College football is predictable in its volatility. It is stable in its lack of rock-solid certitude for all but a handful of teams in most seasons. This sport is unsurprising in how often it surprises, routine in its penchant for the grand plot twist.
Yet, even by those standards — even with decades upon decades serving as guides — this college football season has a strange quality to it.
As September ends and gives way to October, the possibility exists that we could travel eight years back in time, but that’s not the point which is trying to be advanced here. This commentary’s central aim is to underscore the notion that we don’t know where teams stand in relationship to each other. That’s a little bit different from the 2007 mantra: CHAOS, CHAOS, EVERYWHERE!
We might not get chaos in the next two months, because it really could be the case that Utah and California and Northwestern and Ole Miss are better than their competitors by considerable margins. If those teams prove to be superior, we’ll have less drama than many in the pundit class currently think. Whether we get chaos or not is beside the point; what’s worth thinking about — here and now — is that our bases for measurement aren’t very solid.
This is what happens when some teams stay the same in character but achieve different results; others stay the same and achieve the same results; others change in character and achieve different results; and still others change in character but take in the same results.
All four cross-matches of team personalities and team results exist — conspicuously — in college football 2015, after only one month. The fact that so many kinds of teams are prominent across the nation makes it really hard to look at the whole of the FBS (especially in the Power 5 conferences) and say, “Well, this one trend dominates the rest of major college football.”
We don’t have that after one month of play.
Let’s give you an example of each of the four kinds of teams mentioned above:
*
SAME CHARACTER, DIFFERENT RESULTS: Duke (good), BYU (bad).
The Blue Devil offense you saw against Northwestern over a week ago was the offense you saw this past Saturday against Georgia Tech. The Blue Devils ground to a halt in the second half after a somewhat promising but not overwhelmingly great first 20 minutes. Thomas Sirk played poorly at quarterback again. He is struggling to avoid turnovers on short and relatively simple throws. Duke’s defense was excellent again, bringing a highly physical presence to Wallace Wade Stadium. On offense and defense, you saw the same team in consecutive weeks.
What changed? Kick returns and kick coverage. Duke allowed a kick return for a (crushing and situationally unacceptable) touchdown against Northwestern. Against Georgia Tech, kick returns essentially scored two touchdowns for the Blue Devils.
BYU is just as limited as it was in previous weeks, but accumulated travel and the inability to win games with Hail Mary plays have caught up with the Cougars.
Other examples of this dynamic:
* Missouri, only in a negative direction; the Tigers were still their good-defense, atrocious-offense selves, but this time that combination caught up with them against Kentucky, which is a positive example of this dynamic at work.
* Boston College is still a superb defensive team, and with just enough offense this time around, the Eagles were able to knock off Northern Illinois, a team which has shown signs of decline early in 2015.
* Michigan is still defense-first, offense-second — just as it was in week one — but now the formula has been polished and improved to a considerable extent on both sides of the ball.
SAME CHARACTER, SAME RESULTS: Tennessee (in a negative way), California (in a mostly positive way)
The Volunteers keep finding the same excruciating way to lose: Outplaying a team for three quarters and then falling apart in the fourth. The Golden Bears are allowing opponents to stay closer than they should, but Jared Goff is the Answer Man in Berkeley. The extent of his development under Sonny Dykes is why Cal is a real player in the Pac-12 North.
Other examples of this dynamic:
* Northwestern — still powered by defense and limited on offense, but still winning.
* Ohio State — the same as Northwestern, albeit on a less severe scale.
* Arkansas — still losing tight games under BERT.
* Notre Dame — the Irish have pounded opponents into submission at the line of scrimmage.
* Memphis — still winning shootouts (expect more of the same in October).
* Auburn — still unable to figure anything out on offense. You can throw Arizona State and a bunch of others into that particular pot.
* LSU — still a team with Leonard Fournette, unlike your team. Still unbeaten.
* Texas — not the same as in week one, no, but weeks three and four witnessed the same kind of team losing a winnable home game because of a kicking-game disaster. In a narrow sense, Texas is Duke from week three to week four… without the kicking-game transformation.
* Indiana — still winning close games with just enough plays on defense, showing more backbone than it has in recent years. The Hoosiers are different from 2014, but their trip through 2015 has been consistent in noticeable ways.
DIFFERENT CHARACTER, SAME RESULTS: Utah (good), Oregon State (bad)
Utah had not previously flexed its muscles the way it did in Autzen Stadium. This was a superpower performance worthy of a College Football Playoff team. That’s different for the Utes. What’s the same is that they’re winning. Saturday night’s romp in Eugene was dramatically different from the season-opening triumph over Michigan.
Oregon State hasn’t turned the corner; the Beavers aren’t there yet after losing to Stanford. However, their offense now has hope with Seth Collins developing into a leader (and performer) at quarterback. Evolution and growth are part of the picture in Corvallis, but the Beavers don’t have the complete team to surround Collins just yet.
Other examples of this dynamic:
* TCU beat Minnesota in week one with defense. Now and in the foreseeable future, the Horned Frogs will have to win with high output from their offense, as was the case versus Texas Tech. The results are still there (for now); the style compared to week one represents a near-180.
* Virginia Tech is used to leading with its defense. It’s not as though the offense is a bastion of strength, but the defense has carried this program for so long that when it doesn’t — and the September hits keep coming in yet another year — it’s hard to think Frank Beamer will revive the program one more time. Different character, same substandard results as in recent seasons.
DIFFERENT CHARACTER, DIFFERENT RESULTS: Stanford (good), Arizona (bad)
The Pac-12 South is in many ways the epicenter of this dynamic. Stanford has done a near-180 relative to week one against Northwestern, a game which seems three months ago and not three weeks in the past. The Cardinal’s offense has burst into full color and productivity, all while its defense is clearly the weaker link, something which couldn’t have been predicted based on the Northwestern game. The first two weeks of struggles have given way to two excellent results in conference play.
Arizona — Stanford’s next opponent — displayed little of the defensive backbone which marked last year’s run to the Pac-12 South title. In the first true test of the season, Arizona was completely different for all the wrong reasons. The Wildcats need to regain their better selves in time for week five, or else their South title defense will be on life support.
Other examples of this dynamic:
* Boise State was one kind of team through two weeks. After four weeks, Brett Rypien has enabled the Broncos’ offense to function quite smoothly. His calm presence in the pocket greatly helped BSU against Virginia on Friday. This feels like a remade Boise State team compared to week two.
***
With this kind of fluidity across the nation — after a weekend in which one power league (the Pac-12) watched its three showcase games all turn into blowout wins for road teams (Utah over Oregon in Eugene; USC over Arizona State in Tempe; UCLA over Arizona in Tucson) — it’s worth noting: Forget the process of comparing Team X to Team Y. What’s really at issue is how much of a gulf there is between Team X and Team Y.
It’s not necessarily that one is better. What is elusive right now in a survey of the national scene is, “How much better is Team X compared to Team Y?”
Did Oregon, Arizona State, and Arizona simply toss in clunkers that won’t be repeated, or are they really that weak?
Did Utah, USC, and UCLA experience one-of-a-kind games that won’t be replicated the rest of the way?
When results flow to one extreme in the manner we witnessed in week four, comparisons seem to stand on shaky ground, more than we’re used to.
Even in a volatile sport, such volatility feels unsettling.
That’s the 2015 season in a nutshell, after one month of play.
