016. The last time that No. 2, 3, and 4 lost in the same week was 1985. To add to the hysteria, No. 8 Texas A&M and No. 9 Auburn both lost. Half of the top 10 teams were upset, but I really don't think this shakes up the playoff picture as much as many people think.
I'll be honest, when it was all said and done Saturday night, I couldn't wrap my head around what the playoff would turn out to be. My confusion was distracted by watching the King of Dublin do his thing in the octagon, which added to the pure awesomeness of Saturday's sports slate. But once Sunday morning came around, I came to the realization that the amount of top 10 teams losing really just kind of canceled each other's misery out. The Week 12 rankings won't be released until tomorrow, but regardless of who lands where, most of these teams are in control of their own destiny.
Let's start with No. 1 Alabama. It's become pretty damn clear that 'Bama is the best team in the country. Now that's not to say they'll automatically win it all; anything can happen in the playoff. This Crimson Tide squad has yet to be defeated, but they're not invincible. Having said that, any team that faces off against 'Bama in the playoff will have to be mistake-free, and the best game plan aside from being perfect is to pray that the Tide suffer crucial turnovers and penalties. The remainder of the Crimson Tide's schedule features the Chattanooga Mocs and Auburn, who suffered their third loss to Georgia this past weekend. Auburn's No. 9 ranking will certainly fall in tomorrow's rankings, but the Tigers have proved that they can compete with some good teams. The only problem is that Alabama is far beyond a "good" team. If there's anyone you should bet on to be making the playoff, it's certain that the undefeated, No. 1 team in the country is the safe choice.
The No. 2 Clemson Tigers lost on a last second field goal to Pitt, which was an absolute dagger to their confidence and momentum. Despite not losing until Saturday night, Clemson has showed that they're far from perfect. The Tigers squeaked out close wins, which should have been blowouts, against Troy and NC State. However Clemson has also provided the Playoff Committee with evidence that they deserve a spot in the final four, most notably in victories over Auburn, Louisville, and Florida State. A loss at home to Pitt was obviously not ideal, but Clemson can easily still walk into the ACC Championship if they take care of Wake Forest and South Carolina in the next two weeks, as they should. If they do make it to the conference championship, they shouldn't be challenged much as they'll most likely face off against Virginia Tech. You can't sit there and tell me that a one-loss, ACC Champion won't earn a playoff berth.
Michigan's last second, 14-13 loss to Iowa makes things a little messier as the BIG 10 is essentially wide open. Well, wide open between Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and maybe kind of Penn State? So in last week's rankings, Michigan was No. 2 and lost to unranked Iowa. Ohio State, who was No. 5 last week, put the smackdown on the second most undeserving BIG 10 team, Maryland. Wisconsin, who was No. 7, put Illinois in their place 48-3. Penn State was at the No. 10 spot, and their ranking should improve after No. 8 A&M and No. 9 Auburn lost. To me, Penn State has the least convincing argument of these teams, despite beating Ohio State a few weeks back.
When it comes down to it, Michigan, Ohio State, and Wisconsin are all in the driver's seat of their own playoff chances. Much like the case with the ACC, I just don't think the playoff committee has any choice but to include the BIG 10 Champion. And these three teams all have a chance to play for that crown. So basically, the winner of the Michigan vs. Ohio State game will likely play Wisconsin in the conference championship, and the winner of that will go on to play in the final four. Which, let's be honest, is kind of the exact scenario we were looking at before all of these unexpected outcomes occurred on Saturday.
The fourth playoff spot did belong to Washington until they got worked by USC, which I was a fan of. I just don't think a Pac 12 team would compete in the playoff as much as other teams. But hey, what do I know? Another thing I for sure don't know is which team will eventually fill that fourth spot? Three spots will go to the champs of the SEC, ACC, and BIG 10. The ACC and BIG 10 are the only conferences that could have two teams in the playoff. If Wisconsin beat Michigan/Ohio State in the BIG 10 title game, I could see the loser of that game getting the fourth playoff spot. Regarding the ACC, Louisville's hopes of filling the fourth spot are still alive, and I think Lamar Jackson's insane performance so far will possibly persuade the committee to put them in. The only other scenario I could see for the fourth spot is a Big 12 team, which would either be Oklahoma or West Virginia. Fingers crossed that we don't have to see that, because either of those teams matched up with 'Bama would not be ideal for spectators. The only plus side to that would be watching the Big 12 get embarrassed in the playoff again.
While we're on the topic of the playoff, it's scenarios like these that get people all riled up about having an eight team playoff. But in my opinion, scenarios like this one make me love the fact that there are only four teams in the playoff. Having four teams allows college football to savor its identity; the major thing that makes college ball and the NFL is the significance of each and every regular season game. If your team slips up once, they'll have to rely on other teams to do the same. If there were an eight team playoff, we'd basically know the bracket already. The exclusiveness of the College Football Playoff is what makes earning a berth so prestigious. I could possibly, possibly, get on board with a six team playoff, with the first two seeds getting a first round bye, but extending it to eight would be an atrocity.
So regardless of what Tuesday evening's rankings present us with, I think we've got ourselves a relatively transparent idea of the playoff picture's potential.
Seventy-seven, man. The Rams lost by 77 points to the James Madison Dukes, 84-7, to fall to 1-8 on the season. Six of those eight losses have come by 20 or more points, four by 30 or more.
Just how high (low) did URI rise (sink) to on the grand scale of ineptitude on this particular Saturday though?
The appalling performance was the second-worst loss by a Division I team this season, including both the FBS and FCS. Only Michigan's 78-0 thumping of Rutgers surpasses Ray Bourque or Nate Solder's digits.
URI became just the second FCS team to give up 80-plus points in 2016, the first since Morehead State (Ky.) lost to James Madison, 80-7, on Sept. 3. (Tennessee-Martin beat Bacone College 84-6, but Bacone is in the NAIA, while Fordham put up 83 points vs. Elizabeth City State, a Division II school.)
So to be 100 percent transparent and fair, JMU is a very good FCS team. In the same conference as URI, by the way, so theoretically on the same playing field.
The Dukes were ranked fifth in the polls coming into the weekend, owners of a 7-1 (5-0 CAA) record, its only loss to the FBS North Carolina Tar Heels. Only Sam Houston State, currently ranked No. 1 in the FCS, has scored more points (433) than James Madison (395).
The Dukes set a program record with 84 points on Saturday, surpassing a 76-point outburst from 1995 vs. Morgan State (Md.) JMU is well on its way to the FCS playoffs again, looking very capable of an even higher nod than the No. 5 seed it earned a season ago.
Speaking of the FCS playoffs, URI hasn't been there since 1985.
They've had three winning seasons in the meantime, none since 2001. Since a 5-6 season in 2010 (for which then-head coach Joe Trainer won CAA coach of the year award), the Rams are 9-57 (.136 winning percentage), which includes a winless season in 2012.
2012, 2013 and 2014 accounted for the three worst point-differentials in program history (-327, -243, -259). History which dates back to the 1800s.
After being outscored by *only* 184 points in 2015 (another 1-10 season), URI's differential in 2016 is currently -244.
JMU's quarterback yesterday, Bryan Schor, basically looked like Tom Brady on crack with properly inflated footballs: 21 for 22, 309 yards, five touchdowns.
His counterpart on the Rams, Jordan Vazzano, had more interceptions (5) than completions to his own team (4). He was 4 for 25 overall with 12 passing yards.
I don't want to get on the players so much in this. It's not their fault just how in over their head they are. Who am I to criticize a kid for following their dreams of playing college football, no matter how sorry the program is?
But you know what really sucks? URI's next two games (at Elon, vs. Towson) are kinda sorta winnable. I mean they should lose both, but you never know because Elon is 2-6 with a -108 point differential, Towson is 1-7 with a -89.
Those aren't exactly juggernauts standing in the way of the #RhodeToGreatness.
Towson's loss to URI in the final game of the 2014 season denied a quest for a second winless season in a three year span, a denial of imperfection that causes me almost as many sleepless nights as David Tyree getting in the way of actual perfection. Almost.
My fear is that even a 1-1 split in said games gets the Rams to 2-9 and will create enough of a false illusion of momentum moving forward to stay the course with Jim Fleming. Because any season in which your wins are over Brown (which can't give scholarships) and either Towson or Elon is about as momentous as Thursday Night Football's ratings following Jags-Titans.
What I want to happen, as I've been screeching for years now, is to put this embarrassing abomination of a football program out to pasture and invest in a Division I hockey program.
What will actually happen: Jim Fleming will get fired at the end of the season and the next poor bastard will step on in, commanding a contract that will cause the URI athletic department to not be able to pay Dan Hurley to stay after this year's eventual NCAA tournament run for men's hoops.
For whatever reason, 'hockey' is the H-word for the URI athletic department, much like your kindergarten teachers told you 'heck' was the forbidden H-word. Every other flagship state school in New England has a men's varsity hockey team, while all but UMass has a women's team as well.
Neither exist in Kingston.
There's also no varsity lacrosse team, men's or women's, on the campus at URI. There's no varsity field hockey team. There's no varsity men's swimming. No men's volleyball, no women's golf.
I'm not gonna sit here and tell you I'd be a season ticket holder for any of those perspective teams, men's puck aside.
But I will tell you just because Rhode Island is the smallest state doesn't mean we can't have nice things. Cue the "it'll never happen" crowd when it comes to cutting football.
Of course its an eye sore to have to cut your football program. While URI is the only flagship school in New England without men's hockey, it would become one of just three flagship state schools in the country (University of Vermont, University of Alaska) without a varsity football team.
But what's the point of having a team just for the sake of having a team? I'm not seeing the correlation between having a football program and being without one as some sort of status symbol.
Several URI contemporaries in recent years, namely former CAA opponents Northeastern and Hofstra, have cut their football programs. It's not like they've been relegated to the third world in college sports without a football team on campus.
There's also the issue of URI's field, Meade Stadium. Pretty much every high school field I've been to between both Massachusetts and Rhode Island is more structurally viable. I'm no engineer but one walk up and down those stands and you'll know what I mean.
I don't truly want URI to cut football. And I understand that the paydays from playing FBS schools ($500,000 for a 55-6 loss to Kansas this season, $400,000 for a 47-0 loss to Syracuse in 2015) are massive.
What I want to happen is for URI to become a respectable program. To compete with its CAA contemporaries, such as UNH, Maine and Delaware every once in awhile. To have a winning season every now and again. Make a bad season 4-7, not 1-10 or 0-fer. I'm not looking to become the Alabama of the FCS.
I know better though. It's a sad, sad state of affairs in the Ocean State.
Mediocrity never wins, but it sure reigns supreme for the brass in Kingston.
We are now in the last week of basing playoff predictions off of Associated Press rankings, as November 1st will bring us the official College Football Playoff rankings. If the committee decided to say "Screw it, let's play the playoff right now," we'd be looking at No. 1 Alabama vs. No. 4 Washington and No. 2 Michigan vs. No. 3 Clemson.
If the top four failed to change at all by the end of the season, and these were the matchups that we would see come New Year's Eve, I'd have some serious mixed feelings. First things first, I'm not totally sold on Washington yet. And to be honest, I don't think we'll be seeing them in the playoff. Sure, they've been absolutely stomping teams throughout this season. But so far the Huskies' wins have been the epitome of "quantity over quality." It's just tough to get quality wins when you're playing in a weak conference such as the Pac 12. At the time, their win over Stanford seemed pretty legit. However, it turns out that Stanford is one of the biggest busts in college football this year, right up there with Michigan State and Notre Dame. Washington takes on No. 17 Utah this Saturday, and the remainder of their schedule features Pac 12 teams: Cal, USC, Arizona State, and Washington State. If the Huskies do end up as the undefeated Pac 12 champs, I'd assume the CFP committee would have no other option than to grant them a playoff spot. But let's be honest, if Washington had to face off against Alabama in the playoff, that game would get uglier than Sloth from the Goonies. HEYYY YOU GUUYYYSS!
On the other side of this potential final four, a matchup between Clemson and Michigan would be one of those games that makes you genuinely appreciate the College Football Playoff. I'm thinking that these two squads will absolutely be in the playoff, and it just depends on how the seeding works out if we'll get to see them go against each other in the semifinal. Seeing Harbaugh and the Wolverines will be a refreshing change of scenery. A trip to the playoff for Michigan would entail a rivalry weekend victory over the Buckeyes, which shouldn't be a cake walk. But I think this Michigan defense is just too damn good for them to not find a way into one of those four playoff spots. They allow an average of only ten points per game, which is the best in the country. It'd be extremely interesting to see such a dominant defense go up against Deshaun Watson and his numerous targets.
Much like Michigan, Clemson's high playoff hopes have one major obstacle in the way. The Tigers take on Florida State this weekend, which is a matchup that seemed a little more noteworthy in the beginning of the season. The Seminoles have dropped two losses so far to Louisville and North Carolina, but have impressed with wins over Ole Miss and Miami. This ACC battle is interesting because both of these teams are capable of being very dangerous, but both teams have also had their fair share of looking pretty weak. Fortunately for Clemson, the games that they've performed in a subpar manner have still ended up as victories. But if Dabo Swinney's boys play like anything that resembles their close win over NC State two weeks ago, the playoff picture is about to be blown up. The Tigers go into Tallahassee as four point favorites this Saturday night.
So if the current top three does indeed make the playoff, and Washington somehow finds a way to not get in there, who would we be looking at for the fourth spot? Right now, the easy pick would be Louisville. Louisville is in a very similar position as Notre Dame was last year. The Fighting Irish were in the playoff picture for some time, with their resume highlighted by a few solid wins and a "good," close loss to Clemson, who was No. 1 at the time. Louisville's current resume is highlighted by laying a beatdown on Florida State and a nail biting 42-36 loss at Clemson. The remainder of Louisville's schedule shouldn't pose them any major problems: Virginia, BC, Wake Forest, Houston, and Kentucky. A few weeks back, the matchup against Houston was looking like it'd have some major playoff implications. But as we've seen, Houston just isn't as good as I initially thought. Some external factors would certainly have to fall into place for Louisville in order for them to get a playoff spot, but I do think they're a deserving team. If the Clemson game ends up being their only loss, it was a close enough game and early enough in the season for it to not diminish their playoff hopes.
The Big 12 currently has two undefeated teams in Baylor and West Virginia, but they face off in the last regular season game. The Big 12's idiotic lack of a conference championship is also something to take into consideration regarding the playoff picture, although this final regular season game will essentially serve as a conference championship if both teams are still unbeaten. I'm really hoping that the Big 12 will chew itself up, taking away the possibility of any teams in the conference being without a loss. It's known that I despise the Big 12, but even just for the quality of playoff games, I don't think a Big 12 team could compete with Alabama, Michigan, or Clemson.
Nebraska is still unbeaten and could potentially face Michigan in the B1G Championship game, but their playoff hopes rely on beating both Wisconsin and Ohio State in back to back weeks. If there were to be two teams from the same conference in the playoff, I wouldn't bet on the one-loss Texas A&M Aggies to achieve this since their loss to Alabama was not even close.
So my official College Football Playoff prediction (for now) is partially what I think will happen, blended with what I want to happen:
