Tuesday, October 10, 2006

CIS CORNER: NATIONAL RANKINGS RANKLE

In the wake of Shakeup Saturday, the latest CIS Football Top 10 comes out today, but first there's a few questions:

1. Sure, they won again and are 5-0 this fall, but are the Laval Rouge et Or really deserving of the No. 1 ranking?
No. Laval hasn't been as out-and-out dominant as in the past. Conference rival Concordia, which came into last weekend No. 6 and is due to rise, actually has a higher winning margin (22.4 points to Laval's 18.6). The difference is that coach Gerry McGrath's Stingers began the season unranked.

However, dropping Laval from No. 1 is a non-starter until they lose. You know the logic: They'll be No. 1 until someone proves otherwise. Concordia gets a chance to in their only regular-season meeting against Laval on Sunday (1 p.m. ET, RDS).

2. How far will No. 2 Saskatchewan and No. 3 McMaster fall after losing at home last weekend?
The Manitoba Bisons, who went into Griffiths Stadium and upset the U of S 35-23, may leapfrog over both teams into the No. 2 rung, with the U of S holding at No. 3 due to reputation. Whether that's an accurate reading is another story. As for Mac, see the following question.

3. Where should the three 5-1 teams in a logjam at the top of the Ontario University Athletics conference be ranked?
Tough one. The No. 7 Laurier Golden Hawks have won four in a row, although that 31-12 score against the No. 3 McMaster Marauders on Saturday probably flattered them a bit -- Mac was missing its best defensive back, Jesse Card, and lost QB Adam Archibald and slotback Jon Behie to injuries during the game.

The guess here is that the Ottawa Gee-Gees hold at No. 5, Mac falls to No. 6 and Laurier stays at No. 7. That's what might happen, but don't confuse that with what should happen. It could have been an off-day, with players distracted by the Thanksgiving holiday, and coach Denis Piché did play a fair number of backups (D-lineman Dan Kennedy, linebacker Cheelor Linder and tailback Davie Masson were among the sitting starters), but Ottawa wasn't sharp in their 34-13 win over Queen's last Saturday.

They had four turnovers, and Josh Sacobie, their quarterback, missed several open receivers, keeping the game closer than it should have been. Despite mental mistakes and inept offence on the part of Queen's, Ottawa didn't put the game away until well into the third quarter.

At one point, with Queen's driving early in the second half, an Ottawa fan remarked, "The fireside chat doesn't seem to be working this week," alluding to a quote Piché gave to the Ottawa Sun after the Gee-Gees outscored Guelph 31-0 in the second half the week before.

Ottawa isn't the No. 5 team in Canada, but like Laval, they opened the season ranked high. They close with Waterloo and the U of T, so they have little to worry about so far as rankings are concerned. Besides, you shouldn't be worrying about rankings, although apparently the Windsor Lancers missed that memo.

4. Does the Atlantic conference, where the top regular-season team could conceivably have a 4-4 record, deserve to have a ranked team?
Possibly, but it might not be the Acadia Axemen (3-2), who lead the conference. The two-time conference champions aren't going to move back into the Top 10 since they lost at home last week to Saint Mary's (2-3). First-year head coach Steve Sumurah's Huskies looks like it might be on its way to fulfilling Out of Left Field's pre-season prophesy that they may "be this year's version of the team that has a so-so 4-4 or 5-3 regular season and then finds something that works in the playoffs."

The Huskies won in Acadia's backyard on Saturday, 24-21, and while some would point out that was their first win over a quality opponent (the other was over perpetually rebuilding Mount Allison), the three consecutive losses they opened the season with were by 2, 2, and 4 points, the first and last of those against teams that were ranked going into the game.

Saint Mary's may have supplanted Acadia as the Atlantic favourite, but putting a sub-.500 team in the top 10 at this point of the season is too radical. Plus, the rankings are political. What will Acadia, the Alberta Golden Bears (each 3-2) or the Western Mustangs and Windsor Lancers (both 4-2) say if they're not ranked and a 2-3 team is?

5. Why is that by Week 6 or 7, it seems to be pretty tough to determine the last couple spots in the Top 10?
Simply put, 27 teams doesn't offer enough depth for a legitimate top 10, but our society likes our lists to be in denominations of 5 and 10, so the CIS invites controversy at this time of year by making the pollsters sift through teams with records such as 3-2, 3-3 and 4-2. Hey, there's nothing wrong with inviting controversy.

There are nine teams you can comfortably rank: Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the UBC Thunderbirds in Can West, the Mac-Laurier-Ottawa troika in Ontario, and Laval, Concordia and Montreal from the Quebec conference.

The odd team out might appear to be UBC (3-2). Due to a defence that sometimes has more leaks than a substandard Vancouver condo, the T-Birds are only a couple plays from being 5-0, having lost to Alberta and Saskatchewan in the final seconds. By the way, UBC's tailback, Chris Ciezki, who's averaging 9.1 yards per carry and has scored nine touchdowns on just 79 touches, should be generating some serious Hec Crighton Trophy buzz.

What's wrong with all the other teams who have winning records?

Alberta (3-2): Can't score to save their lives and almost lost to last-place Simon Fraser; they've perhaps been the most disappointing team in the country (well, outside of Kingston, but you know my bias there).

Windsor (4-2): The teams they beat are a combined 5-19, plus they'll likely be an underdog against a 2-4 Guelph team this week. Tailback Daryl Stephenson has averaged 178.3 yards in the Lancers' wins and 76.5 yards in their losses.

Western (4-2): Only semi-impressive win was over Windsor, and beating the U of T by 23 points isn't far less impressive than what No. 10 Alberta did last weekend.

(Alberta had a bye. Sorry for having to explain the joke.)

Back with more later. Send your thoughts to neatesager@yahoo.ca.

No comments: