I'm going to start this off by saying I am reconsidering my almost 3 year long boycott of the NFL (yeah, it's really been that long). My demands simply aren't going to be met and other leagues are mimicking the NFL for exactly the same things I left it. The NCAA may be an exception, but they have their head so far up their ass, at least organizationally, that they're really not worth defending.
So why not simply address and try to understand why the league acts the way it does (in this blog post, that is, stating the issue to the NFL themselves would endear you to them much as Pete Rose endears himself to Bud Selig).
The NFL does all of these crazy rules because of their cult of superstar.
You can't hit the quarterback -- because they're the superstar.
You can't chop down a wide receiver with your helmet -- because they're the superstar.
Note: I actually kind of agree with the last one, but not because a football player should not be on the receiving end of a tackle, but because tackling at the NFL level is really subpar -- running at high speed and hoping it makes the other person fall down.
But it continues with new rules they've been putting in place even more recently since the lockout ended.
Two-a-days are now a relic of the past -- despite being the standard in High School and College. Why? If you're already an awesome player, you don't need the extra time to get more awesome -- you're just more likely to get hurt. Nevermind that borderline players need the extra time to make their case for a roster spot -- make their case for a pay check -- we can't risk losing a whole season of Chad Ochocinco quips because he tweaked his knee running that extra route.
The other rule change is the kickoff being moved 5 yards closer to midfield. Basically this means every single kickoff will be a touchback. "Oh, but Knuttel, aren't kick-returners superstars too?" This is where it gets tricky. A very excellent kick returner may get to the level of celebrity of a regular starter within the team's fanbase, but it is rare that it extends beyond that. Kick returners are usually listed as the 4th or 5th wide receiver on the depth chart, or the 3rd runningback, some back up defensive back -- you get the picture. They are on the field for only a handful of plays. It's like if kickers had athleticism -- and no one likes kickers. Basically this eliminates the position -- the roster need of a pure athlete, someone who could work on his route running, his catching, his tackling, but in the meantime, can run and juke like a motherfucker, so you want to get him on the field some. The thing is, not a lot of players get beyond that, even the good ones. For every Steve Smith, who began his pro-bowl wide receiver career as an undersized pro-bowl kick returner, there's a million Brian Mitchells and Eric Metcalfs that can't put everything else together on an NFL level.
Perhaps the most damaging aspect of this culture in the NFL though is the huge lack of creativity. Any new ideas are crushed at the first sign of failure. The most recent breakthrough in offense is the West Coast offense of the early 80s -- most offenses simply do a variant of that. The two biggest defensive fads (cover-2 and 3-4) have their roots in the 70s and 80s likewise. There's two reasons for this -- owners and gms are short-sighted, and short term failure all too often leads to long term failure in their logic; and the stars of today MUST be compared to the stars of yesterday.
This about it. You can think of any star player nowadys, and you can probably draw some sort of comparison to any other player since offensive linemen were allowed to engage blocks with their hands. If someone baffles THAT much, you can just combine two. All sports coverage reinforces this concept. The game can never change too much, because if it does, then how are we going to know if Dan Marino really was the greatest quarterback never to win a super bowl?
Frankly, I don't get it. Developing new ideas prevents the other teams from predicting what you're going to do, and my god, have there been any decent running backs after 30 besides Emmit Smith in recent history? Isn't that an alarming trend the league should look into? Or is the damage too drawn out to cause a sudden dip in stardom?
And with only 32 teams, we need to see new ideas executed. This isn't baseball, where there are only so many ways to run in straight lines around the bases. This is football, there's an entire field width-wise and legnth-wise, and theres 4 downs to get 10 yards (3 if you're in Canada). I want to see an NFL coach who refuses to run the ball like Mike Leach, or refuses to throw the ball like Paul Johnson (the fun part about ignoring one of the two conventional ways of moving the ball is you have to then move it the other way unconventionally).
Come on
-- The Knuttel
Showing posts with label conspiracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conspiracy. Show all posts
3.09.2011
And Here We Have...
NASA Scientist Finds Extraterrestiral Microbial Life In Meteorite [PIC]
I wish this had a legitimate article attached or linked to it so I could follow the actual story. It would definitely be interesting if true, but this is just a series of sourceless pictures so far.
... yeah, so reading the comments section...
and the link
http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html
I bet there's already alien life on earth, but cos of these dipshits we'll never know. They totally have the scientific secrets we're looking for too, like string theory and penis enlargement.
-- Knuttel
I wish this had a legitimate article attached or linked to it so I could follow the actual story. It would definitely be interesting if true, but this is just a series of sourceless pictures so far.
... yeah, so reading the comments section...
"Correction: Scientist finds formations that sort of suggest former presence of microbial life in meteorite, but the formations may have been caused by a number of other forces that are not a life form. Author has published a similar paper 14 years ago. Article was published in The Journal of Cosmology, a now-bankrupt publication with questionable peer-reviewing standards."
and the link
http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html
I bet there's already alien life on earth, but cos of these dipshits we'll never know. They totally have the scientific secrets we're looking for too, like string theory and penis enlargement.
-- Knuttel
I Don't Think My "Comparisons to Ohio" Tag Does Enough Here
Ohio St suspends Tressel 2 games for violation - Yahoo! News
Seriously? Does the NCAA have no teeth whatsoever?
Cam Newton's father sought explicit verbal consent for his son to play football for certain schools. That's one step away from being able to broadcast Major League Baseball Games (just get it written).
This is weaker than when a group of Ohio State's players were suspended for the first few games of next season for improperly receiving benefits for football related services (in this case, tattoos for merchandise), as opposed to the bowl game these allegations appeared a few weeks before.
You see, when I first heard this story (the tattoo one, not Tressel), I was working under a few assumptions -- This had just happened recently, mid-season at the latest, nobody was aware they were violating any codes, and Jim Tressel and the University were both completely (or at least very) unaware of the whole thing.
Seriously? Does the NCAA have no teeth whatsoever?
Cam Newton's father sought explicit verbal consent for his son to play football for certain schools. That's one step away from being able to broadcast Major League Baseball Games (just get it written).
This is weaker than when a group of Ohio State's players were suspended for the first few games of next season for improperly receiving benefits for football related services (in this case, tattoos for merchandise), as opposed to the bowl game these allegations appeared a few weeks before.
You see, when I first heard this story (the tattoo one, not Tressel), I was working under a few assumptions -- This had just happened recently, mid-season at the latest, nobody was aware they were violating any codes, and Jim Tressel and the University were both completely (or at least very) unaware of the whole thing.
3.01.2011
What's the Deal With Airline Peanuts?
Man, that joke is so outdated. They would never serve those nowadays, the anti-peanut contingent is too strong. God they control waaay too much. Why can't we all just admit what we all want -- peanuts are delicious in any way, shape, or form. Besides, pretzels and peanuts both make on equally thirsty. Anyone remember the Seinfeld line "These pretzels are making me thirsty?" Maybe that's what they're really trying to accomplish. By getting one thirsty, they make one reliant upon the refreshment cart, where they can begin pushing charged items upon the passengers.
And so we sit, legs restrained, depraved of even our basic right to peanuts.
Thus, it is important to extol the virtues of the train, and why true high speed rail should be constructed.
My journey was to Phoenix, the largest metropolitan area in the country without a train station. Even if I had wanted to train it all the way to Phoenix, traveling from the East coast, the journey would take probably 2 days of straight travel, not counting layovers.
As of now there is a high speed rail going up the east coast -- Accella, but everything is so dense it rarely gets up to full speed. Traveling once by train to Chicago, I was on a regular speed train between there and Washington, DC.
Even if Airlines were made to be more comfortable than trains, there is still the issue of fuel. Airplanes require a shitton of fuel to run. Trains take comparatively none. Not to mention, think of the infrastructure of having a comprehensive track system.
Whatever, I think I'm getting way off point. Maybe I was just pissed that I didn't have any leg room cos I had to put my carry on bag underneath the seat in front of me on the way back because EVERYONE carries full luggage as a carry on because they nickel and dime you for everything, most notably checked baggage.
-- Knuttel
And so we sit, legs restrained, depraved of even our basic right to peanuts.
Thus, it is important to extol the virtues of the train, and why true high speed rail should be constructed.
My journey was to Phoenix, the largest metropolitan area in the country without a train station. Even if I had wanted to train it all the way to Phoenix, traveling from the East coast, the journey would take probably 2 days of straight travel, not counting layovers.
As of now there is a high speed rail going up the east coast -- Accella, but everything is so dense it rarely gets up to full speed. Traveling once by train to Chicago, I was on a regular speed train between there and Washington, DC.
Even if Airlines were made to be more comfortable than trains, there is still the issue of fuel. Airplanes require a shitton of fuel to run. Trains take comparatively none. Not to mention, think of the infrastructure of having a comprehensive track system.
Whatever, I think I'm getting way off point. Maybe I was just pissed that I didn't have any leg room cos I had to put my carry on bag underneath the seat in front of me on the way back because EVERYONE carries full luggage as a carry on because they nickel and dime you for everything, most notably checked baggage.
-- Knuttel
2.15.2011
When Even the "Good" Plane Sinks the Economy
F-35 engine shows challenge of belt-tightening - USATODAY.com
The F-22, while being a major feat of aeronautics and engineering, is pretty much unneeded today. Even if we were to get involved in a "traditional" war with, let's say, China, Russia, or some other European power, most of the planes that get shot down would likely get taken down from the ground. Dogfighting is largely a thing of the past, negated by increasing speeds, maneuverability, and stealth technologies. Even as bomber escorts, they seem futile; any missile, ground or air, could target any singly aircraft, escorts would merely be sacrificial vessels at best.
In any case, I digress. The point is, the F-22 was to be the military's superweapon of the future. Tactics have rendered it obsolete since its initial design, but the project was so huge, tied to so many companies, so many states and districts, and requiring so many subsidies, that nobody was going to let it fail. Even though it's maintenance cost is astronomical, and it has shown a weakness to rain, nobody was going to shoot the project down -- it was political suicide.
The F-22, while being a major feat of aeronautics and engineering, is pretty much unneeded today. Even if we were to get involved in a "traditional" war with, let's say, China, Russia, or some other European power, most of the planes that get shot down would likely get taken down from the ground. Dogfighting is largely a thing of the past, negated by increasing speeds, maneuverability, and stealth technologies. Even as bomber escorts, they seem futile; any missile, ground or air, could target any singly aircraft, escorts would merely be sacrificial vessels at best.
In any case, I digress. The point is, the F-22 was to be the military's superweapon of the future. Tactics have rendered it obsolete since its initial design, but the project was so huge, tied to so many companies, so many states and districts, and requiring so many subsidies, that nobody was going to let it fail. Even though it's maintenance cost is astronomical, and it has shown a weakness to rain, nobody was going to shoot the project down -- it was political suicide.
title?
The Paradox of Corporate Taxes in America - NYTimes.com
Sooooo, looks like not that much is getting cut from the budget ... and everyone is unwilling to raise taxes or close deductions. So how exactly is the budget gonna balanced?
I look at it this way, these corporations are paying a portion of this money (not all, that would be ridiculous) to employ people who know these loopholes and can exploit them.
Not to mention anyone who's in the top tax bracket is also probably very much aware of these tax breaks. I still remember a moment in the 2004 Presidential debates where Kerry called Bush out on not paying a lot of taxes due to his status as a small business owner, having a small logging business or whatever. The specifics aren't really necessary here, and to my recollection, they weren't even proven or refuted back then; they became a throwaway line.
So how can we have it both ways like this? How can the government get accused of unfairly levying exorbitant taxes upon the wealthy people and corporations, only to have them pay a token cost.
I wonder how much they'd actually bitch and moan if we cut their subsidies too. Free handout welfare whores my ass, they're just as guilty. It would balance the budget...
-- Knutel
Sooooo, looks like not that much is getting cut from the budget ... and everyone is unwilling to raise taxes or close deductions. So how exactly is the budget gonna balanced?
I look at it this way, these corporations are paying a portion of this money (not all, that would be ridiculous) to employ people who know these loopholes and can exploit them.
Not to mention anyone who's in the top tax bracket is also probably very much aware of these tax breaks. I still remember a moment in the 2004 Presidential debates where Kerry called Bush out on not paying a lot of taxes due to his status as a small business owner, having a small logging business or whatever. The specifics aren't really necessary here, and to my recollection, they weren't even proven or refuted back then; they became a throwaway line.
So how can we have it both ways like this? How can the government get accused of unfairly levying exorbitant taxes upon the wealthy people and corporations, only to have them pay a token cost.
I wonder how much they'd actually bitch and moan if we cut their subsidies too. Free handout welfare whores my ass, they're just as guilty. It would balance the budget...
-- Knutel
6.13.2010
Knuttel Clears Out His Bookmarks
OK, so these are all things I bookmarked over the past few weeks with the intention of writing small or full sized articles on them (what's the difference, I dunno, I never wordcount anyway).
Yay, Cleveland does something productive, besides set their river on fire (again).
http://www.usatoday.com
Something on the Oil Spill, in a little more non-traditional way I guess.
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Stuff on Israel and it's recent handling of the blockades.
Washington Post
Washington Post
Shit, that's alot of Washington Post I guess.
-- Knuttel
P.S. if there are any bookmarks on any other computers in my house or whatevs, I'll put them up in like an edited post or something.
Yay, Cleveland does something productive, besides set their river on fire (again).
http://www.usatoday.com
Something on the Oil Spill, in a little more non-traditional way I guess.
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Stuff on Israel and it's recent handling of the blockades.
Washington Post
Washington Post
Shit, that's alot of Washington Post I guess.
-- Knuttel
P.S. if there are any bookmarks on any other computers in my house or whatevs, I'll put them up in like an edited post or something.
6.09.2010
Big Ten continued
So I saw that during a break in Jeopardy, so I had to post it, but alas, I had no time to expound and elaborate. Isn't that what this website is about?
So anyways.
Let's assume that this is it for Big Ten expansion, that no more schools will come forward and join them.
-- An East/West division system is likely. The East will probably be Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, and Purdue. The West will probably be Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwester, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska.
-- The Pac-10 will likely move in and take a good chunk of the southern schools of the Big12. This will likely spell the end of the Big 12. Given numbers, this means the Big Ten will become the new Big 12.
-- The SEC may also open up to and bid for some of the Texas schools, sensing a conference collapse, and possibly seeking to reunite Arkansas with some of its former conference mates.
-- If no conferences take any further Big 12 schools, the Big 12 itself may seek to re-shift and get some other school to fill the 12th spot, and maintain that championship game. Possible candidates for this include TCU, or possibly even some former Southwestern Conference members. Either the new school will join the Northern division, or Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, or Texas Tech will. I see the former option more likely, from 15 years of playing in these divisions and building up rivalries.
If the Big Ten is not done expanding, this is almost positive evidence that they are also adding Missouri. Missouri seemed like a sure shot to join the Big Ten, and if Nebraska is jumping ship, then Missouri will likely follow. This also means that there probably will be another east coast team to balance out everything geographically. Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn will open the conference to the New York market, and Pitt and West Virginia have geography and historic rivalries with Penn State. They may also contemplate another 2 teams on top of that, making a 16 team super group. The other two teams could really be any I've listed, plus Notre Dame, and maybe even Texas.
If the Big Ten and Pac-10 turn into huge 16 team conferences, the BCS will basically become useless. With the BCS useless, Notre Dame will have to join a conference in order to partake in this playoff system and have the chance at a national title.
If the Big Ten and Pac-10 turn into huge 16 team conferences, the SEC and ACC will likely follow suit, absorbing whatever schools are left over from the Big 12 and Big East.
The Texas legislature may be the biggest obstacle here. What power they have over these schools' conference alignment is unclear exactly to me, but they seem determined to keep these 4 schools in the Big 12 together. I guess because Rice, TCU, and SMU are private, they have no control over where they go, but Houston is not, and has not been with these Big 12 schools since 1996. Obviously Texas and Texas A&M are the two big targets here, being the two with the biggest football histories. Texas Tech has had some very exciting recent years, both in record and in play, so they are a target, however the coach responsible for these changes has been fired. Baylor seems like the odd one out. They're a team on the rise, so they may be able to compete in the Pac-10 or SEC. Not getting into one of these, however, basically amounts to relegation, which means less revenue, dramatically.
Notice all of the ifs in this post. This is all one writer's crazy speculation.
Orangebloods seems to be keeping up with this. Considering how theyre affiliated with Texas, I wonder if there's some ulterior motive.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1092612
-- Knuttel
So anyways.
Let's assume that this is it for Big Ten expansion, that no more schools will come forward and join them.
-- An East/West division system is likely. The East will probably be Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, and Purdue. The West will probably be Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwester, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska.
-- The Pac-10 will likely move in and take a good chunk of the southern schools of the Big12. This will likely spell the end of the Big 12. Given numbers, this means the Big Ten will become the new Big 12.
-- The SEC may also open up to and bid for some of the Texas schools, sensing a conference collapse, and possibly seeking to reunite Arkansas with some of its former conference mates.
-- If no conferences take any further Big 12 schools, the Big 12 itself may seek to re-shift and get some other school to fill the 12th spot, and maintain that championship game. Possible candidates for this include TCU, or possibly even some former Southwestern Conference members. Either the new school will join the Northern division, or Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, or Texas Tech will. I see the former option more likely, from 15 years of playing in these divisions and building up rivalries.
If the Big Ten is not done expanding, this is almost positive evidence that they are also adding Missouri. Missouri seemed like a sure shot to join the Big Ten, and if Nebraska is jumping ship, then Missouri will likely follow. This also means that there probably will be another east coast team to balance out everything geographically. Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn will open the conference to the New York market, and Pitt and West Virginia have geography and historic rivalries with Penn State. They may also contemplate another 2 teams on top of that, making a 16 team super group. The other two teams could really be any I've listed, plus Notre Dame, and maybe even Texas.
If the Big Ten and Pac-10 turn into huge 16 team conferences, the BCS will basically become useless. With the BCS useless, Notre Dame will have to join a conference in order to partake in this playoff system and have the chance at a national title.
If the Big Ten and Pac-10 turn into huge 16 team conferences, the SEC and ACC will likely follow suit, absorbing whatever schools are left over from the Big 12 and Big East.
The Texas legislature may be the biggest obstacle here. What power they have over these schools' conference alignment is unclear exactly to me, but they seem determined to keep these 4 schools in the Big 12 together. I guess because Rice, TCU, and SMU are private, they have no control over where they go, but Houston is not, and has not been with these Big 12 schools since 1996. Obviously Texas and Texas A&M are the two big targets here, being the two with the biggest football histories. Texas Tech has had some very exciting recent years, both in record and in play, so they are a target, however the coach responsible for these changes has been fired. Baylor seems like the odd one out. They're a team on the rise, so they may be able to compete in the Pac-10 or SEC. Not getting into one of these, however, basically amounts to relegation, which means less revenue, dramatically.
Notice all of the ifs in this post. This is all one writer's crazy speculation.
Orangebloods seems to be keeping up with this. Considering how theyre affiliated with Texas, I wonder if there's some ulterior motive.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1092612
-- Knuttel
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
3.14.2010
So Education Really Is Indoctrination...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35839979/from/RSS/
So I hate to use msnbc for something like this, but it's painfully hard to find sources for this kind of stuff sometimes.
News organizations don't really have any use for putting out news unless it will get them money/attention (just as publishers won't put out a book unless it will make money for them, regardless of potential artistic merit).
So because it is msnbc, please filter the article accordingly.
The worst kind of thing about an article like this is this kind of thing usually only happens at local level politics (say, a school district, maybe an entire county), and then gets overturned the next year or so. This particular event has jurisdiction over an entire state (one of the largest at that), and could arguably last for 10 years.
Frankly, it wreaks of educational irresponsibility. OK, you want your children to grow up Christian, that's awesome, just don't lie about the world in doing so. Or if you have that much of an issue with how the public school system is handling the Christian teachings etc, don't take down the entire state with you, just send your kids to a Christian school.
There's no point in me detailing specifics, as my knowledge is mostly limited to the article, but are we really still arguing about evolution?
I hope the Supreme Court intervenes in some manner, though preferably gingerly (last thing you want is the Christian Right Screaming about activist courts).
-- Knuttel
So I hate to use msnbc for something like this, but it's painfully hard to find sources for this kind of stuff sometimes.
News organizations don't really have any use for putting out news unless it will get them money/attention (just as publishers won't put out a book unless it will make money for them, regardless of potential artistic merit).
So because it is msnbc, please filter the article accordingly.
The worst kind of thing about an article like this is this kind of thing usually only happens at local level politics (say, a school district, maybe an entire county), and then gets overturned the next year or so. This particular event has jurisdiction over an entire state (one of the largest at that), and could arguably last for 10 years.
Frankly, it wreaks of educational irresponsibility. OK, you want your children to grow up Christian, that's awesome, just don't lie about the world in doing so. Or if you have that much of an issue with how the public school system is handling the Christian teachings etc, don't take down the entire state with you, just send your kids to a Christian school.
There's no point in me detailing specifics, as my knowledge is mostly limited to the article, but are we really still arguing about evolution?
I hope the Supreme Court intervenes in some manner, though preferably gingerly (last thing you want is the Christian Right Screaming about activist courts).
-- Knuttel
3.07.2010
Knuttel Watches The Academy Awards On An Hour Or Two Tape Delay
Sometimes I question why I do things. Sometimes, whatevs.
So why am I watching these awards if I have been such an outspoken critic of them and their relevance? Simple. It's such a large exercise in auto-fellation, that you just sit on the edge of your seat, waiting for that moment when something goes wrong, metaphorically when either that one muscle gets pulled, or if one flinches and bites. That is why.
That being said, I really don't care about who wins or any of that. I want to see just how self-indulgent these proceedings happen to be.
I know they expanded the "Best picture" award to 10 movies to try and incorporate more of the mainstream blockbuster movies.
But that's not the awards I know or want to see. I want to see the complete lack of shame or self awareness that caused them to expand the field to 10 pictures.
Will they be snorting the bones of third world orphans? One can hope.
Will any "genre" films get any of the big awards? Hah. The only genre that ever gets any of the big awards is the oscar bait genre itself. (Yes, it is its own genre).
And what's with all this genre bullshit anyways? And really you can't pin this on me for making a big deal about genre shit. They should've gotten their due as it arises. But no. Whatevs. Shits in the past, can't be changed, and it likely won't get resolved in the future.
I always go by this guideline -- 90% of everything (musically, literary, cinematically) is shit. 90% of drama, 90% of comedy, 90% of sci fi, 90% of metal, 90% of jazz, 90% of rap, 90% of romance, etc and so on. You get the picture.
So why are these mediocre movies getting all the pub and awards, when Star Trek doesn't even get nominated for best adapted screenplay?
Whatevs. I'll watch my movies, academy, and you can return to your ivory tower of neckbeard academia.
-- Knuttel
P.S. Best ever Movie Song. Doubt it was nominated.
So why am I watching these awards if I have been such an outspoken critic of them and their relevance? Simple. It's such a large exercise in auto-fellation, that you just sit on the edge of your seat, waiting for that moment when something goes wrong, metaphorically when either that one muscle gets pulled, or if one flinches and bites. That is why.
That being said, I really don't care about who wins or any of that. I want to see just how self-indulgent these proceedings happen to be.
I know they expanded the "Best picture" award to 10 movies to try and incorporate more of the mainstream blockbuster movies.
But that's not the awards I know or want to see. I want to see the complete lack of shame or self awareness that caused them to expand the field to 10 pictures.
Will they be snorting the bones of third world orphans? One can hope.
Will any "genre" films get any of the big awards? Hah. The only genre that ever gets any of the big awards is the oscar bait genre itself. (Yes, it is its own genre).
And what's with all this genre bullshit anyways? And really you can't pin this on me for making a big deal about genre shit. They should've gotten their due as it arises. But no. Whatevs. Shits in the past, can't be changed, and it likely won't get resolved in the future.
I always go by this guideline -- 90% of everything (musically, literary, cinematically) is shit. 90% of drama, 90% of comedy, 90% of sci fi, 90% of metal, 90% of jazz, 90% of rap, 90% of romance, etc and so on. You get the picture.
So why are these mediocre movies getting all the pub and awards, when Star Trek doesn't even get nominated for best adapted screenplay?
Whatevs. I'll watch my movies, academy, and you can return to your ivory tower of neckbeard academia.
-- Knuttel
P.S. Best ever Movie Song. Doubt it was nominated.
3.02.2010
Post-Olympic hangover stew
So a few things which have been stewing inside this head of mine, some of which happened during the Olympics, some after, mostly who cares.
I read an article about Warren Buffet on large CEO bonuses.
-It basically states that if the CEO is at a chance to earn the corporation large amounts of money, there shouldn't be anything against rewarding him for it. But when the CEO or other high ranking corporate officials are willing to gamble with their organization's equity so willy nilly, they should stand to lose money, or at the very least not get rewarded with such huge bonuses. Buffet went on to include the fact that up to 90 percent of his personal wealth is tied up in investments in his companies. Thus, Warren Buffet himself is very much at risk for losing huge amounts of money if he invests too riskily. He did take a decent hit during the economic downturn.
I largely agree with this. I always worked under the assumption that a company bonus was earned for good performance. Running a fortune 500 into bankruptcy, while quite an achievement, is not something to be rewarded with a bonus.
To state that this would drive away talent is ludicrous. The bonus is still there, it just has to be earned. And by guaranteeing it, you're actually telling these people that they can't achieve this. You're basically just throwing money at them and hoping the problems will get solved, much like the government does with public education.
And if these people truly are the gods among men they claim to be, these holy captains of industry, is there really a harm in letting them loose upon the other fields of our economy and infrastructure? Can not these captains pilot the small businesses, of whose virtues we often extol? Can not these gods of men lead our government, on scales local, state, and federal?
Or are they just another group of charlatans. A group of outcasts, clinging onto their wealth and worldly possessions?
If this is the case, why can't we simply cast them out of eden?
fuggem
-- btw, the article was from over the weekend, and i dont really feel like digging it up. so if you're interested, look it up.
The Cafferty report: how sunday night CNN makes my brain bleed
I could only take about 5 minutes of it, really. And it's not like they were entirely making bad points or asking bad questions, they weren't. It was just so bad.
The questions were asked at the wrong people. The points were made out of context. It was designed to make you angry at something (regarding the government likely), but it just made me mad at the formatting.
They did a piece on the congressional pension system, and how longterm congressmen (especially senators) can really rack up huge annual pensions (Chris Dodd's was in 6 figures).
But calling these congressmen themselves and asking why they are due to receive these pensions? These are the people that have earned, or at least felt like they earned them. Even if it is waaaay too much, do you think they are going to comment on it, or at least if they are, are they going to say something that pleases you?
Sure, maybe reform is to be had there, as reform can help many a things, but if you really want to make the point, you have to hit the right spot. Find the keystone of this pension arch, and tug at it until the thing collapses. Until then you're just throwing rocks.
Healthcare: The return
They couldn't get it done the first time, so here they are to fail again.
Really, they get nothing done as far as healthcare, or even insurance reform is concerned unless some sort of public option is to be included. Making sure everyone is elgible for an insurance that has a ceiling rate is great and all for everyone, but in the greater scheme of things, it passes on the cost of liabilities of those lesser health. And making it illegal not to be covered would simply mean a much higher cost for someone of awesome health, such as I. At the very least, make the age for insurance dependency higher than 18. College extends it for most to 22, but even then, most starting jobs, regardless of where you came, don't initially offer insurance. Some entry level positions simply don't offer benefits. Most companies you have to work there for a few months.
That's time you're unisured, and time you would be forced to have insurance.
And for all of this, Speaker Pelosi gives herself an A.
fugger. really.
-- Knuttel
double feature of music. descending progression that gets stuck in your head like mad and possibly the greatest example of shoegazing ever made.
night
I read an article about Warren Buffet on large CEO bonuses.
-It basically states that if the CEO is at a chance to earn the corporation large amounts of money, there shouldn't be anything against rewarding him for it. But when the CEO or other high ranking corporate officials are willing to gamble with their organization's equity so willy nilly, they should stand to lose money, or at the very least not get rewarded with such huge bonuses. Buffet went on to include the fact that up to 90 percent of his personal wealth is tied up in investments in his companies. Thus, Warren Buffet himself is very much at risk for losing huge amounts of money if he invests too riskily. He did take a decent hit during the economic downturn.
I largely agree with this. I always worked under the assumption that a company bonus was earned for good performance. Running a fortune 500 into bankruptcy, while quite an achievement, is not something to be rewarded with a bonus.
To state that this would drive away talent is ludicrous. The bonus is still there, it just has to be earned. And by guaranteeing it, you're actually telling these people that they can't achieve this. You're basically just throwing money at them and hoping the problems will get solved, much like the government does with public education.
And if these people truly are the gods among men they claim to be, these holy captains of industry, is there really a harm in letting them loose upon the other fields of our economy and infrastructure? Can not these captains pilot the small businesses, of whose virtues we often extol? Can not these gods of men lead our government, on scales local, state, and federal?
Or are they just another group of charlatans. A group of outcasts, clinging onto their wealth and worldly possessions?
If this is the case, why can't we simply cast them out of eden?
fuggem
-- btw, the article was from over the weekend, and i dont really feel like digging it up. so if you're interested, look it up.
The Cafferty report: how sunday night CNN makes my brain bleed
I could only take about 5 minutes of it, really. And it's not like they were entirely making bad points or asking bad questions, they weren't. It was just so bad.
The questions were asked at the wrong people. The points were made out of context. It was designed to make you angry at something (regarding the government likely), but it just made me mad at the formatting.
They did a piece on the congressional pension system, and how longterm congressmen (especially senators) can really rack up huge annual pensions (Chris Dodd's was in 6 figures).
But calling these congressmen themselves and asking why they are due to receive these pensions? These are the people that have earned, or at least felt like they earned them. Even if it is waaaay too much, do you think they are going to comment on it, or at least if they are, are they going to say something that pleases you?
Sure, maybe reform is to be had there, as reform can help many a things, but if you really want to make the point, you have to hit the right spot. Find the keystone of this pension arch, and tug at it until the thing collapses. Until then you're just throwing rocks.
Healthcare: The return
They couldn't get it done the first time, so here they are to fail again.
Really, they get nothing done as far as healthcare, or even insurance reform is concerned unless some sort of public option is to be included. Making sure everyone is elgible for an insurance that has a ceiling rate is great and all for everyone, but in the greater scheme of things, it passes on the cost of liabilities of those lesser health. And making it illegal not to be covered would simply mean a much higher cost for someone of awesome health, such as I. At the very least, make the age for insurance dependency higher than 18. College extends it for most to 22, but even then, most starting jobs, regardless of where you came, don't initially offer insurance. Some entry level positions simply don't offer benefits. Most companies you have to work there for a few months.
That's time you're unisured, and time you would be forced to have insurance.
And for all of this, Speaker Pelosi gives herself an A.
fugger. really.
-- Knuttel
double feature of music. descending progression that gets stuck in your head like mad and possibly the greatest example of shoegazing ever made.
night
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
6.13.2009
Congratulations, Bud Selig; the Red Sox won
You got what you want. Don't pretend it's any different.
I saw the Greg Dobbs hit in the 10th/11th ish (really, it's all extra, so i don't know). You know the one that screamed down the right field line, at a height well over the foul pole, before careening to land slightly foul; the one that was deemed foul based on landing by the first base umpire, regardless of its flightpath; the one that the umpire then refused to review, not saying "it can't be reviewed" but rather "I'm not gonna review it"; yeah, I saw it.
I also saw the ever shrinking strike zone for pitcher Kyle Kendrick in the 12th inning. The Red Sox hadn't had a hit since the 8th, all of a sudden they get the bases loaded. The pitcher doesn't seem to have control issues, yet keeps throwing balls. Eventually readjusting to this new strike zone, Kendrick throws strikes, that get continually slammed into the outfield, scoring 3 runs.
And for that, I ask, why?
Maybe the hit was foul, but it was sooooo close, it had to have been reviewed. Was it because of extra innings? Was it because the umpire was being an asshole? Was it because Bud Selig had a bet against Pete Rose, stating the Red Sox would win? Wait, I forgot, betting is the one (and only) unforgivable sin in all of baseball (one of the greatest players of all time is held out of the Hall because he threw a game to earn a little more than the minumum wage that was payed to him), so let's rephrase that as a "friendly wager".
As for the strike zone in the 12th; consistency is really all pitchers are asking for. If the zone had been that small all game, I doubt regulation would have ended 2-2.
Oh, and in other news, the Penguins won the stanley cup. I didn't watch enough of the game to accurately determine if/how Bettman got Crosby to win, so I won't comment on that. However, it should be mentioned that he pretty much didn't shake the hands of any Red Wings fans, instead giving his own teammates and coaches high fives (good for you! thanks!!) and butt slaps/ass poundings until the Red Wings ceremoniously exited ice for the locker room. It should also be noted that Marian Hossa just can't seem to pick the right team (lost the finals with the Pens last year, lost with the Red Wings this year). He must be the anti-Claude Lemieux.
-- Knuttel
I saw the Greg Dobbs hit in the 10th/11th ish (really, it's all extra, so i don't know). You know the one that screamed down the right field line, at a height well over the foul pole, before careening to land slightly foul; the one that was deemed foul based on landing by the first base umpire, regardless of its flightpath; the one that the umpire then refused to review, not saying "it can't be reviewed" but rather "I'm not gonna review it"; yeah, I saw it.
I also saw the ever shrinking strike zone for pitcher Kyle Kendrick in the 12th inning. The Red Sox hadn't had a hit since the 8th, all of a sudden they get the bases loaded. The pitcher doesn't seem to have control issues, yet keeps throwing balls. Eventually readjusting to this new strike zone, Kendrick throws strikes, that get continually slammed into the outfield, scoring 3 runs.
And for that, I ask, why?
Maybe the hit was foul, but it was sooooo close, it had to have been reviewed. Was it because of extra innings? Was it because the umpire was being an asshole? Was it because Bud Selig had a bet against Pete Rose, stating the Red Sox would win? Wait, I forgot, betting is the one (and only) unforgivable sin in all of baseball (one of the greatest players of all time is held out of the Hall because he threw a game to earn a little more than the minumum wage that was payed to him), so let's rephrase that as a "friendly wager".
As for the strike zone in the 12th; consistency is really all pitchers are asking for. If the zone had been that small all game, I doubt regulation would have ended 2-2.
Oh, and in other news, the Penguins won the stanley cup. I didn't watch enough of the game to accurately determine if/how Bettman got Crosby to win, so I won't comment on that. However, it should be mentioned that he pretty much didn't shake the hands of any Red Wings fans, instead giving his own teammates and coaches high fives (good for you! thanks!!) and butt slaps/ass poundings until the Red Wings ceremoniously exited ice for the locker room. It should also be noted that Marian Hossa just can't seem to pick the right team (lost the finals with the Pens last year, lost with the Red Wings this year). He must be the anti-Claude Lemieux.
-- Knuttel
5.05.2009
Bo, the new Checkers
About a month or so ago the President finally got his family that dog he promised them. Now that the news on this has died down, it is now time for me to throw my two cents in. Barry O was often quoted as stating before that he wanted a "hypo-allergenic" dog, and he wanted a dog from a shelter.
The only shelter this dog came from was one of the Kennedy Compounds.
That's right, Bo, the purebread Portuguese Water dog, was formerly a pet of Senator Ted Kennedy.
For those of you who have been living in a cave, Senator Ted Kennedy is an old and particularly powerful Democratic Senator from an old and particularly powerful political family (his cousin, Jack, maybe you've heard of him, he was President of the United States from 1961-1963).
So basically this dog is a political favor, a gift, expecting return.
It's very similar to a situation that occured 53 years ago, when Vice President Nixon was campaigning for he and President Eisenhower's second term. In addition to receiving a substantial amount of money from a prominent Texas political booster, Nixon received a puppy named Checkers.
So these situations are pretty darn similar. Prominent Executive office position holder receives puppy dog in exchange for what would appear to be a political favor. The kids loving the dog of course is always the reason that the dog cannot go. They've grown too attached.
So why is Obama receiving no crap at all for this, yet when this happened to Nixon, alot of prominent politicians (both sides of the aisle, if I remember correctly) called for Nixon's removal from the ticket. Eisenhower himself had to issue a speach saying something to the effect of "as for the dog, we've decided to keep him" -- referring of course to Nixon, and not Checkers.
So seriously. Try to have at least just a little bit of journalistic integrity on the matter. The not-from-a-shelter issue got moderately explored, but that was about it.
Is Obama really that much of a media darling?
I could start a rant here, but in possibly better judgement I am choosing against it.
-- Knuttel
The only shelter this dog came from was one of the Kennedy Compounds.
That's right, Bo, the purebread Portuguese Water dog, was formerly a pet of Senator Ted Kennedy.
For those of you who have been living in a cave, Senator Ted Kennedy is an old and particularly powerful Democratic Senator from an old and particularly powerful political family (his cousin, Jack, maybe you've heard of him, he was President of the United States from 1961-1963).
So basically this dog is a political favor, a gift, expecting return.
It's very similar to a situation that occured 53 years ago, when Vice President Nixon was campaigning for he and President Eisenhower's second term. In addition to receiving a substantial amount of money from a prominent Texas political booster, Nixon received a puppy named Checkers.
So these situations are pretty darn similar. Prominent Executive office position holder receives puppy dog in exchange for what would appear to be a political favor. The kids loving the dog of course is always the reason that the dog cannot go. They've grown too attached.
So why is Obama receiving no crap at all for this, yet when this happened to Nixon, alot of prominent politicians (both sides of the aisle, if I remember correctly) called for Nixon's removal from the ticket. Eisenhower himself had to issue a speach saying something to the effect of "as for the dog, we've decided to keep him" -- referring of course to Nixon, and not Checkers.
So seriously. Try to have at least just a little bit of journalistic integrity on the matter. The not-from-a-shelter issue got moderately explored, but that was about it.
Is Obama really that much of a media darling?
I could start a rant here, but in possibly better judgement I am choosing against it.
-- Knuttel
3.27.2009
More About the "Brady Rule"
It came upon me not too long ago that this rule is more specifically tailored to Brady than perhaps it should be.
The one thing that seemed to bother him and his offense was the blitz (on either the rare occasion they didn't know the play before hand, or they decided to let it go).
Yeah, that's right. Pressure, getting a hand in his face, that is what stopped him the most.
While pressure seemingly affects all quarterbacks, Brady seems to stick out like a thorn in its affect. Some quarterbacks are simply not affected, while there are a rare few others (a B.R. from Pittsburgh) that seem to actually have better stats while being hit or on the run.
Oh, and that play where he got hurt, it was a blitzing safety who hit him.
Just throwing that out there.
The Tom Brady-fication of the league needs to stop.
The one thing that seemed to bother him and his offense was the blitz (on either the rare occasion they didn't know the play before hand, or they decided to let it go).
Yeah, that's right. Pressure, getting a hand in his face, that is what stopped him the most.
While pressure seemingly affects all quarterbacks, Brady seems to stick out like a thorn in its affect. Some quarterbacks are simply not affected, while there are a rare few others (a B.R. from Pittsburgh) that seem to actually have better stats while being hit or on the run.
Oh, and that play where he got hurt, it was a blitzing safety who hit him.
Just throwing that out there.
The Tom Brady-fication of the league needs to stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)