They are who we thought they were!
As I sit here and watch my Bears (because yes, I own them) get thrashed in the most embarrassing of fashions, I've begun to think back to better days as a Bears fan to help alleviate the pain of what I'm watching. The above quote references this famous interview with then Cardinals coach Dennis Green, who is (understandably) upset at his team blowing a huge lead and losing to whom? The Bears. Oh, my apologies. DA BEARS.
The reason that rant struck me as relevant is because at this moment, while I reflect on the Central Michigan- NC State game yesterday, I can't help but draw a correlation from my pal Dennis.
Central Michigan is who we thought they were.
This team is exactly what they were supposed to be heading into this season, a team with more questions than answers and an overwhelming feeling of underachievement. Freshman quarterback Cooper Rush is dealing with a tough reality check as he has struggled with turnovers ever since becoming the starter. The offense has been plagued by poor play by the offensive line, questionable play calling by head coach Dan Enos and, as mentioned, turnovers from the quarterback position.
To put it simply, the Chippewas were quite simply outclassed in this game. Fully, completely outclassed in every aspect of the game. They were in this game for all of five minutes.
To add insult to injury, the Chippewas have underperformed on offense in every game. With the talented receivers Central has, as well as a capable back in Lavalli, this team should be scoring at a more regular and consistent clip. Enos has taken a ridiculously conservative approach on offense this year, drawing frustration from Chippewa fans and limiting his team's offensive potential.
So where does the season go from here?
The Chippewas have four potentially winnable game on the schedule, barring miraculous victories against Northern Illinois, Ohio and Ball St. Two of the four are at home, and thus give the Chippewas their best chance at increasing their win total, however at this point, winning all four should be considered VERY optimistic.
With a best case scenario four wins in the remaining seven games, that leaves the Chippewas at 5-7, finishing a losing season in three of the four years Enos has coached CMU. Despite his extension lasting through 2015, Enos will be on the proverbial hot seat if that is indeed how the season ends.
Think Enos will still be coaching next season? Got some creative trash talk about the Bears game today? Want to know the meaning of life? Leave it all in the comments, or just contact me however you see fit. This piece is the sixth installment in a series of recaps I am writing on the Central Michigan football team, tune in next week as I recap the game between the Chippewas and the Redbirds of Miami (OH).
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Take the money and run
I'm not a consistent reader of Time magazine. I don't even remember the last time I read an article in one. But ever since this particular issue graced the newsstands, I felt the time had come to discuss what is one of the hottest issues in sports right now, and the current headache for the NCAA.
The issue at play here is the payment of NCAA athletes, specifically football and basketball players, which is currently in violation of NCAA rules and jeopardizes the "amateur" status of college athletes. Many people feel that the NCAA takes advantage of the athletes and profits off of their image and achievements while also prohibiting them to do the same.
In a nutshell, current NCAA rules liken athletes to volunteers, as opposed to employees. The NCAA, or National Collegiate Athletic Association, will use the players likeness to sell T-shirts, jerseys, and all sorts of other gadgets. Their likeness will grace the rosters of video games such as NCAA football, their exact measurements, numbers and age intact. But by omitting the names, the parties that contribute to bring together the game remove their responsibilities to pay the players.
Johnny Manziel, the standout quarterback for Texas A & M, is flashy. arrogant and cocky, to put it nicely. He talks the talk, oh boy does he talk, but he also walks the walk. He is one of the better players in recent memory to light up college football, and as such, he has copious requests for autographs. He was recently involved in a very questionable scheme where it is believed that he profited off the sale of his own autograph, however the NCAA chose not to suspend him after a lengthy investigation.
The discussion sweeping the nation is such.
Should college athletes be paid for their work?
First off, the argument FOR the paying of players. I'm going to assume a persona for this argument. This persona's name is John. He is 23, loves college football, money, partying and voiding all social responsibility. I assume this persona only because it is the most common type of individual who aligns themselves with the athletes getting compensated. John is asked how to settle the issue of paying players in the NCAA versus leaving them as amateurs.
" They need to be paid. They make so much money for the athletic programs, and the schools just sell their jerseys and likenesses. The players make these programs what they are, and the schools make so much money, they definitely have enough to pay the players."
John is part of an uninformed and assuming faction of fans who believe that the majority of college football programs operate in the green. This could not be further from the truth. According to recent figures, only 22 out of 120 college athletic programs turn a profit. For many schools, including my Alma Mater CMU, they operate with as much as a 15 million dollar deficit every year.
Now, lets examine a crucial flaw in the group think here. Football is, of course, the largest generator of revenue for most programs (45%, on average). If the football programs don't even make enough revenue to cover the losses from every other sport, how is their possibly enough money to be distributed to the players? Additionally, while about 58% of football and 56% of men's basketball teams are self-sufficient, only 1 women's basketball program is. For the remaining 98 schools operating in the red, there is no way to distribute funds to athletes without plunging the program further into debt.
Here come's John again. He's listened half-heartedly to the facts, considered the figures and arrived at a conclusion. John is an Alabama fan, and has decided that he still doesn't understand why schools that have the money cannot pay athletes if they so choose. Two reasons John.
Reason number 1: School A operates on a 10 million a year profit. School B operates at a loss of 5 million every year. They are in the same conference, same region, and compete for the same recruits. School A sees that School B gets a free pass on paying their athletes because they don't have the funds to do so, yet A is expected to pay it's athletes because it does turn a profit? This presents an unfair situation for school A, and would create more issues than it would solve.
Reason number 2: Say that the NCAA allows schools to pay its students if it has the funds to do so. School A promises every 5 star recruit a $5,000 signing bonus to come to play. Assuming the recruit is on the fence between the two, he or she is much more likely to choose the money over school B. Faced with this impossible disadvantage, school B resorts to drudging up the funds to pay players from all the worst places, increasing the financial strain on the university as a whole.
And now to my personal take on the matter, Using mostly the logic from reason #2 above, I feel there is an obvious gap between the top earners in college football and...well, everyone else. Assuming that the majority of recruits will choose to play at a school that offers them money versus one that does not, the playing field is hardly level from a recruiting stand point. Allowing schools to pay athletes will open the flood gates, per se. Where does the line get drawn once players are no longer amateurs, but paid?
After substantial thought, I have arrived at a potentially simple compromise for both sides. Schools will continue to compensate their athletes as they currently do within NCAA rules, to very specific guidelines. However, a player would be the manager of their own personal brand, as I feel is their right. If star QB James Jameson wants to sign and sell 50 jerseys outside of practice for five bucks a pop, then by all means, he can. If he is approached by a local car dealership asking him to star in a commercial, then he would be free to do so, provided it did not conflict with any organized team activities. The minute that an athlete's self promotion impeded on team activities, he or she would be subject to action by the university.
As you might expect, this compromise does create a somewhat unfair playing field. A student playing at Southern Alabama State, if that even exists, will not be able to create the sort of revenue off of autographs/commercials/memorabilia sales as say, Johnny Manziel. The simple fact is that the big schools will always attract bigger profile players, and those players will likely draw more demand for autographs. However, the beauty of this system allows players to make at least a portion of what they think they deserve, (as if free college wasn't enough) while completely removing the financial burden on colleges.
The sports world is getting all too familiar with the frequent admissions and scandals involving impermissible benefits received by athletes. The NCAA can suspend players and punish programs for as long as they want, but the violations will not stop. Whether it be tattoos, Tahoes or tacos, there are plenty of athletes who will ask for and receive compensation from coaches and boosters. Why not fight fire with fire and implement a policy that allows the NCAA to focus on what it does best, while allowing athletes the flexibility to make the money for a large fry to go with their Big Mac.
The issue at play here is the payment of NCAA athletes, specifically football and basketball players, which is currently in violation of NCAA rules and jeopardizes the "amateur" status of college athletes. Many people feel that the NCAA takes advantage of the athletes and profits off of their image and achievements while also prohibiting them to do the same.
In a nutshell, current NCAA rules liken athletes to volunteers, as opposed to employees. The NCAA, or National Collegiate Athletic Association, will use the players likeness to sell T-shirts, jerseys, and all sorts of other gadgets. Their likeness will grace the rosters of video games such as NCAA football, their exact measurements, numbers and age intact. But by omitting the names, the parties that contribute to bring together the game remove their responsibilities to pay the players.
Johnny Manziel, the standout quarterback for Texas A & M, is flashy. arrogant and cocky, to put it nicely. He talks the talk, oh boy does he talk, but he also walks the walk. He is one of the better players in recent memory to light up college football, and as such, he has copious requests for autographs. He was recently involved in a very questionable scheme where it is believed that he profited off the sale of his own autograph, however the NCAA chose not to suspend him after a lengthy investigation.
The discussion sweeping the nation is such.
Should college athletes be paid for their work?
First off, the argument FOR the paying of players. I'm going to assume a persona for this argument. This persona's name is John. He is 23, loves college football, money, partying and voiding all social responsibility. I assume this persona only because it is the most common type of individual who aligns themselves with the athletes getting compensated. John is asked how to settle the issue of paying players in the NCAA versus leaving them as amateurs.
" They need to be paid. They make so much money for the athletic programs, and the schools just sell their jerseys and likenesses. The players make these programs what they are, and the schools make so much money, they definitely have enough to pay the players."
John is part of an uninformed and assuming faction of fans who believe that the majority of college football programs operate in the green. This could not be further from the truth. According to recent figures, only 22 out of 120 college athletic programs turn a profit. For many schools, including my Alma Mater CMU, they operate with as much as a 15 million dollar deficit every year.
Now, lets examine a crucial flaw in the group think here. Football is, of course, the largest generator of revenue for most programs (45%, on average). If the football programs don't even make enough revenue to cover the losses from every other sport, how is their possibly enough money to be distributed to the players? Additionally, while about 58% of football and 56% of men's basketball teams are self-sufficient, only 1 women's basketball program is. For the remaining 98 schools operating in the red, there is no way to distribute funds to athletes without plunging the program further into debt.
Here come's John again. He's listened half-heartedly to the facts, considered the figures and arrived at a conclusion. John is an Alabama fan, and has decided that he still doesn't understand why schools that have the money cannot pay athletes if they so choose. Two reasons John.
Reason number 1: School A operates on a 10 million a year profit. School B operates at a loss of 5 million every year. They are in the same conference, same region, and compete for the same recruits. School A sees that School B gets a free pass on paying their athletes because they don't have the funds to do so, yet A is expected to pay it's athletes because it does turn a profit? This presents an unfair situation for school A, and would create more issues than it would solve.
Reason number 2: Say that the NCAA allows schools to pay its students if it has the funds to do so. School A promises every 5 star recruit a $5,000 signing bonus to come to play. Assuming the recruit is on the fence between the two, he or she is much more likely to choose the money over school B. Faced with this impossible disadvantage, school B resorts to drudging up the funds to pay players from all the worst places, increasing the financial strain on the university as a whole.
And now to my personal take on the matter, Using mostly the logic from reason #2 above, I feel there is an obvious gap between the top earners in college football and...well, everyone else. Assuming that the majority of recruits will choose to play at a school that offers them money versus one that does not, the playing field is hardly level from a recruiting stand point. Allowing schools to pay athletes will open the flood gates, per se. Where does the line get drawn once players are no longer amateurs, but paid?
After substantial thought, I have arrived at a potentially simple compromise for both sides. Schools will continue to compensate their athletes as they currently do within NCAA rules, to very specific guidelines. However, a player would be the manager of their own personal brand, as I feel is their right. If star QB James Jameson wants to sign and sell 50 jerseys outside of practice for five bucks a pop, then by all means, he can. If he is approached by a local car dealership asking him to star in a commercial, then he would be free to do so, provided it did not conflict with any organized team activities. The minute that an athlete's self promotion impeded on team activities, he or she would be subject to action by the university.
As you might expect, this compromise does create a somewhat unfair playing field. A student playing at Southern Alabama State, if that even exists, will not be able to create the sort of revenue off of autographs/commercials/memorabilia sales as say, Johnny Manziel. The simple fact is that the big schools will always attract bigger profile players, and those players will likely draw more demand for autographs. However, the beauty of this system allows players to make at least a portion of what they think they deserve, (as if free college wasn't enough) while completely removing the financial burden on colleges.
The sports world is getting all too familiar with the frequent admissions and scandals involving impermissible benefits received by athletes. The NCAA can suspend players and punish programs for as long as they want, but the violations will not stop. Whether it be tattoos, Tahoes or tacos, there are plenty of athletes who will ask for and receive compensation from coaches and boosters. Why not fight fire with fire and implement a policy that allows the NCAA to focus on what it does best, while allowing athletes the flexibility to make the money for a large fry to go with their Big Mac.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Rockets blast off at Kelly-Shorts
Lets take a trip back to our childhoods together. Granted, we didn't all lead the same lives as children, but if you were a normal kid, at some point down the line, you made your parents angry. My personal specialty in this area was my method of "cleaning" which usually consisted of trying to hide the mess and hope my parents never noticed.
It didn't really work.
Worse than my plan not working out was the anger that would follow the discovery. Now, we all make mistakes, we all do things that anger other people, but it generally doesn't last. At that point in our lives, our parents generally forgive and forget, like that TV show, and that's the end of it.
I could deal with my parents being angry with me, that was one thing. However I can think of a few moments in my life where I maybe didn't make my parents mad, but I disappointed them. Being a disappointment to someone, even if just for a few moments, that always stung me worse.
After watching the game this past Saturday in which the CMU football team squandered away it's chances of winning by turning the ball over in the most pivotal moments, I can honestly say; I'm not mad. I am disappointed in this team. Ok, maybe a little bit mad as well.
I am disappointed that a team can show the potential, the ability, to stay with a team that has traditionally been one of the top scoring offenses in the MAC. I'm disappointed that this team has been unable to play two halves of good football in any one single game this year, and has, in the opinions of many, underperformed.
Now, you might be thinking, why would they care if I'm disappointed, I'm just another broke student with no background in college football, and you're right, they probably don't. I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you constantly talk about how bad a team is or how they are doing, then you are contributing nothing of worth to the team as a fan or in any other capacity. I'm not trying to arrange myself on a soapbox here and blast the team to all of you, my adoring readers.
On the occasions when I had disappointed my parents, I was given a similar speech, which left me with the unmistakeable feeling that my parents were, above all, worried about the particular choice I made because they knew, deep down, I could always do better, be better than what I was. That's how I feel about this football team. I don't aim to criticize them while offering nothing to build them back up. I want them to know what I know, that if they want to go out and beat teams that are, on paper, better than them, then they can do it.And if you didn't see that potential from the game this Saturday, then I don't know what game you were watching. Maybe none at all. Maybe season five of Gossip Girl, no judgements.
So here I offer some concise thoughts about the game and certain aspects that I liked and others that I didn't.
I don't enjoy feeling disappointed in this team. I don't enjoy defending them against the horde of Enos haters who clamor about how horrible this team is. It tires me out and is going to speed up the onset of arthritis. I want so badly for this team to iron out the kinks, namely ball control, and get to the level that I know they can play at. Oh, and once again, don't forget that Cooper Rush is a redhead. Just throwing that out there, do with it what you will .
Enjoy the column? I did too, funny how that works. If you're unaware, a new follower of mine or have just been living under a rock for the past 6 weeks, this is the most recent post in a weekly series where I recap the Central Michigan University football games, and throw in as many needless puns, anecdotes and sob stories as I can while I'm at it. Also, a small side note. If any of you know a decent alternative (do NOT say Wordpress. I feel filthy just saying the words.) to using a blog site run by a indecent company such as Google, please let me know, I'm in a bit of a pickle and considering a move.Thanks for reading, and tune in next week as I recap the CMU-NC State game.
It didn't really work.
Worse than my plan not working out was the anger that would follow the discovery. Now, we all make mistakes, we all do things that anger other people, but it generally doesn't last. At that point in our lives, our parents generally forgive and forget, like that TV show, and that's the end of it.
I could deal with my parents being angry with me, that was one thing. However I can think of a few moments in my life where I maybe didn't make my parents mad, but I disappointed them. Being a disappointment to someone, even if just for a few moments, that always stung me worse.
After watching the game this past Saturday in which the CMU football team squandered away it's chances of winning by turning the ball over in the most pivotal moments, I can honestly say; I'm not mad. I am disappointed in this team. Ok, maybe a little bit mad as well.
I am disappointed that a team can show the potential, the ability, to stay with a team that has traditionally been one of the top scoring offenses in the MAC. I'm disappointed that this team has been unable to play two halves of good football in any one single game this year, and has, in the opinions of many, underperformed.
Now, you might be thinking, why would they care if I'm disappointed, I'm just another broke student with no background in college football, and you're right, they probably don't. I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you constantly talk about how bad a team is or how they are doing, then you are contributing nothing of worth to the team as a fan or in any other capacity. I'm not trying to arrange myself on a soapbox here and blast the team to all of you, my adoring readers.
On the occasions when I had disappointed my parents, I was given a similar speech, which left me with the unmistakeable feeling that my parents were, above all, worried about the particular choice I made because they knew, deep down, I could always do better, be better than what I was. That's how I feel about this football team. I don't aim to criticize them while offering nothing to build them back up. I want them to know what I know, that if they want to go out and beat teams that are, on paper, better than them, then they can do it.And if you didn't see that potential from the game this Saturday, then I don't know what game you were watching. Maybe none at all. Maybe season five of Gossip Girl, no judgements.
So here I offer some concise thoughts about the game and certain aspects that I liked and others that I didn't.
- The run game was DYNAMIC. Even with new starter Saylor Lavalli missing some pivotal running lanes that the line opened for him, the beautiful thing is that 1.) those lanes even existed, and 2.) Lavalli managed to find a lot of open space outside of the tackles, which if you've been keeping up with me on these CMU posts is what I've wanted him to do all along. Lavalli managed 144 yards on 26 carries, along with scoring a short touchdown. A universal truth in football is to get the ball into the hands of your play-makers, and Lavalli is that guy.
- The passing game was inconsistent, and could honestly count for both a pro and con of this game. On one hand, Cooper Rush threw two very accurate passes during the game. To Toledo linebackers. On the other hand, seeing Rush throw some of these passes reminds me of better days for CMU football, the days when Dan LeFevour was throwing crisp, balanced passes all around the field. Inexperience and nerves are hurting him right now, but Rush is a true freshman, and if he can work out the kinks, he'll be the future.
- Defensively, the Chippewas held the Rockets and their two QB's to only 166 yards passing, and also forced one turnover. However, this accomplishment seems a little less glamorous when you factor in the yards the Chippewas allowed on the ground. 252, to be exact, mostly to senior RB David Fluellen, who I swear has somehow entered his 12th season of eligibility for Toledo, the guy has been playing for them as long as I can remember. Someone needs to do a double check there.
- As a young lad, I never met a sock I couldn't lose. It was such a futile struggle to keep my drawers full of enough socks to keep myself happy, so futile, in fact, that it reminds me of the Chippewas D-line. Oh SNAP. Yeah, I'll harass this group week in and week out until they create some pressure on somebody. Quarterbacks having all day in the pocket is hurting us immensely, and the D-Line needs to step up and do something about it. Just do me a favor, nobody tell them I said anything, okay? They really don't need to know, and honestly, compared to them, I am kinda small.
I don't enjoy feeling disappointed in this team. I don't enjoy defending them against the horde of Enos haters who clamor about how horrible this team is. It tires me out and is going to speed up the onset of arthritis. I want so badly for this team to iron out the kinks, namely ball control, and get to the level that I know they can play at. Oh, and once again, don't forget that Cooper Rush is a redhead. Just throwing that out there, do with it what you will .
Enjoy the column? I did too, funny how that works. If you're unaware, a new follower of mine or have just been living under a rock for the past 6 weeks, this is the most recent post in a weekly series where I recap the Central Michigan University football games, and throw in as many needless puns, anecdotes and sob stories as I can while I'm at it. Also, a small side note. If any of you know a decent alternative (do NOT say Wordpress. I feel filthy just saying the words.) to using a blog site run by a indecent company such as Google, please let me know, I'm in a bit of a pickle and considering a move.Thanks for reading, and tune in next week as I recap the CMU-NC State game.
Monday, September 16, 2013
CMU folds in Las Vegas
I have to level with all of you.
I didn't watch the CMU game this previous Saturday. I did not see even one second of gameplay. I went back on my pledge to watch every game this season back in the previous posts and for that, I apologize. Sometimes other things, more important things, come up and must be addressed. This Saturday was one of those cases.
Ok, moving past that.
I did my homework on the game, however. I read about how the game went and it became obvious to me that this was, like the UNH game, a tale of two halves. Central went from completely dominating UNLV in the first half and racing to a 21-0 lead to completely collapsing in the second half and losing the game by a score of 31-21. Hell, I think the only team that committed a worse blunder is Wisconsin. After putting up 253 yards of offense in the first half, Central managed only 125 in the 2nd half, while also turning the ball over twice.
It's hard to say what caused such a stunning collapse. Some might say that it is karma coming back around, since we won last week off the same sort of collapse by UNH. Or perhaps it was that the ginger demi-god Cooper Rush finally showed some weakness with two straight drive killing interceptions.A quick look at the stats confirms that the Chippewas run game was shut down in the second half, forcing CMU to attack UNLV one dimensionally, and once that happened, it was too easy to expose their weaknesses.
I would attribute the loss to over-confidence, and the assumption that the game was in hand. I've seen a lot of teams come out completely different, both positively and negatively, from halftime, and if there is one simple truth in football it is that you cannot have that mindset in a game. By coming onto the field with a cruise control mentality, the team becomes complacent, they stop trying, stop hustling, stop making those big plays. If you ask me, that is exactly what happened here. Oh, and UNLV backup Caleb Herring, that happened too.
If you didn't bother to read the intro, I'll give you the Sparknotes version. I didn't watch this game. My deepest apologies. However, I WILL be watching the Chippewas next game against Toledo, and I will be hoping for a Chippewas win like the rest of you. Right? Ok. Tune in next week for quality content people. Au Revoir.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Better late than never
It took three quarterbacks, ninety minutes of football and a host of offensive plays for Central Michigan University to finally find an offensive rhythm this season. That stretch of confused, seemingly inept football ended in the third quarter of Central's game versus the University of New Hampshire on Saturday, but not before it threw fans through a loop.
The season started with Cody Kater at the helm. Kater, a transfer from Cincinnati who also had extensive experience at Grand Rapids Community College won the starting job in the spring and began the season as the starter. After his struggles in the Michigan game, culminating with his injury, Alex Niznak took the reigns, and seemed to show some promise. Ironically, it was in Saturday's game against UNH where Niznak himself struggled and was replaced with Cooper Rush.
This move, seemingly born out of desperation, was the best possible thing that could've happened to CMU. The Wildcats had come out of the gate with passion and a lethal option based offense, and were busy wiping Central all over the field up to that point. Rush came out poised and confident, and led the offense on four scoring drives, including the game winning field goal with less than 4 minutes left in the game.
What changed for the CMU football team? What allowed a team that was being shut out by an FCS team to mount an improbable comeback in just one half of football?
Obviously, the X factor here was Cooper Rush. He dominated the Wildcats by using play-action passing and finding the open man, typically star wide out Titus Davis. The most dynamic play of the game was a brilliantly thrown catch and run by Rush to Davis that went for a 97 yard touchdown. He finished 19-32 for 326 yards and 3 touchdown receptions.
Rush succeeded in the second half as a result of the play action, which required the effective running of first time starter Saylor Lavalli to keep the defense guessing. Lavalli finished with 93 yards on 24 carries for a 4.7 YPC average. While Lavalli excelled in space on the edges, it was painfully obvious in the first half that the team misses the punch of a solid runner like Zurlon Tipton, who is out indefinitely with a broken ankle. CMU missed several short conversions on 4th down, going for the touchdown in lieu of attempting field goals. This is an issue that could plague the Chippewas all season long, as the team lacks a solid replacement for Tipton's bruiser running style.
The Chippewas defense was stronger in some key areas against UNH where they struggled against Michigan.
In the first half, the Chippewas defense seemed a bit lackluster, and it appeared the game might be headed in a similar direction as the last game. In the 3rd quarter, the defense led a more effective pass rush, and their penetration in the backfield slowed the Wildcat's rushing attack while simultaneously leading to several sacks of UNH QB Andy Valais. The defense also came up with several key turnovers, which led to Chippewa scores.
Overall, the game raised a lot more questions than it answered. Chippewa fans are still unsure of who will end this season as the starting quarterback, or how effective the defense will be at controlling some of the MAC's more potent offenses. We don't know how many games we'll end up winning, or whether the team will return to a bowl game. However at least for me, the most important question for the time being has been answered.
Cooper Rush is, at least for now, the starter at Central Michigan University. And, in case you didn't know, and I'm not saying this is the reason why he was successful, but....
HE'S A GINGER.
Like what you read here? This is part 3 of my weekly series focused on following CMU football. Tune in next week as I recap the Chippewas game against the UNLV Rebels in Las Vegas.
The season started with Cody Kater at the helm. Kater, a transfer from Cincinnati who also had extensive experience at Grand Rapids Community College won the starting job in the spring and began the season as the starter. After his struggles in the Michigan game, culminating with his injury, Alex Niznak took the reigns, and seemed to show some promise. Ironically, it was in Saturday's game against UNH where Niznak himself struggled and was replaced with Cooper Rush.
This move, seemingly born out of desperation, was the best possible thing that could've happened to CMU. The Wildcats had come out of the gate with passion and a lethal option based offense, and were busy wiping Central all over the field up to that point. Rush came out poised and confident, and led the offense on four scoring drives, including the game winning field goal with less than 4 minutes left in the game.
What changed for the CMU football team? What allowed a team that was being shut out by an FCS team to mount an improbable comeback in just one half of football?
Obviously, the X factor here was Cooper Rush. He dominated the Wildcats by using play-action passing and finding the open man, typically star wide out Titus Davis. The most dynamic play of the game was a brilliantly thrown catch and run by Rush to Davis that went for a 97 yard touchdown. He finished 19-32 for 326 yards and 3 touchdown receptions.
Rush succeeded in the second half as a result of the play action, which required the effective running of first time starter Saylor Lavalli to keep the defense guessing. Lavalli finished with 93 yards on 24 carries for a 4.7 YPC average. While Lavalli excelled in space on the edges, it was painfully obvious in the first half that the team misses the punch of a solid runner like Zurlon Tipton, who is out indefinitely with a broken ankle. CMU missed several short conversions on 4th down, going for the touchdown in lieu of attempting field goals. This is an issue that could plague the Chippewas all season long, as the team lacks a solid replacement for Tipton's bruiser running style.
The Chippewas defense was stronger in some key areas against UNH where they struggled against Michigan.
In the first half, the Chippewas defense seemed a bit lackluster, and it appeared the game might be headed in a similar direction as the last game. In the 3rd quarter, the defense led a more effective pass rush, and their penetration in the backfield slowed the Wildcat's rushing attack while simultaneously leading to several sacks of UNH QB Andy Valais. The defense also came up with several key turnovers, which led to Chippewa scores.
Overall, the game raised a lot more questions than it answered. Chippewa fans are still unsure of who will end this season as the starting quarterback, or how effective the defense will be at controlling some of the MAC's more potent offenses. We don't know how many games we'll end up winning, or whether the team will return to a bowl game. However at least for me, the most important question for the time being has been answered.
Cooper Rush is, at least for now, the starter at Central Michigan University. And, in case you didn't know, and I'm not saying this is the reason why he was successful, but....
HE'S A GINGER.
Like what you read here? This is part 3 of my weekly series focused on following CMU football. Tune in next week as I recap the Chippewas game against the UNLV Rebels in Las Vegas.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Annihilated in Ann Arbor
I'm going to start off this review by making a definitive statement about the game yesterday.
I'm not angry that CMU didn't win that game. They didn't let me or any other fan down, because despite the volatile, anything-can-happen nature of college football, there are vast differences between the programs of CMU and U of M. These differences were quite apparent in the game, and as expected, Central didn't stand much of a chance.
So yes, I'm bummed that we lost, bummed that we weren't at least able to keep the game close. But if getting pummeled by a Big Ten powerhouse makes us more prepared to deal with the remainder of our schedule, then so be it. Central follows it's toughest game of the season with it's easiest, at least on paper. The University of New Hampshire plays in the Football Championship Subdivision, but seems to do well there. Central needs to be able to control this game and get it's offense in a rhythm, especially after yesterday's game and the changes forthcoming to the offense.
For the half of football where it was actually a game, Central showed potential, albeit a confused potential. Starting quarterback Cody Kater was stricken with accuracy issues after his initial pass completion, and was soon replaced with Alex Niznak after suffering a broken collarbone. Things did not get much better for the Chippewas from there, as star halfback Zurlon Tipton broke his ankle after just a few plays. While the offense did move better under Niznak than Kater, the team was only able to manage a few short drives. Nerves seemed to get the best of Niznak, as he consistently overthrew receivers and had just a few completions, albeit some nice throws for first downs.
Niznak had very little help from his offensive line, and was constantly chased this way and that by Michigan defenders. With little time to react and make good throws, he turned the ball over twice and his day was largely ineffective, with a 50% completion rate and just over 100 yards passing. The only bright side for the Chippewas offense was the strong running of HB Saylor Lavalli, who was able to move the ball quickly and efficiently to the outside, instead of up the gut, where the Chippewas had struggled throughout the game. Looking forward, Lavalli could be an efficient offensive weapon, but it depends entirely on his ability to take on a workload similar to Tipton. If he can handle 15-20 carries a game, he could be a big difference maker for the Chippewas in the absence of Tipton.
Defensively, I thought the Chippewas showed some surprising ability to defend the pass, intercepting Michigan quarterback Devin Gardner twice and playing some nice defense on Michigan receivers. On the ground, however, the Chippewas were run over, down and through by Michigan all day. Four separate backs found the end zone for Michigan on their way to 242 yards rushing as a team. The defensive line for Central showed the same inability to pressure the quarterback in this game as it did last season, and in doing so lost containment on highly mobile quarterback Devin Gardner, who was able to scramble and make plays with his feet. It seems the strengths of this defense may have switched in the off-season, from run to pass protection. While it has only been one game, this game certainly highlighted the pressing need for a pass rush, which has long been dormant for CMU. An aggressive pass rush could result in sacks, or rushed throws into CMU's experienced-and capable, secondary.
What had started as a thrilling first possession for the Chips quickly stalled, and the resulting punt attempt was laughable in more than one way, as the ball never left the leg of punter Richie Hogan before being blocked and returned for a score. The play quickly took the wind out of the sails for Central Michigan, however the special teams unit was able to rebound surprisingly well. Hogan averaged 46 yards per punt through 6 punts on the day, including a 67 yarder. In addition, CMU was able to force a muffed punt during one return and pinning Michigan deep inside their territory on several others. The placekicking offered Central fans a way to eliminate the bad memories of seasons past, as freshman kicker Ron Coluzzi was 3-3 on field goal attempts.
Overall, this game was disappointing on more than one level. Starting the season 0-1,(especially losing in the fashion Central did) can be discouraging for younger players. However I have confidence that the team will move past this game and look forward to playing schools closer in skill to themselves. MAC competition will allow Central fans to see a more accurate representation of this team's skill level, and maybe, just maybe, Hogan and Coluzzi will get a bit of a rest.
Want more? This is the second installment of a series of CMU oriented content written week by week as I follow the football team through my last season of college. Look for next week's recap and analysis of the New Hampshire game.
I'm not angry that CMU didn't win that game. They didn't let me or any other fan down, because despite the volatile, anything-can-happen nature of college football, there are vast differences between the programs of CMU and U of M. These differences were quite apparent in the game, and as expected, Central didn't stand much of a chance.
So yes, I'm bummed that we lost, bummed that we weren't at least able to keep the game close. But if getting pummeled by a Big Ten powerhouse makes us more prepared to deal with the remainder of our schedule, then so be it. Central follows it's toughest game of the season with it's easiest, at least on paper. The University of New Hampshire plays in the Football Championship Subdivision, but seems to do well there. Central needs to be able to control this game and get it's offense in a rhythm, especially after yesterday's game and the changes forthcoming to the offense.
For the half of football where it was actually a game, Central showed potential, albeit a confused potential. Starting quarterback Cody Kater was stricken with accuracy issues after his initial pass completion, and was soon replaced with Alex Niznak after suffering a broken collarbone. Things did not get much better for the Chippewas from there, as star halfback Zurlon Tipton broke his ankle after just a few plays. While the offense did move better under Niznak than Kater, the team was only able to manage a few short drives. Nerves seemed to get the best of Niznak, as he consistently overthrew receivers and had just a few completions, albeit some nice throws for first downs.
Niznak had very little help from his offensive line, and was constantly chased this way and that by Michigan defenders. With little time to react and make good throws, he turned the ball over twice and his day was largely ineffective, with a 50% completion rate and just over 100 yards passing. The only bright side for the Chippewas offense was the strong running of HB Saylor Lavalli, who was able to move the ball quickly and efficiently to the outside, instead of up the gut, where the Chippewas had struggled throughout the game. Looking forward, Lavalli could be an efficient offensive weapon, but it depends entirely on his ability to take on a workload similar to Tipton. If he can handle 15-20 carries a game, he could be a big difference maker for the Chippewas in the absence of Tipton.
Defensively, I thought the Chippewas showed some surprising ability to defend the pass, intercepting Michigan quarterback Devin Gardner twice and playing some nice defense on Michigan receivers. On the ground, however, the Chippewas were run over, down and through by Michigan all day. Four separate backs found the end zone for Michigan on their way to 242 yards rushing as a team. The defensive line for Central showed the same inability to pressure the quarterback in this game as it did last season, and in doing so lost containment on highly mobile quarterback Devin Gardner, who was able to scramble and make plays with his feet. It seems the strengths of this defense may have switched in the off-season, from run to pass protection. While it has only been one game, this game certainly highlighted the pressing need for a pass rush, which has long been dormant for CMU. An aggressive pass rush could result in sacks, or rushed throws into CMU's experienced-and capable, secondary.
What had started as a thrilling first possession for the Chips quickly stalled, and the resulting punt attempt was laughable in more than one way, as the ball never left the leg of punter Richie Hogan before being blocked and returned for a score. The play quickly took the wind out of the sails for Central Michigan, however the special teams unit was able to rebound surprisingly well. Hogan averaged 46 yards per punt through 6 punts on the day, including a 67 yarder. In addition, CMU was able to force a muffed punt during one return and pinning Michigan deep inside their territory on several others. The placekicking offered Central fans a way to eliminate the bad memories of seasons past, as freshman kicker Ron Coluzzi was 3-3 on field goal attempts.
Overall, this game was disappointing on more than one level. Starting the season 0-1,(especially losing in the fashion Central did) can be discouraging for younger players. However I have confidence that the team will move past this game and look forward to playing schools closer in skill to themselves. MAC competition will allow Central fans to see a more accurate representation of this team's skill level, and maybe, just maybe, Hogan and Coluzzi will get a bit of a rest.
Want more? This is the second installment of a series of CMU oriented content written week by week as I follow the football team through my last season of college. Look for next week's recap and analysis of the New Hampshire game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)