It's a totally different game. If you are a division rival, you are not scared of Jim Harbaugh. Do you think Ken Whisenhunt or Pete Carroll is worried he may go to the 49ers. I doubt it.
All of the other things DB has done are secondary. Just as Martin will be judged by the Rrod hire more than any other decision, DB should be judged by this decision. So far, the indecision makes him look bad and is hurting this program. In the end, if Harbaugh is hired, no harm no foul. It may be worth taking these hits if DB views Harbaugh as the ultimate prize. But if DB keeps Rrod and even signs him to an extension, there will be no excuse for this delay. He could have done those things the day after Ohio St.
Rrod's brand has really taken a hit. I doubt Miami would consider him. It seems that most fired coaches have to sit a year or two before landing a new gig. Rrod will be a head coach again, and I think he will do well, but I doubt it will be Miami given the timing and the prestige of the job. I do see him landing in the Big East or the ACC and he will do well if he ditches his attachment to the 3-3-5.
But notice how most of those guys landed on their feet after their NFL career. Harbaugh is young. Even if he goes to the NFL and fails, his brand is not really damaged. He would have no problem finding a great college gig. The big factor for Harbaugh is that the Michigan job might not be available when he wants to get back into coaching. Being the front runner for this job may be a once in a lifetime opportunity.
His most marketable product is his coach, not Denard. Sure some players come to a school to play with a certain player, but way more come to play for a coach. I think Denard would leave, especially since he did not redshirt. It would be a tragedy, but I won't blame him for wanting to play in a spread offense. As painful as that departure would be, we can't base a decision on one player, especially when Harbaugh would have no problem developing the remaing QBs and continuing the great QB tradition.
Your post is a good example of posts that refer to Brandon's CEO background and then conclude that he will keep Rrod for whatever business reason. But keep in mind that he is also an athletic director and ADs have their own tendancies. Specifically, they often like to pick their own guy to lead the program. I haven't seen any convicning evidence that DB will approach this as a typical CEO rather than as a typical AD.
The resume may be similar and Rrod's pre-Michigan resume may be more impressive, but we also have 3 more years of data on Rrod and his 3 years coaching here are way more relevant than anything he did prior to his arrival at Michigan.
Even with a late start, Harbaugh's recruiting class could be more than decent if he brings some of his better Stanford recruits along. He has put together a good class and they obviously have the academics to get into Michigan.
I agree that if a change is made it needs to be made now, but the wait might not be DB's decision. If Harbaugh says I want to be the coach but I'm not going to leave my team before a BCS game, what can DB really say if he truly believes Harbaugh is the answer to Michigan's problems.
I think Rrod should go if Harbaugh is available. But if he stays, the condiition must be that he cleans out the defensive staff. I understand he is loyal to his guys, but on this issue Brandon needs to show him who is boss.
I don't think anyone will dispute that Rrod had a great run at WV. He turned the team into a national phenomonom. But at some point, you have to start judging him by his tenure at Michigan. He wouldn't be the first coach to experience great success at one school, get the promotion to a top program, and fail. Willingham's run at Stanford and failures at Notre Dame and Washington comes to mind.
If the Rrod experiment fails, and let's face it, it may, one of Martin's biggest failings will be to have ignored Harbaugh the first time around. Martin could have had him as the coach of Michigan. But instead of being confident and identifying his guy, similar to the Jim Tressel hire, he had to hire a big name coach who was not as good of a fit. Rrod may turn things around, but 2008 speaks for itself. This offense was not ready for the transition to the spread. We will never know, but if Harbaugh is hired, Mallett stays as do many others, and I doubt Michigan misses a bowl game. Who can doubt that, given what Harbaugh has done at Stanford, he would not have experienced similar success, both on the field and in recruiting, had he been hired as the Michigan head coach.
You may be right but keep in mind that Harbaugh appears to have turned down at least one NFL offer last year. Maybe he knows he is a hot commodity and wants to wait for a better NFL opportunity. However, it may also indicate that he prefers coaching in college.
How is this a knock on Harbaugh? There are many facets to successful coaching. One of them is keeping your players from transferring and developing them, Rrod has really struggled to do this. Sure there are reasons for the attrition: such as recruiting players that never made it to campus or left soon after, practice gate, transfers, and early draft entry. But, Rrod is responsible for all of these things. It is his job to identify which players may appear talented but will not make it because of grades or other issues. It is his job to make sure the team is NCAA compliant. And it is his job to convince players to play in his system or play another year at Michigan to increase their draft stock.
So Hayes cannot play RB because Hart is ranked slightly higher and looks like the ideal Michigan RB back . . . based on his high school performance. l don't see support for your conclusion that the RB spot is not up for competition for Hayes. None of the analysis said he will end up at slot. It seems that you were determined to come to a conclusion no matter what the facts said. The great thing for Michigan is both of these backs are highly ranked, so statistically the chances of one of them doing great things while here is higher.
I joined the fire Richrod bandwagon in the last couple weeks. That said, if Harbaugh is not available for whatever reason, we may be better off giving him a 4th year on the condition that the entire defensive staff be fired. But if he is available, Michigan needs to make a move. This team is so far away from being competitive. It is unfathomable that a team could run on a Michigan defense like Wisconsin did Saturday. It shows how far we have fallen. The offensive production has been good, but its success is greatly exaggerated. Against quality competition, it has struggled mightily when it matters. It's time to cut our losses. The ideal time would be after Ohio State, so that Harbaugh can get his recruits and system in place. The unfortunate result is the effect on Denard Robinson. But we can't run a football program around one guy, just like we couldn't run one around Mallett. Robinson will likely transfer and be terrific wherever he goes. Rrod will likely reemerge and succeed at another school. But Michigan will still be better off with a fresh start and stronger recruiting. Michigan used to be a place that highly ranked defensive players attended to go to the NFL. There was no reason for this to stop under Rodriguez. But stop it has.
I don't see it as a major problem. It is the AD's call. Rodriguez has had three years. It is clear that he has done enough to keep his job but not enough to keep his guys on defense. He may huff and puff, but ultimately Brandon is the law, not Rodriguez. Brandon should respect Rodriguez for being loyal to his guys, even to a fault, but he is blind if does not see the structural problems on defense.
Newton may have broken federal law or at least his family. If his dad took money, there is a decent chance he broke a federal law such as structuring, money laundering, or some type of tax reporting law. I'm not saying it happened, but if it did, it is hard to avoid a paper trail for $200,000 without breaking a federal law.
I had previously thought that Auburn had nothing to lose by playing Newton because most of its season would already be vacated if he was ineligible. In other words, it already is all or nothing for Auburn. The one wrinkle is whether the NCAA would come down harder on Auburn if it had reason to suspect that these allegations were true, yet it continued to play Newton until the hammer actually came down.
Another problem with the "you suck" chant is it is often chanted at inappropriate times. For example, it is chanted on third down even when it is obvious that the opposing team will go for it on fourth down. Then the fans look stupid when the team goes for it on fourth down and converts.
You are not alone. I don't like his attitude either, and I have always been suspicious of his work ethic. That said, if he can perform on the field and be a team player, I'm not sure I care that much.
This is a bummer for the MWC. Utah is a more complete member of the MWC than Boise St. This is status quo at best, but probably a step down. I also don't know who the natural replacement would be. Maybe Houston?
Perlman: The Big 12 asked for a commitment from NU through at least 2016. Nebraska, in turn, asked for a commitment from the University of Texas that it would assign all athletic broadcast rights to the conference and thus not begin its own network. Texas declined, he said.
Could this be Texas's reservations about joining the Big 10? Maybe they want their own network.
An interesting question is whether the SEC has the right to renegotiate contract amounts if it adds a new team to the conference. If it does not, there is not a big short-term advantage to expanding. Does anyone know the answer to this?
I think the USC sanctions hurt Michigan recruiting compared to other schools until the Michigan's NCAA penalties are final. Where it stands now, the NCAA looks very agressive, and with Michigan's sanctions coming up, recruits could be worried about the risk of more punitive sanctions than expected. Of course, Michigan will have plenty of time to reverse course if the sanctions are light as expected. However, it still hurts its image in the short-term, and it can be difficult to change recruits' impressions down the road, even if they are proven unfounded.
The problem with 16 teams is the Big 10 does not have a lot of great options after Notre Dame. I say add Notre Dame, Mizzou, Kansas, and Pitt. Rutgers and/or Syracuse are huge gambles especially when the Pac 10 and the SEC respond with much more tantalizing options. I think the best case scenario for the Big 10 is the Big 12 adding TCU and moving on.
The league needs 9 votes to dissolve the league. http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1092612. And there is a buyout so a lot of money will be paid to the league. If four of Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., Mizzou, and Baylor remain, I still think they will be doing the adding, not the other way around.
I think they have to find a better way to make the divisions than east west. Either Penn St., Michigan, or Ohio St. needs to be with Nebraska otherwise the league is making the same mistake the Big 12 made for years with one division that dominates the other. Sure Iowa is good now, but you have to look at how these teams will perform year in and year out for twenty years. I say put the rivals together but make no attempt to worry about geography. Anything else makes a lame championship game too risky. It's embarrassing to send a 9-4 team to your BCS bowl.
Everybody knows there is affirmative action for football players. I don't understand why they draw the line here. Lots of guys on that team could not have cleared admissions but for their athletic ability. How come we aren't worried about our academic reputation with them?
I agree. If done right, a place like this could really be a hit. If it was founded by a former star player, that would give it a better chance of success. Who doesn't want to go to Woodson's after a game?
I think the ultimate goal is to compel cable companies to carry the B10 on their basic packages outside of the Big 10 region. Notre Dame and its rabid fan base would best accomplish this goal, although Nebraska still has an impressive group of fans.
I'm not even sure adding Notre Dame would accomplish this goal, but a 16 team conference would. I think this factor is what would allow the conference to expand the pie in a way that does not cut into current revenues.
Fair point on the judgment call issue. However, they also reversed a victory and made the teams play another inning. That is a much more intrusive change than the one here where the Tigers won anyway.
On July 24, 1983, the Royals played the Yankees at Yankee Stadium. In the top of the ninth inning with two out, Brett hit a two-run homer to put the Royals up 5–4. Upon Brett crossing the plate, Yankees manager Billy Martin cited to the umpires an obscure rule that stated that any foreign substance on a bat could extend no further than 18 inches from the knob. The umpires measured the amount of pine tar, a legal substance used by hitters to improve their grip, on Brett's bat; Brett's pine tar extended about 24 inches. The home plate umpire, Tim McClelland, signaled Brett out, ending the game as a Yankees win. An angry Brett charged out of the dugout and was immediately ejected. The Royals protested the game, and American League president Lee MacPhail upheld the protest, reasoning that Brett's bat should have been excluded from future use but the home run should not have been nullified. Amid much controversy, the game was resumed on August 18 from the point of Brett's home run and ended with a Royals win.
It's May 2, which means we're four months away from "opening day" on Sept. 2. Other than Boise State-Virginia Tech, what game on the first weekend excites you the most?
I honestly have no desire to give the NCAA the power to sanction without solid evidence. The NCAA is nuts. In short time, North Dakota would be facing the death penalty for being the Fighting Sioux.
Lack of institutional control is turning a blind eye when you know or highly suspect that things are going on but do not want to "know" in order to protect yourself. Where is the evidence that USC did this? You suggest that the misconduct was so egregious that they must have known, but I do not think that is the standard. Also, be careful what you wish for. I don't think Michigan is at a point where it wants an aggressive NCAA given its own issues with the folks over in Indianapolis.
I don't think Michigan can credibly point to those players since they all succeeded in a pro-style system. MSU has a different coach too, but the system is similar. I think the jury is still out on whether Michigan can develop NFL receivers in its current system. We really won't know for a couple of years until Rrods first class graduates.
Pretty damning for Bush, but last time I checked, he is not on trial. Where is the evidence that USC knew about any of this? My guess is it doesn't exist. I'm not even sure USC football will get sanctioned for this. USC basketball, on the other hand, will get nailed.
I agree. Campbell showed some flashes of talent in the last couple of games. I remember several plays where he showed a lot of athleticism getting off his blocker. With a year of S&C and some time to study the mental elements of the game, I think he could be poised for a breakout year.
Doesn't your question kind of betray the answer? If I've seen Forcier play enough to believe that he does not have a great future, then it's plausible to have more confidence in Gardner reaching his potential than Forcier making the improvements he needs to make. For example, I have more confidence in Turner's future than Kovacs'. I've seen Kovacs play in college, but never Turner. Nevertheless, that fact does not prohibit me from having more confidence in Turner.
There is a difference between competitive drive in a game and competitive drive off the field in preparation for the game. My concern was about the latter, not the former.
I don't think Forcier will ever be a great QB (few are). There was plenty of evidence last season to support that belief. People can speculate that most freshman QBs struggle, but it is also true that many Qbs struggle as freshman and then continue to struggle throughout their careers.
Im not sure accuracy and decision-making is as teachable as you think. If it was, the best athletes would always be QBs, where they could have the most impact. Starting Denard would significantly hinder our passing game, and we have a lot of playmakers at the WR positions who would be marginalized.
I can't speak for others, but I personally worry about Forcier's ceiling and his competitive drive. I'm not sure he has what it takes physically or competitively to be a dominant QB in Rrod's offense. Time will tell if Gardener has what it takes, but I'm more confident in him long term than Forcier.
I was surprised to see Black on the list. I thought he was a sure redshirt. Hopefully he can contribute, even if it is just on third and long.
Recent Comments
It's a totally different game. If you are a division rival, you are not scared of Jim Harbaugh. Do you think Ken Whisenhunt or Pete Carroll is worried he may go to the 49ers. I doubt it.
All of the other things DB has done are secondary. Just as Martin will be judged by the Rrod hire more than any other decision, DB should be judged by this decision. So far, the indecision makes him look bad and is hurting this program. In the end, if Harbaugh is hired, no harm no foul. It may be worth taking these hits if DB views Harbaugh as the ultimate prize. But if DB keeps Rrod and even signs him to an extension, there will be no excuse for this delay. He could have done those things the day after Ohio St.
Rrod's brand has really taken a hit. I doubt Miami would consider him. It seems that most fired coaches have to sit a year or two before landing a new gig. Rrod will be a head coach again, and I think he will do well, but I doubt it will be Miami given the timing and the prestige of the job. I do see him landing in the Big East or the ACC and he will do well if he ditches his attachment to the 3-3-5.
But notice how most of those guys landed on their feet after their NFL career. Harbaugh is young. Even if he goes to the NFL and fails, his brand is not really damaged. He would have no problem finding a great college gig. The big factor for Harbaugh is that the Michigan job might not be available when he wants to get back into coaching. Being the front runner for this job may be a once in a lifetime opportunity.
His most marketable product is his coach, not Denard. Sure some players come to a school to play with a certain player, but way more come to play for a coach. I think Denard would leave, especially since he did not redshirt. It would be a tragedy, but I won't blame him for wanting to play in a spread offense. As painful as that departure would be, we can't base a decision on one player, especially when Harbaugh would have no problem developing the remaing QBs and continuing the great QB tradition.
Your post is a good example of posts that refer to Brandon's CEO background and then conclude that he will keep Rrod for whatever business reason. But keep in mind that he is also an athletic director and ADs have their own tendancies. Specifically, they often like to pick their own guy to lead the program. I haven't seen any convicning evidence that DB will approach this as a typical CEO rather than as a typical AD.
The resume may be similar and Rrod's pre-Michigan resume may be more impressive, but we also have 3 more years of data on Rrod and his 3 years coaching here are way more relevant than anything he did prior to his arrival at Michigan.
Even with a late start, Harbaugh's recruiting class could be more than decent if he brings some of his better Stanford recruits along. He has put together a good class and they obviously have the academics to get into Michigan.
I agree that if a change is made it needs to be made now, but the wait might not be DB's decision. If Harbaugh says I want to be the coach but I'm not going to leave my team before a BCS game, what can DB really say if he truly believes Harbaugh is the answer to Michigan's problems.
I think Rrod should go if Harbaugh is available. But if he stays, the condiition must be that he cleans out the defensive staff. I understand he is loyal to his guys, but on this issue Brandon needs to show him who is boss.
I don't think anyone will dispute that Rrod had a great run at WV. He turned the team into a national phenomonom. But at some point, you have to start judging him by his tenure at Michigan. He wouldn't be the first coach to experience great success at one school, get the promotion to a top program, and fail. Willingham's run at Stanford and failures at Notre Dame and Washington comes to mind.
If the Rrod experiment fails, and let's face it, it may, one of Martin's biggest failings will be to have ignored Harbaugh the first time around. Martin could have had him as the coach of Michigan. But instead of being confident and identifying his guy, similar to the Jim Tressel hire, he had to hire a big name coach who was not as good of a fit. Rrod may turn things around, but 2008 speaks for itself. This offense was not ready for the transition to the spread. We will never know, but if Harbaugh is hired, Mallett stays as do many others, and I doubt Michigan misses a bowl game. Who can doubt that, given what Harbaugh has done at Stanford, he would not have experienced similar success, both on the field and in recruiting, had he been hired as the Michigan head coach.
You may be right but keep in mind that Harbaugh appears to have turned down at least one NFL offer last year. Maybe he knows he is a hot commodity and wants to wait for a better NFL opportunity. However, it may also indicate that he prefers coaching in college.
How is this a knock on Harbaugh? There are many facets to successful coaching. One of them is keeping your players from transferring and developing them, Rrod has really struggled to do this. Sure there are reasons for the attrition: such as recruiting players that never made it to campus or left soon after, practice gate, transfers, and early draft entry. But, Rrod is responsible for all of these things. It is his job to identify which players may appear talented but will not make it because of grades or other issues. It is his job to make sure the team is NCAA compliant. And it is his job to convince players to play in his system or play another year at Michigan to increase their draft stock.
So Hayes cannot play RB because Hart is ranked slightly higher and looks like the ideal Michigan RB back . . . based on his high school performance. l don't see support for your conclusion that the RB spot is not up for competition for Hayes. None of the analysis said he will end up at slot. It seems that you were determined to come to a conclusion no matter what the facts said. The great thing for Michigan is both of these backs are highly ranked, so statistically the chances of one of them doing great things while here is higher.
I joined the fire Richrod bandwagon in the last couple weeks. That said, if Harbaugh is not available for whatever reason, we may be better off giving him a 4th year on the condition that the entire defensive staff be fired. But if he is available, Michigan needs to make a move. This team is so far away from being competitive. It is unfathomable that a team could run on a Michigan defense like Wisconsin did Saturday. It shows how far we have fallen. The offensive production has been good, but its success is greatly exaggerated. Against quality competition, it has struggled mightily when it matters. It's time to cut our losses. The ideal time would be after Ohio State, so that Harbaugh can get his recruits and system in place. The unfortunate result is the effect on Denard Robinson. But we can't run a football program around one guy, just like we couldn't run one around Mallett. Robinson will likely transfer and be terrific wherever he goes. Rrod will likely reemerge and succeed at another school. But Michigan will still be better off with a fresh start and stronger recruiting. Michigan used to be a place that highly ranked defensive players attended to go to the NFL. There was no reason for this to stop under Rodriguez. But stop it has.
Remember when Carr went 8-4 and everyone wanted to crucify him. Our expectations have really fallen.
I don't see it as a major problem. It is the AD's call. Rodriguez has had three years. It is clear that he has done enough to keep his job but not enough to keep his guys on defense. He may huff and puff, but ultimately Brandon is the law, not Rodriguez. Brandon should respect Rodriguez for being loyal to his guys, even to a fault, but he is blind if does not see the structural problems on defense.
Newton may have broken federal law or at least his family. If his dad took money, there is a decent chance he broke a federal law such as structuring, money laundering, or some type of tax reporting law. I'm not saying it happened, but if it did, it is hard to avoid a paper trail for $200,000 without breaking a federal law.
I had previously thought that Auburn had nothing to lose by playing Newton because most of its season would already be vacated if he was ineligible. In other words, it already is all or nothing for Auburn. The one wrinkle is whether the NCAA would come down harder on Auburn if it had reason to suspect that these allegations were true, yet it continued to play Newton until the hammer actually came down.
Another problem with the "you suck" chant is it is often chanted at inappropriate times. For example, it is chanted on third down even when it is obvious that the opposing team will go for it on fourth down. Then the fans look stupid when the team goes for it on fourth down and converts.
This reporting is fair. Violating probation is a serious issue. Nobody is above the law.
You are not alone. I don't like his attitude either, and I have always been suspicious of his work ethic. That said, if he can perform on the field and be a team player, I'm not sure I care that much.
This is a bummer for the MWC. Utah is a more complete member of the MWC than Boise St. This is status quo at best, but probably a step down. I also don't know who the natural replacement would be. Maybe Houston?
Something tells me the California schools will stay together in the Pac-12. I predict:
South:
ASU
Arizona
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
North:
Utah
Colorado
Washington
Washington St.
Oregon
Oregon St.
I also think there is no way they split Michigan and Ohio St. and there is no way they put OSU, PSU, and Nebraska in the same division.
Look at this gem from the article:
Perlman: The Big 12 asked for a commitment from NU through at least 2016. Nebraska, in turn, asked for a commitment from the University of Texas that it would assign all athletic broadcast rights to the conference and thus not begin its own network. Texas declined, he said.
Could this be Texas's reservations about joining the Big 10? Maybe they want their own network.
An interesting question is whether the SEC has the right to renegotiate contract amounts if it adds a new team to the conference. If it does not, there is not a big short-term advantage to expanding. Does anyone know the answer to this?
I think the USC sanctions hurt Michigan recruiting compared to other schools until the Michigan's NCAA penalties are final. Where it stands now, the NCAA looks very agressive, and with Michigan's sanctions coming up, recruits could be worried about the risk of more punitive sanctions than expected. Of course, Michigan will have plenty of time to reverse course if the sanctions are light as expected. However, it still hurts its image in the short-term, and it can be difficult to change recruits' impressions down the road, even if they are proven unfounded.
Also, if you don't have cable, try your Spanish-language channel on TV. I watched most of the last world cup that way.
The problem with 16 teams is the Big 10 does not have a lot of great options after Notre Dame. I say add Notre Dame, Mizzou, Kansas, and Pitt. Rutgers and/or Syracuse are huge gambles especially when the Pac 10 and the SEC respond with much more tantalizing options. I think the best case scenario for the Big 10 is the Big 12 adding TCU and moving on.
The league needs 9 votes to dissolve the league. http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1092612. And there is a buyout so a lot of money will be paid to the league. If four of Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., Mizzou, and Baylor remain, I still think they will be doing the adding, not the other way around.
I think they have to find a better way to make the divisions than east west. Either Penn St., Michigan, or Ohio St. needs to be with Nebraska otherwise the league is making the same mistake the Big 12 made for years with one division that dominates the other. Sure Iowa is good now, but you have to look at how these teams will perform year in and year out for twenty years. I say put the rivals together but make no attempt to worry about geography. Anything else makes a lame championship game too risky. It's embarrassing to send a 9-4 team to your BCS bowl.
1) Ohio St., Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
2) Penn St., Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan St.
Everybody knows there is affirmative action for football players. I don't understand why they draw the line here. Lots of guys on that team could not have cleared admissions but for their athletic ability. How come we aren't worried about our academic reputation with them?
I agree. If done right, a place like this could really be a hit. If it was founded by a former star player, that would give it a better chance of success. Who doesn't want to go to Woodson's after a game?
I think the ultimate goal is to compel cable companies to carry the B10 on their basic packages outside of the Big 10 region. Notre Dame and its rabid fan base would best accomplish this goal, although Nebraska still has an impressive group of fans.
I'm not even sure adding Notre Dame would accomplish this goal, but a 16 team conference would. I think this factor is what would allow the conference to expand the pie in a way that does not cut into current revenues.
The article quotes e-mails written by Delaney.
Fair point on the judgment call issue. However, they also reversed a victory and made the teams play another inning. That is a much more intrusive change than the one here where the Tigers won anyway.
The precedent is already there per Wikipedia:
On July 24, 1983, the Royals played the Yankees at Yankee Stadium. In the top of the ninth inning with two out, Brett hit a two-run homer to put the Royals up 5–4. Upon Brett crossing the plate, Yankees manager Billy Martin cited to the umpires an obscure rule that stated that any foreign substance on a bat could extend no further than 18 inches from the knob. The umpires measured the amount of pine tar, a legal substance used by hitters to improve their grip, on Brett's bat; Brett's pine tar extended about 24 inches. The home plate umpire, Tim McClelland, signaled Brett out, ending the game as a Yankees win. An angry Brett charged out of the dugout and was immediately ejected. The Royals protested the game, and American League president Lee MacPhail upheld the protest, reasoning that Brett's bat should have been excluded from future use but the home run should not have been nullified. Amid much controversy, the game was resumed on August 18 from the point of Brett's home run and ended with a Royals win.
Looking at non BCS v. BCS games is too simplistic. Utah and Navy are tough games.
The question asked was slightly different:
It's May 2, which means we're four months away from "opening day" on Sept. 2. Other than Boise State-Virginia Tech, what game on the first weekend excites you the most?