Big 12 Mailbag: TCU/Baylor, ref controversy, expanded playoff?
Thanks for all your e-mails this week. Remember, you can reach me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter for chances to make an appearance in our next Mailbag.
Today, we're tackling the Coach of the Year race, Oklahoma State's offense, Big 12 officiating ... and maybe a few other things. Let's get to your questions:
Evan Trammell in Valley Mills, Texas asks: Can you do a whole mailbag without BU or TCU included?
David Ubben: I think we both know the answer to that question.
J.M. Schaefer in Fayetteville, Ark. asks: Will Gary Patterson lose Coach of the Year votes because his new OC's get credit for the offensive 180? Or gain votes because he made call to hire them?
David Ubben: The latter. Right now, Dan Mullen's pretty much all alone in the national Coach of the Year race, but Patterson is way out in front in the Big 12 Coach of the Year race. That's what happens when you go from 4-8 to likely Big 12 title winner (or sharer).
It takes a lot to make a complete departure from an offensive philosophy and buy into a new one. Patterson knew after two years that his offense was nowhere near the level of consistency and explosiveness he needed to win consistently in the Big 12.
You couldn't have hired two better guys at a better time than Doug Meacham and Sonny Cumbie. Meacham ought to get a ton of love from the Broyles Award folks, and it's going to take a complete meltdown for somebody to steal the Big 12 Coach of the Year award from Patterson.
Carson Millender in Fort Worth asks: if Baylor gets in the playoff, would anyone ever schedule a tough OOC opponent ever again?
John Wheeler in Waco asks: If Baylor gets burned because of OOC scheduling, who do they add in the near future to fix that? Who would you like to see play?
David Ubben: Yes, teams will still schedule big games. The committee has made it clear: If you schedule tough, you get breaks from the committee that teams who do not schedule with ambition will not get. Look no further than Oregon sliding up to No. 2 this week ahead of Florida State. The Ducks don't get that nod if they play Nicholls State instead of Michigan State. A game like that might be the difference between the 4 spot and the 5 spot in some years. Oregon has a loss and the committee still holds them in higher esteem than Florida State, who did have a pretty good nonconference schedule, but doesn't play the same caliber of teams in the ACC as Oregon does in the Pac-12.
If you schedule tough, it can give you a leg up. Baylor's weak schedule doesn't disqualify it, but it does make it harder for the Bears to fight their way through a bunch of one-loss teams. You're seeing that happen right now.
As for who it should schedule, it doesn't need to be a top 10 team. Some decent Power 5 team would be a great move. If I were dreaming up an ideal scenario, what about Washington State? Baylor could probably do a little better in quality, but it sticks out when nine Big 12 teams play Power 5 opponents and you're the only one who doesn't. It couldn't do much better in intrigue with Art Briles going up against Mike Leach.
And what about BYU, who's scrambling to annually put together a schedule that will give them a chance to qualify for the playoff? The Cougars are starved for games after the SEC and ACC mandated their members play a Power 5 opponent and won't let Bronco Mendenhall's team count. Not many teams in either league will want to double up.
Nate Scarborough asks: What's the right move for OSU's offense for the rest of this season and next year? Too early for a change at OC?
David Ubben: If by too early, you mean right now, then yes. It's way too early. It's a tough call for Mike Gundy, who I can only assume will evaluate the position at the end of the year.
He has to, right?
In 2012, Oklahoma State led the Big 12 in yards per play with three quarterbacks shuffling in and out of the starting spot because of injury and the guy they picked at the beginning of the year (Wes Lunt) threw more interceptions than touchdowns. OSU was still effective, balanced and won eight games (five in Big 12 play) a season after losing two first-round picks in Brandon Weeden and Justin Blackmon. That's an incredible achievement.
Last year, Mike Yurcich took over a reasonably experienced offense that led the league in yards per play and the Pokes dropped to third in the Big 12 in the stat, even after switching to Clint Chelf in the middle of the season.
This year, Oklahoma State ranks seventh in the Big 12 in yards per play. That's not a promising trajectory and OSU has too much talent at the skill positions for that to be acceptable.
The offensive line is young and battled injuries all season, so a bit of a downturn is to be expected, but that's what Gundy has to weigh this year: How much of the offense's struggles are things outside of Yurcich's control (youth, injuries, etc.) and how much of these struggles (development, playcalling) can you decide are his fault?
What works against him most is how little the offense has improved as the season has gone on. Yes, they're young, but they don't seem to be progressing as much as you'd like. Maybe Gundy looks at offensive line coach Bob Connelly in that respect, too. He was replacing giant shoes in Joe Wickline, who may be the nation's best OL coach, and he hasn't had a lot to work with. That, and considering it's his first year, would make me lean toward giving him a lot of leeway.
Gundy hit home runs when he hired Dana Holgorsen and Todd Monken as offensive coordinators. He got the benefit of the doubt when he hired an unknown from a lower division, but obviously, it hasn't produced the desired results to this point.
Rusty Huff in West Virginia asks: Has there always been controversy surrounding Big 12 football officials?
David Ubben: Yes. And the answer to your question would still be yes if you took out the "Big 12" in your questions. Every conference's fans thinks their officials are the worst. Every conference has officiating controversies from time to time. The Big 12 doesn't have any more or less than, say, the Pac-12, who would get my vote for CFB's worst officials if you pressed me for an answer.
The difference between the Pac-12's deficiencies and the Big 12's isn't a wide one.
Off the top of my head, you had the Mark Mangino "dollar signs" rant, the botched holding call in Mizzou-Iowa State in 2006, the Bo Pelini blowups at the 2009 Big 12 title game (One second left! That was absolutely the right call, but you asked about controversy) and at Texas A&M in 2010, the controversial fumbles at the end of Texas-Oklahoma State in 2012 and Texas-Iowa State in 2013, and this year, the Iowa State controversies against Kansas State and Oklahoma State that ended with a Jamie Pollard rant. There was also controversial downpour of pass interference flags (most of which were actually good calls) in Baylor's loss to West Virginia.
I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch, but this is not a new phenomenon.
Austin Gonzales in Dallas asks: Realistic to think we (Texas) could knock off TCU on Thanksgiving at home?
David Ubben: Texas is the Big 12's most improved team in the second half of the year. That game in Austin looks much, much tougher than it did just a few weeks ago. The Longhorns defense is athletic and well-coached enough to slow down TCU like it did Baylor. The Longhorns' defense shut out Baylor's offense in the first half, which is just unthinkable.
The offense is improved and has established a physical identity. If the defense has a performance anywhere close to what it did against Baylor, the offense should be able to produce a bit of a cushion.
TCU is still by far the better team and TCU's offense is very different than Baylor's. The biggest difference is how much more apt the Frogs are to use the quarterback run game, but they're also not as vertical as Baylor. Texas had the athletes to match Baylor's speed down the field with Antwan Goodley, Corey Coleman and KD Cannon.
The pressure of being in the playoff chase won't help and Texas can be a very imposing locale when the fans are into it. So yes, the odds of TCU dropping that game are astronomically higher than it losing to Kansas or Iowa State.
Danny Stockton in Durham, N.C. asks: One day, will we have an expanded playoff?
David Ubben: Without a doubt. I love the four-team playoff. It's made the regular season 100 times more interesting and more fun to follow with more teams capable of playing for the title late into the season.
Eight is going to happen because there's too much money to be made, but I'd worry about that being good for the game. I've been pro-playoff forever, but college football does have the best regular season in sports. With a four-team playoff, every regular season game is still relevant. If you lose in the final week, it won't be hard to fall from No. 1 to out of the playoff. You get a little grace if you lose in the middle of the season, but you won't get irrelevant games.
An eight-team playoff would be insane and a lot of fun, but I'd take exception to basically the last game for the top two teams in the polls being irrelevant. Both could lose and still make the playoff. I don't ever want to get in a situation where it's advantageous for college football teams to rest starters and not affect their playoff hopes. Teams playing in conference title games wouldn't do it, but what about the Big 12.
If TCU was undefeated and had beaten Baylor, who finished 11-1, what reason would TCU have to play any of its starters in the season finale against Iowa State? They might be able to beat the Cyclones without many of their starters and a loss would still not be enough to keep them out of the playoff. That's not ideal.
I love the idea of an eight-team playoff in theory, but when you expand it that wide, I think some of the concerns about minimizing the impact of the regular season gain some legitimacy they never had when bowl execs and college football brass claimed a four-team playoff would have that effect.
