World Cup Links
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/columns/story/_/id/5313701/ce/us/us-advance-win-algeria?cc=5901&ver=us
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5307472/ce/us/clint-dempsey-us-says-embattled-referee-had-encouraged-rough-play?cc=5901&ver=us
6.23.2010
6.16.2010
A Specter Hangs Over Pennsylvania
Ok, so the original line was "a specter hangs over Europe," but then it wouldn't be about Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter.
I guess it's about a month ago now (shit have I put this off) that Specter was defeated in the Democratic Primary for re-election to his Senate seat. Oddly enough, he had switched parties about a year earlier because odds were he wasn't going to win the Republican nomination. Damnit, Pat Toomey just had to run EVERY SINGLE DAMN TIME against him. What does he even do anyway, except act as nemesis? Whatevs.
Anyways, Specter's career in politics is hella long, as he is hella old. He started out as a Philadelphia democrat, then switched parties so he could win the position of Philadelphia District Attorney. Around this time he came up with the famous "magic bullet" theory for the assassination of Jack Kennedy. Yes, Arlen Specter is hella old, that has already been established. He eventually got into his Senate Seat in 1981.
Think about that -- Senator from 1981 - 2011. That is 5 terms. That is more terms than any other Pennsylvania Senator has held.
In this time he forged a path as a defiant moderate -- clashing with his own party on major topics such as Bork's Supreme Court nomination and President Clinton's impeachment hearings.
However, in the end, it seemed he started to lose his identity. While a major party switch would seem an identity defining moment for most politicans, his seemed more out of frustration, lashing out against a party that didn't seem to want him. The Arlen Specter we Pennsylvanians knew would have stuck out in his old party and kicked the whipper snappers ass, alas political climate has changed since the 80s and 90s, and primaries just don't care for moderates anymore. It would appear primaries hate America, by extension, or at the very least a working democratic process.
In the end, whoever takes this seat from Specter will have big shoes to fill. Toomey seems to have only an "anti" definition, which I don't usually like in electoral politics (when you're running for a position, I usually think you should stand for things, rather than against them). Sestak is unproven, I think. We don't really know what we'll get from him, politically speaking that is. He has a long and very illustrious career in the US Navy, where he attained the rank of Rear Admiral. His selection was possibly largely due to an overarching dissatisfaction with incumbents, as Specter had virtually every "established" endorsement a politician can get.
As he is old, hella old, I suspect his political career is over, much like Bob Dole's political career basically ended when he lost the '96 Presidential Campaign to Bill Clinton.
So here's to whatever.
-- Knuttel
I wish to someday be a chrono naut, how much more badass would that be than astronaut, cosmonaut, or even spacekanaut?
I guess it's about a month ago now (shit have I put this off) that Specter was defeated in the Democratic Primary for re-election to his Senate seat. Oddly enough, he had switched parties about a year earlier because odds were he wasn't going to win the Republican nomination. Damnit, Pat Toomey just had to run EVERY SINGLE DAMN TIME against him. What does he even do anyway, except act as nemesis? Whatevs.
Anyways, Specter's career in politics is hella long, as he is hella old. He started out as a Philadelphia democrat, then switched parties so he could win the position of Philadelphia District Attorney. Around this time he came up with the famous "magic bullet" theory for the assassination of Jack Kennedy. Yes, Arlen Specter is hella old, that has already been established. He eventually got into his Senate Seat in 1981.
Think about that -- Senator from 1981 - 2011. That is 5 terms. That is more terms than any other Pennsylvania Senator has held.
In this time he forged a path as a defiant moderate -- clashing with his own party on major topics such as Bork's Supreme Court nomination and President Clinton's impeachment hearings.
However, in the end, it seemed he started to lose his identity. While a major party switch would seem an identity defining moment for most politicans, his seemed more out of frustration, lashing out against a party that didn't seem to want him. The Arlen Specter we Pennsylvanians knew would have stuck out in his old party and kicked the whipper snappers ass, alas political climate has changed since the 80s and 90s, and primaries just don't care for moderates anymore. It would appear primaries hate America, by extension, or at the very least a working democratic process.
In the end, whoever takes this seat from Specter will have big shoes to fill. Toomey seems to have only an "anti" definition, which I don't usually like in electoral politics (when you're running for a position, I usually think you should stand for things, rather than against them). Sestak is unproven, I think. We don't really know what we'll get from him, politically speaking that is. He has a long and very illustrious career in the US Navy, where he attained the rank of Rear Admiral. His selection was possibly largely due to an overarching dissatisfaction with incumbents, as Specter had virtually every "established" endorsement a politician can get.
As he is old, hella old, I suspect his political career is over, much like Bob Dole's political career basically ended when he lost the '96 Presidential Campaign to Bill Clinton.
So here's to whatever.
-- Knuttel
I wish to someday be a chrono naut, how much more badass would that be than astronaut, cosmonaut, or even spacekanaut?
6.14.2010
So there IS something in Afghanistan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100614/ap_on_bi_ge/us_afghanistan_mineral_treasures
Woah.
Though the article doesn't give any numbers, granted, if it did, I wouldn't really know what to make of them.
But think about it. Now this is just like Iraq.
We can no longer claim the pure moral highground in this scenario, doing this purely out of the interests of the people in Afghanistan and abroad. Nope. If the west controls that area, they can mine it.
And don't say they won't, cos as soon as the war at least settles down a bit (like it was mid-decade, say) you know western mining companies are gonna be all up ons the ground there like a chipmunk on Tuesday.
Yes, instead of the oil richness in an otherwise desolate Iraq, there is the general mineral wealth in an otherwise desolate Afghanistan (unless you count the poppy fields).
That being said, why can't we just get this war over with and mine the hell out of it? American companies would be able to get into these minerals the quickest and most efficient, and it's not like we're digging up old growth forest here. There's like no forest. It's perfect for mining.
So do it already. End this war so we can get some new batteries damnit. Hybrids aren't gonna hold a charge themselves, you know.
While we're at it, we should detonate the state of Ohio and check it for mineral wealth. I think we'll be moderately surprised, and we also won't have to deal with Ohio. Of course, we may have to put down the native Ohioans first. I guess something will get figured out.
-- Knuttel
Woah.
Though the article doesn't give any numbers, granted, if it did, I wouldn't really know what to make of them.
But think about it. Now this is just like Iraq.
We can no longer claim the pure moral highground in this scenario, doing this purely out of the interests of the people in Afghanistan and abroad. Nope. If the west controls that area, they can mine it.
And don't say they won't, cos as soon as the war at least settles down a bit (like it was mid-decade, say) you know western mining companies are gonna be all up ons the ground there like a chipmunk on Tuesday.
Yes, instead of the oil richness in an otherwise desolate Iraq, there is the general mineral wealth in an otherwise desolate Afghanistan (unless you count the poppy fields).
That being said, why can't we just get this war over with and mine the hell out of it? American companies would be able to get into these minerals the quickest and most efficient, and it's not like we're digging up old growth forest here. There's like no forest. It's perfect for mining.
So do it already. End this war so we can get some new batteries damnit. Hybrids aren't gonna hold a charge themselves, you know.
While we're at it, we should detonate the state of Ohio and check it for mineral wealth. I think we'll be moderately surprised, and we also won't have to deal with Ohio. Of course, we may have to put down the native Ohioans first. I guess something will get figured out.
-- Knuttel
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.
PUCK THE SYSTEM: A season in review
AAAHHHHHH. PUCK THE SYSTEM. AAAHHHH. PUCK THE SYSTEM PUCK THE SYSTEM.
I WANT TO PUCK THE SYS
I WANT TO PUCK THE SYS
So, I haven't been very good about maintaining this regularly. I briefly contemplated picking it back up during the playoffs, but the Flyers were doing well. I knew there was about a zero percent correlation, but it seemed like a good idea.
Anyways.
The season review will be as thus -- The Knuttel shall look at his pre-season predictions, and assess them
Prediction 1: Ovechkin will average more than one goal a game, and challenge for Gretzky's, if not Hull's, scoring record.
Assessment: Ovie finished the season with exactly 50 goals in 72 games. I do not recall if injuries affected his play in the games which he actually did compete, but that's still less than one goal a game, and not the full 82 games. Still he finished in third place for goal scoring. He also tied for second in overrall points, putting in a very good Assists total of 59. I would like to note right here that this is more assists than Crosby in his 81 games.
Prediction 2: Someone else will come close.
Assessment: Well, I guess this is more of a 1A type of deal here, but alas here goes -- Both Crosby and Steve Stamkos of the Lightning scored 51 goals. Both of them also played more games, but that's not the issue. These three were the only 50 goal scorers. Patrick Marleau of the Sharks was next in line with 44 goals.
Prediction 3: Malkin will end the season with 50 more points than Crysby, but everyone will still insist Crysby is the better player. They will both still refuse to play defense.
Assessment: Malkin had an injury shortened 67 game season, compared to Crysby's almost complete 81 game season. Malkin scored 77 points, Crysby 109. So Crosby had a more productive year. He also led the team in +/- with an unremarkable 15. Both still refuse to play defense.
Prediction 4: PHEONIX WILL MAKE THE PLAYOFFS
Assessment: Yep, they did. Wait a minute...
Prediction 5: hah, no they won't
Assessment: fuck
Prediction 6: Chicago will not compete for a playoff spot at all after making a decent playoff run for the first time in like 15 years last season.
Assessment: They ended up with the number 2 seed for the playoffs in the west, and won the Stanley Cup in 6 games over the Philadelphia Flyers. I couldn't have been more wrong than on this prediction. It will be interesting to see how they keep this young core together with the salary cap and all.
Prediction 7: Tampa Bay will have 2 40 goal scorers, but they will not win 25 games.
Assessment: They did not have 2 40 goal scorers. They had 5 20 goal scorers, however, including one 50 goal scorer. Two of these players also had more than 90 points. As far as 25 games, that was an exaggeration I suppose. The lowest number of games won by any team was 27 by Edmonton. Tampa Bay finished with 34 wins (34-36-12 80).
Prediction 8: The Toronto Maple Leafs will correct their grammar and go as the "Toronto Maple Leaves".
Assessment: Nope. The Maple Leafs refuse to use the President's English.
Prediction 9: Shit, these predictions are too mild. whatevs. wait for the season to actually start.
Assessment: I never made any further predictions after the season began.
Prediction 10: I refuse to make any predictions or write about the Canucks, Oilers, and Flames, due to their proximity to where nickelback is from. If the teams were to take it upon their own hands to eliminate this band, physically, I'll reconsider.
Assessment: I still have yet to write about these teams, and these teams still have yet to take up the offer. I guess that's a push.
So I guess that's not awful, considering how predictions rarely ever pan out, especially over the course of an entire 82 game season. I wonder if Puck the System will be back next year. I wonder if this was Gary Bettman's last year as commissioner. I wonder if NBC will expand its coverage of the NHL, or if VS. will reach an ESPN-esque level of viewership.
-- Knuttel
6.10.2010
THE BCS IS DEAD, THE BCS IS DEAD
THE BCS IS DEAD
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/06/report-colorado-to-announce-move-to-pac-10-on-friday/1
Colorado has officially left the Big 12 for the Pac-10. This means Nebraska's bid to leave is very much legit and most of the Big 12 south will vacate to go to the Pac-10.
If the Big 12 dissolves, and the Big Ten and Pac-10 become "super" conferences, the BCS will become very meaningless, if not now, then within a few years at least.
My fear is the BCS may undergo a new moniker, such as its previous incarnations as the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition, or whatever it used to be.
With these super conferences, and the huge wave of public support in a playoff system though, I think this is at least the path to something constructive.
-- Knuttel
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/06/report-colorado-to-announce-move-to-pac-10-on-friday/1
Colorado has officially left the Big 12 for the Pac-10. This means Nebraska's bid to leave is very much legit and most of the Big 12 south will vacate to go to the Pac-10.
If the Big 12 dissolves, and the Big Ten and Pac-10 become "super" conferences, the BCS will become very meaningless, if not now, then within a few years at least.
My fear is the BCS may undergo a new moniker, such as its previous incarnations as the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition, or whatever it used to be.
With these super conferences, and the huge wave of public support in a playoff system though, I think this is at least the path to something constructive.
-- Knuttel
PUCK THE SYSTEM:almost finale
AAAAAAAHHHHH. PUCK THE SYSTEM. AAAAAAAHHHHH. PUCK THE SYSTEM PUCK THE SYSTEM.
The season is now over.
It is not over because the Stanley Cup champion has been crowned, but rather because the Flyers have been eliminated from play. They just happenned to make it this far.
I shall later put up a post recapping the season, looking at my outlandish predictions, etc.
This post is for the Flyers.
The team hang in all year long. They were never outstanding, they were never awful, they just kept on keeping on.
The Flyers had a midseason coaching change and numerous goalie changes -- some due to injuries. Preseason single year contract goalie Ray Emery went down fairly early with a possibly season ending injury, worked his ass to get back, and went down for the count when the injury flared back up.
Brian Boucher, who's peak was in the earlier part of the decade, was just supposed to be a backup, a spot starter. Michael Leighton, league journeyman, was claimed off waivers mid season. Both came up HUGE in the playoffs. Which bugs me that I even ask the question "What if?" when thinking about the goaltending. What if Emery hadn't gotten hurt in the season and had been available in the post-season? Would they have made the post-season? What if Boucher hadn't gotten hurt in the series against the Bruins? He goaltended them into the playoffs and exorcised the demons of his rookie year, beating the Devils in the first round 4-1, losing the series in 2000 after being up 3-1. Not to mention the Flyers were in the middle of a series comeback against the Bruins when he got hurt. What if Michael Leighton had been better at plugging his 5 hole? He had 3 post-season shutouts.
In the end, it appears the Flyers hopes and dreams went along with their defense. When their defense played well, when Pronger stayed on the ice, they did well. The Flyers have 4 defenders that could be in any other teams top Defensive pairing -- Pronger, Carle, Timmonen, and Coburn. What if the other 2 had stepped up to the plate better? Parent had played well all season and post-season, until it was apparent he wasn't fast enough to keep up with the blackhawks, and was scratched from the rest of the series.
The forwards, I have no complaints about. Perhaps they had too much depth -- any game could have different 3 or 4th liners scratched. When Laperriere went down, Carcillo stepped into his role fine -- fine enough to raise questions when Laperriere returned, it was either Carcillo or Van Riemsdyk who had to not dress. Briere and Carter scored when the team needed points. Richards led the team hard, pounding both ends of the ice. Hartnell didn't stop, couldn't stop, won't stop.
In the end it just wasn't enough to win the cup, and that's fine. This team was the underdog in every single series they were in. They were almost swept in the second round by the Bruins, before they made one of the most memorable comebacks in sports history. The fact that they made it to the playoffs was an accomplishment enough, given they didn't have a berth until they beat the Rangers in a shootout on the last day.
The only bad coincidence is that the Phillies also made it to the Finals and lost (also in 6 games).
-- Knuttel
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
Big Ten Expansion
It appears the Big 10 is now the Big 12, and the Big 12 now the Big 11, that is until everyone else leaves
http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2010/06/09/sports/doc4c0f8f017a8e2219807698.txt
http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2010/06/09/sports/doc4c0f8f017a8e2219807698.txt
6.08.2010
What did they expect, it's the Interwebs?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/25/AR2010052504396.html?hpid=opinionsbox1&placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980
Personally I think it's one part stupid people, two parts internet trolls.
The fact that they brag about their twitter followers is alarming.
Seriously, why are politicians concerned about tweets?
Whatevs, that's what happens when you trust your public policy to "a series of tubes".
-- Knuttel
Personally I think it's one part stupid people, two parts internet trolls.
The fact that they brag about their twitter followers is alarming.
Seriously, why are politicians concerned about tweets?
Whatevs, that's what happens when you trust your public policy to "a series of tubes".
-- Knuttel
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
6.01.2010
Primaries, after the fact
So I was going to put up something about the results of the primaries in several states, including my own Pennsylvania, but fuggin side projects of re-doing parts of the house have stopped that.
so here's the important stuff
Arlen Specter lost -- Joe Sestak won
Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul won in Kentucky
An almost complete outsider won the Democratic spot for governor in PA
Pat Toomey won
A lot of incumbents lost everywhere
The interesting thing about the Governor in PA spot is there was no incumbent -- Ed Rendell has served the maximum amount of terms. But everything turned against whoever seemed to get support from incumbents or the establishment. Not to mention, the field was so wide open, votes were spread out. The mayor from Allegheny county ended up winning, possibly because there were too many Philadelphia candidates running.
In any case, more specific articles will follow on these results.
-- Knuttel
so here's the important stuff
Arlen Specter lost -- Joe Sestak won
Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul won in Kentucky
An almost complete outsider won the Democratic spot for governor in PA
Pat Toomey won
A lot of incumbents lost everywhere
The interesting thing about the Governor in PA spot is there was no incumbent -- Ed Rendell has served the maximum amount of terms. But everything turned against whoever seemed to get support from incumbents or the establishment. Not to mention, the field was so wide open, votes were spread out. The mayor from Allegheny county ended up winning, possibly because there were too many Philadelphia candidates running.
In any case, more specific articles will follow on these results.
-- 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
5.18.2010
THE CHAMPIONS
:cue awful champions league theme song:
I dunno, maybe I don't get it cos I'm not one of those fancy pants European types.
Maybe I don't get it cos I'm also aware of the CONCACAF Champions League, in addition to the UEFA version (I don't think I hear them say UEFA, in either abbreviations or in full during the song).
In any case, I digress.
This Saturday (a step up from last year, when it was Wednesday) Bayern Munich and Internazionale Milan will meet in the Champions League finals. The game will be held in Madrid, Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, the field of Real Madrid.
Real Madrid was, for many decades, a willing acceptor of privileges at the behest of the Franko dictatorship. This means that many of their titles should be considered null and void, or at the very least include asterisks. While many Champions League level teams boast many international studs, the Real Madrid teams that won the first decade of Champions League play was basically the Spanish national squad.
They have played against one another 4 times, twice as a result of being in the same group in the 88-89 UEFA Cup, the other two as a result of being in the same group in the 2006-2007 UEFA Champions League. The record stands as 2 wins for Bayern, 1 win for Inter, 1 draw.
Bayern Munich has won the Champions League 4 times, the last time being 2001, and has been the runner up 3 times.
Internazionale Milan has won the Champions league twice, the last time being in 1965, and has been the runner up another two times. All of these were achieved by using Catenazzio, a strategy that uses boredom to lull the refs, spectators, and sometimes the other team asleep.
Both of these teams are going for the treble, having both won their league titles by points and by the league cup.
Both of these teams are most notable for carrying all time soccer great, legend, and sometimes alter-ego of the Knuttel, Lothar Matthaus, for extended periods of time. Lothar had two stints with Bayern Munich -- 1984-1988, 1992-2000. He had one stint with Internazionale in the meantime -- 1988-1992.
So who wins the game? BREAKDOWN
History in the Champions League final -- Bayern
Geographic proximity to Madrid -- Inter
Tenure of Lothar Matthaus -- Bayern
Not having Marco Matterazi -- Bayern
Goalkeeping -- Inter
Defense -- Bayern (by a hair)
Counter-attack -- Bayern
Mid Field -- Bayern
Forwards -- Inter
Bayern 6 - Inter 3
It is closer than it looks though. This game, by no means, should be a runaway. The stregnths of Bayerns Center defense, attacking outside backs, and midfield should be enough to keep Inter busy. If they can get through, their forwards are better (forwards plural, I do realize Bayern has Klose, just little else), and their more experienced goal keeper should keep Bayern at bay.
As long as the game doesn't devolve into the Cattenazzio that Inter made famous in the 60s, the game should be enjoyable.
-- Knuttel
I dunno, maybe I don't get it cos I'm not one of those fancy pants European types.
Maybe I don't get it cos I'm also aware of the CONCACAF Champions League, in addition to the UEFA version (I don't think I hear them say UEFA, in either abbreviations or in full during the song).
In any case, I digress.
This Saturday (a step up from last year, when it was Wednesday) Bayern Munich and Internazionale Milan will meet in the Champions League finals. The game will be held in Madrid, Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, the field of Real Madrid.
Real Madrid was, for many decades, a willing acceptor of privileges at the behest of the Franko dictatorship. This means that many of their titles should be considered null and void, or at the very least include asterisks. While many Champions League level teams boast many international studs, the Real Madrid teams that won the first decade of Champions League play was basically the Spanish national squad.
They have played against one another 4 times, twice as a result of being in the same group in the 88-89 UEFA Cup, the other two as a result of being in the same group in the 2006-2007 UEFA Champions League. The record stands as 2 wins for Bayern, 1 win for Inter, 1 draw.
Bayern Munich has won the Champions League 4 times, the last time being 2001, and has been the runner up 3 times.
Internazionale Milan has won the Champions league twice, the last time being in 1965, and has been the runner up another two times. All of these were achieved by using Catenazzio, a strategy that uses boredom to lull the refs, spectators, and sometimes the other team asleep.
Both of these teams are going for the treble, having both won their league titles by points and by the league cup.
Both of these teams are most notable for carrying all time soccer great, legend, and sometimes alter-ego of the Knuttel, Lothar Matthaus, for extended periods of time. Lothar had two stints with Bayern Munich -- 1984-1988, 1992-2000. He had one stint with Internazionale in the meantime -- 1988-1992.
So who wins the game? BREAKDOWN
History in the Champions League final -- Bayern
Geographic proximity to Madrid -- Inter
Tenure of Lothar Matthaus -- Bayern
Not having Marco Matterazi -- Bayern
Goalkeeping -- Inter
Defense -- Bayern (by a hair)
Counter-attack -- Bayern
Mid Field -- Bayern
Forwards -- Inter
Bayern 6 - Inter 3
It is closer than it looks though. This game, by no means, should be a runaway. The stregnths of Bayerns Center defense, attacking outside backs, and midfield should be enough to keep Inter busy. If they can get through, their forwards are better (forwards plural, I do realize Bayern has Klose, just little else), and their more experienced goal keeper should keep Bayern at bay.
As long as the game doesn't devolve into the Cattenazzio that Inter made famous in the 60s, the game should be enjoyable.
-- Knuttel
Lack of Responsibility and Oversight
Lack of responsibility and oversight, this may been seen to be an issue with corporations, but it is indeed also an issue with the elected officials of our government.
But elections keep them in check, no?
Well, they do to a certain extent, but it's a system that's far to easy to go around.
First of all, the "one and done," a politician who only runs for one term, he can do whatever he wants. He has no stake in becoming re-electable. Depending on the office, or sometimes nothing at all, this can be a good thing or a bad thing -- as he can either ignore public opinion entirely just to get something that wouldn't otherwise be done, or he can raid the government's coffers for his friends, family, and self.
But that's a small issue, really. The bigger issue is the Party system, and how it stays afloat.
First, in order to get elected, the candidate likely needs support of the larger party infrastructure. Thus, if the candidate is moderate (or even on the "opposite" side of the spectrum) he must radicalize himself in at least small regards to get actual support for his campaign.
Second, he must likely win a primary, where he is only competing for votes amongst his party. Needless to say, this means the winner will much more likely be on the far wing of his party than on the moderate side of politics in general (which would actually make him the extremist in this group). The other party's candidate will likely win in the same manner.
Third, this creates a scenario where a left winger will likely be running against a right winger. In parts of the country where the one party is weaker, this opposite candidate might actually be a moderate, which actually creates competition in these areas, so long as the dominant party isn't too dominant. In any case, this creates an "us against them" mentality among supporters of the candidates. You are either for the candidate or against them, there is no middle ground, no one votes for independents (very rare exceptions to this rule).
Now, fourthly, someone on either edge of the spectrum has now won, and will attempt to push through his radicalized agenda, with the help of his even more radicalized party. If a moderate happens to slip through the cracks in this stage, he must now adopt a more radical stance than the one he ran on, in order to get party support for his projects, otherwise he will be an extremely unproductive "voter" who does nothing for the people who elected him.
At the heart of this issue is the primary system. Most states use a closed primary system, such as my own state of Pennsylvania. As an independent, I cannot partake in anything happening at all today (which is primary voting day), and can only watch in bemusement. I like the idea of the primary, as the people are selecting who will represent their side. But the ultimate resolution is this man will support their side, and likely not much else. There will be no candidate to stride the divide, unite the people and work for something that will work for everybody.
The primary system forced long tenured Connecticut Senator Lieberman to run as an independent a few years ago, and now he's not nearly as endeared to the party's base as he once was. This year it forced Crist, the Senate candidate in Florida, to run as an independent. Even more, he had to declare his independence way before the primary (which I think is also happening today).
It may also force Arlen Specter out of office. He has been Pennsylvania's Senator for I want to say five terms. For the most of that time, he was a Republican the Democrats in the state could vote for. Now, since he switched parties, he's just a Democrat not all the Democrats will vote for. He was forced out due to radicalization within his own party -- Pat Toomey would have been very likely to beat him in the Republican primaries (he kept getting closer and closer). Now Democrats are running Admiral Joe Sestak against him, which bugs me even more because I like Joe Sestak.
Aside: why do the Democrats of Pennsylvania only run good candidates against Arlen Specter? Seriously? In 2004, Joe Hoeffel was run against him, a candidate I would have loved to see in office, but I did not want to see Specter go. Now, in 2010, Joe Sestak is running against him, and I would also kinda like to see him in the Senate seat. Meanwhile, in 2006, Rick Santorum, who by then had made enough gaffs to make Joe Biden blush and was clearly on his way out, had only to run against Bob Casey, a boring "moderate" (a democrat who loves to spend the tax payers money but hates killing babies) who had only held the positions auditor general and state treasurer; his family was also very political (his dad was Governor of Pennsylvania), making him an insider even if he didn't do anything. I believe Sestak was still in the Navy at this point, but why couldn't Hoeffel run against Santorum?
Whatevs.
Todays primaries will likely be very amusing at the least. Perhaps we can see how much pull the new tea party has, as Rand Paul (seriously, who names their kid after a crappy author) might take his primary in Kentucky. There'll probably be a recap of the results later on.
But elections keep them in check, no?
Well, they do to a certain extent, but it's a system that's far to easy to go around.
First of all, the "one and done," a politician who only runs for one term, he can do whatever he wants. He has no stake in becoming re-electable. Depending on the office, or sometimes nothing at all, this can be a good thing or a bad thing -- as he can either ignore public opinion entirely just to get something that wouldn't otherwise be done, or he can raid the government's coffers for his friends, family, and self.
But that's a small issue, really. The bigger issue is the Party system, and how it stays afloat.
First, in order to get elected, the candidate likely needs support of the larger party infrastructure. Thus, if the candidate is moderate (or even on the "opposite" side of the spectrum) he must radicalize himself in at least small regards to get actual support for his campaign.
Second, he must likely win a primary, where he is only competing for votes amongst his party. Needless to say, this means the winner will much more likely be on the far wing of his party than on the moderate side of politics in general (which would actually make him the extremist in this group). The other party's candidate will likely win in the same manner.
Third, this creates a scenario where a left winger will likely be running against a right winger. In parts of the country where the one party is weaker, this opposite candidate might actually be a moderate, which actually creates competition in these areas, so long as the dominant party isn't too dominant. In any case, this creates an "us against them" mentality among supporters of the candidates. You are either for the candidate or against them, there is no middle ground, no one votes for independents (very rare exceptions to this rule).
Now, fourthly, someone on either edge of the spectrum has now won, and will attempt to push through his radicalized agenda, with the help of his even more radicalized party. If a moderate happens to slip through the cracks in this stage, he must now adopt a more radical stance than the one he ran on, in order to get party support for his projects, otherwise he will be an extremely unproductive "voter" who does nothing for the people who elected him.
At the heart of this issue is the primary system. Most states use a closed primary system, such as my own state of Pennsylvania. As an independent, I cannot partake in anything happening at all today (which is primary voting day), and can only watch in bemusement. I like the idea of the primary, as the people are selecting who will represent their side. But the ultimate resolution is this man will support their side, and likely not much else. There will be no candidate to stride the divide, unite the people and work for something that will work for everybody.
The primary system forced long tenured Connecticut Senator Lieberman to run as an independent a few years ago, and now he's not nearly as endeared to the party's base as he once was. This year it forced Crist, the Senate candidate in Florida, to run as an independent. Even more, he had to declare his independence way before the primary (which I think is also happening today).
It may also force Arlen Specter out of office. He has been Pennsylvania's Senator for I want to say five terms. For the most of that time, he was a Republican the Democrats in the state could vote for. Now, since he switched parties, he's just a Democrat not all the Democrats will vote for. He was forced out due to radicalization within his own party -- Pat Toomey would have been very likely to beat him in the Republican primaries (he kept getting closer and closer). Now Democrats are running Admiral Joe Sestak against him, which bugs me even more because I like Joe Sestak.
Aside: why do the Democrats of Pennsylvania only run good candidates against Arlen Specter? Seriously? In 2004, Joe Hoeffel was run against him, a candidate I would have loved to see in office, but I did not want to see Specter go. Now, in 2010, Joe Sestak is running against him, and I would also kinda like to see him in the Senate seat. Meanwhile, in 2006, Rick Santorum, who by then had made enough gaffs to make Joe Biden blush and was clearly on his way out, had only to run against Bob Casey, a boring "moderate" (a democrat who loves to spend the tax payers money but hates killing babies) who had only held the positions auditor general and state treasurer; his family was also very political (his dad was Governor of Pennsylvania), making him an insider even if he didn't do anything. I believe Sestak was still in the Navy at this point, but why couldn't Hoeffel run against Santorum?
Whatevs.
Todays primaries will likely be very amusing at the least. Perhaps we can see how much pull the new tea party has, as Rand Paul (seriously, who names their kid after a crappy author) might take his primary in Kentucky. There'll probably be a recap of the results later on.
5.17.2010
New Sheeit
Ok, so it's been over a month since my last "real" post.
that will soon amended be!
Have been working on a short story (too long to post here, i guess), so that has been taking up my time.
it is almost over
world happenings!
-- Knuttel
that will soon amended be!
Have been working on a short story (too long to post here, i guess), so that has been taking up my time.
it is almost over
world happenings!
-- Knuttel
5.01.2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)