Bag of Bell (Vol. 14): Why no major conference would benefit more from CFP reform than the Big Ten; Plus U-M players I'm most excited for this fall, regional BBQ talk and more
This post is unlocked and available for all readers.
This is where I usually start my newsletter out with links to free material I’ve helped produce this week. But with Sam and Ira on furlough this week over at The Michigan Insider, I don’t have a radio appearance/podcast to plug this week.
With that in mind, I’ve decided to make this week’s mailbag free to everyone — premium subscribers and non-subscribers alike.
I stated this intention last month when I switched my newsletter to a premium format. I will try to make at least one meaty post per month free to everyone, fully understanding that not everyone is capable of paying for content (or in some cases — not interested in paying).
The vast majority of my posts going forward will continue to be premium, and I’m very appreciative of the support many of you have shown in the first month of this being a premium product. If you’re on the fence of subscribing, you can do so at the button below. It will give you access to all of the perks listed here (we’ve already filled up multiple fantasy college football leagues with cash/comped subscription prizes) and it will also unlock some of the premium newsletters I’ve put out in recent weeks, including:
A deep dive into QB play vs. RB play during the Harbaugh era: Which has been worse?
My game-by-game predictions for every Big Ten school this fall, including Michigan
An in-depth look at why Michigan needs to say no to LSU, and dial back on big games in general
With that sales job out of the way, let’s dive into this week’s mailbag. As always, you can ask questions for future mailbags in the comments below, through my Twitter account or via the mailbag’s e-mail account: bagofbell@gmail.com.
This week’s big question
Twitter question from WolverinePulse:
I’ll start this out by saying I’m not a shout-from-the-rooftop, change-must-be-made guy when it comes to the College Football Playoff. If someone asked me which system I’d prefer, I’d say bump it up to eight teams and see how that goes. But I’ll be the first to admit that recommendation would be coming from a place of self-interest.
First of all, I like college football. So telling me there would be seven CFP games instead of three be an upgrade (as a big fan of #analytics, I can confirm that 7 >3). And second of all, I’m a Michigan fan. Expanding the playoff to eight teams would have meant Michigan had played in the CFP a couple years back and would have been within striking distance of bids in multiple other past seasons.
But let’s not pretend like teams are getting screwed in the current format. The more inclusive it is, the less room to bitch teams that get “snubbed” have. I’ve never had much sympathy for teams that are NCAA Tournament “snubs” in hoops. Guess what? Sixty-eight teams make the tournament! If a couple teams got in that you think you were better than, guess what? There’s still a busload of teams that were pretty clearly more deserving than you were. Deal with it.
Did anyone really watch last year’s playoff games and say to themselves “This is great, but think about how much better it would be if Georgia, Oregon, Baylor and Memphis were involved — they really got screwed?” Of course not.
Want an example of snubs? Let’s go back to the BCS days. At the turn of the century, it was basically an anomaly if there was a season that didn’t have a team getting snubbed. In case you need a refresher…
2000: Florida State gets the nod over 11-1 Miami -- a team that beat Florida State head-to-head that season.
2001: Nebraska gets in over Oregon despite being No. 4 in both polls, not winning a conference title and losing its final game by 26 points.
2003: USC winning AP title, LSU winning BCS title after USC got snubbed out of title game
2004: Undefeated SEC champion Auburn still getting left out of the title game, with Utah also running the table and going unbeaten.
2006: Michigan, whose lone loss on the season was a 3-point defeat to No. 1 Ohio State on the road, missing out on the national title game by .0101 points to a Florida team that lost by double digits to Auburn. … Ok, let's stop here now that I'm sufficiently triggered.
In six years of the CFP, there has been one team that I think might have a case when it comes to whining about getting snubbed: 2017 UCF.
Not don’t get me wrong: UCF’s 2017 team was not one of the four best teams in the nation and the Knights didn’t deserve a spot in that playoff. But they at least had an argument they could make without embarrassing themselves. There isn’t another college sport in the country when a D1 school can win every single game it plays and not have a chance to win the D1 championship for that given sport. But 2017 UCF is the only team I’ll allow to make that argument. Every other FBS school over the past six seasons that didn’t make the CFP has lost, either in the regular season or in the bowl game that followed an unbeaten run as a G5 school (2016 Western Michigan lost to Wisconsin in the Cotton Bowl, 2018 UCF lost to LSU in the Fiesta Bowl).
And if anything, including the top G5 team adds a couple elements to the playoff that it actually needs. I think the No. 1 overall seed should get a little more of an advantage beyond geographic favorability in the semifinal matchup. Expanding to eight teams could mean feeding the G5 team to the No. 1 overall seed and giving the team that had the best regular season the closest thing to a bye they’d get in a format that lends itself to everyone playing the same amount of opponents. And serving UCF up to a Clemson or an Alabama when the stakes mean everything would eliminate any fake national championship talks for the foreseeable future.
So I guess here’s my lukewarm take: I prefer an 8-team playoff, but I’m certainly not in the camp that it’s a change that has to be made. At least not immediately. I do think it’s something that will happen, because popular opinion is shifting that way and there are coaches that are also getting behind it (hell, Jim Harbaugh supports a system that gets double-digit teams into the playoffs). But I’m a firm believer that college football power brokers will make this a slow burn, and that the first expansion is almost certainly going to be to 6 or 8 teams).
I have no issue with people advocating for something out of self-interest. But I think you shouldn’t do it under the guise of justice. It’s OK to be selfish. Just be honest about it. Michigan has lost multiple games in the regular season of the CFP era. There haven’t been years where I have felt like Michigan got screwed by the system. Don’t play the victim. Just make the smart argument.
One thing I can say definitively if you’re looking to hop aboard the self-interest train: Expanding from four teams to eight would help Michigan — and the Big Ten as a whole. Let’s take a look at the numbers.
(For the sake of this exercise, I’m using what I think is pretty widely considered to be the most popular 8-team playoff idea floated out there — 5 P5 winners get autobids, highest-ranked G5 champ gets an autobid and two highest-ranked remaining teams are in as wild cards — as my format when I calculate would-be past 8-team playoff representatives.)
There’s who the College Football Playoff qualifers have been in the first six years of the format, plus a column of which team got “snubbed” that year (i.e. was Last Team Out).
There’s how those representatives break down from a conference standpoint. The SEC has a comfortable spot at No. 1, the ACC is the clear No. 2, the Big Ten and Big 12 are tied for third quite a ways down from the ACC, and the Pac-12 limps into last place among the Power 5 conferences.
There’s who the College Football Playoff qualifiers would have been in the first six years if it was an 8-team format instead, plus a column of which team would have been “snubbed” that year (i.e. was third highest-ranked non-conference champ).
And there’s how that would have broken down by conference. The Big Ten would have jumped all the way up to the No. 1 spot. And the ACC goes from looking really solid (25% share) to the bottom of the pack in terms of P5 conferences (13% share).
That table shows what the big winners and losers would have been had we started with an 8-team playoff instead of a playoff half that size, ranked by percentage change. The clear P5 winners would’ve been the Big Ten and Pac-12. Big 12 would be in a similar spot. And the SEC and ACC would have taken a huge hit. The AAC obviously gets a huge bump, because four of the six G5 champs would have come from its conference, and there’s nowhere to go but up when your starting percentage is 0%.
What this tells me: The current system rewards the elite. There haven’t been two more elite programs than Alabama and Clemson during that span (both teams have made five playoffs in six years). But there’s absolutely nobody behind Clemson in the ACC that has even been a remote threat to make the CFP in the last five years. And outside of a couple Georgia runs and last year’s single-season breakout by LSU, the SEC has been surprisingly short on competitors, too, when it comes to flirting with CFP berths.
Expanding to eight teams wouldn’t make the CFP as exclusive of a club. And the elites would be welcoming the “very goods” to the party. And a system that welcomes very good programs would be great news for the Big Ten, because like no other conference in the country, the Big Ten is ripe with that next tier of programs — like Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin.
As for the conference realignment part of your question (both within the Big Ten and in college football as a whole), let me tackle that next week. I promised you all last week that I wouldn’t go too deep with my deep dive in this week’s newsletter so that I could save some space to answer a few extra non-deep dive questions this time around. So let’s jump into some other questions:
More mail
I’m the least “Texas pride” person that resides in the state of Texas. But when you’re talking regional BBQ, your “best of” list should start and end with the Lone Star State. It doesn’t need to be gimmicky. It’s just superior. No place in America can compete with the brisket that Texas turns out. I’m very fortunate to live within driving distance of a number of truly elite BBQ places (my waistline — not so much). I’ll take brisket from Pecan Lodge, Cattleack, Hutchins, Tender, Hard Eight and a handful of other places near my house than any place out of state. And do the sliced brisket. None of this chopped nonsense. I feel good about Texas’ sides holding up against other candidates, too.
And unfortunately, Steve, Kansas City doesn’t get my vote for No. 2, either. That silver medal belongs to Memphis. I like spice, and Memphis provides that in spades. I don’t think the meat is much to write home about and relying too much on its sauce means Memphis can’t really come close to competing for my top spot, but its sauce is superior to all other regions and that needs to count for something.
Kansas City can go ahead and claim bronze — Lord knows it’s better than the kibble the Carolinas trot out and try to brag about — but I think KC BBQ is fairly overrated. I don’t like the idea of rubs on BBQ and that’s where the biggest deduction comes in my book. I will admit that I like the concept of burnt ends and KC is where I’d turn if I needed some. But KC lacks the depth and versatility that Texas and Memphis can tout.
And as mentioned above, BBQ from the Carolinas is straight-up garbage. I went to Charlotte to watch Michigan play in the NCAA Tournament back in 2010 and the experience of watching Michigan blow Tennessee out of the water was almost ruined by my post-game meal of Carolina-style BBQ. I 100% thought somebody was playing a prank on me. The fact that Carolinians even try to insert themselves in the BBQ discussion is offensive in itself, and similar to St. Louis people trying to inject themselves in “best pizza” discussions. OK, I’ll stop before I offend any other regions of the country.
Twitter question from YostBuilt:
*Looks around* … Uhh, writing… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ?
Kind of goes without saying, but a good chunk of my free time has gone into this newsletter. Outside of the actual writing for the newsletter, I’ve sunk a lot of time and energy into trying to organically grow its reach and also help turn it into a legitimate “Michigan sports community.” I’ve committed to doing a recurring radio appearance and one-off various podcast appearances in an effort to help spread the word about this. So while on the surface it might just look like writing ~4,000-5,000 words a week in a newsletter (not exactly an easy task in itself, but I digress), there’s definitely more that goes into this than just vomiting a bunch of words into Substack’s CMS once a week.
From a non-newsletter standpoint, I really haven’t taken on too many big projects. I’m the least handy person in the world, but I guess I did end up building a playground a couple months back (with a significant helping hand from my father-in-law). I wouldn’t say I discovered any new skills throughout that process, though, unless you can count patience. Or being able to hit my own thumb with a hammer an absurd amount of times without breaking it.
And really, now that I think of it, I guess patience probably is my best answer for the newly discovered skill portion of this question. I’ve been stay-at-home-ing with a 3-year-old and a 1-year-old kid. My wife is an essential healthcare worker, so I’ve been solo with those kids for a pretty decent chunk of this period. It’s honestly great to get to spend a lot of time with my kids at an age like this, because journalism hours aren’t exactly the most family-friendly hours in the world. So I’m trying not to complain too much. But if you’re stuck at home with two energetic kids under the age of four while simulteanously trying to do a full-time job remotely, you’re going to have to learn to be patient with said children really quick.
Especially when the 3-year-old ends up breaking his leg.
In terms of interests/revisiting hobbies, the first couple of months I had been really good with exercising. That’s taken a backseat the last month or so, though, once the broken leg came into the equation. That cut into whatever little “me time” a dad of two young kids typically has. “Me time” went from doing 5-6 HIIT workouts per week to helping my son use the bathroom 5-6 times per day. The joys of fatherhood.
The kiddos are back in school now, though. So that at least means when I’m working, I can have old seasons of Survivor on as background noise instead of kids shows on Netflix. If I hear or see BabyShark or CoCoMelon or LuLuKids one more time before the end of quarantine, I’m probably going to snap.
It’s cute that you think I have any say on where I travel for the next 15 years. While I’d love the answer to be Jamaica, Australia, Las Vegas, Ann Arbor and Tanzania, any person that knows how family dynamics work with little kids know that a more accurate answer is probably Orlando (for DisneyWorld), Anaheim (for DisneyLand), Paris (for EuroDisney), Galveston (to get on a cruise ship with all of those annoying characters from DreamWorks movies) and whereever the hell they do the Disney Cruises from.
I’ll get this out of the way first: My excitement comes more from a place of excitement and curiosity than anything else. The players/groups I’m outlining below aren’t my picks to be the best. But they’re people and units that I think could break out and really help take Michigan to the next level. Or they’re linchpins that could very well determine the overall direction of the season, despite not being a “marquee player.”
Players:
Giles Jackson — It’s hard not to be excited about Jackson and his ceiling with this offense. Despite being a true freshman, he was Michigan’s leading receiver in its bowl game against Alabama. He had the opening-drive touchdown against Ohio State. In that same month, he had a 50-yard reception against Indiana, a couple of first-down runs against Michigan State and a kickoff return for a touchdown to open the game against Maryland. The more Josh Gattis settled in as playcaller and had his imprint on the offense grow, the more Jackson was a key part of that offensive attack — despite being surrounded by a lot of veteran talent. With a more manageable depth chart and an offseason of preparation and physical maturing in the books, I’m very excited to see what Giles Jackson v 2.0 looks like.
Chris Evans — I’m very curious to see how Josh Gattis uses a weapon like Evans, who was on the shelf last season during Gattis’ first year in Ann Arbor. People forget that Chris Evans was second on the team in rushing as a freshman in 2016 -- outrushing Karan Higdon and averaging 7.0 (!) yards per carry. That’s more than 2 yards per carry better than De’Veon Smith, the team’s leading rusher that season. In the two years that followed, he became more involved in the passing game (34 catches for 305 yards). Evans has shown that he can contribute in a number of different ways. Where that will be in 2020 is unknown. Zach Charbonnet, Hassan Haskins and Christian Turner are all capable returning runners. The hype around Blake Corum continues to intensify. So using Evans as a true RB might not be best utilizing his talents. Whether it’s putting him in as a third-down back or fully pushing him to the slot, Gattis has another fun toy to play with and I’m excited to see how it shakes out.
Luiji Vilain — Since Jim Harbaugh arrived in Ann Arbor, Michigan has signed four defensive linemen who were national top-100 players: Rashan Gary (No. 1), Aubrey Solomon (No. 23), Chris Hinton (No. 31) and Luiji Vilain (No. 57). While the four’s impact varies greatly, Vilain has made the smallest impact out of everyone, and he’s been on campus just as long as any of the rest have. Most of his lack of an impact can be traced back to injuries, though, and barring any sort of setback, Vilain will enter 2020 the healthiest he’s been in his career. He’ll also enter with the most appealing depth chart. Kwity Paye and Aidan Hutchinson have both been more productive defensive ends than Vilain, but Hutchinson might situationally move inside and both Paye and Hutchinson are arguably better on the strongside, with Vilain projecting better to the weakside. This is purely a selection based on wishful thinking and figures crossed, but I’m incredibly excited to see what a (hopefully) healthy Vilain can do this fall.
Andre Seldon — Ambry Thomas has one of the cornerback jobs on lockdown. And there’s no reason to believe Vincent Gray won’t be the guy on the other side to start the season. But people that have seen Seldon play rave about his ability. He was touted by more than one analyst as being the best cornerback during the Under Armour All-American Game and during the practices/evaluation period leading up to it. His size has to be a concern to even the most optimistic of fans (he’s listed as 5-foot-8 and 154 pounds on his 247Sports recruiting profile), but at some point measurables are just measurables and you take production from whoever will give it. There’s a chance he could be another Terry Richardson, but he could also be another Josiah Scott or Jeff Gladney. With Michigan having iffy depth at the cornerback position and with defenses having to show 5-6 DB looks more and more, I expect Seldon to get some opportunities to play right away, even if it’s just as a slot corner. And I think he’ll turn quite a few heads.
Position groups:
Tight ends — When Jim Harbaugh took over, Michigan really looked like it could stake its claim as a potential TE U in college football. Devin Funchess was just on his way out and got selected as a 2nd round pick in the NFL Draft (far from a pure TE, but he could certainly still be claimed as one for recruiting purposes). Then in 2015, Jake Butt was the Big Ten’s clear No. 1 TE. In 2016, he was in lockstep with Mike Gesicki and Troy Fumagalli as the conference’s top TE. In both cases, Butt was comfortably in the top 20 of Big Ten pass catchers — regardless of position. No Big Ten school has had more than two TEs in the top 20 during the span of Harbaugh’s hiring to the present day. But in the three years that have followed, Michigan has seen a drop off at the tight end position. Part of that is due to Jake Butt heading to the NFL and Michigan spreading the ball out more to a number of TEs. But Zach Gentry is the only Michigan TE to break the top 50 in Big Ten receiving yardage over the past three years — he was 50th in 2017 and 22nd in 2018. With Sean McKeon’s eligibility fulfilled and Nick Eubanks returning for his senior year, this will probably be Michigan’s closest thing to a true “feature tight end” since Butt left. I’m very curious to see if Michigan’s tight end play can return to early Harbaugh form or if it’s going to be a secondary weapon in the Gattis system.
Defensive tackles — This is the unit/player that’s on this list less for the excitement factor and more for the edge-of-your-seat-please-God-don’t-let-anyone-get-hurt factor. Call it whatever morbid curiosity, but you’d have a hard time finding someone to disagree with the fact that this unit has the thinnest depth on the team.
Don’t confuse my depth concerns/worry watching as a sign that I think this unit sucks. I’ll recycle this chart from my deep dive on defensive line play from last month. Line play was a statistical improvement across the board from 2018 to 2019, even if it didn’t always seem that way via the eye test. A huge chunk of the success of this year’s team will depend on if younger, less physically developed players like Chris Hinton and Mazi Smith are ready to step in and make the leap to full-time contributors.
Quarterbacks — Please be good. Please.
That’s it for this week. Next week’s newsletter will flip back to the premium format. If you’re not already a subscriber, I’d love to have you join for next week and beyond.