|
Posted 09/24/2009 at 04:01 AM
I’m a great believer in fundamental football. Beat the other team in the trenches, run the football and stop the opponent from doing so. I’ve been accused of being very “old school” in my refusal to back off my belief that this is the best way to win football games. So be it. I’ve got the stats to back up what I’m saying.
Over the past 11 years in college football, teams that have outrushed their opponents by a margin of 2/1 or better have won the game better than 88% of the time. And for those keeping score the way we do it here in Las Vegas, those teams have also covered the spread at a clip of more than 73%. There is simply no argument against those numbers.
It’s not like I have anything against passing the football. Balancing the offense is of paramount importance, as the idea is not simply to overpower the opposition, it’s also to deceive them as much as possible. But the ability to run the football, as well as stopping the run, translates into ball control, and it’s also at the core of being able to protect leads. The opponent can’t come back if they don’t have the football.
The argument against this philosophy is hollow. Detractors point to the great success Mike Leach has enjoyed at Texas Tech. It’s true that the Red Raiders have done well throwing the ball all over the field. I’ll even accept the premise that installing the spread and throwing the ball 50+ plays virtually every week put the Texas Tech program on the map. But I’ll also argue that now that the Red Raiders have reached a consistently high level, Leach would be better off throwing a little less and running a little more. Because the fact remains that while this has become a very strong program, they’re still lingering just outside that truly elite circle.
In fact, it’s interesting to note that the Red Raiders actually did put up their best offensive and defensive rushing numbers under Leach last season. I don’t feel it’s a coincidence that they enjoyed their most successful campaign with 11 victories and a good argument that they merited a BCS-bowl invite.
I’ll grudgingly accept the premise that for a program that’s mostly mediocre and unable to attract high level talent, a gimmick offense can be an equalizer that will conceivably help a program get on the winning track toward respectability. But I’ll still stick to my ardent belief that come the fourth quarter, the ability to run the football is crucial. If a team that can run the ball gets the lead, good luck trying to rally against them. But those teams that cannot run the ball, or simply refuse to do so, are simply not as good at protecting leads. There’s absolutely a greater margin for error and that means more chances for the opponent to rally.
By the way, in case you’re wondering why I brought this up, I’m still steaming over last week’s collapse by SMU in a game they should have had wrapped up. Yes, I was on the Mustangs as they dominated Washington State. This was an easy winner that turned into a very aggravating loser simply because June Jones refused to run the football. Instead, QB Bo Levi Mitchell helped hapless Wazzou back into the game with a pair of picks that went for TD’s, and then he also threw one in overtime that sealed the loss for SMU. An aberration? Nope. Just one week earlier, the Mustangs did almost the same exact thing in blowing nearly all of a huge lead at UAB, only surviving when the Blazers missed on a two-point conversion that could have forced overtime.
In any event, file this column as food for thought for those of you attempting to pick college football winners. I’m not suggesting you should simply wager against one-dimensional entries that do nothing but throw the ball. But I can tell you that my preference will continue to be on teams that figure to dominate the rushing stats. Those numbers simply cannot be ignored.
I’ll be back on Friday with this week’s free college football play.
|
