Ask about
Advertising
Opportunities
ads@CFFL

and Job Opportunities
jobs@CFFL

visitors this season

Hear from Players

"CFFL and it's outstanding customer oriented staff, have taken the
popularity of fantasy sports to another level by offering a variety of
fantasy games for passionate college football fans like myself"
centfld7@verizon.net

"I LOVED THIS WEEKEND!  
I really enjoyed the college fantasy football weekend.  I'm going to love this.

It's like a whole new kinda game."
Gonos, FantasyRef.com

"I LOVE that someone actually has fantasy leagues for people who follow college sports."
Sept. 1999
Rich C., NJ

"Thanks for putting this league together. I had a blast following my players scores throughout the day and look forward to the remainder of the season."
1991 National Champions owner, 
Steve W 

"College football has always been my favorite sport to watch, but now with my CFFL players to watch it's even more fun!  Great idea, guys."
Colorado Buffs owner, Dennis J 

"College football season was extra nerve wrecking this season thanks to the CFFL. I never thought that I could care about so many different teams. Now with the College Fantasy Basketball League starting, I Can't wait to get a start on the college basketball season!!"
Big Dave's Dazzling Dynamo owner, 
Dave C

CFFL.com News Stand

BCS Controversy?  Of Course Not!
Does Everyone in the AP Watch Enough Games?

By the Commissioner, CFFL.com

A lot has happened in the world of College football writers and College football fans in the past month.  The BCS is on the proverbial hot seat, and fans are clamoring for justice in the world of team rankings.  Players are crying foul and teams are asking, Why not us?  What seems to be missed by most of those who are complaining about the state of college football this Christmas season is, well, facts.

A blunt condemnation of BCS critics and complaining fans, yes.  Undeserved?  No. Because frankly, every time I have heard a complaint about the BCS results -- namely, USC at No. 3 -- I see an ignorance of some pretty relevant facts.  Games played, and more importantly, games not played.  I'm reminded of a clever response I heard from a debater to his persistent yet uninformed critic; it went something like, "I see, you're taking the firm, 'Don't bother me with facts' position."

Don't bother USC fans with the facts.  Likewise, don't bother BCS critics who cry foul about the USC position.  Facts will get in the way of their successful complaining about the fate of their Trojans.

Oddly, though, the reality is that the BCS gave USC a perfect scenario.  Not a foul one.  This fact is probably the one USC fans should be bothered with, and would want to be bothered with.  But they aren't seeing it, thanks to this "Don't bother me with facts" stance.

Here are the facts.  (In case you aren't a flabbergasted USC fan, or you actually want to see why the BCS is right.)  Fact one: regular season records were 12-0, 11-1, 11-1.  

Fact Two: only 2 of those 3 teams played an extra game, for their Conferences. 

Fact Three: the 11 wins for one of those teams (USC) were against relatively weak teams.  [They included only a good 9-3 Washington State, and 8-5 Hawaii team (whose 8 wins themselves are questionable strength) and a bunch of 7-win and 6-win teams.]  The other 11-win team (LSU) on the other hand,  played a 10-3 team (and gave them 2 of those 3) and a 10-2 team and a 9 win team, and so forth.   No question, USC's wins came against much weaker teams than LSU.  Their opponents were on the level of a Miami, Ohio a team with 1 loss who was also left out of the BCS title game because of their weak opponents. And Oklahoma?  Their 12 wins?  10 wins, 9 wins 8 wins, and so forth.  So aside from being the only unbeaten team after the regular season ended, they had the strongest schedule to beat in getting there.    

How strong (or weak) were the schedules of these three teams?  10 teams had tougher schedules than Oklahoma.  Ohio State, Kansas State, and Florida were some of the teams that had tougher schedules.  They each lost at least 2 games, though, so OU clearly handled the better competition much more effectively.  LSU?  28 teams had tougher schedules.  One-fourth of the nation's 1-A teams played harder schedules than LSU's.  Not too impressive.  Only 48th ranked Tennessee had a weaker schedule among top-10 teams.  Besides USC, that is.  36 teams, or a third of the nation, had tougher schedules than USC.  They played opponents that were weaker than Bowling Green's MAC conference schedule

Now, would Bowling Green be in the title game, if they had won 11 of those games against the 36th toughest opponents?  before you answer, remember that the consensus among the writers and coaches and fans is that the MAC is a second-tier conference in terms of strength.  Maybe the toughest non-BCS conference, but still a conference on the outside of premiere competition.  No way would BGSU be playing in the title game if they were 11-1.  No way.  Doubt that, just ask Miami, Ohio.  The highest they got tanked among the polls for their 1-loss season in the MAC was 14th.  (The other poll gave them a 15.)  Not even close.  So, why is the USC team thought to be worthy of a 1-spot?  Weaker schedule than Bowling Green,  a bit tougher than much lower ranked Tennessee, 5-times weaker than 2-loss Ohio State.  And so on.  Why?  Certainly not data.  Not objective evaluation.  Subjective factors come in.  Impressions, opinions, expectations, all the fun stuff of college sports fandom.  The material we use when discussing sports at the bar, in the clubhouse, among friends in the living room on Saturdays.  The 'soft' side of evaluation, the stuff that we as a professional community of sports writers agree should be made less significant if we hope to make the College sports championships process a fair one.  The solution for all of the complaints about not having a Playoff for College football.  Enter computer rankings and the BCS.  Makes the subjective a little less weighty in the evaluation process, a little less able to vote a team in based on the commercials we see and the money poured in to to make us keep the glamour teams in mind when we place our votes.  Wait, no, that was politics, right?  Where money talks and talent is unnecessary.  Is it possible that the same thing that infects our political process is at work here in the college football ranks?  

Fact is, those who voted USC number one this year did so based on a few experiences of watching them play and the expectations that gave them, along with a load of commercial-driven opinions about how good that team is.   They did not look at all of the facts.  

What if they did look at the facts?  Well, they would see that their USC vote is a contradiction, of one sort or another.  Either they are guilty of the old fashioned subjective voting they sought to rid through using the BCS, or they ignored the facts about how that USC team got the wins they collected.  Either they accepted a team's wins over deadbeat teams as OK (since they are in the PAC 10, a 37th ranked schedule will be overlooked).  Or, they voted with their heart and not their head, the practice we all see as the downfall of a Bowl-based championship system, the very reason they installed a more objective, less political and commercial BCS system.

Don't  let USC-backers in the AP (and elsewhere) cry!  USC played more patsies than real teams, and they should have their 1-loss season reflect that.  Put them in there with Miami, Ohio. Their 1-loss season was against MAC-type competition.  Best of the MAC, of course, but still the MAC.  And give them the same response you give Miami, Ohio, and TCU and Boise State -- play tougher competition to earn your way into this title game.  Those are the facts.  Live with them.  Or, if you want to be a USC-apologist, take the "Don't bother me with the facts" stance.  Don't bother with the weak schedule they used to finish with only 1 loss.  Don't let it bother you that their high rankings in subjective polls were largely due to all the attention their coaches get from the media, and the glamour status of playing in LA.  Don't bother with the past problems that subjective polls caused for a bowl-based championship system.   Don't bother with the regular season -- focus instead on extra post-season games that two of your opponents for the BCS title have to play, and you get to skip!  Count those extra games against OU and LSU -- unless of course they win them, and LSU ends up ahead of you! Don't bother with any of that.  Just say, "We're # 1" as often as you can, to convince yourself.  Forget that politics and patsies (a ton of media attention and a MAC-type schedule) is how USC got there.  Oh, and thank your conference for letting you skip an extra conference championship game -- not that there is anyone worth playing in the 2003 PAC 10.  (Sorry, Cal.)  One less decent team to play before shouting "#1!"

And don't cry for USC.  They have the dream ending.  (Their fans are too busy crying about the BCS to realize that the system landed them in the ideal ending to their season.)  They are a team that played a weak schedule, managed to lose one of those weak games, and still is playing in the Rose Bowl with all the attention on them and the chance to win a share of the national championship!  What more can a PAC 10 team playing a MAC schedule want?  It's perfect.  They can parade around and talk about how good they are, never challenged by anyone.  They can talk all month, and not have to stand behind their boasting.  Posture all December, and put themselves in the position to either win the Rose Bowl and proclaim themselves as National Champions after their first encounter with a 10-win team, or lose the Rose Bowl and cry foul that "We would have beaten Oklahoma and LSU" and leave the mark of injustice and disappointment all offseason.  It's a no-lose situation for the Trojans and their fans.  Don't cry for them.  They are in the Bowl they wanted to be in, and the AP and Coaches have given them a chance to win a national championship by beating one good team!

Would any coach not grab this opportunity?  What a gift!  Or, as USC apologists would say, "What a rip-off!" 

Ignorance is bliss, for the 'So Cal' backers and AP writers.

Saturday,  July 19 2003

Draft Tips for 2003

By the Commissioner, CFFL.com

___

Big XII Preseason Report
CFFL.com College Fantasy Football

 A lot has changed in Big XII country during the relatively short history of this dominant Conference.  What began as a collection of traditional running game-intensive offenses and solid straight-up smashmouth defenses has shifted a great deal since the Big 8 became the Big XII several years back.  From a fantasy football perspective, the change in Conference makeup and offensive style, in particular, since inviting The Texas 4 into the Big 8 has been both welcome and challenging. 

The changes in the Big XII in recent years have been marked primarily by figures such as Stoops, Snyder, Brown and Neuheisel/Barnett at the coaching level, and players like Heupel, Kingsbury, Wallace, Williams, Griffin, Williams, and… well the list goes on.  This Conference has boasted National Champions, fantasy superstars, Defenses that score more than many Offenses on a weekly basis, and multi-TD blowouts that make fantasy managers leave puddles of saliva on their Stats pages Friday evenings.  (Insert obligatory ‘creampuff K-State non-conference schedule’ comment here.)  To excel at College fantasy football a team owner must know the ins and outs of this Conference.

In the 2003 season, the names that should be on fantasy managers’ short lists will include RBs like Sproles at KSU, Benson at Texas, Jones at OU, Abron at Mizzou, and several more Backs that can play starting or key second-string roles on your Offense.  These players will be the subject of weekly stories about their production on the field and their ability to carry their teams to victories through a pounding ground game.  The receiving corps is stocked with Woods at OK State, Williams returning for a run at the Heisman at Texas, and Danielsen showed potential flashes of stardom at ISU.  The overall receiving group at OU and Texas are among the nation’s best, which means either a group of moderately valuable WRs to choose from or a place to grab some potential sleepers – we can only wait to see how the ball lands come midseason.  In either case, the QBs there will have high upsides thanks to this level of talent. 

At QB the story is the return of a renewed Roberson at KSU, emergence of 2002’s fantasy blue-chip Whittemore at Kansas, and the dual-threat Smith at Mizzou.  In the state of Oklahoma there is the story of White being on the mend (again!) at OU and playing the role of wildcard as he could be a huge factor if healthy, while over at Stillwater there is a talent in Fields who has the offensive support players to do some damage.  Texas has a trio of potential stars at QB alone in A&M’s Long, Texas’ successor to the fair-haired Simms boy in Chance Mock, and the next in line to light up the stats pages in Leach’s transplanted OU offense at Tech, Symons, the Red Raiders’ answer to the graduation of Kliff Kingsbury.  The Big XII sports a number of talented two-way QBs who are fantasy stars.  Smith at Mizzou, White at OU, Roberson at KSU, Long at Texas A&M, and Mock at Texas is probably going to be another.

When we break down the names to be aware of this preseason in the Big XII, it looks something like this:

Quarterback:
1)            Roberson, KSU

2)                 Smith, Mizzou

3)                 Whittemore, Kansas

4)                 Symons, Texas Tech

5)                 Fields, OK State

6)                 White/Rawls, Oklahoma

7)                 Lord, Nebraska

8)                 Mock, Nebraska

Running Back:
1)        Sproles, KSU

2)                 Jones, Oklahoma

3)                 Henderson, Texas Tech

4)                 Abron, Mizzou

5)                 Benson, Texas

6)                 Bell, Oklahoma State

7)                 Purify, Colorado

8)                 Horne, Nebraska

Receiver:

1)                 Williams, Texas

2)                 Woods, Oklahoma State

3)                 Danielsen, Iowa State

4)                 Welker, Texas Tech

5)                 Taylor, Texas A&M

6)                 Peoples, Oklahoma

7)                 Johnson, Texas

8)                 McCoy, Colorado

Fantasy Spotlight: Oklahoma Special Teams
The Sooners have been a well-rounded team for each of the years Stoops has been in town.  This has been the key to their domination of the conference in recent years.  Special Teams has been one of the relatively unknown factors they have excelled in.  Looking back at the 2000 Championship game, it was solid Special Teams that secured the title -- including (Punter) Ferguson’s decision to take a Safety late in the game instead of risking a dangerous kick that could have allowed the Seminoles to finally get in the end zone.

Last season the Special Teams were looking a bit down, with talent graduating, the failure to report by their top-rated freshman Kicker, and no proven return specialists set.  By midseason this unit was a key strength with the emergence of DiCarlo at PK, solid Punting by the incoming kicker there (another Ferguson, little brother – and NC transfer – Blake) and the emergence of a superstar return man in Antonio Perkins.  This unit makes the Defense better, the offense better, and the Oklahoma ‘Defense/Special Teams’ unit a high Draft pick for fantasy Owners.