Ok, so there's a shitton of college football shit, shit! Here goes...
Showing posts with label ESPN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ESPN. Show all posts
12.06.2010
12.01.2010
TCU Joins the Big East
http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=5862368
I might do a College Football rundown later this week, if not next week, but until then I found this story humorous.
TCU is in Fort Worth, Texas (of Dallas/Fort Worth region fame). It is WEST of the Mississipi river, usually the indicator of East/West in NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES.
That's enough caps for now.
I might do a College Football rundown later this week, if not next week, but until then I found this story humorous.
TCU is in Fort Worth, Texas (of Dallas/Fort Worth region fame). It is WEST of the Mississipi river, usually the indicator of East/West in NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES.
That's enough caps for now.
11.23.2010
NCAA Football, week 13, 2010
Even though there is sooooo much more to be discussed regarding the elections (there were many referenda (that's plural for referendum), especially regarding gun rights, sections of the recent healthcare bill, and one pretty large one regarding the possible legalization of a recreational drug; oh, and the democrats picked Pelosi to be the minority leader, that happenned too; and screw governor's races) I think it's time for me to again shift gears and to talk about college football, everyone's favorite subject.
This just in -- the BCS sucks.
I'm not just saying this because Penn State is doing awful this year (well, by Penn State standards), I'm saying this because it is fact.
This just in -- the BCS sucks.
I'm not just saying this because Penn State is doing awful this year (well, by Penn State standards), I'm saying this because it is fact.
6.08.2010
Conference Expansion: The end of the bcs?
If one were to listen to ESPN, one would assume all is peachy keen in bcs land, that this is the perfect system to last for eons, the constant force (which changes formulas almost every year) by which we decide who our College Football National Champion is.
Oddly enough, the conferences are making it look as if the bcs's days are numbered.
You see, the conferences are the foundation of the bcs. It is the reason there are bcs conferences and non-bcs conferences. To have a perfectly stable Big Ten, ACC, Big East, SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, and Notre Dame is what makes the bcs work as it does. (It is true that about a decade ago, the ACC poached some of the Big East's best schools, but the Big East responded by poaching some of the rising non-bcs talent in the eastern half of the country, and focusing more on becoming a basketball conference).
As we speak, the conferences are out in their meetings, in their own little bubbles, plotting and planning on expansion.
Namely the Big Ten and the Pac-10.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1090747
It's been common knowledge that the Big Ten has been looking to expand, though they haven't really shown their hand at how or how large. Already, despite their name, they have 11 schools (one can see it in the logo), though current NCAA rules state a conference needs 12 schools to have a conference championship game -- otherwise the conference gives the title away by conference standing, which is outrageous, Penn State has technically been co-champions for both of their Big Ten championships, both with Ohio State, a team that they also beat in both of those seasons.
Alas, I digress. Common sense seems to dictate Notre Dame is a target, seeing as how it almost joined the Big Ten in recent history, has rivalries with many Big Ten teams, and lies in the heart of Big Ten territory (Indiana, on the outskirts of Chicagoland). Simply adding Notre Dame would make it 12, and enable a conference championship game. But Notre Dame likely won't go for this, citing tradition (bs) and playing service academies out of respect (padding the schedule, they don't play airforce though, and have FINALLY started losing to Navy). So the Big Ten will likely target other schools. They can either go east, west, or arguably both.
East-ways they can give Penn State some east-coast company by taking a Big East school -- rumored candidates include Rutgers, Pitt (which would re-enable the fabled PSU/Pitt rivalry), Syracuse, and West Virginia.
West-ways they'll likely target some Big 12 schools, and this is where it gets really interesting. Missouri is all but looking for an excuse to jump to the Big Ten. They already have a rivalry with Illinois in basically every sport, and don't like the Big 12's revenue sharing model, which directs most of the funds to the University of Texas. They can also target Iowa State (to complete the Iowa pair), Nebraska, and maybe even Colorado or Kansas (getting Kansas with Missouri would keep that rivalry intact). They also are rumored to target the University of Texas itself.
This is where the Pac-10 comes in. They are looking to expand eastward, get into some new markets. The link I provided earlier (which isn't as much hearsay as one may believe, I've seen similar info on other sites) shows the Pac-10's plan to annex UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado -- making it a 16 team conference. The six invited Big 12 schools would likely form a division with Arizona and Arizona State, making an inland division and coastal division.
IF something like this were to go down PRECISELY like this, it would effectively end the Big 12 as a conference (though to be fair it's only like 15 years old anyway). The northern teams head east to the Big 10, the southern teams head west to the Pac-10.
The problem is, not every Big 12 school is on board with this.
Texas has no incentive to leave the Big 12, so long as it stays intact. It gets the most money from the revenue sharing model and is still a member of a bcs conference.
Texas A&M may not want to play so many games on the west coast. Already school officials have grumbled about past games on the west coast, and students being forced to return very late. If they were to join the Pac-10, this would be a very regular occurrence. Also, while they are a chief rival of Texas, they may want to get out of their shadow. Alternate plans show this school heading to the SEC if the Big 12 crumbles.
Which brings me to my next thing -- Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may want to also head to the SEC to get out of the Big 12. It would reunite them with fellow former Southwest conference member Arkansas, and would move them away from Texas, who as was previously stated, takes a substantial piece of revenue.
The legislature of the State of Texas may also mess this scenario up, as they may want to keep the 4 Texas schools of the Big 12 together (notice I have never mentioned Baylor until just now). It may also affect the other Texas schools of division 1 football -- Houston, Rice, SMU, TCU, Northern Texas, and UTEP (the first 4 of those former members of the Southwest football conference).
I wonder if the Pac-10 is also looking at the non-bcs risers of late. All of them fit in the geographic region that is either typically covered by the Pac-10, or is targeted by them now. Boise State and Utah being in the former category, TCU in the latter.
So all of this, in the end, focuses on the State of Texas. Why? The same reason Texas gets most of the money in the Big 12's revenue sharing agreement now -- Television.
The Big Ten Network has been a large success for the conference (after a bumpy start getting it broadcast) and has shown an effective way for a conference to monopolize and control the television coverage, and therefore incoming revenue, of the conferences sports, while also giving the conference a way to show it's other athletics which wouldn't usually get televised (soccer, swimming, track, etc). Notre Dame would hypothetically open the conference up to a national audience, though I don't think Notre Dame has the same national pull it had in, say, 1948. Which brings us to Texas. Texas is the second most populous state in the nation (California, the first, is under a pretty tight Pac-10 grip), and thus the target of many of these conferences. Plus it is in the middle of the country, so it's not like the Big East is asking for USC, it's the conference moving either east-ward or west-ward.
The large market is also the reason some of the Big East schools are targets of the Big Ten -- getting Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn would open the conference to either the state or city of New York. Pitt and West Virginia are both geographically closer to the Big Ten and have ties with Penn State.
Anyways -- what does this mean for the bcs?
Well, let's assume the Big Ten expands to 16 schools (what they are is kind of irrelevant, and will just be a large puzzle making excercise for me), the Pac-10 also wants to expand to 16-ish schools so it can compete. The SEC and ACC pick up the scraps of the Big 12 and Big East and also create 16 team conferences (again, I don't really care if the numbers are off by a little). BOOM. 4 Conference champions. 4 team playoff for the national champion -- just like that. Yes, this would likely exclude the non-bcs conferences, in the grand scheme of things the big conferences don't care about the little ones -- Joepa I feel usually speaks out against the conferences out of his own frustration of being continuously left out while Penn State was independent until the 90s (that's over 20 years of putting up with that shit, I don't care if he's 80 something, you have to remember that). Maybe it will force the non-bcs conferences to consolidate into their own bigger conferences -- this would be much easier if the current powers don't jump to higher grounds -- and they can enter into the playoff process. BOOM. 8 team playoff for the national champion. The problem of working around the current Conference format to slide in some sort of national championship is no more.
Expanding the conferences not only makes the "selection" process that much simpler, but it also destroys the historic bowl ties, that nostalgia loosely holds in place. Where does the Cotton Bowl go if the State of Texas is split up? Will People want to see a Rutgers/Colorado Rose Bowl? Sure, they'll probably still exist, but they'll probably have a better chance of surviving as consolation games, and nothing else (though to be fair, when there's like 40 bowl games, they're pretty much all consolation games).
The bcs is complaining about how long and painful a playoff system would be, yet the NCAA is considering adding even more teams to their annual basketball tournament. It's already at 65, which would be about half of Division 1-fbs football.
People must hate that tournament if they have to add even more schools to get people to watch it.
-- Knuttel
Oddly enough, the conferences are making it look as if the bcs's days are numbered.
You see, the conferences are the foundation of the bcs. It is the reason there are bcs conferences and non-bcs conferences. To have a perfectly stable Big Ten, ACC, Big East, SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, and Notre Dame is what makes the bcs work as it does. (It is true that about a decade ago, the ACC poached some of the Big East's best schools, but the Big East responded by poaching some of the rising non-bcs talent in the eastern half of the country, and focusing more on becoming a basketball conference).
As we speak, the conferences are out in their meetings, in their own little bubbles, plotting and planning on expansion.
Namely the Big Ten and the Pac-10.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1090747
It's been common knowledge that the Big Ten has been looking to expand, though they haven't really shown their hand at how or how large. Already, despite their name, they have 11 schools (one can see it in the logo), though current NCAA rules state a conference needs 12 schools to have a conference championship game -- otherwise the conference gives the title away by conference standing, which is outrageous, Penn State has technically been co-champions for both of their Big Ten championships, both with Ohio State, a team that they also beat in both of those seasons.
Alas, I digress. Common sense seems to dictate Notre Dame is a target, seeing as how it almost joined the Big Ten in recent history, has rivalries with many Big Ten teams, and lies in the heart of Big Ten territory (Indiana, on the outskirts of Chicagoland). Simply adding Notre Dame would make it 12, and enable a conference championship game. But Notre Dame likely won't go for this, citing tradition (bs) and playing service academies out of respect (padding the schedule, they don't play airforce though, and have FINALLY started losing to Navy). So the Big Ten will likely target other schools. They can either go east, west, or arguably both.
East-ways they can give Penn State some east-coast company by taking a Big East school -- rumored candidates include Rutgers, Pitt (which would re-enable the fabled PSU/Pitt rivalry), Syracuse, and West Virginia.
West-ways they'll likely target some Big 12 schools, and this is where it gets really interesting. Missouri is all but looking for an excuse to jump to the Big Ten. They already have a rivalry with Illinois in basically every sport, and don't like the Big 12's revenue sharing model, which directs most of the funds to the University of Texas. They can also target Iowa State (to complete the Iowa pair), Nebraska, and maybe even Colorado or Kansas (getting Kansas with Missouri would keep that rivalry intact). They also are rumored to target the University of Texas itself.
This is where the Pac-10 comes in. They are looking to expand eastward, get into some new markets. The link I provided earlier (which isn't as much hearsay as one may believe, I've seen similar info on other sites) shows the Pac-10's plan to annex UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado -- making it a 16 team conference. The six invited Big 12 schools would likely form a division with Arizona and Arizona State, making an inland division and coastal division.
IF something like this were to go down PRECISELY like this, it would effectively end the Big 12 as a conference (though to be fair it's only like 15 years old anyway). The northern teams head east to the Big 10, the southern teams head west to the Pac-10.
The problem is, not every Big 12 school is on board with this.
Texas has no incentive to leave the Big 12, so long as it stays intact. It gets the most money from the revenue sharing model and is still a member of a bcs conference.
Texas A&M may not want to play so many games on the west coast. Already school officials have grumbled about past games on the west coast, and students being forced to return very late. If they were to join the Pac-10, this would be a very regular occurrence. Also, while they are a chief rival of Texas, they may want to get out of their shadow. Alternate plans show this school heading to the SEC if the Big 12 crumbles.
Which brings me to my next thing -- Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may want to also head to the SEC to get out of the Big 12. It would reunite them with fellow former Southwest conference member Arkansas, and would move them away from Texas, who as was previously stated, takes a substantial piece of revenue.
The legislature of the State of Texas may also mess this scenario up, as they may want to keep the 4 Texas schools of the Big 12 together (notice I have never mentioned Baylor until just now). It may also affect the other Texas schools of division 1 football -- Houston, Rice, SMU, TCU, Northern Texas, and UTEP (the first 4 of those former members of the Southwest football conference).
I wonder if the Pac-10 is also looking at the non-bcs risers of late. All of them fit in the geographic region that is either typically covered by the Pac-10, or is targeted by them now. Boise State and Utah being in the former category, TCU in the latter.
So all of this, in the end, focuses on the State of Texas. Why? The same reason Texas gets most of the money in the Big 12's revenue sharing agreement now -- Television.
The Big Ten Network has been a large success for the conference (after a bumpy start getting it broadcast) and has shown an effective way for a conference to monopolize and control the television coverage, and therefore incoming revenue, of the conferences sports, while also giving the conference a way to show it's other athletics which wouldn't usually get televised (soccer, swimming, track, etc). Notre Dame would hypothetically open the conference up to a national audience, though I don't think Notre Dame has the same national pull it had in, say, 1948. Which brings us to Texas. Texas is the second most populous state in the nation (California, the first, is under a pretty tight Pac-10 grip), and thus the target of many of these conferences. Plus it is in the middle of the country, so it's not like the Big East is asking for USC, it's the conference moving either east-ward or west-ward.
The large market is also the reason some of the Big East schools are targets of the Big Ten -- getting Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn would open the conference to either the state or city of New York. Pitt and West Virginia are both geographically closer to the Big Ten and have ties with Penn State.
Anyways -- what does this mean for the bcs?
Well, let's assume the Big Ten expands to 16 schools (what they are is kind of irrelevant, and will just be a large puzzle making excercise for me), the Pac-10 also wants to expand to 16-ish schools so it can compete. The SEC and ACC pick up the scraps of the Big 12 and Big East and also create 16 team conferences (again, I don't really care if the numbers are off by a little). BOOM. 4 Conference champions. 4 team playoff for the national champion -- just like that. Yes, this would likely exclude the non-bcs conferences, in the grand scheme of things the big conferences don't care about the little ones -- Joepa I feel usually speaks out against the conferences out of his own frustration of being continuously left out while Penn State was independent until the 90s (that's over 20 years of putting up with that shit, I don't care if he's 80 something, you have to remember that). Maybe it will force the non-bcs conferences to consolidate into their own bigger conferences -- this would be much easier if the current powers don't jump to higher grounds -- and they can enter into the playoff process. BOOM. 8 team playoff for the national champion. The problem of working around the current Conference format to slide in some sort of national championship is no more.
Expanding the conferences not only makes the "selection" process that much simpler, but it also destroys the historic bowl ties, that nostalgia loosely holds in place. Where does the Cotton Bowl go if the State of Texas is split up? Will People want to see a Rutgers/Colorado Rose Bowl? Sure, they'll probably still exist, but they'll probably have a better chance of surviving as consolation games, and nothing else (though to be fair, when there's like 40 bowl games, they're pretty much all consolation games).
The bcs is complaining about how long and painful a playoff system would be, yet the NCAA is considering adding even more teams to their annual basketball tournament. It's already at 65, which would be about half of Division 1-fbs football.
People must hate that tournament if they have to add even more schools to get people to watch it.
-- Knuttel
5.28.2010
The NFL gets a reality check
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/sports/football/25needle.html
In summary, American Needle wants to make NFL apparel. The NFL has an exclusive apparel deal with Reebok, creating the sub-brand "Equipment NFL" (the first step towards my boycott, laid years before). American Needle says this agreement is collusion and therefore illegal; they should too be able to make NFL apparel. Lower courts agree. NFL appeals to the supreme court, stating they should have an anti-trust exemption (MLB has one, no other sports league does) because they are not 32 individual teams, but rather one league. The Supreme Court disagrees and says they are 32 individual teams who sometimes share similar goals.
What does this mean?
It means, potentially, that teams can decide their own commercial ventures, instead of those bequeathed by the league. It means an exclusive apparel deal, like the one in collusion with Reebok, is potentially illegal.
It means, if I happen to end my NFL boycott in a few years, and the Reebok deal is no more, I may be able to purchase a replica football jersey -- I only have a Corey Simon jersey I got when he was a rookie on the Eagles, and a "vintage" Eagles Reggie White jersey, which I may actually suspect is reebok or whatevs (which makes it inauthentic, Eagles didn't have an agreement with Reebok then) but it was a gift.
But perhaps finally this madness will come to an end. I do believe (I say believe because I am unable to actually produce any sort of empirical evidence for this) that the price of NFL team hats (the product market which American Needle wishes to jump into) has risen above the rate of inflation since the deal was struck with Reebok.
Isn't it the goal of a team like the St. Louis Rams to sell more hats or other apparel than, say, the Chicago Bears? How can they do this when the deal is all set up under the guise of the league acting as one.
Try telling the (insert team who lost the Super Bowl last year, or really any team that didn't even make it to the game) that they won the Super Bowl, cos the League won the Super Bowl. It doesn't work like that.
And if the league has an anti-trust exemption, then how come rival leagues have come and gone? The USFL in the 80s, the XFL in the 90s, the UFL currently, and what about all the arena leagues?
I know Paul "I don't care about old player's health coverage and pensions" Tagliabue was the one who signed the deal with Reebok, but damnit if roger goodell wasn't hell bent on expanding it and making sure it stays in place. I mean, Quarterback gets off the field, wants to take his helmet off on the sidelines, has to put on the "new officual quarterback's hat, by Reebok", come one, and it goes down the line of pretty much all the "skill" positions.
It could also potentially mean a lot for the upcoming collective bargaining agreement. What, I'm not sure, since I don't know anything about collective bargaining.
-- Knuttel
In summary, American Needle wants to make NFL apparel. The NFL has an exclusive apparel deal with Reebok, creating the sub-brand "Equipment NFL" (the first step towards my boycott, laid years before). American Needle says this agreement is collusion and therefore illegal; they should too be able to make NFL apparel. Lower courts agree. NFL appeals to the supreme court, stating they should have an anti-trust exemption (MLB has one, no other sports league does) because they are not 32 individual teams, but rather one league. The Supreme Court disagrees and says they are 32 individual teams who sometimes share similar goals.
What does this mean?
It means, potentially, that teams can decide their own commercial ventures, instead of those bequeathed by the league. It means an exclusive apparel deal, like the one in collusion with Reebok, is potentially illegal.
It means, if I happen to end my NFL boycott in a few years, and the Reebok deal is no more, I may be able to purchase a replica football jersey -- I only have a Corey Simon jersey I got when he was a rookie on the Eagles, and a "vintage" Eagles Reggie White jersey, which I may actually suspect is reebok or whatevs (which makes it inauthentic, Eagles didn't have an agreement with Reebok then) but it was a gift.
But perhaps finally this madness will come to an end. I do believe (I say believe because I am unable to actually produce any sort of empirical evidence for this) that the price of NFL team hats (the product market which American Needle wishes to jump into) has risen above the rate of inflation since the deal was struck with Reebok.
Isn't it the goal of a team like the St. Louis Rams to sell more hats or other apparel than, say, the Chicago Bears? How can they do this when the deal is all set up under the guise of the league acting as one.
Try telling the (insert team who lost the Super Bowl last year, or really any team that didn't even make it to the game) that they won the Super Bowl, cos the League won the Super Bowl. It doesn't work like that.
And if the league has an anti-trust exemption, then how come rival leagues have come and gone? The USFL in the 80s, the XFL in the 90s, the UFL currently, and what about all the arena leagues?
I know Paul "I don't care about old player's health coverage and pensions" Tagliabue was the one who signed the deal with Reebok, but damnit if roger goodell wasn't hell bent on expanding it and making sure it stays in place. I mean, Quarterback gets off the field, wants to take his helmet off on the sidelines, has to put on the "new officual quarterback's hat, by Reebok", come one, and it goes down the line of pretty much all the "skill" positions.
It could also potentially mean a lot for the upcoming collective bargaining agreement. What, I'm not sure, since I don't know anything about collective bargaining.
-- Knuttel
5.27.2010
ESPN and BCS in bed
Yes, it is true. I do believe that I have written of their partnership in the past, and may have even commented on the "pro-bcs" commentary during the "national championship" as a definite downside.
But now, in what can only be called the off-season, ESPN's College Football live takes shots at bcs naysayers.
Boise State's President outright slammed the bcs in a recent statement. Attacking the notion that "every game counts", he states:
"But how do Boise State’s games count under the BCS when four of the past six years we went undefeated in the regular season, and yet never even came close to having an opportunity to compete for the national championship? How did all of those games, and all of those perfect records, count under the BCS? In fact, in two of those four undefeated regular seasons, Boise State was foreclosed from even playing in a major bowl."
The statement was also wrapped around revenue issues, showing how the Mountain West and WAC (the conference which Boise State is in) have higher TV Ratings, higher rankings, and higher game attendances than the ACC and Big East, yet the ACC and Big East receive 19 Mil in Bowl revenues yearly, The Mountain West and WAC getting 9 mil if they make the big bowls.
This made headlines on College Football live, and instead of having at least a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons of either situation (with or without the bcs), they simply take turns bashing the idea that there could be anything resembling a national champion without the bcs, and come to the conclusion that the President of Boise State must be a lunatic.
Before ESPN, and its family of networks (actually the ABC/Disney family of networks) got their hands on a big portion of the bcs pie, they never made a huge deal about the "awesomeness" that is the bcs, and how we would all be wandering nomads in the desert without its brilliance, guidance, and wisdom. Sure, they were invested in the bowl system, but it wasn't uncommon for commentators to say "hey, maybe the champion should be decided through a playoff, but hey, there's no reason we have to get rid of this great bowl system we have."
They could at least get half way there.
Now they are miles away. The only way this could seemingly get fixed is if legal action is taken. I don't want that to have to happen, because the people who won't read about how bad the bcs really is, are the people who only watch ESPN for their sports news, are the people hate government intervention of any kind (save for their welfare checks). So naturally, they will assume the bcs was given to us by God, and his prophet, Lee Corso, and the government is trying to take away all that is holy in college sports.
Come on, this isn't Europe! We don't have a series of tiered leagues, with a points system tied to relegations and promotions. We don't decide who the winner of a league is by points total at the end of the year (the NHL has the President's trophy, but the winner of that definitely does not always win the Stanley Cup). And perhaps most importantly, we don't have an over-reaching Police State watching our every move and locking us away when we say something benignly offensive to the regime.
Fuck the Queen.
See, say it along with me. It's liberating. And it's American.
Why can't there be a civil debate about how we should go about replacing the bcs (cos anyone with half a brain could tell you having the bcs would be a wrong move)?
http://news.boisestate.edu/blog/2010/05/25/statement-of-boise-state-university-president-robert-kustra-regarding-bcs-revenue-discrimination/
-- Knuttel
But now, in what can only be called the off-season, ESPN's College Football live takes shots at bcs naysayers.
Boise State's President outright slammed the bcs in a recent statement. Attacking the notion that "every game counts", he states:
"But how do Boise State’s games count under the BCS when four of the past six years we went undefeated in the regular season, and yet never even came close to having an opportunity to compete for the national championship? How did all of those games, and all of those perfect records, count under the BCS? In fact, in two of those four undefeated regular seasons, Boise State was foreclosed from even playing in a major bowl."
The statement was also wrapped around revenue issues, showing how the Mountain West and WAC (the conference which Boise State is in) have higher TV Ratings, higher rankings, and higher game attendances than the ACC and Big East, yet the ACC and Big East receive 19 Mil in Bowl revenues yearly, The Mountain West and WAC getting 9 mil if they make the big bowls.
This made headlines on College Football live, and instead of having at least a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons of either situation (with or without the bcs), they simply take turns bashing the idea that there could be anything resembling a national champion without the bcs, and come to the conclusion that the President of Boise State must be a lunatic.
Before ESPN, and its family of networks (actually the ABC/Disney family of networks) got their hands on a big portion of the bcs pie, they never made a huge deal about the "awesomeness" that is the bcs, and how we would all be wandering nomads in the desert without its brilliance, guidance, and wisdom. Sure, they were invested in the bowl system, but it wasn't uncommon for commentators to say "hey, maybe the champion should be decided through a playoff, but hey, there's no reason we have to get rid of this great bowl system we have."
They could at least get half way there.
Now they are miles away. The only way this could seemingly get fixed is if legal action is taken. I don't want that to have to happen, because the people who won't read about how bad the bcs really is, are the people who only watch ESPN for their sports news, are the people hate government intervention of any kind (save for their welfare checks). So naturally, they will assume the bcs was given to us by God, and his prophet, Lee Corso, and the government is trying to take away all that is holy in college sports.
Come on, this isn't Europe! We don't have a series of tiered leagues, with a points system tied to relegations and promotions. We don't decide who the winner of a league is by points total at the end of the year (the NHL has the President's trophy, but the winner of that definitely does not always win the Stanley Cup). And perhaps most importantly, we don't have an over-reaching Police State watching our every move and locking us away when we say something benignly offensive to the regime.
Fuck the Queen.
See, say it along with me. It's liberating. And it's American.
Why can't there be a civil debate about how we should go about replacing the bcs (cos anyone with half a brain could tell you having the bcs would be a wrong move)?
http://news.boisestate.edu/blog/2010/05/25/statement-of-boise-state-university-president-robert-kustra-regarding-bcs-revenue-discrimination/
-- Knuttel
1.21.2010
a snack
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=ohlmeyer_don&id=4844048
a little insight on the leach firing. ill probably put something real of mine up later.
a little insight on the leach firing. ill probably put something real of mine up later.
12.07.2009
Good News Everyone: The bsc has made its selections!!!
Let me start this off by stating that I am not pissed that Penn State did not get selected for a bsc bowl. I am a little bit puzzled, but I am not pissed -- Iowa beat them in the head to head matchup, and thus they should go instead.
Now, for an idea of what I think of the bsc, replace "Limp Bizkit" in the following song whenever it comes up.
Now, onto the review of what the bsc has done this year.
-- First off, the Big 12 and SEC championship games became the de facto semi final for the "national championship" game, for some unknown reason besides the fact that Big 12 and SEC fans hype their conferences more than any of the others. I'm sorry there's stuff to do in the rest of the country, I really am, but that doesn't mean you have to take it out on the everyone else.
-- Who's piece of shit idea was it to put TCU up against Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl? The point of having non-bsc conference teams make it to bsc bowls is so they can beat those bsc conference teams. And yes, it can happen, yes, it has happenned. Utah and Boise State have both done it before. So yes, this is a matchup of unbeatens, but the fact that neither of these teams is playing Georgia Tech, Florida, or Iowa (putting them up against an unbeaten Cincy would also be pointless in my opinion) just means that the bsc has nothing but disdain for any and all schools outside of the "big 6" (and really, they hate the big east now too, so maybe the big 5 is better). The bsc's shitty ass futile attempt to de-legitamize any kind of chance that either of these teams has for a national title just further legitamizes the need for a playoff system. Frankly, I think Texas may not even be the best team in the state, I think TCU might be better, but they're not gonna have any chance of proving it. I'd like to say maybe they make this the semi, and they play the winner of the other game, but that would leave out a possibly undefeated cincy.
-- Did Florida really have to go to the Sugar Bowl? I realize the SEC has ties to the game, but the SEC's automatic qualifier is playing for the "national title". That should make Florida up for grabs by any other bowl. Truth be told, the matchup should be interesting against Cincy. Florida's dirty ass defense against Cincinatti's precision offense should be fun.
-- Why does Iowa go to the Orange bowl? This one is completely at-large and completely under control by the entire bowl committee. Ohio State is already going to the Rose Bowl, Iowa can go anywhere. So why not send Iowa to the Fiesta bowl against TCU? Put Boise State in the Orange bowl against Georgia Tech (automatic bid and conference tie in, not gonna make any complaints). It's not like Big Ten teams can't go to the Fiesta Bowl, in fact Penn State (passed over, but whatevs) has a rich and long history at the Fiesta Bowl, including the 1987(?) national championship against Miami.
-- Why is every commentator stating alternative championship scenarios as "if Texas didn't get selected for the national championship game, who should be?" Is it really that safe to assume Alabama is that far ahead of everybody else? If that is the case, just give them the title already and let everyone else play their bowls (it's happenned before, when Nixon screwed Penn State out of a title in '69 and declared Texas the champion after defeating Arkansas -- one of the few things I didn't like about his presidency). Yes, Texas almost lost their conference title game, but they won it, which is what they needed to do to win their conference. You know what, TCU, Boise State, and Cincinnatti also did what they needed to do to win their conferences, and they, along with Alabama, all remained undefeated in doing so.
-- Random thought, since when does winning the SEC put you in the national title game? Yeah, I know SEC teams beat Ohio State two years in a row to win the national title, but those weren't that good of Ohio State teams. They may have won the Big Ten those years, but the Big Ten wasn't very strong those years. Penn State was burdened by Anthony Morelli and Michigan began its tailslide into mediocrity. If Ohio State didn't win the conference those seasons, it would have been the ultimate excercise in futility considering their rosters. And you know what, those two SEC teams, they weren't just SEC teams, they were GOOD teams. It's a very fine distinction in some parts of this country, but it's a distinction that has to be made.
-- If there are 120 teams in "fbs", and it requires 12 teams for a conference to have a championship game, why not have 10 conferences -- 12 playoff spots (2 at-large bids) and make it work with bye weeks -- the NFL uses a 12 team playoff system, I have no idea what the RGFL uses, but that's another matter entirely.
So why does it have to be like this? At least with the old system, we all knew it was sloppy, and it was going to miss chances to name national champions (1994 Penn State Nittany Lions, ahem) but it never went out of its way to proclaim how right it is and how awesome and perfect it is that the games are like this.
Oh, and really don't ever listen to ESPN at all for anything regarding whether or not to have a BCS or any sort of bowl system -- Disney (owners of ESPN) has distribution rights to all but a few bowl games, and as such, stands to lose alot that time of year if anything were to change.
-- Knuttel
post script
-- I was just thinking about how one of the most classic, memorable, enduring moments of college basketball was Villanova's defeat of Patrick Ewing's Georgetown town in the mid-80s, despite being vastly out seeded etc etc; and how a scenario like that could never ever happen in College Football with the system as it is now.
-- Maybe because the field is so evenly qualified this year they should just revert to the older system and have these 5 or so major bowls and just vote on whichever one plays the best. Frankly it makes about just as much sense, and while it doesn't pit 1 against 2, it allows for all the unbeatens to have a shot at the title. Might actually be less chaotic.
-- Side note of additional information -- Cincinnati actually edged out Texas in the computer polls. Thought I'd share that.
-- Joe Paterno was "asked to give up" his voting privelages in the Coaches poll after he split his number 1 vote 3 ways during the season of 3 unbeatens. This was after the "national championship" game "decided" the winner. The bsc will stop at nothing for false legitimacy.
Now, for an idea of what I think of the bsc, replace "Limp Bizkit" in the following song whenever it comes up.
Now, onto the review of what the bsc has done this year.
-- First off, the Big 12 and SEC championship games became the de facto semi final for the "national championship" game, for some unknown reason besides the fact that Big 12 and SEC fans hype their conferences more than any of the others. I'm sorry there's stuff to do in the rest of the country, I really am, but that doesn't mean you have to take it out on the everyone else.
-- Who's piece of shit idea was it to put TCU up against Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl? The point of having non-bsc conference teams make it to bsc bowls is so they can beat those bsc conference teams. And yes, it can happen, yes, it has happenned. Utah and Boise State have both done it before. So yes, this is a matchup of unbeatens, but the fact that neither of these teams is playing Georgia Tech, Florida, or Iowa (putting them up against an unbeaten Cincy would also be pointless in my opinion) just means that the bsc has nothing but disdain for any and all schools outside of the "big 6" (and really, they hate the big east now too, so maybe the big 5 is better). The bsc's shitty ass futile attempt to de-legitamize any kind of chance that either of these teams has for a national title just further legitamizes the need for a playoff system. Frankly, I think Texas may not even be the best team in the state, I think TCU might be better, but they're not gonna have any chance of proving it. I'd like to say maybe they make this the semi, and they play the winner of the other game, but that would leave out a possibly undefeated cincy.
-- Did Florida really have to go to the Sugar Bowl? I realize the SEC has ties to the game, but the SEC's automatic qualifier is playing for the "national title". That should make Florida up for grabs by any other bowl. Truth be told, the matchup should be interesting against Cincy. Florida's dirty ass defense against Cincinatti's precision offense should be fun.
-- Why does Iowa go to the Orange bowl? This one is completely at-large and completely under control by the entire bowl committee. Ohio State is already going to the Rose Bowl, Iowa can go anywhere. So why not send Iowa to the Fiesta bowl against TCU? Put Boise State in the Orange bowl against Georgia Tech (automatic bid and conference tie in, not gonna make any complaints). It's not like Big Ten teams can't go to the Fiesta Bowl, in fact Penn State (passed over, but whatevs) has a rich and long history at the Fiesta Bowl, including the 1987(?) national championship against Miami.
-- Why is every commentator stating alternative championship scenarios as "if Texas didn't get selected for the national championship game, who should be?" Is it really that safe to assume Alabama is that far ahead of everybody else? If that is the case, just give them the title already and let everyone else play their bowls (it's happenned before, when Nixon screwed Penn State out of a title in '69 and declared Texas the champion after defeating Arkansas -- one of the few things I didn't like about his presidency). Yes, Texas almost lost their conference title game, but they won it, which is what they needed to do to win their conference. You know what, TCU, Boise State, and Cincinnatti also did what they needed to do to win their conferences, and they, along with Alabama, all remained undefeated in doing so.
-- Random thought, since when does winning the SEC put you in the national title game? Yeah, I know SEC teams beat Ohio State two years in a row to win the national title, but those weren't that good of Ohio State teams. They may have won the Big Ten those years, but the Big Ten wasn't very strong those years. Penn State was burdened by Anthony Morelli and Michigan began its tailslide into mediocrity. If Ohio State didn't win the conference those seasons, it would have been the ultimate excercise in futility considering their rosters. And you know what, those two SEC teams, they weren't just SEC teams, they were GOOD teams. It's a very fine distinction in some parts of this country, but it's a distinction that has to be made.
-- If there are 120 teams in "fbs", and it requires 12 teams for a conference to have a championship game, why not have 10 conferences -- 12 playoff spots (2 at-large bids) and make it work with bye weeks -- the NFL uses a 12 team playoff system, I have no idea what the RGFL uses, but that's another matter entirely.
So why does it have to be like this? At least with the old system, we all knew it was sloppy, and it was going to miss chances to name national champions (1994 Penn State Nittany Lions, ahem) but it never went out of its way to proclaim how right it is and how awesome and perfect it is that the games are like this.
Oh, and really don't ever listen to ESPN at all for anything regarding whether or not to have a BCS or any sort of bowl system -- Disney (owners of ESPN) has distribution rights to all but a few bowl games, and as such, stands to lose alot that time of year if anything were to change.
-- Knuttel
post script
-- I was just thinking about how one of the most classic, memorable, enduring moments of college basketball was Villanova's defeat of Patrick Ewing's Georgetown town in the mid-80s, despite being vastly out seeded etc etc; and how a scenario like that could never ever happen in College Football with the system as it is now.
-- Maybe because the field is so evenly qualified this year they should just revert to the older system and have these 5 or so major bowls and just vote on whichever one plays the best. Frankly it makes about just as much sense, and while it doesn't pit 1 against 2, it allows for all the unbeatens to have a shot at the title. Might actually be less chaotic.
-- Side note of additional information -- Cincinnati actually edged out Texas in the computer polls. Thought I'd share that.
-- Joe Paterno was "asked to give up" his voting privelages in the Coaches poll after he split his number 1 vote 3 ways during the season of 3 unbeatens. This was after the "national championship" game "decided" the winner. The bsc will stop at nothing for false legitimacy.
12.04.2009
BS "championship" preview before the preview
If anyone is wondering, that stands for "bowl subdivision championship". I think it works better with the letters rearranged like so.
Let's start this off by kicking charlie "Fatass" weiss out the door. His firing really made my extra-high levels of obnoxiousness during the nd/PSU game weekend 2007 really worth it. I recall screaming about weiss' protestant prostituting to some nd alumni who bought me beer the night before as well as many threats of rape, murder, and general mutilation to nd fans attending the game, as well as their extended family.
He was a fraud who could only win with Ty Willingham's players. The only kind of players he could recruit were offensive skill players, wanting to show off in a true pro system by a true pro style coach. A shame you kind of need offensive linemen and defensive players to really pull it off.
I shall also bid farewell to Mangino, the coach at Kansas who matched the schools previous total of bowl wins (3) and won their first orange bowl (they lost to Penn State in their first one, despite a strong effort from future Redskin John Riggins). Apparently he is really mean to his players, and that just doesn't fly once they stop winning for you.
So onto bowls and possible scenarios etc.
One bowl is already entirely figured out -- the rose bowl. Both the Pac-10 and the Big Ten have already declared their winners, neither of whom "have a shot" at the national championship and both shall receive an automatic berth for this game. The ohio state buckeyes won the Big Ten outright, going 7-1 (Iowa and Penn State are tied for second at 6-2), and went 3-1 in their non-conference schedule (a loss to a Pac-10 team). Oregon won the Pac-10 similarly, losing one in conference for an outright berth and losing one out of conference, to Boise State of the WAC. As this post shall not make any predictions, I shall leave this part as is, except one more mentioning of legarrete (sp?) blunt's awesome punching form. I also don't really know if I should pray ohio state doesn't embarass the Big Ten yet again in a bsc game or hope they win.
This leaves 3 proper BSC bowls and the "national championship" game left, 8 slots to fill. Automatic berths will also come from the ACC, Big East, SEC, and Big 12.
The Big East is being decided by a de facto championship game, between undefeated Cincinatti and 9-2 Pitt (one conference loss).
Cincinatti has the opportunity to be left out of the "national championship" game if they win. Pitt has the opportunity to spoil a possible national title for the conference if they win.
The ACC championship game will not send anyone to the "national championship" game, as both teams have at least two losses. The game itself should be good, as this is a rematch from an earlier game in the season -- Georgia Tech and Clemson. The scoring shall be fun to watch, as Georgia Tech is one of the few division 1 teams to run the under center triple option, a very explosive version that can score quickly, and Clemson's Spiller can hurt the opposing team in so many different facets of the game.
The Big 12 championship game features undefeated Texas against 9-3 Nebraska. Texas is being picked almost universally in a landslide, but Nebraska's defense may prove to be a possible spoiler (for both the conference and national title). It's easy to forget that the Big 12 south was weak this year (unfulfilled expecations from Oklahoma and Oklahoma state, struggles by Texas Tech and Texas A&M, and perennially weak Baylor).
The SEC championship game will likely send one team to the "national championship" game. I really don't understand how, but they probably will. Undefeated Florida from the SEC east and undefeated Alabama from the SEC west will face down eachother for this game. Both of these teams are being flat out inundated with praise about how awesome they are, how holy tim teblow is, etc. Let me get this straight. The SEC is not the strongest conference in college football. Having two undefeated teams does not make one the strongest conference. The SEC often plays weaker out of conference matchups than the Big Ten. The SEC east is one of the weakest divisions in college football. Let me ask this -- who in the east had a shot at knocking off florida for the east title? Georgia may be the closest, but making them the fifth strongest team in the whole SEC may be generous. Tennessee may be good in the future, but is a joke. Kentucky periodically rises to mediocrity, but otherwise is a joke. Vanderbilt. Enough said. South Carolina is also perennially mediocre. Even in the west, they're all just a little sub par. I'd like to see Auburn in a year or two though, I like their version of the downhill spread.
So let's assume all goes as planned, I know I said no predictions, but these aren't really mine, just what are pretty universal assumptions.
Florida wins the SEC and goes to the "national title" game
Texas wins the Big 12 and goes to the "national title" game
Georgia Tech wins the ACC and goes to the Sugar Bowl
Cincinatti wins the Big East and goes to the Sugar Bowl ... undefeated
Ohio State won the Big Ten and is going to the Rose Bowl
Oregon won the Pac-10 and is going to the Rose Bowl
This leaves 4 at large bids (which really may split up the Sugar bowl matchup).
The likely candidates will be among the following
Texas Christian University -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Boise State -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Iowa -- 10-2, Big Ten
Penn State -- 10-2, Big Ten
Alabama/Florida -- 12-1, SEC
If Georgia Tech loses their championship game, they will be 10-3 and likely up for an at-large bid.
If Cincinatti loses their championship game, they will be 11-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
If Texas loses their championship game, they will be 12-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
Virgina Tech, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Pitt, and LSU will all have 9 wins and be on the periphery of the bsc picture if it goes as above.
Notre Dame is not in the top 50 this year, and thus will not get into a bsc game.
One non-bsc team may have an automatic berth if they ...... jibbrish really. Both TCU and Boise State qualify for one of the automatic berths is what that means.
Only two teams from any single conference can receive bsc berths. This means the loser of the SEC game will likely get a berth, and either Iowa or Penn State will be left out of the bsc picture.
It is VERY possible for either TCU or Boise State to get left out of a bsc bowl game entirely, despite going undefeated with strong schedules.
It is possible, this year, for there to be 4 undefeated teams at the end of the season, breaking the record of 3 a few years back (Auburn and Utah were left out, I believe, and USC won the "national title", against 1 loss, hadn't actually won their conference Oklahoma; I could be wrong).
So how do we fix this?
Well first of all every team needs to be in a conference. THIS INCLUDES NOTRE DAME. The service academies I wouldn't mind giving an exemption to, but they could just as easily join a lighter conference or drop to 1-fCs (the c stands for championship, they're legit there). Army, not too long ago, had a stint in Conference-USA, if anyone cares to remember.
Secondly all "major" conferences need to be expanded to 12 teams and feature conference championship games. In face, all conferences should just be expanded to a size large enough to have a championship game and then have a winner decided that way. I'm really fucking pissed that Penn State's last two conference championships were "shared" with ohio state, even though Penn State won the match-up both of those seasons. Penn State got the automatic berth, but those really shouldn't count for conference titles for Tressel.
The Big Ten, for example, could easily go to 12 teams by adding, oh, I dunno, Notre Dame. Half of their "rivals" are in the Big Ten anyway. Schedule one out of conference each year with USC and have Stanford, Navy, and BC on some sort of shuffled schedule. Wow, did I just fix that? In fact, the Big East could absorb both Army and Navy, now that I think about it. Maybe Penn State could re-align (does that mean Penn State gets to play traditional rivals like Pitt and West Virgina?) (I dunno, an Iowa State realign from the big 12 to even that, and a TCU realign to even that) to bring it to 11. Maybe re-add Temple to get a solid 12?
Thirdly, there needs to be a playoff system. I dunno how many conferences are going to exist, but maybe JUST ONE BERTH from each conference? Maybe have an at-large or two to even it out if it needs to be done.
If the major conferences are that much superior to the others then it really shouldnt be that big a deal for Texas to face the MAC winner, and Florida to face the Conference-USA winner, should it?
If the season's too long, then shorten it. 10-11 games was all most teams needed for the longest time. Now 12's become the standard within the past decade, and schools are complaining they'll play too many games. Frankly I think that was some sort of idea planted by the bsc, to ward off any playoff talk.
Re-alignment shouldn't be that much of an issue anyway, as most of the non-major conferences don't last too long. The Big 12 is an invention of the past 20 years, as is the current form of the SEC. The current ACC is even newer, going from 9-12 teams in one year.
I've probably gotten too long winded and possibly angry sounding by this point, so I shall leave you with that thought.
-- Knuttel
oh, and some Danzig
Let's start this off by kicking charlie "Fatass" weiss out the door. His firing really made my extra-high levels of obnoxiousness during the nd/PSU game weekend 2007 really worth it. I recall screaming about weiss' protestant prostituting to some nd alumni who bought me beer the night before as well as many threats of rape, murder, and general mutilation to nd fans attending the game, as well as their extended family.
He was a fraud who could only win with Ty Willingham's players. The only kind of players he could recruit were offensive skill players, wanting to show off in a true pro system by a true pro style coach. A shame you kind of need offensive linemen and defensive players to really pull it off.
I shall also bid farewell to Mangino, the coach at Kansas who matched the schools previous total of bowl wins (3) and won their first orange bowl (they lost to Penn State in their first one, despite a strong effort from future Redskin John Riggins). Apparently he is really mean to his players, and that just doesn't fly once they stop winning for you.
So onto bowls and possible scenarios etc.
One bowl is already entirely figured out -- the rose bowl. Both the Pac-10 and the Big Ten have already declared their winners, neither of whom "have a shot" at the national championship and both shall receive an automatic berth for this game. The ohio state buckeyes won the Big Ten outright, going 7-1 (Iowa and Penn State are tied for second at 6-2), and went 3-1 in their non-conference schedule (a loss to a Pac-10 team). Oregon won the Pac-10 similarly, losing one in conference for an outright berth and losing one out of conference, to Boise State of the WAC. As this post shall not make any predictions, I shall leave this part as is, except one more mentioning of legarrete (sp?) blunt's awesome punching form. I also don't really know if I should pray ohio state doesn't embarass the Big Ten yet again in a bsc game or hope they win.
This leaves 3 proper BSC bowls and the "national championship" game left, 8 slots to fill. Automatic berths will also come from the ACC, Big East, SEC, and Big 12.
The Big East is being decided by a de facto championship game, between undefeated Cincinatti and 9-2 Pitt (one conference loss).
Cincinatti has the opportunity to be left out of the "national championship" game if they win. Pitt has the opportunity to spoil a possible national title for the conference if they win.
The ACC championship game will not send anyone to the "national championship" game, as both teams have at least two losses. The game itself should be good, as this is a rematch from an earlier game in the season -- Georgia Tech and Clemson. The scoring shall be fun to watch, as Georgia Tech is one of the few division 1 teams to run the under center triple option, a very explosive version that can score quickly, and Clemson's Spiller can hurt the opposing team in so many different facets of the game.
The Big 12 championship game features undefeated Texas against 9-3 Nebraska. Texas is being picked almost universally in a landslide, but Nebraska's defense may prove to be a possible spoiler (for both the conference and national title). It's easy to forget that the Big 12 south was weak this year (unfulfilled expecations from Oklahoma and Oklahoma state, struggles by Texas Tech and Texas A&M, and perennially weak Baylor).
The SEC championship game will likely send one team to the "national championship" game. I really don't understand how, but they probably will. Undefeated Florida from the SEC east and undefeated Alabama from the SEC west will face down eachother for this game. Both of these teams are being flat out inundated with praise about how awesome they are, how holy tim teblow is, etc. Let me get this straight. The SEC is not the strongest conference in college football. Having two undefeated teams does not make one the strongest conference. The SEC often plays weaker out of conference matchups than the Big Ten. The SEC east is one of the weakest divisions in college football. Let me ask this -- who in the east had a shot at knocking off florida for the east title? Georgia may be the closest, but making them the fifth strongest team in the whole SEC may be generous. Tennessee may be good in the future, but is a joke. Kentucky periodically rises to mediocrity, but otherwise is a joke. Vanderbilt. Enough said. South Carolina is also perennially mediocre. Even in the west, they're all just a little sub par. I'd like to see Auburn in a year or two though, I like their version of the downhill spread.
So let's assume all goes as planned, I know I said no predictions, but these aren't really mine, just what are pretty universal assumptions.
Florida wins the SEC and goes to the "national title" game
Texas wins the Big 12 and goes to the "national title" game
Georgia Tech wins the ACC and goes to the Sugar Bowl
Cincinatti wins the Big East and goes to the Sugar Bowl ... undefeated
Ohio State won the Big Ten and is going to the Rose Bowl
Oregon won the Pac-10 and is going to the Rose Bowl
This leaves 4 at large bids (which really may split up the Sugar bowl matchup).
The likely candidates will be among the following
Texas Christian University -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Boise State -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Iowa -- 10-2, Big Ten
Penn State -- 10-2, Big Ten
Alabama/Florida -- 12-1, SEC
If Georgia Tech loses their championship game, they will be 10-3 and likely up for an at-large bid.
If Cincinatti loses their championship game, they will be 11-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
If Texas loses their championship game, they will be 12-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
Virgina Tech, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Pitt, and LSU will all have 9 wins and be on the periphery of the bsc picture if it goes as above.
Notre Dame is not in the top 50 this year, and thus will not get into a bsc game.
One non-bsc team may have an automatic berth if they ...... jibbrish really. Both TCU and Boise State qualify for one of the automatic berths is what that means.
Only two teams from any single conference can receive bsc berths. This means the loser of the SEC game will likely get a berth, and either Iowa or Penn State will be left out of the bsc picture.
It is VERY possible for either TCU or Boise State to get left out of a bsc bowl game entirely, despite going undefeated with strong schedules.
It is possible, this year, for there to be 4 undefeated teams at the end of the season, breaking the record of 3 a few years back (Auburn and Utah were left out, I believe, and USC won the "national title", against 1 loss, hadn't actually won their conference Oklahoma; I could be wrong).
So how do we fix this?
Well first of all every team needs to be in a conference. THIS INCLUDES NOTRE DAME. The service academies I wouldn't mind giving an exemption to, but they could just as easily join a lighter conference or drop to 1-fCs (the c stands for championship, they're legit there). Army, not too long ago, had a stint in Conference-USA, if anyone cares to remember.
Secondly all "major" conferences need to be expanded to 12 teams and feature conference championship games. In face, all conferences should just be expanded to a size large enough to have a championship game and then have a winner decided that way. I'm really fucking pissed that Penn State's last two conference championships were "shared" with ohio state, even though Penn State won the match-up both of those seasons. Penn State got the automatic berth, but those really shouldn't count for conference titles for Tressel.
The Big Ten, for example, could easily go to 12 teams by adding, oh, I dunno, Notre Dame. Half of their "rivals" are in the Big Ten anyway. Schedule one out of conference each year with USC and have Stanford, Navy, and BC on some sort of shuffled schedule. Wow, did I just fix that? In fact, the Big East could absorb both Army and Navy, now that I think about it. Maybe Penn State could re-align (does that mean Penn State gets to play traditional rivals like Pitt and West Virgina?) (I dunno, an Iowa State realign from the big 12 to even that, and a TCU realign to even that) to bring it to 11. Maybe re-add Temple to get a solid 12?
Thirdly, there needs to be a playoff system. I dunno how many conferences are going to exist, but maybe JUST ONE BERTH from each conference? Maybe have an at-large or two to even it out if it needs to be done.
If the major conferences are that much superior to the others then it really shouldnt be that big a deal for Texas to face the MAC winner, and Florida to face the Conference-USA winner, should it?
If the season's too long, then shorten it. 10-11 games was all most teams needed for the longest time. Now 12's become the standard within the past decade, and schools are complaining they'll play too many games. Frankly I think that was some sort of idea planted by the bsc, to ward off any playoff talk.
Re-alignment shouldn't be that much of an issue anyway, as most of the non-major conferences don't last too long. The Big 12 is an invention of the past 20 years, as is the current form of the SEC. The current ACC is even newer, going from 9-12 teams in one year.
I've probably gotten too long winded and possibly angry sounding by this point, so I shall leave you with that thought.
-- Knuttel
oh, and some Danzig
12.22.2008
A rash reaction from the Knuttel
Ok, so there I am, just generally surfing the information superhighway on a laptop in front of the tv. I leave it on, mostly for white noise. Here, I know, I make a poor life decision and leave it on espn's nfl recap show. Yes, right there, two huge mistakes -- espn and nfl. Alas I digress.
Chris Berman is a man-child of an idiot. He mentions the Ed Hoculi call from week 2, which sent the Chargers on a downward spiral in need of direction, and says that now, after several weeks it has blown over. Now that the Chargers are facing a rematch to close the season, this time in Denver, with Denver at 8-7, and the Chargers at 7-8, it is a moot point.
Nevermind the fact that it should be (at least from values we actually can accurately deduce) the 8-7 Chargers looking to hold off the 7-8 Broncos in Denver to enter the playoffs.
It is not a moot point. The Chargers now have to win on the road in a very hard road stadium in order to win the division, as opposed to maintaining the division lead, they must leapfrog.
This does not even begin to quantify the psychological effect the jarring loss had on the Chargers. A defiant struggle to the finish was handed to the loser in week 2, and in addition to feeling exhausted, the Chargers felt defeated.
They have since gotten over that, but the point is they shouldn't have had to.
Chris Berman, please think before you speak, before you even open your mouth. I find it hard to believe you're thinking while uttering phrases such as "rumbling-bumbling-stumbling" and "woop". I realize it is just a re-cap show, and thus does not have any in depth journalism of any kind, but that is no excuse for idiocy and moronitude.
-- Knuttel
Chris Berman is a man-child of an idiot. He mentions the Ed Hoculi call from week 2, which sent the Chargers on a downward spiral in need of direction, and says that now, after several weeks it has blown over. Now that the Chargers are facing a rematch to close the season, this time in Denver, with Denver at 8-7, and the Chargers at 7-8, it is a moot point.
Nevermind the fact that it should be (at least from values we actually can accurately deduce) the 8-7 Chargers looking to hold off the 7-8 Broncos in Denver to enter the playoffs.
It is not a moot point. The Chargers now have to win on the road in a very hard road stadium in order to win the division, as opposed to maintaining the division lead, they must leapfrog.
This does not even begin to quantify the psychological effect the jarring loss had on the Chargers. A defiant struggle to the finish was handed to the loser in week 2, and in addition to feeling exhausted, the Chargers felt defeated.
They have since gotten over that, but the point is they shouldn't have had to.
Chris Berman, please think before you speak, before you even open your mouth. I find it hard to believe you're thinking while uttering phrases such as "rumbling-bumbling-stumbling" and "woop". I realize it is just a re-cap show, and thus does not have any in depth journalism of any kind, but that is no excuse for idiocy and moronitude.
-- Knuttel
11.26.2008
Trouble on the horizon
ESPN, an already evil enough organization (trying to lowball NHL, for shame) is on a path to take over the world.
They must be stopped
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/sports/ncaafootball/25sandomir.html?_r=3&em
http://deadspin.com/5098814/exploring-the-espn-business-model-hint-it-involves-swimming-in-piles-of-cash
The most efficient way may be to start with the head, to take down Disney itself.
Godspeed
-- Knuttel
They must be stopped
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/sports/ncaafootball/25sandomir.html?_r=3&em
http://deadspin.com/5098814/exploring-the-espn-business-model-hint-it-involves-swimming-in-piles-of-cash
The most efficient way may be to start with the head, to take down Disney itself.
Godspeed
-- Knuttel
11.16.2008
BOYCOTT THE NFL
To begin, let me assure everyone, this is not because the Eagles just tied the Bungles. This is about a disease which is plaguing the entire league.
The Quarterback is being overprotected.
The quarterback can slide down anywhere on the field, instead of being tackled down, if he so chooses. The quarterback cannot be hit below the knees behind the line of scrimmage. The quarterback cannot be hit in the head behind the line of scrimmage. The quarterback cannot be hit after he releases a pass behind the line of scrimmage. Now it seems the quarterback cannot be hit at all.
WHY?!!??!?
Last time I checked, the quarterback is a normal position, just like any other position on the field. Why is he given precedence? Even as the position is slowly moving back to accepting "athletes" to play it (after the doldrums of slow qbs which hung like a parasite in the 70s and 80s), it seems the NFL is slowly rejecting the notion that these players are equals of their teammates.
Why don't we just dress all of the quarterbacks up in tutus. That way at least the other team knows they should just prance around him and tap him down, as opposed to hitting him down.
Seriously, I think at this point it would actually be manlier to sit through The Notebook than to watch any given quarter (let alone a whole game) of an NFL game.
Personally, this is not a very tough decision on my part. I had previously boycotted the last super bowl, after I decided the best result of that game would be a natural disaster to destroy the stadium and all inside. I found a good alternative in the puppy bowl, voiced by none other than the legendary Harry Kalas, who is known nationally as the voice of NFL films since '75, back when they actually played football (locally, the legendary voice of the Phillies. Side note, why the hell is he not voicing the Phillies World Series DVD? That is an outrage, and I may think about putting a bounty of Bud Selig's head for that). I've also had a personal boycott on the Madden Series, since it has become total crap since it gained the right to be the exclusive NFL game, and a boycott on Reebok's NFL gear crap, for similar reasons.
Even though my Nittany Lions are effectively out of the BCS title picture (by default of having one loss as a Big Ten team, total bullshit. Florida's loss was at home to under .500 Ole Miss, shouldn't they be disqualified?) I think I will stick to watching only NCAA football. The way of deciding the champion may not be nearly as organized and coherent, but at least I know I will be watching football when I watch one of those games, even if one or both of the teams is playing a spread offense.
I think, as it stands, Italian League soccer may actually be manlier than NFL, even with all of their dives and flops and general delays.
Think about that.
--Knuttel
and another thing -- just because someone who isn't the normal quarterback may be lined up to take a snap directly, usually from shotgun, doesn't make it a "wildcat" formation. Sometimes its just, oh I dunno, someone else lined up to take the snap from shotgun. The wildcat formation is a modern variation on a very distinct old formation called the Single Wing.
The Quarterback is being overprotected.
The quarterback can slide down anywhere on the field, instead of being tackled down, if he so chooses. The quarterback cannot be hit below the knees behind the line of scrimmage. The quarterback cannot be hit in the head behind the line of scrimmage. The quarterback cannot be hit after he releases a pass behind the line of scrimmage. Now it seems the quarterback cannot be hit at all.
WHY?!!??!?
Last time I checked, the quarterback is a normal position, just like any other position on the field. Why is he given precedence? Even as the position is slowly moving back to accepting "athletes" to play it (after the doldrums of slow qbs which hung like a parasite in the 70s and 80s), it seems the NFL is slowly rejecting the notion that these players are equals of their teammates.
Why don't we just dress all of the quarterbacks up in tutus. That way at least the other team knows they should just prance around him and tap him down, as opposed to hitting him down.
Seriously, I think at this point it would actually be manlier to sit through The Notebook than to watch any given quarter (let alone a whole game) of an NFL game.
Personally, this is not a very tough decision on my part. I had previously boycotted the last super bowl, after I decided the best result of that game would be a natural disaster to destroy the stadium and all inside. I found a good alternative in the puppy bowl, voiced by none other than the legendary Harry Kalas, who is known nationally as the voice of NFL films since '75, back when they actually played football (locally, the legendary voice of the Phillies. Side note, why the hell is he not voicing the Phillies World Series DVD? That is an outrage, and I may think about putting a bounty of Bud Selig's head for that). I've also had a personal boycott on the Madden Series, since it has become total crap since it gained the right to be the exclusive NFL game, and a boycott on Reebok's NFL gear crap, for similar reasons.
Even though my Nittany Lions are effectively out of the BCS title picture (by default of having one loss as a Big Ten team, total bullshit. Florida's loss was at home to under .500 Ole Miss, shouldn't they be disqualified?) I think I will stick to watching only NCAA football. The way of deciding the champion may not be nearly as organized and coherent, but at least I know I will be watching football when I watch one of those games, even if one or both of the teams is playing a spread offense.
I think, as it stands, Italian League soccer may actually be manlier than NFL, even with all of their dives and flops and general delays.
Think about that.
--Knuttel
and another thing -- just because someone who isn't the normal quarterback may be lined up to take a snap directly, usually from shotgun, doesn't make it a "wildcat" formation. Sometimes its just, oh I dunno, someone else lined up to take the snap from shotgun. The wildcat formation is a modern variation on a very distinct old formation called the Single Wing.
11.11.2008
Ohio State should be burned down, and the soil sewn with salt
Being a Penn State fan, or really I suppose this could go for a fan of any school in the Big Ten besides Ohio State, I really hate Ohio State.
What they have done to damage the reputation of the Big Ten is really incalculable.
The past two years they have made it to the BCS National Championship game. Whether or not it was merited, they were one of the teams selected (not gonna get into the whole, BCS sucks we need a playoff bit).
Both of those years they were not only beaten, but blown out, once by Florida, once by LSU (coincidentally both SEC schools, however I think that is merely coincidence).
By being blown out these two years, as the perceived consistent leader of the Big Ten (which is false) they've by default ruined the legitimacy of the entire conference.
They haven't really had a significant bowl win since really either 02 (when they beat Miami for the championship) or 03 (when they narrowly edged Kansas State for a Fiesta Bowl win). The BCS win against the Irish isn't really anything special considering the Irish only need like 3 losses for a guarunteed BCS bid, and the fact that the Irish haven't won any bowl games since the 80s when Lou Holshtz was their head coach. Come to think of it, they themselves decided not to play in any bowl games at all for about 50 years from the 20s to the 70s.
But the simple fact is this. Ohio State, at least/especially over the last few years, has been built only to win in the Big Ten. Anyone remember the year they beat the Irish in a BCS game, they previously lost to Texas in the regular season (and Penn State).
So naturally, they will go to these games. In fact, despite having two losses this year (USC, and Penn State again) they probably will go to a BCS game again, and get blown out.
And another thing. I'm tired of the SEC constantly, consistently, and most of all, incessantly being touted as the be-all and end-all of all awesome college football conferences. The fact of the matter is their basement sucks (Tennessee -- who lost to Wyoming, Mississippi State, Arkansas), they never play good out of conference opponents (often times much worse than the ones the Big Ten plays, at least the Big Ten usually schedules FBS teams), and once bowl season does in fact come around, they only do about as good as the other conferences, which is to say around .500. Ok, so Alabama and Florida are elite teams, so are Penn State, Texas, and USC, they don't seem to be in the SEC. OK, so they produce alot of NFL defensive players, so do the Big Ten and Pac Ten. It's really quite absurd the levels this conference is elevated above the others. Oddly enough it's probably karmic payment for that one year undefeated Auburn was left out of the national championship game. Nowadays it seems every single SEC fan is screaming "INJUSTICE" if the entire BCS Bowl series isn't filled with SEC teams. The funny part about that is the players themselves don't know the meaning of the word. They just don't learn it with their Basket weaving majors.
Damnit, I said I wouldn't go there, but you know how you fix all that crap with the conferences claiming their #1 team should go to the big game, Playoff. It's not that hard. Just an automatic berth for Big Ten, SEC, Pag 10, Big 12, ACC, Big East, and then two at large. 8 teams, that's only 3 rounds. simple.
Damn Ohio State for ruining this for any other Big Ten team's future hopes at a National Championship. I guess Mr. Sweatervest didn't want anyone else to join in on the fun.
--Knuttel
**Update 9:30 pm**
Here are the conferences as they stand currently
The ACC has 8 of its 12 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and none eliminated from contention. There are, however, none with less than 2 losses.
The Big 12 has 7 teams out of 12 eligible for a bowl berth, with 2 eliminated from contention, and two more dangerously close.
The Big East has 5 out of 8 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and one eliminated from contention.
The Big Ten has 6 out of 11 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and 3 eliminated from contention.
The Pac 10 has 5 out of 10 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and 2 elminated from contention.
The SEC has 6 out of 12 teams eligible for a bowl berth and one eliminated from contention.
What does this say? It says the ACC has a lot of good above average teams, none terribly weak, but none terribly good. There is currently a three way tie for the Coastal division lead. The Big 12 has some good teams, but the bottom is staggering. 3-7 Baylor, 2-8 Iowa State, 4-6 Kansas State, 4-6 Texas A&M. The SEC is pretty much a reflection of that; particularly the SEC West (which features undefeated Alabama), 4-6 Arkansas, 3-6 Mississppi State, traditionally strong Auburn at 5-5. The Pac 10 is doing its best Hamlet impersonation (there's something rotten in the state of Washington) -- 1-9 Wasu and 0-9 Washington. USC is unquestionably the best team, but their loss is to second in the Pac 10 Oregon State, who Penn State beat. The Big East is in a similar situation with the ACC, in that no team wants to win the division, the problem though is none of them are particularly good. With that much parity, to already have an eliminated team does not bode well for the rest of the conference. Which leaves the Big Ten. The Big Ten is currently in a three way tie for first place, 9-2 Michigan State, 9-1 Penn State, and 8-2 Ohio State. Each only has one conference loss. The six automatic bowl berths are most among conferences that don't have a conference championship game, because they do not have 12 teams. The teams already eliminated were an Indiana team that is never expected to anything really, a Purdue team that nearly pulled an upset in Oregon, and a Michigan team in transition. Wisconsin fell off the map once conference play started, but still sits at .500.
Also to consider, once bowl games begin, the only one of these conferences that does not have any "home" bowl games -- a bowl game in the immediate geographic area -- is the Big Ten. There is the Motor City Bowl in Detroit, but that is a crappy bowl game that features, if any Big Ten team, the one in seventh place in the conference. The overwhelming number of games are played in Florida, Texas, and California. This creates home games for, essentially, the SEC, ACC, and Big East; the Big 12; and the Pac 10, respectively. There are even more games in the southern states -- those that hold SEC and ACC teams such as Georgia and Louisiana, games in the general south west, and all up the west coast, for Pac 10 teams. Now, I know bowl games are seen as "vacation" to alot of people (sportswriters, coaches, etc), and few people plan to travel to the freezing Midwest, or (cold) Pennsylvania, for a bowl game, but this should put a serious hamper on the ability of Big Ten teams to compete in these games, and the fact of the matter is they usually do remarkably well, not even considering something like this. Sometimes I wonder if Jim Tressel's soul is darker than Urban Meyer's for doing something like this to the conference.
What they have done to damage the reputation of the Big Ten is really incalculable.
The past two years they have made it to the BCS National Championship game. Whether or not it was merited, they were one of the teams selected (not gonna get into the whole, BCS sucks we need a playoff bit).
Both of those years they were not only beaten, but blown out, once by Florida, once by LSU (coincidentally both SEC schools, however I think that is merely coincidence).
By being blown out these two years, as the perceived consistent leader of the Big Ten (which is false) they've by default ruined the legitimacy of the entire conference.
They haven't really had a significant bowl win since really either 02 (when they beat Miami for the championship) or 03 (when they narrowly edged Kansas State for a Fiesta Bowl win). The BCS win against the Irish isn't really anything special considering the Irish only need like 3 losses for a guarunteed BCS bid, and the fact that the Irish haven't won any bowl games since the 80s when Lou Holshtz was their head coach. Come to think of it, they themselves decided not to play in any bowl games at all for about 50 years from the 20s to the 70s.
But the simple fact is this. Ohio State, at least/especially over the last few years, has been built only to win in the Big Ten. Anyone remember the year they beat the Irish in a BCS game, they previously lost to Texas in the regular season (and Penn State).
So naturally, they will go to these games. In fact, despite having two losses this year (USC, and Penn State again) they probably will go to a BCS game again, and get blown out.
And another thing. I'm tired of the SEC constantly, consistently, and most of all, incessantly being touted as the be-all and end-all of all awesome college football conferences. The fact of the matter is their basement sucks (Tennessee -- who lost to Wyoming, Mississippi State, Arkansas), they never play good out of conference opponents (often times much worse than the ones the Big Ten plays, at least the Big Ten usually schedules FBS teams), and once bowl season does in fact come around, they only do about as good as the other conferences, which is to say around .500. Ok, so Alabama and Florida are elite teams, so are Penn State, Texas, and USC, they don't seem to be in the SEC. OK, so they produce alot of NFL defensive players, so do the Big Ten and Pac Ten. It's really quite absurd the levels this conference is elevated above the others. Oddly enough it's probably karmic payment for that one year undefeated Auburn was left out of the national championship game. Nowadays it seems every single SEC fan is screaming "INJUSTICE" if the entire BCS Bowl series isn't filled with SEC teams. The funny part about that is the players themselves don't know the meaning of the word. They just don't learn it with their Basket weaving majors.
Damnit, I said I wouldn't go there, but you know how you fix all that crap with the conferences claiming their #1 team should go to the big game, Playoff. It's not that hard. Just an automatic berth for Big Ten, SEC, Pag 10, Big 12, ACC, Big East, and then two at large. 8 teams, that's only 3 rounds. simple.
Damn Ohio State for ruining this for any other Big Ten team's future hopes at a National Championship. I guess Mr. Sweatervest didn't want anyone else to join in on the fun.
--Knuttel
**Update 9:30 pm**
Here are the conferences as they stand currently
The ACC has 8 of its 12 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and none eliminated from contention. There are, however, none with less than 2 losses.
The Big 12 has 7 teams out of 12 eligible for a bowl berth, with 2 eliminated from contention, and two more dangerously close.
The Big East has 5 out of 8 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and one eliminated from contention.
The Big Ten has 6 out of 11 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and 3 eliminated from contention.
The Pac 10 has 5 out of 10 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and 2 elminated from contention.
The SEC has 6 out of 12 teams eligible for a bowl berth and one eliminated from contention.
What does this say? It says the ACC has a lot of good above average teams, none terribly weak, but none terribly good. There is currently a three way tie for the Coastal division lead. The Big 12 has some good teams, but the bottom is staggering. 3-7 Baylor, 2-8 Iowa State, 4-6 Kansas State, 4-6 Texas A&M. The SEC is pretty much a reflection of that; particularly the SEC West (which features undefeated Alabama), 4-6 Arkansas, 3-6 Mississppi State, traditionally strong Auburn at 5-5. The Pac 10 is doing its best Hamlet impersonation (there's something rotten in the state of Washington) -- 1-9 Wasu and 0-9 Washington. USC is unquestionably the best team, but their loss is to second in the Pac 10 Oregon State, who Penn State beat. The Big East is in a similar situation with the ACC, in that no team wants to win the division, the problem though is none of them are particularly good. With that much parity, to already have an eliminated team does not bode well for the rest of the conference. Which leaves the Big Ten. The Big Ten is currently in a three way tie for first place, 9-2 Michigan State, 9-1 Penn State, and 8-2 Ohio State. Each only has one conference loss. The six automatic bowl berths are most among conferences that don't have a conference championship game, because they do not have 12 teams. The teams already eliminated were an Indiana team that is never expected to anything really, a Purdue team that nearly pulled an upset in Oregon, and a Michigan team in transition. Wisconsin fell off the map once conference play started, but still sits at .500.
Also to consider, once bowl games begin, the only one of these conferences that does not have any "home" bowl games -- a bowl game in the immediate geographic area -- is the Big Ten. There is the Motor City Bowl in Detroit, but that is a crappy bowl game that features, if any Big Ten team, the one in seventh place in the conference. The overwhelming number of games are played in Florida, Texas, and California. This creates home games for, essentially, the SEC, ACC, and Big East; the Big 12; and the Pac 10, respectively. There are even more games in the southern states -- those that hold SEC and ACC teams such as Georgia and Louisiana, games in the general south west, and all up the west coast, for Pac 10 teams. Now, I know bowl games are seen as "vacation" to alot of people (sportswriters, coaches, etc), and few people plan to travel to the freezing Midwest, or (cold) Pennsylvania, for a bowl game, but this should put a serious hamper on the ability of Big Ten teams to compete in these games, and the fact of the matter is they usually do remarkably well, not even considering something like this. Sometimes I wonder if Jim Tressel's soul is darker than Urban Meyer's for doing something like this to the conference.
10.24.2008
The First Two Games of the Series
So, my rundown of the first two games of the 2008 World Series.
Some starting notes -- Tropicana Field is ugly, should be burned to the ground, and afterwards, the soil should be sewn with salt so nothing productive can stand there ever. There's so many strange ground-rules. I never thought I'd be so disappointed just to see a normal bouncing over the wall ground rule double, but after all the (yawn, boring) explanations of the catwalks (which actually support the roof, so they're ugly and get in the way) I wanted one of those kind of ground rule doubles. What's with the slanted roof? Is it better for the rain to fall on just one side of the building or something? And please, no more Dick Vitale. I liked being able to ignore him until March, but it looks like ESPN just loves throwing crap like this guy at us whenever they can.
Game 1
Whole Camels threw another impressive game (impressive consistent too). The man has gone 7 innings exactly in each of his post-season starts this year and has not let up more than 2 runs. The batting was good when it had to be, and there weren't any grievious base running errors. I'm getting a free taco because of a TB stolen base in the fifth, and then Chase Utley stole one later in the game for good measure. The bullpen came out and shut the rays down, like they have to every team thus far. Most importantly, they win game 1, which is something 10 of the last 11 winning teams have done. They've also won an away game, something they will have to do at least once if they want to win the series (damn you, Bud Selig), and it's always better to win games sooner rather than later.
Game 2
As indicated in the picture above, Brett Myers pitched his ass off (it's actually now concave). He had some bumps early on. One bump was entirely umpire induced, when the ump second guessed whether a pitch (which was a strike anyway) was a strike or ball, originally called it a strike, then went to ball, but the batter started swinging, so the ump appealed to the first base ump, who, though having a clear shot to see the bat went entirely over the plate and had pretty much a full swing, called him not swinging. Well the pitch count was 3-2, there were 2 outs I think. The man gets on base, when the inning should be over, I think someone was already on, so there's someone on first and second, and boom -- runs scored. The crisis should have been averted, but those asscunts of officiating decided to leave their brains and eyes at home. Fielding errors also cost the Phils some runs. Only 3 of Myers 4 runs allowed were earned. He went 7 innings, which usually is enough for a pitcher to get a win. The bullpen was again lights out, no runs whatsoever. The bats and baserunning left much to be desired. I would've thought Charlie Manuel, being an ex-AL manager (Indians), would know better how to deal with using the DH, but it seems otherwise. Two different DH's in two games (yeah, I know, one righty, one lefty) both play piss-poor. At least the next two games they don't have to deal with that, but the series will have to go back to Tampa eventually. Are they going to try someone new (Matt Stairs?)? Are they going to put one of the regular fielders at DH? -- Burrel, replaced by Bruntlet, Howard, replaced by Dobbs? Based on ability, the logical choice would appear to be Burrel, as Bruntlet scored the first run of the game, and is the defensive replacement for Burrel in late innings, but Burrel has always been awful as a DH, I think the batting average under the Mendoza line.
Whatever it is, the offense needs to get back on track. The offense is what won most of the games for the Phillies this season -- Cole Hamels can't pitch everyday and Lidge isn't worth pitching unless there's a lead to protect. The pitching has shown that it can keep games close, but they need run support.
Come on, I haven't seen a Philadelphia Championship in my lifetime, and I've already graduated College. 4 sports, no championships. Eagles - 1960, Flyers - 1976, Philles - 1980, Sixers - 1983. Don't be like the '93 Phillies, the '97 Flyers, the '01 Sixers, or the '04 Eagles. Just win the damn thing.
--Knuttel
10.14.2008
Jerry Jones, Lord of the Underworld
Jerry Jones; while may he may not be the most incompetent owner (that title is being fought for by Ford and Davis), he is certainly the most evil (yes, moreso than Jeffrie Lurie).Recap -- He bought the team in the late 80s. His first act of business - fire iconic head coach Tom Landry. While I do hate the man as a coach, he had a tendency to run the score up in strike seasons with scabs and also served as DC for the Giants before taking this post, he will go down in history as one of the great ones (if not already).
Secondly, he built his team up with known troublers and fire starters. Most notably he traded for Charles Haley and Deion Sanders, but he also drafted Michael "I can't get open without throwing the cornerback to the ground" Irving and Nate Newtown.
Jim Johnson handled them well enough that they weren't out of control for the first two super bowls. However, Jones' domineering personality forced Johnson out which left him to hire former OU coach Barry Switzer, who just didn't care. Coincidentally, these are the only two coaches in history to win both a college nationa championship and the super bowl as head coach, as if anyone cares.
Well, he's at it again.
Recently he forced iconic coach Bill Parcells out of the job, which left him with Wade Phillips -- a coach of a much "weaker" personality.
Personel -- well after to left the eagles, he went to the cowboys, where he replaced Keyshawn Johnson -- a man, while troubled, looks like a saint as far as recent cowboys go.
He then personally fought the league for reinstatement of adam "Pacman" jones. No, he didn't think Pacman could be a normal, no trouble-causing human being. He just thought maybe he could have him avoid enough legal problems until he won a superbowl.
The altercation before last weeks game, it was a serious offense. Most teams would suspend their player for attempting to fight their own body guard. Not Jerry Jones. No, he needed a good cornerback while his secondary nursed some injuries.
Well, Roger Goodell looked into the matter(another man who doesn't really know what he's doing), finally decided -- hey, this is a serious matter. It is not consistent with what was required of Pacman to play in the NFL.
He is now out for four games, possibly more, possibly his whole career. Hey, there's always Canada.
Also, this kinda slipped under the radar at the trading deadline -- he traded for trouble maker receiver Roy Williams, who often whined about being the number two receiver, much more often than he whined about losing.
The fact of the matter is Jerry Jones cares not for the image of the National Football League. It's gotten to a point where I don't really care about what team it is. Yeah, I hate the Cowboys. But more importantly, i hate the image that they're giving the rest of the NFL and its players. Winning at all costs isn't winning at all. The worst part about it is he is the owner and GM. This means he is his own boss. He is responsible for removing himself from making these poor decisions, and I really don't see the man swallowing enough pride to do that.
Point is, he needs to be removed from his office.
--Knuttel
Phightin' on
The Phillies won in impressive fashion last night. The lead changed often, and with the help of another big inning, they won.
Mad, mad, crazy mad props to Shane Victorino and Matt Stairs.
Also props to Brad Lidge for going 1.1 for the save, sealing what would end up being a shaky 8th. good stuff.
Whole Camels pitches game 5, hopefully for the seal.
In other news, working on a conspiracy theory about McCain's campaign. Well, it's not really a conspiracy, moreso a really unconventional strategy.
Also, after Joe Buck announced to the world that Shane Victorino's favorite food is Spam Musubi, PETA became offended. To be fair, PETA becomes offended when people refuse to view an animal defecating as a beautiful act of nature, but I cannot be fair with PETA. They are a ridiculously radical organization for a cause that people may view with empathy, but not NEARLY to the extent they do. It would be like how we american's don't like how much gas we use, in cars etc.; well PETA's solution would be to entirely get rid of all modes of transportation requiring gasoline.
Alas, I digress. PETA took offense to Shane Victorino's food so much (personally, I find this a little offensive, as spam is pretty synonimous with post-America Hawaiian cuisine), that they personally wrote a letter to him describing how spam is made.
God forbid what happens when they find out his car may or may not have leather seating.
--Knuttel
Mad, mad, crazy mad props to Shane Victorino and Matt Stairs.
Also props to Brad Lidge for going 1.1 for the save, sealing what would end up being a shaky 8th. good stuff.
Whole Camels pitches game 5, hopefully for the seal.
In other news, working on a conspiracy theory about McCain's campaign. Well, it's not really a conspiracy, moreso a really unconventional strategy.
Also, after Joe Buck announced to the world that Shane Victorino's favorite food is Spam Musubi, PETA became offended. To be fair, PETA becomes offended when people refuse to view an animal defecating as a beautiful act of nature, but I cannot be fair with PETA. They are a ridiculously radical organization for a cause that people may view with empathy, but not NEARLY to the extent they do. It would be like how we american's don't like how much gas we use, in cars etc.; well PETA's solution would be to entirely get rid of all modes of transportation requiring gasoline.
Alas, I digress. PETA took offense to Shane Victorino's food so much (personally, I find this a little offensive, as spam is pretty synonimous with post-America Hawaiian cuisine), that they personally wrote a letter to him describing how spam is made.
God forbid what happens when they find out his car may or may not have leather seating.
--Knuttel
10.10.2008
For the Phightin's
As anyone who follows things which matter would already know -- the Philadelphia Phillies defeated the LA Dodgers in game 1 of the NLCS. Normally, because this is baseball, it might not matter too much. But, as we all know, because it involves the Phillies in particular, it carries a weighted importance.
Good things
As they did throughout the whole Brewers series, The phils won through solid pitching and one explosive inning. I like to compare this to the winning strategy of the Ravens team that won the Super Bowl in the early part of the decade, winning each playoff game with solid defense and one breakout offensive play. When the pitching is on, the pitching is on. Cole Hamels will emerge from this playoffs, regardless of how the team does the rest of the way, as one of the elite pitchers in MLB, if he isn't on some of these lists already. Lidge still has yet to blow a save, and was quite impressive today, only having a one run lead to hold (=no margin for error). And for the offense, well, they capitalize on mistakes. They were dynamic in their totality during the course of the season, but as long as they're scoring more runs than the opposition now, I really can't complain with how it gets done.
Bad things
Manny, while being pitched to well, I thought at least, still went 2-4, an RBI double (which was only a few feet from being a 2RBI homer) being one of the hits. The idiot announcers made a big stink about pitching to him from the full windup (with no runners on base) as opposed to the short stretch. Statistically, they were wrong. Manny went 1-2 in both cases. While that one double was ultimately more devastating with the runner on 2 than the bases empty single doesn't change the fact that he batted .500, regardless of a baserunning presence. I tried to find Kalas on the radio (if you are unfamiliar with the Phillies, you may recognize his voice from various sports highlight reels, specifically NFL Films, or the Puppy Bowl). While I mentioned the runs scored as a positive earlier. Now I shall list them as a downside. The Phillies have had only a handful of scoring innings thus far in the postseason. I want to say the number is 5 from 4 games with the Brewers, and now 1 more from the game with the Dodgers. I think it's a great credit to the baserunning ability of the team that they can explode on an inning like that (even Hamels has a run) they need more consistent bats. Ryan Howard, while impressive so far as long as the pitcher facing him has showed fear, has hardly hit the ball. He has a lot of walks, but he also has a really low batting average. This needs to change. Oddly, one of the most conistent bats I've seen this post-season has been that of defensive cather Carlos Ruiz.
Now to switch gears to politics
I hate spin, especially when it is pushed through in campaigns by the committees of those running themselves.
There is no evidence that Barrack Obama is a terrorist, and to say his middle name (Hussein) has a terrorist tie to it, is simply racist. The man people say is his "terrorist" connection is Bill Ayers. He was part of the radical 60s/70s group "the weathermen." They were a military group, and had arms. However, since then, Ayers has become a supporter of the Chicago community, specifically with education, rather than trying to tear down the government and get after the man. While he would have certainly classified as a terrorist, it is not the Middle Eastern type of terrorist that they are clearly trying to draw ties with by calling Obama's middle name. He would have been more like the Tim McVey/Ted Kasinsky type of terrorist, except in a manner much more like that of the Black Panthers.
This all goes in addition to saying that his association with this man is weak at best. As far as I can tell, they have been honored in the same breath by the mayor of Chicago, little more than that.
Which brings me to another point. If you want to attack him in that sort of manner, attack his political origins. Chicago is the final remaining political machine in America (the Cook County Democratic Party). While it is getting weaker, this machine has been an extremely potent force up until the 70s/80s. It still has an extremely strong presence in Cook County. If you want to be elected to anything needing votes in Chicago, you still have to go through the machine. Why doesn't anyone bring that up.
John McCain has had numerous shady liasons throughout his professional carreer since leaving the military. One of which being Keating, I haven't really heard much about that, but that was also 20 years ago. He also used to be a part of several groups dedicated to aggresively arming people against Communism, regardless of the alternative. With how big of an enemy the Soviet Union was at the time, that in and of itself isn't that alarming, but he seems willing to tackle the enemies of "freedom", most likely "terrorists" with the same fervor he did the Commies. The liason itself here isn't extremely troubling, its the reason he had them that troubles me. Yes, he has foreign policy experience, but there's good experience and bad experience, and I don't think he has enough of the former.
Palin probably has the most dubious of all these connections. In addition to her Priest being probably more radical than Obama's Rev. Wright (he doesn't really like witches, and he still calls himself christian), her family used to be a big player in Alaskan Independence Party. Her husband was an official member for almost a decade, and her speach was characterized by some to echoe the party's founder. The founder, should be noted, was never seen without his magnum pistol, and actually was gunned down by the Feds for treasonous activities. With all of this talk about what is "American" and who is "un-American", I can't help but think there is nothing more un-American than treason. I think it's actually part of the definition.
I'm still unsure about who to vote for in this election, but I can't bring myself to vote for this Republican ticket.
--Knuttel
Good things
As they did throughout the whole Brewers series, The phils won through solid pitching and one explosive inning. I like to compare this to the winning strategy of the Ravens team that won the Super Bowl in the early part of the decade, winning each playoff game with solid defense and one breakout offensive play. When the pitching is on, the pitching is on. Cole Hamels will emerge from this playoffs, regardless of how the team does the rest of the way, as one of the elite pitchers in MLB, if he isn't on some of these lists already. Lidge still has yet to blow a save, and was quite impressive today, only having a one run lead to hold (=no margin for error). And for the offense, well, they capitalize on mistakes. They were dynamic in their totality during the course of the season, but as long as they're scoring more runs than the opposition now, I really can't complain with how it gets done.
Bad things
Manny, while being pitched to well, I thought at least, still went 2-4, an RBI double (which was only a few feet from being a 2RBI homer) being one of the hits. The idiot announcers made a big stink about pitching to him from the full windup (with no runners on base) as opposed to the short stretch. Statistically, they were wrong. Manny went 1-2 in both cases. While that one double was ultimately more devastating with the runner on 2 than the bases empty single doesn't change the fact that he batted .500, regardless of a baserunning presence. I tried to find Kalas on the radio (if you are unfamiliar with the Phillies, you may recognize his voice from various sports highlight reels, specifically NFL Films, or the Puppy Bowl). While I mentioned the runs scored as a positive earlier. Now I shall list them as a downside. The Phillies have had only a handful of scoring innings thus far in the postseason. I want to say the number is 5 from 4 games with the Brewers, and now 1 more from the game with the Dodgers. I think it's a great credit to the baserunning ability of the team that they can explode on an inning like that (even Hamels has a run) they need more consistent bats. Ryan Howard, while impressive so far as long as the pitcher facing him has showed fear, has hardly hit the ball. He has a lot of walks, but he also has a really low batting average. This needs to change. Oddly, one of the most conistent bats I've seen this post-season has been that of defensive cather Carlos Ruiz.
Now to switch gears to politics
I hate spin, especially when it is pushed through in campaigns by the committees of those running themselves.
There is no evidence that Barrack Obama is a terrorist, and to say his middle name (Hussein) has a terrorist tie to it, is simply racist. The man people say is his "terrorist" connection is Bill Ayers. He was part of the radical 60s/70s group "the weathermen." They were a military group, and had arms. However, since then, Ayers has become a supporter of the Chicago community, specifically with education, rather than trying to tear down the government and get after the man. While he would have certainly classified as a terrorist, it is not the Middle Eastern type of terrorist that they are clearly trying to draw ties with by calling Obama's middle name. He would have been more like the Tim McVey/Ted Kasinsky type of terrorist, except in a manner much more like that of the Black Panthers.
This all goes in addition to saying that his association with this man is weak at best. As far as I can tell, they have been honored in the same breath by the mayor of Chicago, little more than that.
Which brings me to another point. If you want to attack him in that sort of manner, attack his political origins. Chicago is the final remaining political machine in America (the Cook County Democratic Party). While it is getting weaker, this machine has been an extremely potent force up until the 70s/80s. It still has an extremely strong presence in Cook County. If you want to be elected to anything needing votes in Chicago, you still have to go through the machine. Why doesn't anyone bring that up.
John McCain has had numerous shady liasons throughout his professional carreer since leaving the military. One of which being Keating, I haven't really heard much about that, but that was also 20 years ago. He also used to be a part of several groups dedicated to aggresively arming people against Communism, regardless of the alternative. With how big of an enemy the Soviet Union was at the time, that in and of itself isn't that alarming, but he seems willing to tackle the enemies of "freedom", most likely "terrorists" with the same fervor he did the Commies. The liason itself here isn't extremely troubling, its the reason he had them that troubles me. Yes, he has foreign policy experience, but there's good experience and bad experience, and I don't think he has enough of the former.
Palin probably has the most dubious of all these connections. In addition to her Priest being probably more radical than Obama's Rev. Wright (he doesn't really like witches, and he still calls himself christian), her family used to be a big player in Alaskan Independence Party. Her husband was an official member for almost a decade, and her speach was characterized by some to echoe the party's founder. The founder, should be noted, was never seen without his magnum pistol, and actually was gunned down by the Feds for treasonous activities. With all of this talk about what is "American" and who is "un-American", I can't help but think there is nothing more un-American than treason. I think it's actually part of the definition.
I'm still unsure about who to vote for in this election, but I can't bring myself to vote for this Republican ticket.
--Knuttel
9.16.2008
A few sports related items
Back to this. Have a few ideas backed up, but here are some relatively fresh sports related ones.
--Ed Hoculi--
Ed Hoculi should be fired. It’s a simple statement with a mountain of truth. The fact of the matter is he blew a major call. Just as it appeared Denver had lost grip of its potentially tying or winning drive, and just as it appeared San Diego had gotten a hold of it, securing their own win, Denver just lost control for a second. The reason for this? Ed Hoculi saw a fumble as a forward pass. The chance of seeing this as a throw in real time is slim to none. So the ball hits the ground, and he blows the whistle. The thing is, everyone keeps moving. Sure, there are remarks from Cutler and gang that they stopped, just as any good boy scout would, but frankly that shouldn’t have mattered. The ball went securely into the hands of the San Diego defender, and he fell on it, getting tapped down. Even though the whistle had blown, the play had unofficially kept going. I know, it’s not official, but that’s how it should have been called. I know it’s easy for me to say it, and frankly that’s part of the reason why I’m doing it.
There are several counterpoints to this. One being San Diego still had an opportunity to stop them. And they did, really, they did. But the thing is, having something called like that against you, especially after it has time to sink in after the replay booth, is emotionally anti-climactic for the loser. It is such a huge loss of momentum. The player gets a feeling that no matter what they do, it will not matter because the system is against them. They could do everything right (like they did) and still end up the loser (uh, yeah). Besides, red zone stops usually rely on more luck than skill. That’s just the nature of the game. They also had a chance to stop the 2 pt conversion, as they probably should have, but again, I hate to hit the hammer of momentum,
Another counterpoint is San Diego had a chance to win it afterwards. Yeah, they did have a chance to score. They only had to go more than half the field. Let’s say they got it at their 40. That’s 60 yards for a touchdown, but you only need one point. There’s about half a minute left, and I think one timeout. It’s 20 yards to get to a 57 yard field goal. A field goal of that length is by no means a guarantee.
The last relevant counter point is that it is but one game in the season, and it is still very early yet. The other thing is, building early momentum is a great way to earn a playoff bid. The AFC West may come down to these two teams, the other two being lame ducks. This essentially gives Denver a leg up on the competition, while trying to bury San Diego alive.
And to everyone who says, well if they were really that much of a better team, they should have won by a bigger margin. Please, stop talking. These are the same people who claim the “patriots dynasty” as the greatest thing since sliced bread. News flash, every super bowl they have won was by exactly 3 points. The 60’s Packers, 70’s Steelers, 80’s 49ers, and 90’s Cowboys all found ways to bury their opponent eventually. Oh, but the salary cap. Yeah, every team has to deal with it. And before the salary cap, every team got to keep whatever player they wanted if they wanted to pay him. So that means, the best teams theoretically actually would have the most highly sought after and paid players. In a way, concentrating the talent at the top, I think, would make the feat of a dynasty more difficult, having to beat the best teams constantly in the playoffs.
I know, people have gushed over Hoculi. Sometimes I joke about people buying his jersey. But I look at it this way. Refs are like groundskeepers, their name only gets brought up when the job isn’t being done right. If the grass is shit, lets fire the groundskeeper, oh look, he has a name. Yeah, I know, refs have to make tough calls, but in general, what should be remembered about a game is the team, and the players, not that really awesome call the ref made. And besides, I never really saw anything special in the reffing abilities of Hoculi, just another zebra in stripes.
--Notre Dame--
Speaking of poor reffing, I’m still pissed about this. Last week, not this one which just passed, the one before, ND played SDSU, and for most of the game, SDSU was up. Yes, holy Notre Dame to lose to lowly San Diego State. Well, the stupid call is the SDSU running back ran the ball to about the goal line, some say he crossed, some say he didn’t, but around this time, he fumbled it, and the ball skirted forward and then back into the endzone. The call was this – The ball did not cross the goal line, therefore it was fumbled, and the defender got a touchback. So there’s two bad calls here. One, the non-touchdown; two, the non-safety. SDSU should have gotten one or the other, but got neither. Very next drive, Notre Dame scores quick and the game’s momentum quickly and abruptly shifts into ND’s hands. Wouldn’t it be a pity if Notre Dame honestly lost?
--Donovan McNabb--
Donovan McNabb, what has happened to you? I remember when you used to thrive in the second half. The running game wasn’t always there, and the defense kept us in it, so we had to throw to score, and you usually came up with what we needed. I specifically remember a certain Monday Night game, against the Giants. Up to this point, the Eagles had lost 9 straight games to the Giants, the last being an ugly playoff rout (before they themselves were routed by the Vikings). Down by more than 3 (I want to say the score was 3-9 at the time, but I don’t remember specifically, so I’m not going to commit to that) with less than five minutes to go, McNabb throws a perfect pass into the back corner of the end zone, receiver falling down, ball being drilled through the outer limits of coverage. I believe the receiver was tight end Chad Lewis, but I’m basing this on him being the only reliable receiver of the time. Plus, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t one of the wide outs of the time. But the point is, he has to win, and he does. I think the final was 10-9. The team needed him to carry the team then, and he had no problems shouldering the burden.
Somewhere along the lines, it fell apart. I personally think it was the NFC Championship game against the Bucs, the second one we went to. It was our first one at home, and everything, everyone, etc, said that the Eagles were not only going to win the game, but they were going to dominate. They almost came back to beat the Rams in the previous NFC Championship, who were almost at dynasty status, having one of the NFL’s all time great offenses. It was the last game at the Vet, the Bucs had done awful in cold weather (yeah, kind of an odd stat, but real) up to then, and had to face a particularly harsh Philly January. The team streak against the team was high, even containing then all pro Warren Sapp to simple amateur status. Everything changed. McNabb looked shell shocked. He didn’t know where to throw, or when. Sapp and Simeon Rice were in his face on an alternating basis, and cornerback Ronde Barber seemed to be all over the field. Despite all of that, it still was manageably close on the last Eagles possession. Then, Ronde Barber pick six.
I haven’t seen the same McNabb since then. He has good games here and there, and usually plays pretty well, if not great in the first 3 quarters. But when the game is on the line, nope, can’t do it. The man’s psyche had been shot. The man whom I imagined to be the next Elway when I was in high school, watching his comebacks as an early Eagle, and hearing of quite a few when he was backing the Syracuse Orangemen (a game against VT comes to mind), simply lost that comeback stuff. Up by 3 he fumbles a handoff to Westbrook, Cowboys score a TD on the ensuing drive. Next drive, only manages to complete a few short passes and get sacked. He even threw it short on 4th down (though I’m actually gonna blame this one on Reid, as it appeared that’s the way the play was designed). The end result, Eagles lose by 4, unable to fire last in the shootout.
--Ed Hoculi--
Ed Hoculi should be fired. It’s a simple statement with a mountain of truth. The fact of the matter is he blew a major call. Just as it appeared Denver had lost grip of its potentially tying or winning drive, and just as it appeared San Diego had gotten a hold of it, securing their own win, Denver just lost control for a second. The reason for this? Ed Hoculi saw a fumble as a forward pass. The chance of seeing this as a throw in real time is slim to none. So the ball hits the ground, and he blows the whistle. The thing is, everyone keeps moving. Sure, there are remarks from Cutler and gang that they stopped, just as any good boy scout would, but frankly that shouldn’t have mattered. The ball went securely into the hands of the San Diego defender, and he fell on it, getting tapped down. Even though the whistle had blown, the play had unofficially kept going. I know, it’s not official, but that’s how it should have been called. I know it’s easy for me to say it, and frankly that’s part of the reason why I’m doing it.
There are several counterpoints to this. One being San Diego still had an opportunity to stop them. And they did, really, they did. But the thing is, having something called like that against you, especially after it has time to sink in after the replay booth, is emotionally anti-climactic for the loser. It is such a huge loss of momentum. The player gets a feeling that no matter what they do, it will not matter because the system is against them. They could do everything right (like they did) and still end up the loser (uh, yeah). Besides, red zone stops usually rely on more luck than skill. That’s just the nature of the game. They also had a chance to stop the 2 pt conversion, as they probably should have, but again, I hate to hit the hammer of momentum,
Another counterpoint is San Diego had a chance to win it afterwards. Yeah, they did have a chance to score. They only had to go more than half the field. Let’s say they got it at their 40. That’s 60 yards for a touchdown, but you only need one point. There’s about half a minute left, and I think one timeout. It’s 20 yards to get to a 57 yard field goal. A field goal of that length is by no means a guarantee.
The last relevant counter point is that it is but one game in the season, and it is still very early yet. The other thing is, building early momentum is a great way to earn a playoff bid. The AFC West may come down to these two teams, the other two being lame ducks. This essentially gives Denver a leg up on the competition, while trying to bury San Diego alive.
And to everyone who says, well if they were really that much of a better team, they should have won by a bigger margin. Please, stop talking. These are the same people who claim the “patriots dynasty” as the greatest thing since sliced bread. News flash, every super bowl they have won was by exactly 3 points. The 60’s Packers, 70’s Steelers, 80’s 49ers, and 90’s Cowboys all found ways to bury their opponent eventually. Oh, but the salary cap. Yeah, every team has to deal with it. And before the salary cap, every team got to keep whatever player they wanted if they wanted to pay him. So that means, the best teams theoretically actually would have the most highly sought after and paid players. In a way, concentrating the talent at the top, I think, would make the feat of a dynasty more difficult, having to beat the best teams constantly in the playoffs.
I know, people have gushed over Hoculi. Sometimes I joke about people buying his jersey. But I look at it this way. Refs are like groundskeepers, their name only gets brought up when the job isn’t being done right. If the grass is shit, lets fire the groundskeeper, oh look, he has a name. Yeah, I know, refs have to make tough calls, but in general, what should be remembered about a game is the team, and the players, not that really awesome call the ref made. And besides, I never really saw anything special in the reffing abilities of Hoculi, just another zebra in stripes.
--Notre Dame--
Speaking of poor reffing, I’m still pissed about this. Last week, not this one which just passed, the one before, ND played SDSU, and for most of the game, SDSU was up. Yes, holy Notre Dame to lose to lowly San Diego State. Well, the stupid call is the SDSU running back ran the ball to about the goal line, some say he crossed, some say he didn’t, but around this time, he fumbled it, and the ball skirted forward and then back into the endzone. The call was this – The ball did not cross the goal line, therefore it was fumbled, and the defender got a touchback. So there’s two bad calls here. One, the non-touchdown; two, the non-safety. SDSU should have gotten one or the other, but got neither. Very next drive, Notre Dame scores quick and the game’s momentum quickly and abruptly shifts into ND’s hands. Wouldn’t it be a pity if Notre Dame honestly lost?
--Donovan McNabb--
Donovan McNabb, what has happened to you? I remember when you used to thrive in the second half. The running game wasn’t always there, and the defense kept us in it, so we had to throw to score, and you usually came up with what we needed. I specifically remember a certain Monday Night game, against the Giants. Up to this point, the Eagles had lost 9 straight games to the Giants, the last being an ugly playoff rout (before they themselves were routed by the Vikings). Down by more than 3 (I want to say the score was 3-9 at the time, but I don’t remember specifically, so I’m not going to commit to that) with less than five minutes to go, McNabb throws a perfect pass into the back corner of the end zone, receiver falling down, ball being drilled through the outer limits of coverage. I believe the receiver was tight end Chad Lewis, but I’m basing this on him being the only reliable receiver of the time. Plus, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t one of the wide outs of the time. But the point is, he has to win, and he does. I think the final was 10-9. The team needed him to carry the team then, and he had no problems shouldering the burden.
Somewhere along the lines, it fell apart. I personally think it was the NFC Championship game against the Bucs, the second one we went to. It was our first one at home, and everything, everyone, etc, said that the Eagles were not only going to win the game, but they were going to dominate. They almost came back to beat the Rams in the previous NFC Championship, who were almost at dynasty status, having one of the NFL’s all time great offenses. It was the last game at the Vet, the Bucs had done awful in cold weather (yeah, kind of an odd stat, but real) up to then, and had to face a particularly harsh Philly January. The team streak against the team was high, even containing then all pro Warren Sapp to simple amateur status. Everything changed. McNabb looked shell shocked. He didn’t know where to throw, or when. Sapp and Simeon Rice were in his face on an alternating basis, and cornerback Ronde Barber seemed to be all over the field. Despite all of that, it still was manageably close on the last Eagles possession. Then, Ronde Barber pick six.
I haven’t seen the same McNabb since then. He has good games here and there, and usually plays pretty well, if not great in the first 3 quarters. But when the game is on the line, nope, can’t do it. The man’s psyche had been shot. The man whom I imagined to be the next Elway when I was in high school, watching his comebacks as an early Eagle, and hearing of quite a few when he was backing the Syracuse Orangemen (a game against VT comes to mind), simply lost that comeback stuff. Up by 3 he fumbles a handoff to Westbrook, Cowboys score a TD on the ensuing drive. Next drive, only manages to complete a few short passes and get sacked. He even threw it short on 4th down (though I’m actually gonna blame this one on Reid, as it appeared that’s the way the play was designed). The end result, Eagles lose by 4, unable to fire last in the shootout.
7.02.2008
On the hatred of talking heads
I've recently come to hate talking heads quite a bit. Yes, I realize being a news anchor can be a thankless job -- receiving credit for bad news, while none for good -- but the manner in which the current television news media is run is simply deplorable.
No, I am not talking about small production local newscasts. Being part of a large market, I'm not used to seeing smaller budgeted local productions with an even smaller resource of news.
I'm talking about the national markets. Seriously, this is the "big leagues" of news. These are supposed to be the best. I'm not gonna even touch on ESPN, that's simply way too easy (unless you want your daily fill of arena football with sub-par presentations of soccer and hockey). This is about the bigguys -- CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews.
They simply have no shame in being objective. While I do understand that it is virtually impossible to be objective in one's reporting (even the manner in which facts are presented can skew one way or the other), at least try. I recently heard a newscaster sign off by saying how many days it has been since Bush declared victory in Iraq. Oberman signs off by trying (and I really do emphasize trying, cos it's just that bad) to channel Edward R Murrowes by saying "good night and good luck." FOXNews almost never addresses both sides of any single issue. Lou Dobbs is (or was, not entirely sure if its over) obsessed with the recent food poisoning outbreak with tomatoes. I mean, you watch the news to try and watch the news to become more informed about general happenings around the world, and there's always someone there trying to shove an agenda down your throat.
Yes, I know Bush is a failure as a president, but he's probably not as dumb as everyone thinks of him, I mean, it's hard to explain how a full fledged man idiot could win two terms of office without calling half the country stupid. And no, that's not a red/blue state issue, look at an election result map, I mean a real one. If you can find one that does percents, by county or state is fine, you'll see that half of all of the country voted for him, maybe a little bit more than half in the "red" states, and a little bit less than half in the "blue" states, but half the country voted for him -- twice.
Yes, I know when Edward R Murrowes was saying "good night and good luck" it meant something. But you know what, all of the media outlets, in particular Hollywood, were under attack by McCarthy at the time. His freedom of speech was very much in jeopardy. When Olberman does it, never is there a second his ability to say what he does (and he often continues without thinking) in danger of being hindered. He only is in jeopardy of losing his job from his employer. And I kinda hope he does, but I know if he does, he's gonna blame it on Bush and the Republicans somehow.
And FOXNews, seriously, when you guys are having a debate on an issue, it usually helps to have people of differing opinions and/or backgrounds to discuss the issue. I know the "conservative" view (if you actually believe in the liberal/conservative split) is underrepresented by the other networks usually, but compensating doesn't help. It actually just makes it seem ameteurish. And when separate views are shown, it usually quickly escalates to a shouting match. Can't this be solved through logical discourse? I think it just shows neither side knows what the hell they're talking about so they mask it by being loud.
Being the loudest does not make you the rightest. And sometimes the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease; sometimes the squeaky wheel gets chucked and replaced by a shiny new one.
-Knuttel
No, I am not talking about small production local newscasts. Being part of a large market, I'm not used to seeing smaller budgeted local productions with an even smaller resource of news.
I'm talking about the national markets. Seriously, this is the "big leagues" of news. These are supposed to be the best. I'm not gonna even touch on ESPN, that's simply way too easy (unless you want your daily fill of arena football with sub-par presentations of soccer and hockey). This is about the bigguys -- CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews.
They simply have no shame in being objective. While I do understand that it is virtually impossible to be objective in one's reporting (even the manner in which facts are presented can skew one way or the other), at least try. I recently heard a newscaster sign off by saying how many days it has been since Bush declared victory in Iraq. Oberman signs off by trying (and I really do emphasize trying, cos it's just that bad) to channel Edward R Murrowes by saying "good night and good luck." FOXNews almost never addresses both sides of any single issue. Lou Dobbs is (or was, not entirely sure if its over) obsessed with the recent food poisoning outbreak with tomatoes. I mean, you watch the news to try and watch the news to become more informed about general happenings around the world, and there's always someone there trying to shove an agenda down your throat.
Yes, I know Bush is a failure as a president, but he's probably not as dumb as everyone thinks of him, I mean, it's hard to explain how a full fledged man idiot could win two terms of office without calling half the country stupid. And no, that's not a red/blue state issue, look at an election result map, I mean a real one. If you can find one that does percents, by county or state is fine, you'll see that half of all of the country voted for him, maybe a little bit more than half in the "red" states, and a little bit less than half in the "blue" states, but half the country voted for him -- twice.
Yes, I know when Edward R Murrowes was saying "good night and good luck" it meant something. But you know what, all of the media outlets, in particular Hollywood, were under attack by McCarthy at the time. His freedom of speech was very much in jeopardy. When Olberman does it, never is there a second his ability to say what he does (and he often continues without thinking) in danger of being hindered. He only is in jeopardy of losing his job from his employer. And I kinda hope he does, but I know if he does, he's gonna blame it on Bush and the Republicans somehow.
And FOXNews, seriously, when you guys are having a debate on an issue, it usually helps to have people of differing opinions and/or backgrounds to discuss the issue. I know the "conservative" view (if you actually believe in the liberal/conservative split) is underrepresented by the other networks usually, but compensating doesn't help. It actually just makes it seem ameteurish. And when separate views are shown, it usually quickly escalates to a shouting match. Can't this be solved through logical discourse? I think it just shows neither side knows what the hell they're talking about so they mask it by being loud.
Being the loudest does not make you the rightest. And sometimes the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease; sometimes the squeaky wheel gets chucked and replaced by a shiny new one.
-Knuttel
6.26.2008
unprepared part 2
So I actually had two ideas to write about, this one I am even more unprepared for, and I did intend it to be my second post. I had originally planned to launch this yesterday (seriously, these things take like 5 minutes to set up), published with the "bump" article. Therefore the article for Wednesday would have been about an event which happened Wednesday, and if I had watched the whole thing, would have been able to write better about.
here I go anyway
Turkey 2-3 Germany
I have been following the Euro 2008 tournament quite closely. In fact, I almost wish I had been writing this a week or so earlier so I could talk about Christiano Ronaldo's huge defensive error which cost Portugal the game against Germany the round previous. A side note -- a friend of mine is quite crestfallen at his seemingly complete transfer to Real Madrid.
In any case, Turkey v Germany.
You would think, my name being Knuttel, and how I often go by the moniker -- Lothiar Matteus (after German football great Lothar Matthaus) -- I would want Germany to win. For the most part this is incorrect. Now that Turkey has lost, I want Germany to win, but I was pulling for Turkey, I guess it must be that underdog thing. Also, over the course of the year, I became enthralled by the play of Fehnerbace in the Champions League (how fitting if they had beaten Chelsea) and by the play of the Altintop twins, Hamit and Halil. Hamit is a midfielder and plays for Bayern Munchen; Halil is a forward/winger and plays for FC Shalke 04, both were born in Germany and play in the German Bundesliga. I don't know why Halil was left off the Turkey roster for the tournament, and perhaps it is something I missed entirely, but I really feel if he had been on the team, Turkey would have been in a lot better shape.
The first goal by Turkey seemed more accidental than anything else, though in today's game, you must get every goal which may come your way. Some call them garbage goals, others call them hustle goals. Being a Philadelphia Flyers fan, I really don't care how it gets in the net, and if the goalie plays it poorly, the forward has every right to get in his face and make him look like a fool. But from the goalie side of this, Jens Lehman really baffles me. Most goalies get on hot and cold streaks, but they last games each. Jens seems to make an awful play and give up an easy goal one minute and then fly to the opposite side of the net to rob a sure goal the next. His streaks last minutes, perhaps hours most of the time.
The first goal by Germany showed great tactical maturity by the coaches. The 4-4-2 is an outdated formation, I think, at least when all lines are flat. While Germany has 4 midfielders and 2 forwards of starting quality, you'd think they might use that, as in 06 i believe. Instead, they use a 4-2-3-1, like France used to get to the WC finals in 06, and Roma has used of late. They moved Lucas Podolski to the left wing, and in this first goal, he played it like a true winger. He had an amazing cross to Bastian Schweinstagger, who rushed in from the right wing and hammered it in, echoing a goal of his against Portugal in the prior game.
Ballack played the CAM/CF position, the one Zinedine Zidane held, and if anyone in the game out there is to continue his legacy, it is Ballack. My heart wants me to say it is Karim Benzema of OL/France who will continue his legacy, but being an OL fan, I know he is best as a pure striker, and as a second option on the wing. The 08 tournament, I think, proved he is a hesitant CF, and is more comfortable getting open and finishing off plays than setting up others. His current ability is staggering, and his potential signals only improvement. Perhaps someday he can be a CF, but for now, he would do better as a pure striker.
Now for the unpreparedness, I did not get to see much of the rest of the game, including no other goals (I know, Lahm scored in the 90th to win it, so dramatic, like Degrassi dramatic), but the lightning flashed a light so we could see the fallacies of ESPN, conspirators against sports not names Football, Basketball, Baseball, Nascar, Poker, and Bowling. Yes, I know the last three aren't sports, but don't tell ESPN that, at least there's some variety. But here is what the lightning showed - THE ANNOUNCERS FOR THE GAME WEREN'T EVEN THERE. They were in America, probably ESPN headquarters/legion of doom -- Bristol, Connecticut. ESPN, for shame. You are the world's largest sports channel, and you can't even ship your announcers overseas for the biggest sport in the world? Are you that oblivious?
As for what I saw, besides the goals, it looked as if Germany was going to win it anyway, just from a possession standpoint in the first half, but when Turkey got in the penalty box area, they harrassed them. Germany's defense gets points here for not letting up too many good shots, but bad points for not being able to clear it well enough and steal possession away in your own territory. My guess is the game turned into a midfield battle, with Germany's overwhelming midfield talent just overwhelming them. Just a thought, but Podolski rushing up to a forward position with Lahm filling in the left wing, backs centering up, seems like a real good strategy. Maybe I'll add more insight after I watch the game fully, though it is more likely I will move onto a different topic entirely.
-Knuttel
here I go anyway
Turkey 2-3 Germany
I have been following the Euro 2008 tournament quite closely. In fact, I almost wish I had been writing this a week or so earlier so I could talk about Christiano Ronaldo's huge defensive error which cost Portugal the game against Germany the round previous. A side note -- a friend of mine is quite crestfallen at his seemingly complete transfer to Real Madrid.
In any case, Turkey v Germany.
You would think, my name being Knuttel, and how I often go by the moniker -- Lothiar Matteus (after German football great Lothar Matthaus) -- I would want Germany to win. For the most part this is incorrect. Now that Turkey has lost, I want Germany to win, but I was pulling for Turkey, I guess it must be that underdog thing. Also, over the course of the year, I became enthralled by the play of Fehnerbace in the Champions League (how fitting if they had beaten Chelsea) and by the play of the Altintop twins, Hamit and Halil. Hamit is a midfielder and plays for Bayern Munchen; Halil is a forward/winger and plays for FC Shalke 04, both were born in Germany and play in the German Bundesliga. I don't know why Halil was left off the Turkey roster for the tournament, and perhaps it is something I missed entirely, but I really feel if he had been on the team, Turkey would have been in a lot better shape.
The first goal by Turkey seemed more accidental than anything else, though in today's game, you must get every goal which may come your way. Some call them garbage goals, others call them hustle goals. Being a Philadelphia Flyers fan, I really don't care how it gets in the net, and if the goalie plays it poorly, the forward has every right to get in his face and make him look like a fool. But from the goalie side of this, Jens Lehman really baffles me. Most goalies get on hot and cold streaks, but they last games each. Jens seems to make an awful play and give up an easy goal one minute and then fly to the opposite side of the net to rob a sure goal the next. His streaks last minutes, perhaps hours most of the time.
The first goal by Germany showed great tactical maturity by the coaches. The 4-4-2 is an outdated formation, I think, at least when all lines are flat. While Germany has 4 midfielders and 2 forwards of starting quality, you'd think they might use that, as in 06 i believe. Instead, they use a 4-2-3-1, like France used to get to the WC finals in 06, and Roma has used of late. They moved Lucas Podolski to the left wing, and in this first goal, he played it like a true winger. He had an amazing cross to Bastian Schweinstagger, who rushed in from the right wing and hammered it in, echoing a goal of his against Portugal in the prior game.
Ballack played the CAM/CF position, the one Zinedine Zidane held, and if anyone in the game out there is to continue his legacy, it is Ballack. My heart wants me to say it is Karim Benzema of OL/France who will continue his legacy, but being an OL fan, I know he is best as a pure striker, and as a second option on the wing. The 08 tournament, I think, proved he is a hesitant CF, and is more comfortable getting open and finishing off plays than setting up others. His current ability is staggering, and his potential signals only improvement. Perhaps someday he can be a CF, but for now, he would do better as a pure striker.
Now for the unpreparedness, I did not get to see much of the rest of the game, including no other goals (I know, Lahm scored in the 90th to win it, so dramatic, like Degrassi dramatic), but the lightning flashed a light so we could see the fallacies of ESPN, conspirators against sports not names Football, Basketball, Baseball, Nascar, Poker, and Bowling. Yes, I know the last three aren't sports, but don't tell ESPN that, at least there's some variety. But here is what the lightning showed - THE ANNOUNCERS FOR THE GAME WEREN'T EVEN THERE. They were in America, probably ESPN headquarters/legion of doom -- Bristol, Connecticut. ESPN, for shame. You are the world's largest sports channel, and you can't even ship your announcers overseas for the biggest sport in the world? Are you that oblivious?
As for what I saw, besides the goals, it looked as if Germany was going to win it anyway, just from a possession standpoint in the first half, but when Turkey got in the penalty box area, they harrassed them. Germany's defense gets points here for not letting up too many good shots, but bad points for not being able to clear it well enough and steal possession away in your own territory. My guess is the game turned into a midfield battle, with Germany's overwhelming midfield talent just overwhelming them. Just a thought, but Podolski rushing up to a forward position with Lahm filling in the left wing, backs centering up, seems like a real good strategy. Maybe I'll add more insight after I watch the game fully, though it is more likely I will move onto a different topic entirely.
-Knuttel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)