The Works, awesome-style

It's Friday. I need something awesome, you need something awesome. Jeremy of TWER has a new blog, fearless and true, and he helps us all out by indeed bringing the awesome:


That picture--post tag "outstandingness," please--is part of Jeremy's tale of visiting Dean Foy's home to discuss, amongst other matters, streaking at Auburn. Glomerata boobies, the phrase "panty raid," and Dean Foy are all prominently involved. Awesome quota: filled.

That 'undefeated in so many games wearing white' thing is over, remember? But Auburn will wear white on homecoming anyway, which I'm fine with, since UT-Martin's orange jerseys should give us a nice preview of what Auburn would look like wearing orange. Maybe this is why we scheduled them in the first place?

I wish I had your confidence, but I'm unsure I wish you had your confidence. Greg Knox on if he believes he'll be returning to coach Auburn's receivers in '09:

I do. I have no doubt.

False bravado or an actual assurance from the current-and-possibly-future head man? I'd very much like it to be the former, please. But either way you slice it, Reason No. 4,137 the Season of DEATH blows: feeling it necessary to parse six-word quotes from the wide receivers coach. You suck, 2008.

United in misery. Mike Herndon brings the irony:

The assessment was frank and insightful. It was given by a beleaguered SEC coach who had brought in a new offensive coordinator this season, changed the makeup of his offense and then watched it flounder: "We had a personality that obviously fit us well and we won a lot of football games. I made a conscious effort to look around and make a decision and I had no idea it'd be this hard in transforming systems. Our coaches here are good coaches and they're knowledgeable and everything. We just kind of lost our personality offensively and it's been a struggle and complicated because we haven't played particularly well at quarterback."

That could have been Auburn's Tommy Tuberville speaking, but it wasn't. It was Tennessee's Phillip Fulmer.

I'm honestly surprised more hasn't been made of the similarities between the Vols and Tigers this year. I mean, yeah, it's been noted a handful of places ... but as the Fulmer quote illustrates, it kind of goes beyond "similar" to "yeah, more than a bit on the eerie side." (Read the rest of the column; some good stuff from Fulmer about why he felt the need to shake things up at OC.)

Caution: Jimmy Sexton at work. Give the man credit: it can't be easy trying to bump up a coaching stock as flagging as Tubby's, but he's still just as committed to it as ever, unless you think the blow-up of idle Tony Barnhart speculation into full-blown rumor is just happenstance.

YES. "Red zone efficiency" is one of the dumbest football stats around, seeing as how it operates under the basic assumption that 3=7. (How many hundreds of times better would "points-per-red zone possession" be? Seriously.) Still, this remains pretty mindblowing:

STAT OF THE WEEK: Auburn's offensive performance in the red zone is tied for the worst in the nation. The Tigers have scored on 18 of their 29 possessions inside the opponents' 20-yard line, a 62 percent rate that is tied with Tulane for 118th in the country.

Meaning that the Auburn offense is neither capable of sustaining drives nor opportunistic! What a combo! It's like the roast beef combo at Arby's, but instead of thin-sliced roast beef you get moldy sardines and instead of savory curly fries--damn, could I go for some curly fries--you get fried twigs.

Really? Tristan Davis on his nagging foot issues:

Davis has had chronic foot and toe problems for much of his career, necessitating a special kind of shoe. To get the extra-wide cleats, Davis had to do battle with Under Armour, the company that has the exclusive contract for Auburn apparel.

"That was a big issue," Davis said last month. "They didn't want me to go back to New Balance because we made all these (contractual) promises. When it was all said and done, I had to get back into a New Balance shoe. My foot problems are pretty much gone."

So you're saying we could have had the 2006 Tristan Davis, Kickoff Return Terror, back several games earlier if Under Armor hadn't gotten their panties in a wad about one Auburn player wearing someone else's cleats? Really? Is that what we're saying? Beccause if so, that's just that's just ... well, it's just 2008, is what it is.

Byrumwatch. He's back. At least until he misses a 36-yarder on Saturday.

Sigh. WEA on Tubby's postgame responses:

I record the Auburn Football Review each week, but admittingly, I don't watch the whole show if we lose. I can't bear to. I only watch the beginning when Tuberville addresses the team. At first, his speeches after losses were very motivational. The one after LSU was top-notch. He had me wanting to go suit up for the next one. But gradually, the length of the speech and it's message has diminished after each successive loss. Granted, a lot of these have been on the road and the only thing you want to do after a road loss is get cleaned up and get on the bus, but I think I see the competitive fire waning quite a bit. It has to filter down to the players.

Is there anything to add? No, there is not.

Etc. Tommy Hicks gets spared his weekly browbeating despite ranking Texas behind Oklahoma, since he does have Pitt ranked on the back end ... Georgia readers debate moving the Cocktail Party out of Jacksonville, which, like, dude, you don't throw your sacred traditions overboard just because Florida's hired a couple of really good coaches ... Auburn paintball shines at Paintball World Cup, so that's cool ... Evan Woodberry has a concise summary of how Tubby's buyout wound up so costly.

Ole Miss recap: half the first

Yes, this will be quite enjoyable and not at all the college football equivalent of this*. I'm sure.



A quick change to previous plus/minus ratings system: in addition to the offensive linemen ("line") I'll also be treating non-kicker special teamers ("ST") and the secondary in pass coverage ("cover") as collectives.

First quarter

1. Byrum's kickoff reaches the 6, where it gets bobbled and returned only to the 15. The 6 isn't great, but it's better than where Byrum's been landing them.

2. Ole Miss opens in an I and goes play-action. Snead fires towards Shay Hodge on a sideline route, but he's being run with step-for-step by D'Antoine Hood and Etheridge is lurking as well; perhaps a good thing for Ole Miss the pass is well out of reach. (Hood +, cover +)

3. 5-man front for Auburn, but there's not much chance for pressure when Snead can take a three-step drop and fire left to a wide-open Hodge, who's been given a massive cushion and only has to run eight yards, stop, and look up. Nice to see one of the schematic decisions that hurt us so badly against WVU has been resolved.

4. 3rd-2. Trips right, Dexter McCluster the middle receiver of the three. Auburn's playing a deep zone (yes, on 3rd-2) and when the other two WRs go deep no one's anywhere near McCluster. He's nine yards downfield before anyone makes contact with him. Auburn's current defensive alignments leave them with no chance at stopping short passes like these.

5. Marks (-) and Blanc (-) are shoved back, opening a crease right up the middle that Auburn is fortunate only yields 3 yards; Cordera Eason inexplicably runs smack into a blocker and falls over.

6. Coleman (+) slices through on a stunt and forces Snead to throw way the hell over the head of his intended receiver.

7. Auburn unnecessarily interferes on an errant Snead pass, but an illegal formation call bails them out. Offsetting.

8. Interesting call here from Rhoads--a three-man line backed by a blitz by Etheridge off the edge and another LB. The blitz fails and Snead has a pocket to step into, but he doesn't see Evans sitting on the curl route. Evans (+) deflects the ball away. (cover +)

9. Punt, Slaughter has no room in which to even attempt a return, which seems to have been standard operating procedure for Auburn the last several weeks. What happened to this unit?

10. Auburn opens--hooray--in the ace-shotgun formation they used for big chunks of the second half against WVU, chunks in which Auburn generally struggled to move the ball. This first play works, though--Burns maintains the underneath accuracy he showed vs. WVU, hitting Smith on a curl route for 6.

11. Ace, 3 WR, handoff to Lester over the strong side. I'm not sure if the backside DE is supposed to be unblocked or not, but he is, and he tackles Lester from behind for an easy loss of 1. If Trott gets a better push on his guy at the point of attack (rather than "none") and the DE keeps contain on the possibility of Burns running the waggle, yeah, this play doesn't have to block the DE ... but if those things don't happen, it's automatic toast. (Line -)

12. 3rd-5, spread. The line (+) cuts down any potential ball-batters and Burns (+) hits Smith on the slant for seven quick yards and a first. Just the way you draw it up.

13. I. Another off-tackle run to the strong side with Lester, another failed set of blocks--Pugh can't get across Jerry, who crashes into Berry, who wrecks Davis's effort to get a solid block in the hole--and it's another run that goes nowhere. (Line -)

14. Spread. Smith slants from the outside, Burns (+) hits him, seven more yards. Five plays in, the scouting report that Ole Miss would be hard to run against but easy to complete passes against has proven to be hella accurate.

15. 3rd-4, spread. The line (+) provides time, Burns is maybe a hair late but puts the ball right in Dunn's hands on the crossing route, and Dunn (-) flat drops it. He was maybe a yard short and running directly into the sideline, but it's my guess that if he makes the grab he'll have time to tun up just enough for the first. Auburn gives away a first down on a drop at least once every single game. And it makes me want to break things.

16. Durst (-) drops a perfectly good snap, forcing him to rush the punt, which only travels 31 yards. Ugh.

17. Goggans get sealed inside--or possibly held, it's hard to tell when Raycom returns from an exciting shot of Houston Nutt with the ball already well-snapped--on a sweep left, giving McCluster a crease for 5.

18. Rebels line up in the I and try the middle, but a cut block on Blanc fails, leaving him to engage the blocker meant for Marks (+), who's now free to first watch the fullback dash past him and then clobber McCluster as he reaches the LOS.

19. 3rd-5. Snead has time and an open receiver in Hodge, who's corner route has him between the corners and safeties. Snead takes advantage by throwing the ball 10 feet over everybody's head. Sweet.

20. Punt, same result as before with the gunners on top of Slaughter before he even makes the catch, even after a relatively low 40-yard punt. This time it's (ST -).

21. Ace-shotgun. Option left, Trott, Ziemba and even Slaughter all make fine blocks and Lester has a nice seam for nine yards. (Line +)

22. Ace-shotgun, zone read handoff left for Lester. Bosley basically just escorts his man down the line (line -) but Lester (+) makes a nifty cutback to escape a couple of tacklers and hops forward for the first.

23. Spread. Screen to Tate, and Berry (line -) and Hawthorne (-) both have a chance to block this onrushing dude from the secondary. Neither do. Loss of a yard.

24. Spread, ZR handoff to Tate going right, and this play looks like it's actually going to pick up real yards for the first time since, oh, the ULM game. Tate's got both Pugh and Bosley in front of him and only two potential tacklers--one an LB on the inside, the other a corner on the outside--on that side of the field. Unfortunately, both Bosley and Pugh decide to cut the linebacker, leaving the corner free to tackle unmolested. %&*@. (line -) Tate falls forward for 3.

25. Spread, Rebels blitz, Tate (-) looks way too passive in his pickup block and gets shoved far enough back into Burns that he can't step into the throw. The result is an overthrow towards the downfield Slaughter that's in danger of getting picked.

26. Wow, what a great punt! For starters, a rusher comes through and nearly gets the block. So Durst's punt only goes 28 yards. And then we find out there's been a 15-yard facemask on Etheridge (-)! It's a net of 13 yards! Whoopee!

27. Rebels in the I, handoff right, Clayton gets a solid push to string the play further outside, and when a closing Pybus (+) tears through his block the blocker holds him rather than give up the big loss.

28. 1st-20. Snead drops back and Marks (+) just abuses his man on the inside, forcing Snead to scramble right into Carter. Sack.

29. Mmmm, 2nd-28. Rebels call a "Well, now that we've seen what your offense can 'do', we'll just avoid handing you the ball on this side of the 50, thanks" sort of play, a draw that Evans smothers with relative quickness. Would you like something notable to happen on this play, though? Sure: Coleman can get banged in the head by his own teammate while falling on top of the pile and leave the game. Yay!

30. 3rd-23, Snead has time but doesn't like his downfield odds (cover +) and tries to check down, except that he throws the ball, like, into the turf five feet out in front of him. Not the best sequence for the Rebels, to say the least.

31. Punt. Still no return, although this one was at least only 36 yards.

32. Ace-shotgun, this time with 3 WRs and Trott and an H-back. QB keeper left, and Burns misreads Tate's (admittedly sloppy-looking) block, cutting it outside just as Tate starts pushing him in that direction. Burns pulls forward for 2.

33. Ace-shotgun, again the line (+) gets the necessary cuts and again Burns makes the easy throw, this time to Slaughter on a curl. Gain of five.

34. Spread. This is awful, awful stuff from the line (--): the Rebels rush four against six blockers and still get a guy in untouched to clobber Burns and force a fumble that could very, very easily be returned for a TD; Auburn dodges a massive bullet when the Rebels fail to pick it up and let Bosley steal the recovery away. How'd it happen? Bosley, Berry, and Pugh took on the two guys on the right and Ziemba blocked down on Green's guy, leaving Tate one-on-one with the end. That's a pretty tough assignment, but Tate (-) still managed to not slow the guy up at all. Hideous.

35. Punt. Durst sends it out-of-bounds 39 yards downfield. Could be worse.

36. Rebels in an ace set, Auburn moves McNeil up to play what's essentially a 4-4. Eason runs smack up the middle, and you would think a 4-4 would be a good set against this. You would be wrong: the Rebels' left guard blocks down on Blanc while Carter (-) lets the TE seal him outside, opening a huge hole and allowing Oher to move to the next level and wipe out Bynes. Johnson can't flow around this block, leaving only Stevens (-) between Eason and the secondary--too bad he seemed to think the play was headed towards the other side of the line and took two pointless steps in that direction, meaning all he can do is wave his arms as Eason flies past him. Etheridge (-) misses a tackle at the sticks and Eason is off for 28 yards. Blecch.

37. Rebels try a reverse, McFadden sniffs it out, and he's rewarded for it by having a lineman dive into the back of his left leg. Yes, it's 15 yards for the clip, but sweet merciful heavens at this point I'd much, much rather have a healthy McFadden--who stays down for a while--than the yardage.

38. 1st-25. Goggans (+) shoots his way into the backfield, forcing Eason to bounce it outside, where Stevens cleans up.

39. Snead drops back, can't find anyone (cover +), and takes off for 17 when Carter gets caught inside and loses contain. Not all his fault, though; when he sees what's happening he tries to pop back outside and gets held. No call. C'est la vie.

40. 3rd-8. Auburn drops eight and Snead's forced to check down to Eason, who gets tripped up by the turf monster after a yard. (Cover +) That trip was a nice break--even if Eason doesn't make the first, he could have easily gotten the Rebels into field-goal range.

Second quarter

41. Punt. Downed at the 5. Dammit.

42. Ace-shotgun. This sorta looks like a zone read but I wonder if Burns really has the option to keep here--he didn't seem to be looking at the DE in question. So it's handoff to Tate (+), who runs through an arm-tackle after Green lets a linebacker by him unblocked and finds room behind Bosley, Pugh, and Trott for 4.

43. Spread, QB lead draw, and Burns finds plenty of room over the right side; Bosley's block is especially good as he gets a good shove on the DT and then releases downfield to make another block Burns cuts behind for a few extra yards (line +). Honestly, I wonder if Burns couldn't have gotten more than seven here if he sticks closer to his blockers' butts instead of wandering in open space in the middle of the field.

44. 1st-10. Ace-shotgun, 3-WRs. There's all kinds of problems with the Revel DTs here: one knifes into the backfield to slow Tate, while Ziemba's cut on the other fails miserably and allows him to tackle after a gain of 2. (line -)

45. Holy crap is this play U-G-L-Y. Believe me, it ain't got no alibi. For starters, it's a two-TE ace-shotgun set, but the five down linemen are in a two-point stance--gee, you think that's a bit of a tip a pass is coming? Second, it's only a two-man route, so there's eight blockers, and somehow Tate still winds up blocking a blitzer one-on-one. (He does do a better job, at least.) And then to cap it off, Burns (-) tries to find Billings on a curl and throws it a mile over his head. Sorry, but this is not what a well-coached offense looks like. At all.

46. 3rd-8. Bosley gets shoved into Burns's face by Jerry (line -), Burns is a hair late in stepping through the line into open space, and in the end he has to make a bailout flip to Tate for 2.

47. Durst (+) finally gets a hold of one, booting it 48 yards and getting a fair catch on the other end.

48. ZR handoff, Marks (+) completely owns his man and forces McCluster to start improvising. Coleman comes in to clean up.

49. Ole Miss in the spread now, Snead has time and finds his man ... if his man is a guy standing on Auburn's sideline 20 yards downfield and 10 yards outside the field of play.

50. 3rd-10. Second verse, same as the first, although on the positive side this time Snead just gets it low enough that his receiver (running a well-covered out route at the sticks) can get his hands on it. On the negative side, it's not so low he can catch it and Snead catches a huge break when the deflection bounces off of McFadden's hands. I hate to give McFadden (-) a demerit when his leg is still probably bothering the hell out of him ... but he could see the ball the whole way and it hits him directly in the hands. He's got to make this play.

51. Punt, a line drive that it sure seems like Slaughter (-) could get his hands on if he's quick. Instead he lets it bounce and the next thing you know it's cost Auburn 20 yards of field position. Sigh. I know this is a long-deceased and thoroughly-flogged horse, but Auburn's offense is just not good enough to win games where the defense drops picks are and the special teams give up 20 yards for no reason.

52. 1st-10 Auburn on their own 11. Ace-shotgun, handoff over the right side. Trott loses his guy just as Lester approaches the hole, causing to him to try and hop-skip around them to the outside. It takes too long and he's swamped; loss of 4. (line -)

53. Ace-shotgun, 3 WRs. Option right, disaster. Burns (-) doesn't hold the pitch long enough, Pugh whiffs on a linebacker, Green gets discarded almost immediately. Lester (+) does very, very well to cut back and get to the LOS.

54. 3rd-13. Spread. Burns gets a solid pocket (line +), but there's no one open (I'm assuming) and he checks down to Trott for 6. Auburn will punt from inside their own goal line. This is fun!

55. Punt. Durst (+) is feeling it now; this one goes for 53.

56. I'm not exaggerating; Ole Miss's outside WR has a 12-yard cushion when the ball is snapped. Pitch, catch, no one touches him til he's got the first.

57. Auburn lines up in what's almost a 5-3, with one LB standing up over one DE and Etheridge walked up into the box on the weakside. It works; when the Rebels run to Etheridge's side the pulling guard ignores him to seal off the LB towards the inside and Etheridge (+) tackles securely for a gain of 2.

58. False start. Teehee.

59. More formation weirdness and this time it's not so good; McNeil lines up at the LOS with the LBS shifted left. The Rebels run Bolden on a draw to the opposite side, and when Coleman gets caught pass-rushing and Marks (-) gets stood up, there's no one else out there. Pybus (-) rushes up from what I guess was something like a safety position (honestly, he wasn't even in the screen on the snap ... why is McNeil on the line and Pybus playing centerfield?) only to miss a tackle, and then a tentative-looking Etheridge (-) misses another tackle to take on five more. Gain of 20.

60. Hey, its the Wild Rebel. All three of Auburn's LBs follow the motion of the fullback across the middle, meaning that when McCluster keeps and heads over the right side instead of behind the FB, it's only the extended big paw of Blanc (+) that trips McCluster up as he goes by that keeps this from being a huge gain. It's worth eight anyway.

61. 2nd-2, Auburn brings six guys up to the LOS. The DTs are both shoved well to the strongside as Eason cuts in behind them, but Evans (+) makes a textbook tackle to keep the gain at 2.

62. 3-step drop for Snead, quick throw on the out is off-target. Again.

63. Similar kind of play, this time with two guys going deep and McCluster running the out underneath. Snead throws quickly--the gameplan is clearly to not let Auburn have a chance to get pressure if they can help it--and again the coverage is too deep to even have a hope of stopping this (cover -). Gain of 8.

64. Play-action out of the I, and this time Stevens (+) is sitting on the quick middle curl route Snead clearly expects to be open. He pulls it down and then airmails one in the general direction of the RB just before the blitzing Bynes arrives (cover +). Well done, Auburn.

65. Field goal good, 3-0. It's no less than the Rebels deserve at this point--they have three drives longer than Auburn's longest.

66. Kickoff, Davis bobbles for a moment and returns to the 22.

67. Spread. Whoops--Burns (-) tries the short slant again and hits Billings in the feet with it.

68. Ace. This play looks awfully strange--Burns fakes the hand off to Fannin but instead of running the waggle in the opposite direction, turns around and drifts in the same direction Fannin just went in. The result is that the backside DE is in free and breathing down Burns's neck, though one of those patented Burns shimmies buys him just enough time to find Fannin eight yards downfield. Fannin (-) appears to make the catch and then fumble, but after a lengthy review it turns out he never got control of the ball and it's ruled incomplete. Either way: not a positive play.

69. Spread. A pretty pocket built by the line (+) and Burns (+) steps into it and nails Trott on a deep slant. 16 yards, a first down, and Auburn's longest play of the day. Que bueno.

70. Ace-shotgun, 3 WRs. It's a sweep right on which Pugh whiffs his block entirely; fortunately for him Fannin (+) breaks the tackle and the rest of the play is well-blocked. Somehow Auburn winds up with seven yards out of it.

71. Berry false starts (line -).

72. Spread, QB draw. Bosley's got the shove-and-get-to-the-next-level blocks on these plays down; he pulls off another good one and gives Burns a nice seam. Fannin's and Billings's downfield blocks are merely OK, though, and Burns--again, just not looking quite as aggressive as I'd like him to--gets edged out of bounds after just 5.

73. 3rd-3 on the Auburn 45. Big play here. Ace, 3 WRs: now, is this the formation you would choose to try a straight-ahead power run out of to pick up 3 yards? Knowing that Tommy Trott left the game earlier this drive and that your TE is currently the same true freshman (Vance Smith) who struggled repeatedly with his run-blocking assignments last week, would you choose to run behind him? No matter! Handoff to Fannin behind Smith, he and Berry get no push, the pulling Green just sort of stops in the alleged "hole" and Fannin is buried for a loss (line -).

74. 42-yarder by Durst (+), fair caught inside the 20. I'll take that. Surely after their half of sloppiness and error, the Rebels will not drive 86 yards in 2:02. Surely.

75. McNeil (+) is in his "fake linebacker" mode and bounces off an attempted block by the fullback into the intended hole, gumming up the Rebel works. Blanc tackles; he's been consistently active.

76. I dunno, maybe having the secondary set up their zone a mile off of the LOS is OK when there's this little time left in the half ... but you know, I still doubt it. Mike Wallace stops eight yards downfield, Snead hits him, he goes for 13, lather, rinse, repeat. After the play, Dave Archer informs the viewer that "the play-action froze the front seven." After listening to Dave Archer, my DVR informs me that there was no play-action, and that the tackle was made by "frozen" Craig Stevens 13 yards downfield.

77. Eh, this is one of those plays I don't know if there's anything to be done about. Snead throws the sideline route off a three-step drop to Hodge, who again has Hood step-for-step with him. Etheridge close by in support. The throw has to be high enough that Hood has no play and quick enough that Etheridge can't get there in time. Snead puts it where it needs to be and Hodge gets up just in time to make the play. Damn them.

78. Snead drops back, no one open, tries a check down McFadden's all over (cover +). I wish they'd completed that; the short gain would have kept the clock moving.

79. Again, good coverage and Snead wings one downfield that's well out of bounds (cover +).

80. 3rd-10, midfield. Auburn lines up in a rare 3-3-5 and ... oh boy. The Rebels run McCluster on a draw, and the cavernous hole over the right side allows not only McCluster free passage but passage for blockers who take out Evans and Bynes (-, for a rather sad attempt at resistance and general lack of impact). Hood and Mike Slade each have unblocked beads on him 10-12 yards downfield, but Slade (-) takes a bad angle, not only opening up a cutback into the middle of the field but cutting off Hood's ability to close. 28 yards.

81. Bynes and Stevens drop into zone coverage and Snead hits McCluster on a slant in the narrow window between them; 20 more yards, to the Auburn 2. Not sure if that's on them or just a good play by Snead; I'm going to lean towards the latter. Most of Snead's throws have been after short drops and released quickly, but still, Auburn's got to get more pressure from their four-man rush.

82. Touchdown. Snead connects with Hodge on the play where the receiver runs five yards into the end zone while the QB throws it intentionally behind him; when he turns, it's impossible for the CB to make a play without interfering. If it's executed properly, it's awful hard to stop and the Rebels execute it properly. That said, there are two officiating questions, the first being whether Hodge pushed off. It kind of looks like it on the replay and the Daves are convinced he did, but Hodge doesn't extending his arms much if at all and McFadden doesn't respond with the typical "He pushed off! He pushed off!" hand gestures at the refs. (He may have skipped them, however, out of the mistaken belief the flag he'd just received for his own grab of Hodge's jersey was for Hodge.) It's 50/50; if Auburn has been the receiving team I'd do some bitching if it had been called. The bigger question in my mind is that the left side of the Rebel line jumps a split-second before the rest of the line; I think the officials missed a false start.

83. Squib. Auburn starts on their own 38. Three timeouts. Will they try to accomplish something?

84. No, no they will not. Ace-shotgun, Fannin takes a handoff over the right side of the line for 7; for what it's worth the line (+) blocks this play well. Maybe now that they're at their own 45 they will call timeout and air it out a bit? They only need 20 yards to give Byrum a shot.

85. No, they will do the least explainable thing off all, which is to not call timeout and let the clock run all the way down before calling a pass play that does not appear to be a Hail Mary. What the hell is going on? I think that's probably the players' reaction, too, and in the resulting confusion a blitzer comes in unblocked and levels Burns. Either try to get into field goal position or don't.

In a stunner, Auburn has just finished turning in a terrible half of offensive football.

Halftime verdicts: This ace-shotgun thing as Auburn's primary offensive formation--which it was this half--just doesn't seem reasonable to me; it's like they decided they still sorta wanted to run the Spread Eagle, but do it with a TE on the line and the linemen in three-point stances. Nevermind that there's probably a reason that the Spread Eagle was designed for two-point stances and no TEs. Like everything else Auburn has done this year, it's half of one thing and half of another and substantially less than the sum of either part.

On defense, I dunno; these deep coverages kept Snead from completing a single pass longer than the 20-yard slant to McCluster at half's end. But they also gave the Rebels 10 yards whenever they wanted it. Other problems: the linebacking is still MIA (Bynes played the entire half and didn't receive a single +) and poor tackling repeatedly turned 10-yard gains on the ground into 20-yard gains on the ground. I feel bad complaining too much about a half in which a genuinely explosive offense punted five straight times to open the game and only scored 10 points ... but if Snead isn't off and Ole Miss stuck more consistently with the underneath stuff, I wonder if it would have been so successful.

Second half tomorrow.

*1,224 clips at Hulu and no rake sequence? Come on.

Feedback, 11/6

Working on the first half of the Ole Miss recap after dealing with some Real Life things the past couple of days, but just so you don't have to wait too long for some content, thought I'd respond to some of the stuff in my comment- and/or in-box.

Gene wrote Oct. 27 to say ...

I guess you noticed half the top ten run some version of the spread offense.

... which, to be honest, I hadn't, but it's worth noting that since then the rankings are even more dominated by spread teams: with Utah joining the party, five of the top six and seven of the AP top 10 run some variety of the spread, with only Alabama and USC continuing to run something approaching traditional QB-under-center-and-two-wideouts offenses. (I'm classifying Boise's unique hodgepodge as "unclassifiable," although it has a lot more in common with the spread teams than with 'Bama/USC.) The total offense rankings--as I've noted previously--are even more spread-centric, with 15 of the top 16 outfits (USC is the only interloper) going spread-first.

As I said, I've made this point, and an accompanying one--that many of these teams are not equipped with substantially more talent than Auburn is--before. But after watching West Virginia carve up yet another roasted SEC victim, after seeing Florida convert every opportunity the Dawgs gave them into a touchdown, after seeing Tulsa essentially continue their murderous offensive rampage in Fayetteville last weekend (just without the points ... the Hurricane gained more yards against the Hogs than any other team this year), I think it's safe to say this "can't work in the SEC" canard needs to be put to bed. The spread can work in the SEC. It may even work better in a league where it's still a relative novelty as opposed to the spread-happy Big 12, Big 10, etc.

Given that many of our current class of recruits were promised a spread offense and that it doesn't require a massive amount of talent to run, yeah, I'm still very much on board with hiring a spread-first, spread-second guy. Find one with better people skills than Franklin, let him build his own staff, and let's see what happens. Tubby saying he wants someone who "fits into what we'd like to do" and that Auburn's offense "is still going to be multiple" doesn't sit entirely comfortably with me. I guess we'll see.

I'll give you a sneak preview of the Ole Miss recap: there's a lot of ace-shotgun and there's a lot of failed runs. So it's worth noting this comment from Acid in the wake of the West Virginia recap:

Running the ball out of the I set is easier than that hybrid shotgun/ace. Snap, drop, back already at full sprint taking the handoff. No tosses, all sprint handoffs, with a guy like Burns threatening to bootleg/waggle out the back side. On a shotgun handoff, it's awkward, and guys are two-stepping it trying to avoid bumping into one another on the exchange. In short, the timing on those things is tricky. WVA had a LOT better success containing in the second half, because of how slow those shotgun running plays develop.

I concur, and wonder if the ace-gun set is a concession to Burns, who--if I'm not mistaken--took nothing but shotgun snaps in high school and perhaps prefers them. As for the defense, Acid added the following:

.....Bynes had the B gap. Bynes would end up over the left tackle, phantom chasing White to the outside, because Powers was lining up with a 15 yard cushion to that side. I know Powers was hurt, and they had to play him off, and he wasn't going to be much help against the run. But against the (zone read), the middle linebacker has GOT to be able to fill the B gap. (for the novice, that's the gap between the center and left guard.) Some might say that this is defensive tackle responsibility, but our scheme has the left DE responsible for outside contain, and the tackle has to slide over and get the guard-tackle gap. We're getting a double-team on SenDerrick Marks, so Bynes HAS to shut down that inside B-gap give. HAS TO!

.....----- on Bynes, or on the scheme, one.

I figured I'd been too lenient on Bynes; this sort of confirms it. However you slice it, the point is this: the linebacking, one of Auburn's biggest strengths over the past several years, is not getting the job done. Blackmon is hurt and never seemed to really get up to speed. Evans hasn't been the same playing on the outside as inside. Bynes and Stevens are sophomores. Johnson might be a senior, but he hasn't been able to claim a regular job over either Evans or Stevens. As with the running backs, the 2008 crew just hasn't been as good as we've been led to expect.

Speaking of talent, performances, expectation levels, etc., there was some minor disagreement in this comment thread regarding the defensive line, which Jason called "very average" and Grotus responding thusly:

(T)he D-line? Coleman? Doolittle? Marks? If that's average then sheesh. I think we're just playing banged up and poorly conditioned. Rhoads has to take some of the blame for that.

I'd fall between these two viewpoints, myself. Coleman has been every bit as good as advertised and if I think there's been one or two games (WVU included) where Marks hasn't made as much of an impact as perhaps he should have, I'd stop well short of having any complaints. The other tackle spot--Doolittle, Blanc, Clayton, etc.--has been manned ably, I'd say.

The problem is that Coleman has been the only defensive end who's accomplished much of anything. It's one thing to move a senior who hasn't played defense since high school from tight end to DE just a handful of weeks before the season starts. It's another for him to be handed a major spot in the rotation. I admire McKenzie's dedication and effort, but it was always impossible for him to become an impact player there in such a short period of time. Goggans has been alternating between being hobbled and being generally ineffective. The same goes for Carter. I realize injuries have played a big, big role in the failures here, but you're looking at a d-line that's half brilliance, 1/4 capable, and then 1/4 a glaring weakness. That's just not how it works for truly elite defenses.

In the wake of this post on Tubby, I received the following comment taking issue with my statement that Tennessee and Auburn were programs of "approximately equal stature":

Nice article, but Auburn is nowhere near the same level as Tennessee. Tennessee has more history and tradition (more than twice as many conference titles, more than twice as many national titles, far more bowl wins/appearances, etc.) than Auburn, and it has a bigger budget. Its facilities are larger, and no expense was spared on the UT football program (and with its budget, that's saying something). Plus, Tennessee is the only football power in the whole state. I am neither a UT fan nor an Auburn supporter, but face the facts: Auburn is not on-par with Tennessee. Clemson, yes. Tennessee, no.

Hmmm ... not a Vol fan, not an Auburn fan, but intimately familiar with the histories of both and more than eager to assure us Auburn's history is the one that's lacking? Please, sir, give me one guess which team it is you do support.

Snark aside, I won't argue that for some of the reasons mentioned ($$$, primarily) Tennessee might be, perhaps probably is, the more desirable job (as I mentioned here as well). But I did say approximately equal. Tennessee's job might be slightly better than Auburn's, but based on the factors just mentioned and the potential recruiting base, the facts are that both Tennessee and Auburn have a little ways to go to catch Florida, Georgia, LSU, and (*sigh*) a rejuvenated 'Bama in desirability. The Vols' job remains, in the JCCW's totally unbiased and perfectly neutral viewpoint, substantially more similar to Auburn's than to the SEC's current upper crust's. Thus: "approximately equal."

And that's the last time this month I talk about the opening in Knoxville, I swear.

SECond look: the SEC has nothing to fear from the polls except fear of the polls itself

Don't worry, folks, he's harmless. Well, except for the whole brain-eating thing.

If we're applying the whole trend-watching "In" / "Five Minutes Ago" / "Out" designations to SEC poll paranoia, it's safe to say that "Ohio St. makes another BCS title game" is safely Out; "The Big 12 champ is perfect and undefeated Penn St. leapfrogs an undefeated Alabama team," an idea that rather inexplicably picked up some steam in a handful of places recently, is now Five Minutes Ago; and your new hottness, the current In debate, is "What happens if newly rampant Florida and the eventual Big 12 champion both emerge with one loss?" Tony Barnhart tackled that one today and concluded his look at it by ... washing his hands of any sort of prediction and asking his readers what would happen.

Lord knows the the world doesn't really need more BCS title game analysis--I think the only topic more cliched I could write would be about why we need a playoff, and I want to hold off on that until next week--but for the record, unless Florida or 'Bama take the pipe on the run-up to Atlanta or Texas Tech manages to run the table, SEC fans can stop worrying about what's going on with the polls.

Why? The biggest reason is the one Dr. Saturday detailed earlier this week: No. 1 Alabama going against No. 4-at-worst Florida--who seem likely to finally wrest away USC's crown as the designated late-season "playing the best football in the country right now" media darling--is going to be the new Game of the Year. It's going to be hyped beyond hype. In contrast, the Big 12 will offer up most likely the South's megawattage winner against Missouri--obviously not a bad team, but also a team who had two chances to beat one of the South division elites and let one slip away at home while getting flat annihilated in the other. Especially falling outside of the blinding glare of the SEC title game, the Big 12's event just won't have the same kind of impact on voters. If Florida (or quite possibly even a one-loss Alabama) wins by any score other than 3-2, they ride the spotlight into the BCS title game, no questions asked.

Well, maybe one question asked. Though the Harris Poll and the computers have Florida already out in front of Oklahoma, the Sooners are (incredibly) fourth in the coaches' poll, meaning that there might be some mild outcry not to jump the Gators over a team that didn't lose, even if they did just hypothetically beat the No. 1 (or at least top-5) team in the country. This is especially true if Oklahoma (as almost expected) beats Texas Tech for their first major scalp of the year and wins the tiebreak for the South; they might even jump back over the Gators in two weeks if they beat the Raiders handily enough.

But that's the only scenario in the JCCW's opinion in which one-loss Florida even hypothetically fails to reach the big stage, and even in it the glamour and Florida's still-intact 2006 reputation as national-title worthy would win out. As broad as the fanbases for the Big 12 powers-that-be are, consider that Oklahoma had a pretty much equally viable case as LSU for the BCS title game last year: a 10-2 record (same as LSU), a BCS conference title (same), two upset losses to halfway-decent if not great teams (same), and a win over the country's No. 1 team in their conference championship game that even LSU couldn't quite match. Did LSU's much more difficult schedule over the course of the season mean they were the better choice if you had to pick one? Yep. But should a 10-2 Big 12 champ really be just summarily dismissed when compared to a 10-2 SEC champ? Not really. But they were. Because they entered that championship game No. 9, no one made a peep about the slight save for a handful of Sooner fans. The media climate is obviously a little different this year, but I don't think things have changed so dramatically that Florida (and possibly one-loss Alabam) won't again get the benefit of the doubt.

Meaning, again, that unless Texas Tech runs the table, the SEC winner should be safe. And if the Red Raiders do happen to pull it off, well, Florida would be S.O.L. but the Tide would be fine; it's Penn St. that will be facing the ax. For all the talk about how much the pollsters luuuuurve Joe Paterno, they neither hesitates to jump Mike Leach;s team over his after their very first quality victory no took the Nits even within striking distance of the No. 2 Tide after PSU's biggest victory of the season. There's a point at which even the mawkish sentimentality of a LIVING LEGEND only holds so much sway.

On with this week's SECPP ballot.



1. Alabama. Well, the Tide took a half to get going against Arkansas St. But they never got going against Tulane and you see how accurate a picture that was, so yeah, I'm not reading anything into it this go-round.

2. Florida. Can't put the Gators into the top spot when a) they lost a game b) turnovers and missed FGs mean they weren't quite as dominant against the Dawgs as it appeared on the scoreboard.

3. Georgia. Strangely enough, the red zone problems that didn't cost them against Vandy or Tennessee did against Florida. Who knew?

4. LSU. Jarrett Lee has thrown five pick-sixes, which leads the nation. Hopefully these kinds of charitable contributions are tax-deductible.

5. South Carolina. After what he said about Fulmer, do you think Spurrier's wishing deep down he'd get fired so he, too, could join the buyout gravy train? Not now, but ask again after the Florida game.

6. Ole Miss. Houston Nutt is the only coach in the league with a winning record against Tommy Tuberville. Funny ol' world, this.

7. Kentucky. The 2007 'Cats were a hundred times more dangerous. But the 2008 'Cats are the ones who are winning all the games they should.

8. Arkansas. Does anyone really think that if they played tomorrow, the 'Hogs wouldn't beat the pants off of the teams rated below them here?

9. Vanderbilt. [stupid voice] You can DO it! [/stupid voice]

10. Auburn. Step forward: total offense finally improved. Step backward: turnover margin finally regressed.

11. Tennessee. Awwww. Halloween should have been a pro-pumpkin time.

12. Mississippi St. Hey, remember when these guys went to a bowl and everyone thought they were a program on the rise? What a wacky time that was!

The Works, Yes We Can!-style

Yes, Auburn CAN defeat these mimics from UT-Martin! What did you think I was talking about?

Of course, it's not exactly a done deal. Jay Tate's defensive injury list from Sunday:

* DT Sen'Derrick Marks: ankle (day to day)
* DT Tez Doolittle: groin (day to day)
* DE Michael Goggans: ankle (day to day)
* DE Antonio Coleman: both ankles (day to day)
* DT Mike Blanc: left hand (to be determined)
* SLB Craig Stevens: left hamstring, turf toe (playing through it)
* MLB Tray Blackmon: broken right wrist (out for season)
* MLB Josh Bynes: "deep thigh bruise" (day to day(
* WLB Merrill Johnson: hamstring (day to day)
* CB Aairon Savage: right knee (out for season)
* CB Walt McFadden: left knee and ankle (day to day)
* CB Jerraud Powers: hamstring (out for at least one more week)
* CB Neiko Thorpe: ankle (out for at least one more week)

Not to mention that Marks and Carter have both had ankle issues as well. All told, I'd say about 14 or 15 of Auburn's top 17 or 18 defensive players have dealt with (or are dealing with) some sort of injury. 2008, I HATE YOU. On the plus side, Auburn should manage against Martin even without the MASH unit, so there's some benefit here to saving one cuppycake for the late-season as opposed to the Big 12's method of gobbling them all up at once.

Oh yeah. Tubby reminds us--fairly, I think--that he's not the only one who hears the "Tubby out" talk:

The family of Tennessee coach Phillip Fulmer is feeling strain from his perch on the hot seat. After the Volunteers' 27-6 loss to South Carolina Saturday, Fulmer's college-aged daughter was in tears as several supporters tried to comfort her.

Tuberville, whose future is also in question, said his family has gotten used to the pressure.

"They're fine," he said. "They hear talk like everybody else, but they know the business. They know how tough it is."

Tuberville's sons are 14 and 12, five years older than when he was nearly fired after the 2003 season.

"It's a good lesson for them. You just kind of persevere and take it one week at a time," Tuberville said. "They can understand what's going on."

It's good Tubby's not making them out to be victims or whining about the situation, which changes the need to discuss his job security none, but still ... 9,000 square feet can probably house an awful lot of anxiety.

Well, there was that. Ensign, set course for the first silver lining you can find. Engage!

Burns' second mistake was critical.

With Auburn trailing 10-7, Burns tried to hit Montez Billings on a third-and-12 play deep in Ole Miss territory. The Rebels anticipated Burns' decision, and cornerback Marshay Green made an easy interception. Ole Miss then drove to a touchdown to move ahead by 10.

Burns immediately sensed the gravity of his mistake. Coach Tommy Tuberville said the quarterback was emotional along the sideline, which prompted several teammates to offer support ...

Center Jason Bosley said the quarterback responded well after chatting with teammates. Burns returned to the huddle with renewed focus and resumed work as if nothing detrimental had occurred.

That gave Bosley pause.

"I thought he had good leadership out there," Bosley said. "I told him at halftime, I was like, 'Hey man, you're the quarterback. You've got to be the leader of this offense.' I thought he did a great job responding in the second half."

Yes, a great job. Right up until the point where he threw his third disastrous pick of the half.

It's true that Burns wasn't awful and he deserves a good deal of benefit of the doubt given the difficulties he faces in the coaching turnover (and, uh, potentially he general quality of said coaching) and lack of reliable receivers. But he quarterbacked his offense to a total of 7 points against one of the weaker defenses in the SEC. Unless expectations in the Season of DEATH have slipped even further into the gutter than I think they have, it's not a performance to celebrate.

Fun. I'll write more about this later this week, but in a nutshell, this is why I remain at least a little concerned about the roof caving in against UT-Martin Saturday:

The Tigers enter Saturday's homecoming game against Tennessee-Martin with the second fewest offensive touchdowns in major college football. The Tigers have scored just 14 in nine games. Only Central Florida, Washington State and Wyoming have fewer, with 13 each.

Thanks to the defense and special teams, Auburn is better than Central Florida, Washington State, and Wyoming. But teams with Central Florida, Washington State, and Wyoming offenses are going to play close games, games where a couple of flukes that go the wrong way can decide the whole thing, because, hey, it's not like your Central Florida, Washington State, or Wyoming offense can just snap its fingers and make up for them. And Auburn has one of those offenses. It's not playing an SEC team, but it's not a week off, either.

As for the rest of the link above, it's just more "Franklin didn't teach us how to block right and never ran the ball, that's why we suck" scapegoating from coaches and players alike, and I'm frankly sick of it. Man up and take some responsibility, fellas.

No surprise there. So, Tubby, how exactly are you going to hold onto the recruiting class you've built?

Tuberville said he has a thick stack of rsums [Internet sic] on his desk from prospective offensive coordinators. That's the topic that most interests recruits - just what exactly will become of Auburn's offense.

Here's to hoping one of those "rsums" belongs to a curiously disaffected Chip Kelly. And that Patrick Nix's has already received a polite reply.

The way of the dodo. Orspencerson Shwallindle on the aftermath of the Fulmer firing:

Not a single one of the current non-fired coaches in the Sexy Excellent Cash conference is an alum of the program, or even coached at the university prior to taking the job as head coach at the school. To the cynical eye, they are a collection of classic mercenaries riding the tide of cash washing through the conference, free agents without any homegrown loyalty for the school.

That is one way of looking at it, sure. Another is to say that more modern hiring practices have been forced on the schools by the competitive pressures within the league, and that SEC football teams now hire CEOs the same way Fortune 500 companies do: without concern for their prior affiliations, lack of attachment to the company, and with massive salaries.

Bittersweet? Yes. Accurate? Oh hell yes. What's interesting, from the Auburn perspective, is how Tubby embraces both sides of this divide: his offensive staff seems to be retained on more of the "family" basis as Shwallindle calls it, while his coordinator hires--always from outside his staff and from a pool without connections to Auburn--seem more CEO-like. Maybe, just maybe, this divide has something to do with why so many of them haven't worked out.

Etc. Tommy Trott is a Colbert fan, so he's got that going for him ... Still no clue who's actually kicking field goals for this team ... Seeing as Auburn scored the first touchdown of the second half and then proceeded to drive to Ole Miss's 17-yard line down three points, it's flat unfair to say Auburn was never in the game in the second half, but Mike Svetitz says that anyway, earning this week's I'm a Columnist Who Doesn't Believe What I'm Writing, But I'm Writing It Anyway LOOK AT ME Award.

Election Day stunner: Tide fan believes Auburn is in trouble

I quite honestly did not want to write yet another post about the Auburn head coaching situation. This one marks like the 345th one of the last three weeks and by the time the book is finally closed on the Season of DEATH, I'm sure I'll have written 345 more. But there are certain times when, as an Auburn Blogger, you hear the clarion call of Tide bias and Auburn-smearing and know you have to stand up and fisk for what is right.

This is one of those times. That post is written by the Fanhouse's Pete Holiday, that noted dispenser of even-handed, rational analysis of all things college football in the state of Alabama. Wait, that's wrong: I meant the slavering Tide zealot who regularly uses the ostensibly neutral-ground Fanhouse platform to, say, talk smack about Auburn fans' CRAZY IDEA that our football team probably should focus on winning its own state before it starts worrying about national titles, a CRAZY IDEA that might just have something to do with which team has actually won said state for most of this decade. (Nevermind the omnipresent irony whenever any Tide fan claiming they don't care about Auburn goes out of their way to build up an [unlinked, you'll notice] Auburn straw man, point at it, and scream "OBSESSED! LOOK HOW OBSESSED!", a maneuver about as convincing as Richard Simmons in Wranglers. Nevermind, of course, that their own idols have stated without much equivocation what they thought of the importance of the Iron Bowl. But I digress.)

This time around, Holiday is asking "Will Fulmer's Departure Force Auburn's Hand?", a question that might actually have some merit if not handled by someone who, metaphorically speaking, is doing the handling simultaneous to clutching the giant ax they're grinding and without opposable thumbs. But let's see what he has to say:

Yesterday, Phil Fulmer became the third BCS conference coach to lose his job during the middle of this season. That leaves the hottest seat in the country the one directly below Tommy Tuberville's rear end.

Well, actually, I'd say the very hottest seat belongs to SDSU's Chuck Long, who's basically a dead man walking at this point. But maybe Holiday is being BCS-specific and obviously Auburn's job does carry a good deal more pressure, so sure, hottest seat in the country. Let's continue.

The question the Auburn trustees certainly must be asking themselves is this: are they going to be at a competitive disadvantage if they wait until the end of the year to fire Tuberville?

The answer is a resounding "yes".

Or, rather, a resounding "possibly." For there to be a competitive disadvantage, Auburn would have to be pursuing an identical two- or maybe three-candidate pool as the other BCS schools and there would have to be a genuinely sharp dropoff in candidate quality from that pool to the next and the other BCS schools would have to be successful in getting their ducks in a row before the end of the season and you're assuming an already-burned once man like Bobby Lowder and the other powers that be are incapable of gauging and/or expressing back-channel interest in other candidates without word leaking out and said candidates would have to be unwilling to wait and see what happens with Auburn's job.

Is all of that possible? Why certainly. But looks to me that's a good several assumptions short of "resounding."

Of course, it's not a guarantee that Coach Tuberville will find himself looking for work come December,

Well, yes, there is the eensy-teensy matter that Tubby might actually hang onto his job, and that to fire him midseason before even giving him the chance to redeem himself against Auburn's two biggest rivals* would be a national disgrace. Since this is a matter that sort of renders the whole "Should they fire him now?" argument completely moot, I'm sure Holiday will spend an appropriate amount of time discussing it ...

but if he is, Auburn will find themselves more than a month behind in their coaching search, and with some heavy competition.

Washington, Clemson, and Tennessee are all in the market right now. That provides a pretty wide range of options for the up-and-coming head coach.

Oh. He's going to gloss over it in the glossiest fashion possible. Nevermind. I will however, agree that our hypothetical "up-and-coming head coach" will have some worthwhile options other than hypothetically coach-hungry Auburn.

At Washington you're a part of a conference that gets a decent amount of respect while also fielding one of the weakest bottoms of the BCS conferences. Granted, you're going to have to play USC every year, but if you put together a nationally competitive team and, many years, the only thing standing between you and a BCS berth is the Trojans.

First off, saying that USC is the only thing that stands between Washington and a BCS bowl berth is like saying that outer space is the only thing that stands between me and my dreams of owning my own luxury apartment complex on the moon. Beyond that: how many candidates are both Washington and Auburn seriously going to look at? The hot names for the U-Dub job are Jim Mora Jr., Gary Pinkel, and current/former USC OCs Steve Sarkisian and Lane Kiffin. (There's also that nutty Mike Leach rumor.) None of these guys would be on Auburn's shortlist.

Over at Clemson you've got a school that is located in the football-crazed southeast, has a middling SEC school on the schedule every year, and finds itself in what is quite possibly the weakest BCS conference in the country. Super-agent Jimmy Sexton even says that Clemson is more attractive than the SEC.

I hardly think "Is South Carolina on the schedule, or not?" will be one of the first questions asked by a prospective head coach when deciding where to play his trade, but eh, I'm not going to take issue with the rest of this. Assuming the salaries were similar, I could see a candidate deciding he'd rather try to fill the power vacuum at the top of the ACC than tangle with Saban, Miles, and Richt on a yearly basis.

Tennessee is a lot like Auburn in terms of what they have there right now, with a few big differences. For starters, the new head coach in Knoxville isn't going to have to deal with Bobby Lowder or the rest of the band of meddling trustees and boosters on the Plains.

An obstacle so daunting Auburn's gone through three head coaches--three! Why, it's like they don't even get the nameplate screwed onto the office door before they have to buy a new one!--in the past 28 years. (Or five in 58 years, if you prefer the longview.)

Maybe the environment is a little more stable in Knoxville, but there's also been talk Fat Phil was on his way out since the day they stuck his crystal football in the trophy case. The difference from the JCCW's (admittedly partisan) viewpoint is negligible.

The Volunteers support a richer football tradition than the Tigers do.

Spoken like the truest of Tide fans. Georgia has truckloads more tradition than Florida; over the past 20 years that tradition has gotten them a boatload of losses and a bag of potato chips.

All that matters is what's the better job now. There are reasons to think Tennessee's the better job: wider fan support; perhaps more cash and better facilities; probably--all things being equal--a little more natural recruiting pull. "A richer football tradition" is not one of them.

Both teams are in the SEC and play both Alabama and Georgia every year, which could either be looked at as a good thing or a bad thing. The SEC might also be one of the most stratified conferences in the country and the normally robust conference has definitely seen some better days top-to-bottom.

These facts explain why Tennessee would be a better coaching destination than Auburn ... how?

You can compare an Auburn opening to any one of these jobs and come up with some good reasons to head to the Loveliest Little Village,

I don't know if "Little" is supposed to be some kind of subtle diss at Auburn or just a screw-up. If it's the former, well, yes, Auburn is not a very big city, how clever to point it out; if it's the latter, it's just "Loveliest Village," thanks. (Also thanks for the brief stab at balance. It is, actually, appreciated.)

but does Auburn hold up to all three of them? And if it does, will it be a big enough difference to offset the weeks/months advantage the Huskies, Tigers, and Volunteers will have in their coaching search?

Eh, maybe not. If all the conditions I listed above that added up to a resounding "possibly" are met, then yes, Auburn's coaching search, should it be necessary, could suffer for having begun after the season. But Auburn's simply not going to be in any kind of position to fire Tubby before he faces Alabama. Surely this fact has to be acknowledged somehow?

Is Auburn facing a situation where they need to decide right now whether to fire Tuberville or wait until next year?

Or, instead of acknowledging it, it can be totally ignored in favor of portraying the situation in the exact opposite light.

With their head coach getting his recruiting lunch eaten all over the conference, can the Tigers afford to wait until next year?

OK, this "recruiting lunch" thing is an outright falsehood. Auburn currently has the top class in the conference according to Scout and the fifth-best according to Rivals. Yes, with all the early commitments those rankings are much more likely to fall than rise. Yes, the firing of Franklin and the increasing Tubby rumors mean that many of those commitments are on shaky ground that will only be firmed up with a top-notch coordinator hire. But for the time being Auburn's 2009 class is both well-regarded and holding together. Only a 'Bama fan could call it a failure with a straight face.

Of course, it's likely that only a 'Bama fan would write this particular post in the first place. The bottom line of Holiday's argument is that Auburn could be making a mistake by not firing Tuberville immediately. Nevermind that doing so would be grossly unfair to both Tubby and the current Auburn players. Nevermind that it would only enhance the coach-unfriendly reputation Holiday acknowledges already exists. Nevermind that Auburn would be making this mockery out of common sense and fairness in the name of blindly pursuing a pool of candidates that's no better than 50/50 to run dry before the end of the year. Nevermind all of that--Auburn's hand is forced!

Please.

Look, I think it's more than fair to discuss what kind of an impact Fulmer's dismissal might have on both Auburn's decision and, should that decision be to release Tubby, Auburn's eventual coaching search. Hell, I did just that myself last week. But that impact is simply that it makes Tubby's dismissal at season's end that much more of a gamble, and maybe that much less likely. It is, no question, one more complication in a situation already very, very complicated.

But that's it. It does not make Auburn's "decision" to evaluate him after this year a mistake, because there's no "decision" to be made right now at all. For Holiday to suggest that not only is there a choice to be made but that Auburn's making the wrong one is to--once again--build an orange-and-blue straw man solely for the purpose of knocking it down.

*FWIW, I think the timing of Fulmer's firing was fine; he's been on the precipice forever and with only the likes of Vandy and Kentucky left on the schedule, there was no way back for him this time. Obviously, Tubby's case is more than a little different.

Tubby for Auburn '09 campaign sees odds dip

Wait, wasn't there supposed to be more yelling?

You've probably read the new Scarbinsky column by now, the one in which the following passage appears:

Wouldn't it be ironic if he left Oxford in a pine box after all?

After Ole Miss 17, Auburn 7, the former Ole Miss coach sounded like a man resigned to becoming the former Auburn coach one day soon.

"What happens at the end of the year happens, and there's nothing anybody can do about it," Tuberville said.

Consider the weight of those words.

This didn't sound like the same coach who vowed, 12 days before, that he planned to be at Auburn 10 more years. But that coach hadn't watched his team lose four straight games for the first time since his first season at Auburn.

What do we make of this?

A loose quote just hanging in the air like that is begging for some context, context just a bit less inflammatory than K-Scar's "sounded like a man resigned" editorializing. Tubby was talking in the immediate aftermath of a fourth straight loss, the first one all year where his team hadn't at least been ahead at the half. It's not like Tubby's exaggerating his situation: as much as he'd like it to be, if the buyout gets scraped together, it's out of his hands. And of course, reading too much into any coach's quotes--particularly a coach as traditionally deft at handling the media as Tubby is--is always a waste.

But K-Scar's sadly, demoralizingly accurate when he says that this sure ain't the same angry, firebrandy, you'll-pry-this-headset-from-my-cold-dead-handsy Tuberville we saw a few weeks back. Tubby's best quality has always, always been his ability to fight out from whatever perceived corner he's felt himself and his team had been backed into. It's not necessarily that I mind him acknowledging the difficulties of his situation, but if he's going to drop his gloves to the media after the Ole Miss loss ... what's he going to do if, say, he finishes at 5-7 after a 30-point whipping at the hands of Alabama AAAAAAAAUGGHHH MY FINGERS IT BURNS IT BURNS MAKE IT STOP PLEASE MAKE THE BURNING STOP? Not to mention to effect on the rest of the team--if they see Tubby slumping his shoulders, how are they going to keep theirs, um, unslumped?

Over the past couple of weeks, I've posited two different scenarios in which Tubby might join the realm of the dearly departed head coaches after this year:

1) He decides he's not interested in coaching Auburn without his friends on the offensive staff, whom I can't imagine he has the coaching capital to retain any longer.

2) The Fulmeresque atmosphere surrounding the program after a 5-7 season culminating in a blowout loss to the Tide GOOD GOSH THAT STINGS becomes so toxic it's best for all involved if he moves on.

I saw the first of these two as substantially more likely, since between the intimidating buyout and the goodwill Tubby's built up over the past several seasons amongst the majority of the Auburn fanbase, I had a hard time believing the "Tubby Out!" factions would gain that much sway even in the event of 5-7. I still do. (The trustees' nonsupport is a nonissue, in my humble opinion; when the entire university has nearly lost its freaking accreditation because of trustees' athletic meddling, "no comment" or "We just support the team" is absolutely the correct response, whatever they actually think of Tubby.)

But hearing Tubby respond "there's nothing anybody can do about it" when asked about his chances to stay on after 4-5 makes me think that maybe, just maybe, 5-7 is going to be harder on him and harder on Auburn than I've expected it to be. If I had to place a bet on Tubby staying/Tubby leaving, the JCCW's would still be on the former. But having watched the anger and defiance leak away from Tubby's public proclamations about his job status over the course of just two losses makes me think that the odds are shifting, however slightly, in the direction of the latter.

Blogpollery, Week 10

Two things pre-ballot:

1. The unceasing decade-long choruses of "parity parity parity all the upsets are about parity chaos = parity parity" have never been accurate. BYU won the national championship in 1984. Colorado and Georgia Tech split it in 1990. West Virginia twice came within a game of an undefeated season and a crown in the late-'80s early-'90s. Having the likes of Missouri or Oregon challenge for a national title or Utah or Cincinnati for a major-level bowl bid isn't anything new.

That said ... I can't remember a season where there seemed to be such universal mediocrity once you got past the top one or two teams in each money league, the Big 12 notably excepted. The SEC is down. The Pac-10 is down. The Big 10 is holding steady at "Eh." And in terms of potential top-15ish teams, the ACC and the Big East are each a wasteland. "Parity" was always supposed to be about a smaller gap between the haves and the have-nots of college football, but that's not what's happening in 2008 ... this year, at least, parity means that we have a few select haves, and past that every major-conference team in the country with a few notable exceptions is at least a have-sorta. The result? Arkansas can beat Tulsa. Northwestern can beat Minnesota. Cal can beat Oregon, but just two weeks ago, Arizona can beat Cal. Anyone in the entire ACC can beat anyone else. If you want to discuss parity, this year is finally your year.

2. Dr. Saturday mentioned this already, but it's worth going into a bit more detail about: the coaches not only have Oklahoma ranked ahead of the same Texas team that has the same record, better victories, and beat them head-to-head, they have them ranked three whole places ahead! And this poll makes up a third of the system we use to decide a championship. Goodness gracious.

On with the JCCW's ballot:

Rank	Team	Delta
1	Alabama	1
2	Texas Tech	4
3	Penn State	--
4	Texas	3
5	Florida	1
6	Oklahoma	1
7	Southern Cal	1
8	Oklahoma State	1
9	Ohio State	4
10	Georgia	3
11	Utah	1
12	TCU	--
13	Boise State	2
14	Ball State	--
15	Missouri	3
16	Maryland	5
17	California	9
18	Michigan State	1
19	North Carolina	1
20	Pittsburgh	3
21	Oregon State	1
22	LSU	3
23	Georgia Tech	3
24	West Virginia	2
25	Northwestern	1

Dropped Out: Tulsa (#15), Minnesota (#16), Florida State (#17), Connecticut (#24).

1-3: With Alabama's beatdown of Georgia losing just a bit of its value, the gap between 1 and 2 here is awfully narrow; a Texas Tech victory next week over Okie St. would take them to No. 1. But for now the Raiders don't have enough in their sorry excuse for a nonconference schedule to justify moving them all the way to the top. What's funny is that I can't imagine Penn St. can really have too many complaints about being jumped at this point, not when all Texas really had to do to lock up one of the BCS title-game slots was catch that pick that fell in their laps. On such tiny details the entire season hinges.

4-10: Texas is your top one-loss team, and it's not even close right now. Florida has victories over the 10th and 22nd-ranked teams in this ballot and lost at home to a team outside the poll; Texas has beaten the Nos. 6, 8, and 15 teams and lost on the road to the current No. 2 team. Not a tough choice.

Re Oklahoma vis a vis Oklahoma St., in last week's Blog Poll breakdown Brian wrote that "you can argue the only thing keeping the Sooners ahead of the Cowboys is name recognition" and the same argument probably holds after both teams annihilated overmatched opponents at home. Brian's right that it's possible to argue this. But I think the better argument still has Oklahoma out in front at this time. Okie St. has the Missouri win but not much else; their next-best win is at home to 4-5 Texas A&M. Meanwhile, the value of that Missouri win is increasingly debatable as the Tigers squeaked by Baylor this last week and still haven't beaten anyone themselves better than Illinois. The Sooners, meanwhile, have smoked pretty much everyone they've played, including TCU--at this point, a win every bit as good as Missouri--Cincinnati, and Kansas. Top-to-bottom, the Sooners' resume is better, and while it's basically a coinflip between USC and Okie St. for me at the moment, I do think the Trojans' manhandling of Ohio St. puts them one notch up the ladder as well.

I'm not particularly fond of Ohio St. or Georgia--th Dawgs gets nothing, credit-wise, from the trip to Tempe and have to cite "at LSU" as their best win and "at South Carolina" as their second-best. The winner of TCU-Utah will pass them both next week.

11-14: I'll back TCU if they can sweep their Mountain West schedule, but I'm just not sold on the rest of these teams as legitimate BCS contenders. Utah has one miracle comeback at home vs. Oregon St. to their name. Boise has only the win over rapidly-fading, third-place-at-best Oregon and can't even point towards huge blowouts of their WAC foes; playing on their own blue turf against Hawaii, they only won by 20 against the same Warriors that just lost to pathetic Utah St. Ball has the blowouts, but their best possible win is home against Navy.

15-23: You can order these teams just about however you'd like, but there's a chasm between this block and the top-10, despite the relative five-slot closeness of it. Very few of these teams have any wins worth crowing about; those that do have bad losses to pair with them. As Missouri's losses are the best and they'd been pwning fools until this week, they top the lot. Maryland-Cal-Michigan St. have to go in that particular order due to head-to-head. (I know State has eight wins, but the best one of them is at Northwestern and the next-best is vs. Notre Dame. Maryland goes Cal-Wake Forest and Cal claims Michigan St.-Oregon. It's not enough for the Spartans to bypass head-to-head.)

I'm going to be seriously irked if Pitt fails to make the poll this week; no, they don't have any standout wins, but @Notre Dame-@Navy-Iowa-@USF is still a legit collection of middlebrow W's, and way better than what overrated LSU (@South Carolina + bupkis) or Georgia Tech (sorry, not impressed by beating Boston College or Florida St.) have on offer.

24-25: I can't believe these dregs made the poll. West Virginia's best win is @UConn, there's absolutely nothing behind it, and their losses just aren't entirely excusable. Northwestern gets by by getting by on the road: Minnesota, Iowa, and Duke aren't murderer's row but all three W's came away from Evanston.

Waitlist: South Carolina and Ole Miss are knocking on the door; one more round of SEC wins should do it.

Knee-jerk: And the winner is ...

Recently, I issued a call for submissions for a convenient nickname for this Frankensteinian horror-show of a season. Apparently I wasn't the only one thinking this Auburn teams needs some sort of handy NO WE CAN'T! NO WE CAN'T! slogan, because the suggestions poured in both via comment and e-mail.

We had straightforward "we suck" suggestions: The Little Season that Couldn't, The Execrable Season, The Season of Utter Failure, the F.O.R.D. Season (i.e. "Fix or Repair Daily", via Acid), the Late Unpleasantness, the Season of Bitter Emptiness, and in a sharp bit of Bowden-era parody, God-AUful. We had a bevy of Franklin and/or spread-related suggestions: Spread Too Thin 2008, Season of Spread and Sputter, the Year of Spreading Dangerously, War Feeble: the Tony Franklin Story (or how I Stooped Worrying and Learned to Hate the Spread), The Season of Country Crock Spread (100% Offense-Free), the Season of Dread-Spread, the Season of Unintended Consequences, 2000-Franklin-8, the Season of Lost Minds, or the Spread Evil Season. We had a host of musically-related suggestions, including System of a Down(er), the Season I Started To Hate You, and a bunch from Grotus: the Hard Time Killin' Floor, the Long Gone Lonesome Season, the Lonesome Johnny Season, the Season That Should Not Be, and, um, the Season of Race-Car Ya-Yas. We had a handful referring to Auburn's penchant for first-half heroics and second-half collapses: the Season of Bad Halftime Speeches, the First Half National Championship Season, the Year of All-You-Can-Drink Jager Bombs at Halftime. And lastly, we had a couple of appeals to to the Arts, with Grotus offering Winesburg, Alabama to warm the cockles of my English-major heart and Sullivan013 suggesting the Duck! Rabbit, Duck! Season, which leads us to this rather excellent visual metaphor for the experience of being an Auburn fan in 2008:



That's it exactly, actually: every week we take look at the opponent and expect our team to find a way to dispose of them, every week they instead take aim and give us another embarrassing faceful of pain. ("More briefing? More briefing." = "We've removed another 20 percent of the playbook.") But no matter how violent it might look, it has to keep happening, over and over and over. Cartoon characters don't die. Auburn fans stay Auburn fans. We just have to put ourselves together again, and again, until we're out of anger or any kind of rational responses. That's when we crack and start gibbering about this being Fiddler Crab Season. Shoot us again. We enjoy it.

The depths are such that there's a reason I've listed above every single suggestion I received: they're all appropriate, they're all a just description of what's happened to Auburn in 2008. Which, I think, I'm going to go ahead and refer to as the Season of DEATH or 2008=DEATH. Is it ridiculously over-the-top? Yes. But humorously so, in that wonderful all-caps way that we all love about the Internets.

More than that, though, when we think of 2008, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to think about it as a sort of death. Oh, we the fans are still Daffy, still there, still sporting our shotgun shiners. But the dangerous, exciting, successful Auburn of 2000-2007 is gone. And let's face facts: I'd prefer he stick around, but it's possible the coach behind the Auburn of 2000-2007 is, too. If he's not, 2009 might be rebirth or it might be just a sad confirmation about what was lost this year. A wake. Either way: 2008=DEATH.

Assorted thoughts

--I'm not expecting Auburn fans to be too harsh on Kodi Burns, but for the record: Auburn fans shouldn't be too harsh on Kodi Burns. Yes, he threw three interceptions, all three of which were eye-gougingly ugly. But he's a sophomore who's already working on his third quarterback coach, the first of which treated him as a running back who had a bit of an arm; the second of which championed a rag-armed Daniel Cobb clone at Burns's expense; the third of which is the same sometime tight ends coach who turned Jason Campbell into a basket case. It's going to take time.

--I couldn't care less that Ensminger called 43 passes to 27 runs. The runs at Ole Miss's fearsome defensive front averaged 3.0 yards (and got a full third of its yardage from the single Ben Tate TD run) and the passes against Ole Miss's eminently torchable secondary averaged 7.4 yards. I'll take potential turnovers in the Rebels' territory over an endless series of punts from Auburn's own 25, thanks.

--Entering the season, the one position at which Auburn simply could not afford to have injuries was cornerback. So, of course, now Auburn's top four corners are all questionable-at-best for Saturday and there's a good chance our nominal starters will be D'Antoine Hood and Harry Adams, two inexperienced true freshman. When it rains on the Season of DEATH, it's time to start leading the animals two-by-two.

--Chris Slaughter, 8 catches for 131 yards FTW?!?

--True, it was more-than-a-little encouraging to see the battered, bruised, Rocky-esque Auburn defense stand up and take a few punches without collapsing this time. They even got in a few jabs here and there and thanks to Jevan Snead showing up like he expected the fight to be thrown, hung in there to Round 10 or 12 or however long you'd like to stretch the metaphor for. But they never landed the haymaker, either: in a game in which we all knew forcing turnovers would be critical, they finished with zero forced fumbles and zero interceptions. So it goes.

--Another zero: sacks for Ole Miss. On 43 attempts, that's not too shabby. The stuffing of the run game was obviously, yes, on the shabby side, but eight-man fronts in which several of those eight men will stuff the run for a living in the NFL means it was never going to be an easy job.

--I'm pretty sure we've reached a consensus that this is the worst season of Tuberville's tenure, the worst Auburn season since the 3-8 debacle in 1998. But is it worse? It could be. Expectations were fairly low in 1998 with Dameyune Craig out the door and the obvious talent deficiencies up-and-down Auburn's roster by that point. Maybe it's just the recency effect talking, but here at the JCCW, the plummet in 2008 feels more painful, more disastrous. Is this the darkest period for Auburn since Dye was forced out under the cloud of five-win seasons and Ramseygate? It might be. I think it might be.