Why Do People Like Brett Favre?

> This morning, PedrioaTheDestroyah and I had a little debate via email. It all started with a simple question, “why do people like Brett Favre?” We’ve seen the Sports Guy post similar online conversations on the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network website, so we thought it would be fun to post ours on our websites. Enjoy…or don’t, really doesn’t matter.

PtD: Why do people like Brett Favre? Packer fans shouldn’t anymore, and god knows Jets fans shouldn’t. I guess Dolphins fans have a reason, though.

JB: Who likes Brett Favre?

PtD: The media, and apparently middle America. Someone must like him or he wouldn’t be on TV all the damn time.

JB: Just because he’s a story doesn’t necessarily mean people like him. I think people used to like him, I know I used to love watching him play. I’m sort of ambivalent towards him now. But, he’s still one of the greatest QB’s ever, so he’s news.

PtD: Yeah, but the story is that he is now terrible, but people keep saying he is good. People say he started the season strong, but that’s not really true. He was never playing very well. For instance, his first touchdown of the year may as well have been a punt. He literally just threw it straight in the air with no idea what jet might catch it.

The Jets played well at times, only that was when he wasn’t allowed to throw like a jackass because Mangina said he needed to work within the offense. Then they got to 8-3, and Favre decided he could do whatever he wanted, and then their season went to hell.

JB: I'm sensing you have strong feelings about this.

PtD: Oh yes, this summer Brett became my most hated of all athletes...and he took it to a new level on Sunday. No one (except Steven A. Smith, preach on) calls this loser out.

JB: Ok, I look at it like this. Brett Favre is like George Carlin at the end of his career. Back in the day, Carlin was one of the funniest comedians around, a transcendent talent. But, once he got older, he stopped being funny. Only no one acknowledged this. People kept buying his CD’s, going to his shows, and laughing at his “jokes”. But, it wasn’t because he was funny, it was because he was George Carlin. He kept trading on the Carlin name that he had built up earlier. That’s the stage that Favre’s at in his career. He’s not a quarterback anymore, he’s Brett Favre.

PtD: I’m fine with there being idiots who continue to like him, there will always be those idiots. My problem is that every time Jaws is asked about Brett Favre he should say the following...“Brett Favre is not capable of being a quarterback in the National Football League.”

JB: Really? Not capable? He may not be capable of being an elite QB, or even a good one for that matter. But, I think Ryan Fitzpatrick, Tyler Thigpen, Dan Orlovsky, Ken Dorsey, and J.T O’Shaun-Hill all started several games this year.

I think that’s one of the big myths about NFL QBs. There really aren’t that many good ones. Anytime Tony Romo is anywhere near a discussion of who the best QBs in the league are, you’re in trouble.

PtD: Oh, I completely agree (although Thigpen actually looked promising at the end of the year), I just don’t think Favre can get a team in the playoffs. And it’s not just that Brett gets credited as being good, but he’s considered one of the best. He’s made the Pro Bowl! Do you know how crazy that is? I get the feeling Brett is going to fake an injury and not go, but he should get up in front of all those cameras and say…hey, I had a very bad season, and therefore I cannot accept an invitation to the Pro Bowl.

And it’s inexcusable that ESPN didn’t bash the Favre pick. This kid gloves shit needs to stop. The guy is still playing, he’s not a retired legend yet. At one point on Sunday, Jim Nantz and Phil Simms were blaming an interception on an injury that occurred after the pick had happened. And I’m sure Brett came out with this shoulder thing to the media knowing full well there was a good chance he would lose...and this way its the arms fault. I want to punch him.

JB: I think you’re being a little overdramatic. Plus, he has a torn muscle.

PtD: Meh, it’s partially torn. Big Ben and Tom Brady have both won Super Bowls with separated throwing shoulders. What I’m saying is...throwing a two yard pass directly to a 300 pound D lineman is not caused by an injury, it’s caused by being terrible. And, that was honestly the worst TAINT I’ve seen in years.

JB: Or maybe the best? That was a hell of a run by the big guy. Plus, those kinds of int's on screens happen all the time. I think Jarrett Lee (LSU’s QB) threw 2 of them this year.

PtD: 1. The LSU QB is a joke. 2. Brett stared down that lineman, then threw it to him. The lineman didn’t step in front, he was standing there. Brett threw it right to the Dolphin player.

JB: I don’t think that’s true. Favre faked the screen to the left, then whipped around and threw the ball. He probably could have avoided the throw, but I wouldn’t say he stared the receiver down. You’re way too emotional about this.

PtD: Best case, he threw the ball without looking. My view may be extreme, but my conclusion that the media and the Jets should hate him more than they do is very accurate. The Jets came out yesterday and said they would give Brett as long as he needed to decide if he wants to play next year. Why in the hell would they want him? Brett sucked down the stretch…what was it, 1 TD and 9 ints his last 4? But he’s a gunslinger. Apparently, gunslinger also means terrible quarterback.

JB: I’m not even sure what we’re arguing about anymore.

PtD: That the Jets are crazy to want him back, and Brett Favre needs to be ridiculed in public by members of the media.

JB: Ha, that’s never going to happen, he’s a legend. It’s like when Jerry Rice was at the end of his career but wouldn’t stop playing. He was awful, but everyone still talked about him like he was Jerry Rice. I guess nobody really noticed though because he didn’t have the ball every play.

PtD: I agree with you on that, I’m just saying it’s wrong, it’s always wrong.

JB: Cool, I just like comparing things. So far I’ve compared Favre to George Carlin and Jerry Rice.

PtD: And I’ve compared Favre to a terrible quarterback. If more people did that, I’d be happy. I must once again give props to Steven A., though. On Sports Reporters this Sunday, he called Favre “an interception waiting to happen.” I liked that.

JB: Ha, you like Steven A. Smith.



Oh, on a scale of one to Gus Johnson, this probably goes for a Craig Sager.
Read full post...

Welcome Back

> 22/26 (3 of the incompletions were drops) for 401 yards and 5 touchdowns.

I give that performance a Gus Johnson.
Read full post...

The ACC was better than the SEC this year..I said it.

> Ever since the ACC poached the Big East of its few elite teams, it has
been in a downward football spiral. Think back to the days when the ACC
expanded by adding Miami and Virginia Tech in 2003 and Fredo in 2004. They were building what looked to be a powerhouse
conference.

From 1990 through 2003(the last season before full expansion was
completed), the teams that now comprise the ACC averaged 4.79 teams in
the Final AP Top 25 and 1.93 teams in the Final AP Top 10.

But instead, what they got was a conference that annually battles with
the Big East as the BCS's red-headed stepchild. From 2004 through this
most recent poll in 2008, the ACC has averaged 3.6 teams in the Final AP
25 and only 1.0 team in the Final AP Top 10. Frequently, the ACC
champion is the team in the BCS bowls that makes you go, "Really?!?"

The reasons for that may be plenty and are the subject of another column
for another day. I raise these stats only to show that the ACC has not
been very good lately.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have the mighty SEC, a
conference that has been trending in just the opposite direction. Since
2004, the same year that the ACC became whole, the SEC has averaged 4.8
teams in the Final AP Top 25 and a staggering 2.4 teams in the top 10.



So that being the backdrop, I'm going to tell you why..the ACC, the league that's been the dregs of the BCS for the last few years, was actually a better conferene as a whole than the mighty SEC this year.

Reason 1: Head to head record.

There's not much argument that the top two teams in the SEC are better than anything the ACC has to offer. But the rest of the SEC was downright mediocre, while the ACC had a very deep conference.

One of the most under-reported stats this year was the ACC's dominance over anyone in the SEC not named Florida or Alabama. Overall, the ACC was 6-4 against the SEC. But if you take away Florida and Alabama's 3-0 record, the ACC ends up going 6-1 against the rest of the SEC. And we're not talking the two division winners either. Va Tech and BC didn't play any SEC teams. IT was the middle of the ACC beating up on the middle of the SEC. Here are the actual results, beginning with the top 2's domination of the ACC. Winners are bolded.

SEC ACC
Florida 26 Miami 3
Florida 45 Florida St. 15
Alabama 34 Clemson 10
Georgia 42 Georgia Tech 45
Ole Miss. 28 Wake Forest 41
Mississippi St. 7 Georgia Tech 38
South Carolina 34 NC State 0
South Carolina 14 Clemson 31
Vanderbilt 7 Duke 10
Vanderbilt 10 Wake Forest 23

Now that's not enough of a sample to say definitively. But it certainly shows a pattern.

2. Their records vs. other conferences

The SEC was 6-9 against other BCS conferences. They were 4-6 against the ACC; 1-1 against the Big East; 0-1 against the Big 12; 1-1 against the Pac 10.

The SEC had 3 teams with winning records against non-conference BCS opponents: Florida (2-0), Kentucky (1-0), and Alabama (1-0).

The SEC had 6 teams with losing records against non-conference BCS teams: Vandy (0-2), Tennessee (0-1), Ole Miss. (0-1), Auburn (0-1), Arkansas (0-1), and Mississippi State (0-1).

The SEC had 2 teams who were .500 (South Carolina and Georgia) and one that didn't play any BCS non-conference teams (LSU).

SEC teams were also and a record padding 31-2 against non-BCS opponents. Of those 31 wins, 6 were against bowl teams and 1 of the two losses was a bowl team. 9 of the 31 wins were against I-AA teams. Additionally, the SEC was 1-1 against the WAC, 0-1 against the Mountain West, 8-0 against Conference-USA, 3-0 against the MAC, 8-0 against the Sun Belt and 2-0 against Independents that aren't Notre Dame

The ACC, on the other hand, was 15-8 against BCS teams. The conference was 2-2 against the Big East; 4-0 against the Big 12; 0-1 against the Big 10; 1-1 against the Pac 10; 6-4 against the SEC and 2-0 against Notre Dame.

The ACC had 6 teams with winning records against BCS non-conference opponents: Wake Forest (3-0), Boston College (1-0), Maryland (1-0), Georgia Tech (2-0), Virginia Tech (1-0), and North Carolina (3-0).

They had only 2 teams with losing records: NC State (0-2) and Virginia (0-2).

They had 4 teams that went .500: Florida State, Clemson, Miami, and Duke.

The ACC also padded it's non-conference record by going 22-3 against non-BCS opponents. Of those 22 wins only 3 came against bowl teams and 2 of the 3 losses did too (2 against Navy and 3 against East Carolina). Additionally, a whopping 14 of the 21 came against I-AA teams. The ACC additionally was 4-1 against Conference USA, 2-0 against the MAC, 0-1 against the Sun Belt, and 2-1 against Independents.

Taking their performance against non-BCS opponents aside, it's easy to see that the SEC just didn't perform against BCS non-conference teams at the same level as the ACC. And it's not close.

3. Computer rankings.

The average Sagarin ratings for SEC teams: 48
The average Sagarin ratings for ACC teams: 30.58

The median Sagarin rating for SEC teams: 59
The median Sagarin rating for ACC teams: 26.5 (In fact the highest Sagarin rating for ACC teams is 53, under the median for the SEC)

Computer rankings aren't perfect. But a disparity that wide must mean something.


4. The subjective ACC vs. SEC challenge

People do this all the time. The very unscientific eye test that pits the ACC's teams vs. the SEC's teams in an ACC v. SEC challenge similar to the ACC v. Big Ten Challenge that the basketball conferences hold each year. So while I understand this is nothing more than a subjective assessment and doesn't count for anything more than my opinion. Let's have fun and do it.

First, let's rank the conferences. I'll base these rankings on records, tiebreakers, how the conference assigned teams to bowls and sagarin rankings. Again, there's some subjectivity here, but it's my blog, so I'll do what I want.

Here's how my matchups would look.

SEC	v.	ACC
Florida	v.	Virginia Tech
Alabama	v.	Georgia Tech
Georgia	v.	Florida State
Ole Miss	v.	Boston College
South Carolina	v.	North Carolina
LSU	v.	Clemson
Vandy	v.	Miami
Kentucky	v.	Wake Forest
Tennessee	v.	Maryland
Auburn	v.	NC State
Arkansas	v.	Virginia
Mississippi St.	v.	Duke

Looking at that, I think it's hard to say that the SEC could win more than half of those games. If I were to have to put $50 down on each game straight up, I think I'd guess the SEC would only clearly be favored in the Florida game and probably the Alabama game. I think Vegas would favor, Georgia and (maybe) Mississippi St. slightly too.

On the contrary, I think that Vegas would clearly favor Miami over Vandy, Wake Forest over Kentucky, Maryland over Tennessee and NC St. over Auburn. They'd also probably slightly be favored in the B.C. game, the UNC game, the Clemson game. The UVA v. Arkansas game would probably be a pick 'em game.

Taking out some of the subjectivity of one team vs. one team, if you split the conference in thirds making three mini-conferences and compare the top third vs. each other; the middle third vs. each other; and the bottom third against each other, you'd end up with conferences that look like this:

SEC top: Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi
ACC top: Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Boston College
Advantage: SEC

SEC middle: South Carolina, LSU, Vandy, Kentucky
ACC middle: North Carolina, Clemson, Miami, Wake Forest
Advantage: ACC

SEC bottom: Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, Mississippi St.
ACC bottom: MAryland, NC State, Virginia, Duke
Advantage: ACC


What it all means

I think ultimately, the data shows that the SEC is simply a very strong conference when you only consider the 3 or 4 teams at the very top. Once you get beyond the top 4 however, the SEC falls back into medicrity.

The ACC, on the other hand, isn't nearly as strong at the top, but is deep nearly all the way through the conference.

The question then becomes, is the ACC's lack of a top-notch team due to just that, a lack, or due to parody throughout the conference that means more losses for top teams? Conversely, is the SEC really that strong at the top? Or is it merely a few top teams that are merely much stronger than the mediocrity teams at the middle and the bottom.

While I don't think the bowl season will actually tell the tale (a long post for another day), I think it'll give us an idea as there are 2 ACC vs. SEC matchups. What's sure, however, is that the SEC fans, long noted for touting the superiority of their conference, certainly can't do that with a clear conscience. . . at least this year.

On a Scale of one to Gus Johnson, I give the SEC a Bill Walton and the ACC a Bill Rafferty

Read full post...

Only Idiots Make Guarantees

> And, I’m not an idiot, so obviously my “guarantee” that New Orleans would lose to the Lions was just a clever attempt to put the reverse jinx on the Saints to make sure they would win. I can’t believe I even had to explain that, I thought it was pretty clear from the start. I only wish I had thought to do this several weeks ago, maybe the Saints would have actually made the playoffs. I guess I underestimated the power of the Scale of One to Gus Johnson. That’s a mistake I won’t make again.

Anyway, while we’re on the subject of the Lions, and their descent into the depths of NFL history, there’s something that I need to bring up. I’ve seen and heard people use the word “overfeated” to describe the Lions. As in, instead of winning all their games and going undefeated, they’re going to lose all their games and go overfeated. Overfeated…as if it’s the opposite of “under-feated”. The only problem here is that underfeated isn’t actually a word.

Let’s over-analyze this for a second. A “feat” is some kind of achievement, like say…winning a football game. So to be “defeated” is to be denied that achievement, or lose the football game. To be “undefeated”, you would have to never have been denied the achievement. Following that line, to use the word over-feated seems to suggest someone achieved too much. For example, a lot of people thought the Patriots were overfeated last year, so they rooted for the Giants to win the Superbowl.

Why can’t we just say the Lions are plain defeated? Or un-feated? Or if you want to use the word over, just say the Lions are over-defeated. Or maybe the Lions can somehow win their last game so we won’t have to use any of these ridiculous terms. You know, I blame Linda Cohn for this whole thing.

On a scale of one to Gus Johnson, I rate this a John Madden.
Read full post...

Mental Wanderings for 12/18/08

> I had a couple of random things I wanted to comment on, but nothing worth writing a whole post about.

--Last night, Chris Paul got a steal in his 106th straight regular season game, setting an NBA record. As a Chris Paul fan, I think that’s great. But, seriously, who keeps track of these kinds of stats? Even Paul said it was a weird record to have. On a related note, I hear Kevin Garnett is closing in on an NBA record for most regular season games in a row where he made a teammate cry.

--I read online that Tom Coughlin did some jumping jacks at his press conference the other day. But, something tells me that Coughlin’s the kind of guy that would call those “side straddle hops” instead of jumping jacks.

--So, apparently Tiger Woods’ caddie had some disparaging words to say about Phil Mickelson earlier this week. This morning on Sportscenter, Linda Cohn actually referred to this as “Caddygate”. As if I needed another reason to dislike Linda Cohn.

--Charles Barkley says racism is to blame for Auburn hiring Gene Chizik, who is white, instead of Turner Gill, who is black. I’m not one to question the wisdom of Charles Barkley, but I wonder what’s to blame for Auburn not hiring any of the other half dozen or so more qualified white dudes they interviewed.

--I think it’s time the NFL lifts its ban and allows centaurs to play in the league.

--Now that Reggie Theus was fired as head coach of the Sacramento Kings, I wonder if he’s going try to get his old job back as head coach of that high school team from “Hang Time”. No word as of yet if the Kings are going to replace Theus with Dick Butkus.

--A coach for Ole Miss was arrested recently for allegedly punching a cab driver and yelling racial slurs at him. Frankly, I find it hard to believe this guy would shout racial slurs at anyone.

And that's about all my brain can handle for now.

On a scale of one to Gus Johnson, I think this rates a Pat Summerall. Read full post...

The Lions will not go winless

> So, the Detroit Lions are 0-14, and it seems to be the consensus with the talking heads that they will more than likely lose their remaining two games to finish as the first team in NFL history to go 0-16. I just wanted to be on record as saying that they will definitely, no question about it, not go 0-16. Their next two games are at home against the Saints this Sunday, and they finish the season on the road against Green Bay. The Packers defense is pretty terrible, so maybe the Lions get lucky and pull that game out. But, it won’t matter at that point. Because they will absolutely beat the Saints this weekend. The only question is if the game will be close.

Let me just say that I don’t want the Saints to lose. I’m hoping Drew Brees can prove me wrong here and will the team to a win. But, I’ve been watching and following the Saints since I was a little kid (which unfortunately, was a really long time ago), and I know their m.o. pretty well. This is exactly the type of game they lose. I mean, just looking at recent history, you can go back to 1999 when the Saints gave up that hail mary as time expired, giving the reincarnated Browns their first franchise win. Or back in 2003 against the Jaguars, when they went 75 yards on the last play of the game, somehow lateraling the ball 3 different times in the process, only to lose the game because they missed the extra point. This is what they do. So, losing to an 0-14 team seems like just their thing.

Maybe if the Saints were still in the playoff race, or if Reggie “ow, my leg” Bush was going to be playing (on second thought, this might help them), or maybe if they hadn’t let the offensive coordinator leave the team early to go be the head coach at Syracuse, maybe then I’d think differently. But at this point, it seems to me the Saints have pretty much called it a season. And even if they haven't quit just yet, this still seems like the classic “team with nothing to lose vs. team with nothing to gain” scenario. When you add that to the Saints history of selective mediocrity, I’d say this one’s in the bag for the Lions.

On a scale of one to Gus Johnson, I give this a Troy Aikman. Read full post...

Rules of Gym Etiquette - Part 2

> Yesterday, I posted the first 5 Rules of Gym Etiquette. Well, I have a few more to add...

Gym Etiquette Rule No. 6: Wipe up your sweat. This one seems obvious, yet it’s amazing how many people don’t do this. I think it’s a pretty well accepted thing that just about every inch of every piece of gym equipment will have been sweated on at some point. But, because we can’t see it, there’s an illusion that it’s not really there. Out of sight out of mind kind of thing. The problem is when some sweaty monster leaves a giant pool on one of the machines or benches. Wipe that shit up, people. Use your shirt if you don’t have anything else. Don’t be an illusion killer. That doesn’t look too good on a resume.

Gym Etiquette Rule No. 7: Don’t stick your ass in someone’s face. This rule probably should have been higher on this list. Oh well, these aren’t exactly in order of importance. Anyway, this rule applies on the gym floor, too, but it’s most important in the locker room. When you’re naked and bent over drying your legs, or whatever it is you like to bend over for, be mindful of where you’re pointing your ass. There’s seriously nothing worse than sitting down to tie your shoes, then looking up to stare directly into someone’s David Spade. I think maybe this would be a good point to cover a few rules dealing specifically with the gym locker room.

Gym Etiquette Rule No. 8: No unnecessary nakedness. Look, I’m sure every individual person has their own level of nakedness that they’re comfortable with. This isn’t really about that. People are naked in locker rooms, it’s the nature of the beast. But, the naked should have a purpose to it. If you’re standing at your locker drying off, or about to get dressed, that’s totally acceptable. If you’re walking to the shower, maybe you use a towel, maybe you don’t. Whatever. But, we don’t hang out (no pun intended) watching the television buck naked. We don’t engage strangers in conversation when we’re naked. If we’re standing by the sink shaving, it’s probably safer for everyone if we just go ahead and wrap a towel around ourselves. If we’re leaning against the wall scrolling through our blackberry…actually, new rule.

Gym Etiquette Rule No. 9: No unnecessary cell phone/blackberry use in the locker room. Given that pretty much every cell phone has pretty decent camera on it nowadays, it’s probably not the best thing to be waving that thing around (the camera, people) when people are taking their clothes off all around you. And to the guy I saw the other day leaning against the wall in his birthday suit, smiling as he scrolled through his pda, you could probably stand outside a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat holding a handful of candy and you wouldn’t be as creepy.

Gym Etiquette Rule No. 10: Don’t sit your bare ass down on the benches. People put their stuff on those benches when they’re getting dressed, they don’t need to be picking up your ass sweat with their iPod headphones. If you’re the type that likes to sit down when you dry your feet, or whatever, put down a towel first. Or a shirt, or some shorts, it doesn’t matter. Just create some sort of layer between your ass and the bench. Oh, and those leather chairs over by the television…well, let’s all just consider that a dingleberry free zone from now on. Thanks.

On a scale of one to Gus Johnson, I give this a Brian Baldinger.
Read full post...

David Wright Loves Bacon

> This is only tangentially related to sports, but everyone should read this. http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/3972922.Thief_stole_bacon_from_Iceland_over_unpaid_debt/
What's really funny is that this guy is still less embarassing than the Mets last two seasons.

On a scale of one to Gus Johnson, I'd give this a Steve Phillips. Read full post...

And you thought his performance at Kansas was good.

> So, I apologize for my absence. It was our office Christmas party week, so any post I would've typed would've sounded like John Riggins at a Washington Press Club dinner.

I've already dreamed up a longer post about another subject to be posted later, but I just couldn't refrain from posting this.

Fresh off of his performance here:





We give you this:

http://www.wndu.com/sports/headlines/36139079.html

Be sure to click on the link and brace yourself.

On a scale of one to Gus Johnson, I give that performance a John Madden for bizarre
Read full post...

Rules of Gym Etiquette

> I heard somewhere that approximately 94% of the people of this country regularly go to a gym/health club. I also heard that 50% of all statistics are made up. Anyway, seeing that everyone is going to a gym nowadays, I thought it was about time someone put down some rules of etiquette. I’m going to go ahead and take a stab at this. Something tells me we’ll have to keep adding to this as time goes on, but here’s what we’ve got so far:

Gym Etiquette Rule No. 1: No preening in front of the mirrors.

This one is mainly for the guys out there, as most women are way too self-conscious about their bodies to do any sort of posing at the gym. But, for the men, don’t do it. I don’t care that the 300 workout is giving your abs more definition than Merriam-Webster (or some other, less lame, metaphor), there is absolutely no reason to lift your shirt up in front of the mirror next to the free weights. Everyone already assumes every (other) guy at the gym is a total d-bag, and you’re only confirming the stereotype, making us all look bad. Don’t spread your d-bagedness to the rest of us.

Gym Etiquette Rule No. 2: No sideways hats.

Not ever. End of discussion. Look, head accessories are fine. If you want to wear a headband to keep your combover in place while you lift, fine. Or maybe a hat keeps the hair and sweat out of your face. That’s okay, too. But, a hat gently placed sideways on top of your head serves no purpose. See d-bag assumption, Rule 1.

Gym Etiquette Rule No. 3: Mind the mirrors.

If someone’s facing a mirror when they’re working out, you can’t stand between them and the mirror (unless they’re violating Gym Etiquette Rule No. 1, of course). You don’t have to be a vain, sideways hat wearing d-bag to want to watch yourself in the mirror while you’re working out. Watching yourself in the mirror isn’t exactly necessary, but for a lot of people, it can be a useful tool for watching your form, and staying balanced. And having somebody stand right in front of you in the middle of a set can be pretty distracting. Now, you can’t always avoid walking in front of someone when they’re in the middle of working out, but you can definitely avoid forcing them to stare at the back of your 1998 Corporate Fun Run shirt while they try to finish their set. Don’t be that guy/girl.

Gym Etiquette Rule No. 4: Don’t be a grape smuggler.

Nine times out of ten, it doesn’t matter what you’re wearing at the gym, for the most part gym attire is all about being comfortable. But, we have to have some exceptions. Guys, there’s nothing wrong with owning a pair of biking shorts. I’m sure they serve their purpose when you’re on your bike. And, there’s really nothing wrong with owning some tights. They can come in handy when you’re playing sports or running in cold weather. But, these are not appropriate outer garments when you’re at the gym. I’m talking to you weird trainer guy who likes to tuck his shirt into his inappropriately tight pants. You know who you are. This rule doesn’t really apply to women, as they can get away with wearing tight clothes. Although, they have to look out for that look that’s often compared to the appendage of a hump-backed desert mammal. But we won’t get into that.

Gym Etiquette Rule No. 5: Conversations with strangers should last 30 seconds, max.

Most people don’t go to the gym to socialize. They want to get in, have a good workout, and get back to the spouse/job/kids/video game. So any conversations have to take place between sets. Talking someone’s ear off keeps only gives them less time for their lunges, or maybe those strangely erotic pelvis thrust things I’ve seen people do on the exercise ball. What’s that about, anyway? The point is, keep the yapping to a minimum. Anything longer than 30 seconds at the gym, and you’re flirting.

Okay, that's enough for today. I'll have some more tomorrow.

On a scale of one to Gus Johnson, I'd give this an Ed Hochuli's left bicep.
Read full post...

The NFL's overtime system blows

> Last weekend, I was hanging with my buddy PedroiaTheDestroyah, and we were bitching about the current overtime rule in the NFL. I know we’re not exactly the first people to complain about this, but with the Saints losing last night in overtime without ever getting the ball, it seems kind of relevant for me today. I mean, in a league that prides itself on fairness and parity, with the hard salary cap, roster limits, and the way they run the draft, I can’t believe the NFL has let their overtime rules stay this way for this long.

It’s pretty well established that the team that wins the toss in overtime wins the game like 60% of the time. And in about 30% of overtime games, the losing team never touches the ball in the OT period, just like in last night’s game. Doesn't really gel with the whole fairness and parity thing. I don’t know, maybe the NFL likes being the only sport that doesn’t give both teams a chance to win in overtime. But I doubt it. This seems like the kind of thing that stays this way because it’s always been this way. Well, if the NCAA can change their rules to implement an overtime period (I think they started their overtime system back in 1996), I don’t see why the NFL can’t make a similar change.

PtD and I aren’t really fans of the college system, where both teams get a possession from the other team’s 25 yard line. We think the best thing to do would be to go with the NFL system with a few tweaks. It’s not like this would be a difficult fix. Just keep the system like it is now, only add a rule that the game can’t end until both teams have had at least one possession in the overtime period. So, last night, once the Bears scored their go-ahead field goal, they would have had to kickoff to the Saints. If the Saints turn the ball over, they lose and the game’s over. If they score a TD, they win and the game’s over. If they kick a field goal to tie it, then it’s sudden death, and the next team to score wins the game. Pretty simple, I think. Maybe the Bears go down and win the game on their next drive, but at least both teams have had a chance to win at this point.

Now, this would totally change the strategy teams use in overtime. Under these rules, teams would probably rather be on defense first, so they’d know exactly what they needed to win the game when they had possession. Also, this would prevent situations like last night, where the Bears got a 38 yard pass interference penalty to get down to the Saints 15 yard line. And instead of trying to move the ball forward from there, they just took a knee in the middle of the field to set up a field goal. Lame.

Again, I may be a little more biased than usual given the results of last night’s game, but I’d have to say that this is probably the greatest overtime plan ever. Now somebody just needs to tell the Commish.

On a scale of one to Gus Johnson, I’d have to give this a Michael Chiklis.
Read full post...

A Proposal for the BCS

> I hate the BCS. I think it’s absurd and inane and represents everything that is wrong with college athletics. Like it or not, though, it doesn’t appear to be going anywhere, and, as a Big10 graduate, I am resigned to the fact that my conference is not going to be represented in the National Championship Game for a long time, because Jim Tressel doesn’t know how to prepare his team for a bowl game.

So instead, the BCS needs to be improved.

For starters, I have a suggestion for how to penalize a conference that underperforms during the season. If a BCS conference, as a whole, has a below-.500 record against a non-BCS conference against whom it has played at least five games, it should lose its automatic bid to that conference.

How would this work? Well, this year, for instance, the Pac-10 went 1-6 against the Mountain West, so the Mountain West would get the PAC-10’s birth. This probably wouldn’t have changed anything this year. Utah would have gotten the PAC-10’s automatic berth that went to USC and USC would have gotten the at-large berth that went to Utah. But what if the sub-mediocre Oregon State team hadn’t choked near the end and had somehow won the PAC-10? This rule would have kept the embarrassment that would have occurred from having the Beavers stink up a BCS game.

The rule wouldn’t keep good teams out of bowl games. USC is a good team. They would have received a bid. Instead, it would keep mediocre teams from conference that had a down year from dragging down the BCS. I mean seriously, who wants to watch Cincinnati and Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl on New Year’s night?

The strongest argument against this rule change, of course, is that BCS bowl teams will be afraid to play the good non-BCS teams like TCU, Utah, and Boise State. But who else would they play? If a good team decides not to play the strong non-BCS teams and loads up on cupcakes, it would hurt their strength of schedule. In addition, the strong BCS teams would need to schedule the better non-BCS teams just to keep them from feeding off of the low BCS teams. The more games Utah is able to play against bottom-of-the-barrel teams like Washington, Duke, and Michigan (wow, it felt great to type that), the better chance the BCS conference has of losing its BCS bid. It would then create an incentive for the better BCS schools to schedule better non-conference teams.

Maybe it’s not perfect, but it sure as hell beats what we have now.

On a scale of one to Gus Johnson, I'd give this a Todd Blackledge. Read full post...

The Tale of Sticky Ricky

> I saw on the ESPN bottom line this morning that Colt McCoy is vying to become only the 3rd Texas player to win the Heisman trophy. The other two were Earl Campbell in 1977 and Ricky Williams in 1998. And this is going to sound weird, but I forgot Ricky Williams ever went to college. He’s been such an odd figure in the sports world, it’s strange to think that he actually came from somewhere. Let’s go over the odd career of Sticky Ricky:

• In 1998, as a senior at Texas, Ricky broke Tony Dorsett’s record and became the all time leading rusher in NCAA Division 1-A football. Dorsett’s record had stood for 22 years.
• The next year, Ricky had his record broken by Ron Dayne of Wisconsin. Ricky’s record stood for less than a year.
• In December 1998, Ricky won the Heisman. And this is where things take a turn for the weird.
• In the 1999 NFL Draft, Mike Ditka, then head coach of the Saints, trades his entire 1999 draft away, plus a 1st and 3rd round pick for 2000, all to trade up for Ricky Williams. The Saints went 3-13 in Ricky’s first season. Might have been a bad move by Iron Mike.
• After the draft, Ricky signs Master P as his agent. Yes, Master P, the ‘rapper’, as a sports agent. “No Limit Sports” negotiated a ridiculous contract for Ricky, making the whole thing based on almost unreachable incentives. Ricky fired Master P a year later, and hired an actual sports agent.
• Prior to his rookie season, Ricky and Coach Ditka posed on the cover of ESPN the Magazine as a bride and groom. And, the word ‘disturbing’ takes on a new meaning.
• Ricky gains national attention for some rather bizarre behavior while playing for the Saints, including giving post game interviews with his helmet still on. With a visor on the helmet so nobody could see his eyes. Ricky was later diagnosed with social anxiety disorder. No kidding.
• After 3 years with the Saints, Ricky is traded to the Miami Dolphins.
• In his first season with the Dolphins, Ricky led the NFL in rushing and made the pro-bowl.
• Then in May of 2004, Ricky was suspended from the NFL for 4 games for testing positive for marijuana. Instead of serving his suspension, he decided to retire from the NFL. He played for 5 seasons.
• After retiring from football, Ricky decided he wanted to be a holistic healer, and began studying the ancient Indian science of Ayurveda. He actually went to a school for this. Which means there’s actually a school for this. Who knew?
• A few months later in February 2005, while Ricky was in a hut somewhere in Thailand, a Florida judge ruled that he had to pay the Dolphins $8.6 million of his signing bonus.
• A few months after that, and completely unrelated to his sudden money troubles, Ricky had a ‘change of heart’ and decided he wanted to come back to the NFL. If only this were the end of the Ricky Williams saga.
• After playing another year for the Dolphins, Ricky failed yet another drug test (his fourth), and in April 2006 he was suspended for the entire season.
• With Ricky unable to play in the NFL for a year, the Canadian Football League endured a little controversy by allowing Ricky to sign with the Toronto Argonauts for the 2006 season.
• I guess the Ricky experiment didn’t go too well, because after the season, the CFL enacted the “Ricky Williams Rule”, which prevents any CFL team from signing a player serving a suspension from the NFL.
• And finally, Ricky served his one year suspension from the NFL, and is now back playing with the Dolphins. He was hurt for most of 2007, but has been playing fairly well this year.

Even though I’ve followed all these different events as they happened, and fully recognized each time how bizarre of a dude Ricky Williams was, I guess I didn’t appreciate the whole story until this morning. Tomorrow, it will be exactly 10 years since Ricky Williams won the Heisman trophy, and man has it been a fascinating ten years. I don’t think Colt McCoy is going to win the award this weekend. But, if he does, let’s hope his post-Heisman decade goes a little smoother than it did for the last Longhorn to win it.

On a scale of one to Gus Johnson, I give this a Joe Theismann.
Read full post...

As far as regular seasons go, College Football is King

> I’d like to address the idea that college basketball’s regular season is more meaningful than college football’s. Seth Davis over at cnnsi was the latest to attempt this argument, and it was a pretty lame attempt at that. Look, there’s no question that the NCAA Tournament is the greatest sporting event there is. Nothing can match its excitement. I’m sure Europeans would argue for the World Cup, but until Gus Johnson calls a soccer game, there’s really no argument. Anyway, having the most exhilarating championship event doesn’t necessarily mean the regular season is all that special.

I should say that I used to be a believer. I used to be a college hoops junkie, watching and loving every week of the regular season. I’d watch every conference tournament I could. Hell, I remember watching Bryce Drew tear up the Horizon tourney before he ever hit that shot to beat Ole Miss. And then, there was the Big Dance. Who doesn’t love the NCAA Tournament? I used to stay home from school or work during those first two days of the tournament, just because I didn’t want to miss any games. Not that I still do that. My point is that I loved college basketball. Well, I realized not too long ago that the BCS has ruined all of that. And this is my reason for hating the BCS, not because it’s ruining football. But because it’s made college football so exciting that its ruined my love for college basketball.

Despite what Seth Davis and others like him say, the college basketball regular season is meaningless. It just doesn’t matter. Sure, it has some meaning when you’re talking about the evolution of a team, and how they build on each game and improve. But that’s how it goes in every sport. But, when you’re talking about championships, it’s all about the tournaments in college basketball. And yes, I said tournaments, plural. Because other than the Ivy League, every conference gives their automatic bid to the winner of their conference tournament. So winning your regular season doesn’t even matter. LSU beat out Florida to win the SEC in 2006. But, Florida won the National Championship. Still think regular seasons matter? Yeah, LSU got a nice banner to hang in the PMAC, but that didn’t get them into the tournament. They had to get an at-large bid, just like the 32 other teams in the field that didn’t win their conference tournament.

Of course LSU got into the tournament in 2006 despite not winning their conference tourney, because they were a great team. The fact of the matter is that every year, there are a handful of college basketball teams that are good enough to be National Champions. And some of them will win their conference, and some won't. Some will have amazing regular seasons, where they’re #1, or moving up and down in the top 5 all year. And some will have relatively disappointing years, and have to make a go of it in the tournament as a 3 or 4 seed. But all of them will make the tournament. No matter what they did in the regular season, every last one of that year’s elite college basketball teams will have their shot at the National Championship. And that’s why we love it, that’s what makes it the tournament so exciting. You never know which of those teams is going to win it all. Well, that and the upsets. And Gus, of course. But again, an exciting championship event doesn’t make the regular season any more meaningful.

Like basketball, every year there are a handful of college football teams good enough to be National Champions. But unlike basketball, in college football, only 2 will have a chance to win the title. Who those 2 teams are is determined week by week in the regular season. A basketball team can lose 25% of their games and still make the tournament, and have a “shot” at a championship. You think a 9-3 team is getting into the BCS National Championship? Not likely.

Actually, any non-Ivy League team could go the entire season without winning a game. They could start the postseason without any wins, and still have a chance to win it all. Of course, they’d have to win 10 straight games, 4 games to win their conference tourney, and another 6 in a row in the NCAA tournament, to win the whole thing. Wouldn’t that be an amazing and unprecedented feat? Amazing, yes. Unprecedented, not really. That happens pretty much every year in college football.

Florida won 9 games in a row to get to the BCS title game. Oklahoma won 7. If they had lost any of those games, they wouldn’t have made it. The same excitement and “win or you’re done” atmosphere that makes the college basketball postseason so special is exactly what we have in the regular season of college football right now. College football's postseason may not compare to the NCAA Tournament or even the NFL playoffs. But, no sport has a regular season nearly as exciting as college football's. And that’s why I’ve recently started to defend the BCS, and why I’m not all that interested in college basketball right now. So, somebody wake me up when the tournaments start. That’s when the real college basketball season begins, anyway.

On a scale of one to Gus Johnson, I give this post a Digger Phelps.
Read full post...

College basketball's regular season more meaningful?

> Seems Seth Davis over at cnnsi.com must have read my defense of BCS. I don't think he agrees with me. This is from his article:

"That's right, you heard me. College basketball's regular season is far more meaningful, far more compelling and far more important than college football's."

I'm going to have to disagree with Mr. Davis. I'll discuss this later, but I wanted to pass along the link to the article for now. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/seth_davis/12/09/hoop.thoughts/index.html.

Hat tip to Brett for the link. Read full post...

A defense of the BCS

> In case you missed it, Chummy posted his idea for a college football playoff system yesterday. I have to say, I liked the first scenario. He addresses a lot of the issues often cited with the implementation of a playoff system. Too bad it’ll never happen. So, seeing as we’re stuck with our current BCS system for the foreseeable future, and because John Saunders isn’t around to defend it, allow me to come to the defense of the BCS.

Let me preface this whole thing by saying that I’ve been a big proponent of a playoff since they created the Bowl Alliance back in ‘95 (and now I just feel old). But, I’ve recently developed an appreciation for the BCS. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love a playoff, and Chummy’s plan is maybe the best I’ve seen. But, the BCS isn’t all bad. For example: I have friends from all over the college football landscape. Florida, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Stanford, and many more. I’ve been in some pretty spirited debates about the BCS, conference supremacy, Tim Tebow’s mortality…and there is only one thing that we can find common ground on. We all loathe USC. That's thanks to the BCS.

In fact, I propose a new slogan: The BCS – Uniting College Football Fans Everywhere Through Their Hatred Of USC. I like it.

Anyway, let’s talk about Chummy’s plan. My main criticism with the plan itself is the idea that the 6 BCS conferences all get home games. I know it needs to be that way to make the money work, but that could lead to some controversy. Let’s say a non-BCS school like Boise State (or Notre Dame if they weren’t awful) puts together a nice schedule, and goes undefeated. They finish a unianimous #1, and sit atop the BCS standings at the end of the year. The reward for their accomplishment is first class travel to Cincinnati to play at the Big East Champ in the first round of the playoff, and a giant “Tough Shit, You Should Have Played in a BCS Conference” Trophy. On second thought, I kind of like that idea.

Chummy was very helpful and provided a fairly comprehensive list of reasons why a playoff won’t work, then attempted to rebut them. I’m with him on Reasons 2 and 4. Those excuses are just dumb. Academics and Bowls as vacations? Please. I’ve heard people use these, and I’ve never bought them either. He was right on the money with these. Reason 3 used to be a valid issue, but I think his plan effectively eliminated fan travel as a concern. If the games are at home, the fans won’t have any problem traveling. Easy enough.

But, I would like to say that you can’t really compare college football with college basketball as far as fans are concerned. Basketball arenas hold maybe 25,000 people. You’re looking at anywhere from 80 to 90,000 for college football. Also, a lot of the people going to the March Madness games aren’t even fans of the schools playing. They’re people from the host city or surrounding area who’ll go to the games no matter who’s playing, because they’ll get to watch as many as 4 games in one day. I’m sure you’ll get some of that with a college football playoff, but again, you need to fill a lot more seats for football. Apples and oranges. But, again, I don’t think this is an issue under his plan.

Okay, let’s talk money. Again, I think Chummy did a pretty good job explaining this one. With each conference hosting a game, they’d have a lot of gate receipts to divvy up. This would work, that is until one of the conferences had a very shitty year and got left out of the playoff. What would happen to their cut? Given how bad a few of these conferences have been lately, this could worry some of them. It might work if the conferences agreed to divide the revenues by six and distribute equally, even if one of them gets shut out. That may placate the ACC and Big East. But, one thing his plan didn’t address is the bowls themselves, or more specifically the cities that host them. You think New Orleans is going to be happy about losing their big event every year? Sure, they may get the national championship game every 4 years, but I don’t know if that’ll make up for the loss of a marquee Sugar Bowl every year.

[Speaking of marquee Sugar Bowls, how about that Alabama–Utah matchup? How thrilled do you think the New Orleans tourism folks are with the selection of a team from Utah to come down to the Quarter? Les a le bon ton roule!]

Moving on. The two best arguments in favor of the BCS, in my opinion, are Chummy’s reasons 1 and 5. Let’s address number 5 first.

Reason 5: The BCS gets everyone talking about college football.

People do talk about college football more nowadays than they used to. Back in the day, there were arguments every few years whenever there would be two indistinguishable teams at the top. Like 1991 when both Miami and Washington went undefeated. But, that was pre-BCS, so Washington played in the Rose Bowl, and Miami played in the Orange Bowl. Once they both won their games to finish undefeated, we’d argue about who was better. One got the AP national championship, and the other was awarded a national championship by the coaches. We basically had one single argument at the end of the season. But that was then.

Now, we argue all year. Which conference is better? Who plays the toughest out of conference schedule? Who won the more impressive road game? It’s a debate, week in and week out. The teams are constantly jockeying for position. Because, unlike in 1991 when Washington knew that no matter how impressive they were, they’d end up playing the Big Ten champ in the Rose, and Miami knew there was no way they were getting out of playing in the Orange, the teams today are fighting to get into that one big game. Sure, it might be somewhat maddening having all these debates, instead of just enjoying the game. But who are we kidding, people love arguing about sports. It’s as American as cheeseburgers and war.

Now, maybe Chummy is right, and a playoff would illicit the same type of arguments throughout the season. But, come on, using the NCAA basketball tournament as your basis for the idea? Lame. Yes, if Syracuse goes 19-11 and gets left out of the Big Dance because some shitty mid-major team unexpectedly won their conference tournament, there would be a discussion about how it was a travesty that they were left out. But, you know how long that discussion would last? Until tip-off of the first game. Maybe. And that would probably happen with a playoff in college football, too. Let’s say Alabama got the shaft this year, and ended up in the dreaded 9 spot in the 8 team playoff. There would be a small outcry for a second, and a mini-debate about how they might have been more deserving than Texas Tech. But, that would all be forgotten once the games began. When Florida and Oklahoma end up playing for the title, you really think anyone would be bitching because the 9th place team didn’t get a shot at it? Please.

With the BCS, we have arguments, we have controversies, we have excitement. We have Florida State playing for the 2000 title instead of the Miami team that beat them in the regular season. Controversy! We have Nebraska playing for the 2001 title despite getting blown out in their Conference Championship game. Ridiculousness! We have USC getting left out of the 2003 title game. Paper Champions! We have Auburn getting left out in 2004. Outrage! We have the 2006 Michigan – Florida non-argument. Speed wins! And last year, we had the great, “which crappy two loss team do we want to let kick the shit out of Ohio State” argument. Geaux Tigers! Finally, this year we have the Big 12 South ménage-a-trois. Sexy! That’s some exciting stuff there. But, my guess is that this is the point where Chummy would start crying about how we wouldn’t have had any of these situations if we’d been able to settle things on the field with a playoff. Well, that brings us to Reason number 1.

Reason 1: Games lose their meaning. With the BCS every game "counts."

With a playoff, the games will still matter. But, only your team’s games will matter. As an LSU fan, I’d only have to worry about the teams in the SEC West. Any teams outside of that don’t really matter as far as I’m concerned, because as long as we won our division, we’re in the playoff (the SEC Championship would be a de facto play-in game). And, that’s pretty much how it would be for every team in the BCS conferences. While you’re wondering if that’s a good thing, ask yourself how many Auburn fans were watching every time Oklahoma or USC played back in 2004 to see if maybe they’d trip up. How many Florida and Michigan fans were cheering as UCLA knocked off USC in the last weekend of 2006? Okay, I’m sure people all over the country were cheering for that one. Hell, I became a Dave Wannstedt fan for a weekend last year (and instantly grew a mustache), because I knew the only way LSU was making the Championship game was if Pittsburgh pulled the unthinkable. My point is that with the current system, fans are interested in games that they wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about if there was a playoff.

Actually, that Pittsburgh-West Virginia game wouldn’t have mattered at all with a playoff system. West Virginia had already won the Big East, and LSU had already locked up a berth in the SEC Championship. Both teams were already getting their shot at the title, no matter the outcome of that game. But, instead, college football fans everywhere were watching that game because they knew it would decide the title game participants. Fans of LSU, Georgia, Virginia Tech, and USC were all locked into the Backyard Brawl, living and dying with every first down. That experience disappears with a playoff. Also, you think Stanford knocking off USC last year would have been a big deal? It would have been a nice story, the Cardinal winning on the road as a 41 point underdog, but it wouldn’t have kept USC from making the playoff. Instead, that loss pretty much knocked them out of the discussion.

With a playoff, SEC teams will only care about SEC games, Big 12 with Big 12 games, and so on. Sure, there might be some interest in what's going on outside the conference for teams trying to get one of the 2 at large spots. But, again, nobody really cares about the team that didn’t make it once the playoffs get started.

Personally, I don’t think we’ll ever see a playoff system in college football. But if we ever did have one, I’m sure it would be an amazing event. It would most definitely bring new and exciting elements to college football. But, the point of this post is that it would also take away some of the excitement that has driven college football to its recent meteoric rise in popularity. The BCS certainly isn’t a perfect system, and I’m sure the “wizard” will tinker with the formula every year in a quest to get it just right. But, it’s still a pretty good system, and one that I can live with. But, then again, this could just be the 2 Crystal Trophies talking.

On a scale of one to Gus Johnson, I give this a Verne Lundquist.
Read full post...

Playoffs?!?! Don't talk about Playoffs?!?! Are you kidding me?!?

> In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes--Ben Franklin

When Big Ben famously penned this quote, he clearly had not yet experienced the certainty of the first week in December for college football fans. See, about that time is when you stop hearing arguments about who will beat whom and start hearing arguments about who would beat whom. You stop hearing about rivalries and traditions and start hearing about computers and fantasy odds. Coaches morph from being their usual, tight lipped selves spewing pre-fabricated comments to the media filled with cliché and obfuscation into other people. Some become seasoned politicians, lobbying voters while making their teams' cases; some become balls of rage, decrying a system or team done wrong and calling for change; some become strangely aloof, acting as if the fate of their team really doesn't matter to them all the while being betrayed by their wanton eyes; and some just become whiners, finding creative ways to say that it just isn't fair.

Ah such is life in a BCS-world.

But does it have to be? Every year, it seems commentators, coaches, sports fans, and now a certain president-elect all clamor for what, to college football fans, has become the El Dorado, the hidden treasure…one word, eight letters immortalized by Jim Mora



P-L-A-Y-O-F-F-S

Though they may not agree on the format, everybody seems to want a playoff. And every year, just as the clamoring is certain, they are swiftly rebuked by the wizards of our Oz, the men behind the curtain, who no one knows, but who seem to pull all of the stings in college football--FBS version.

So I've decided to add my voice to the calls for a playoff, and in doing so, I hope to have answered some of the biggest issues that those who like the same, uncertain, semi-corrupt system that we currently employ. So before giving you my ideas, let's examine some of the common issues that the mighty wizard has told us prevent a playoff from happening:

Reason 1: Games lose their meaning. With the BCS every game "counts."

Please ignore the fact that in reality only a few games count, and they only count if you're ranked high enough in pre-season polls AND are from one of the big 6 conferences or Notre Dame.

Reason 2: Our players are "scholar athletes" and they have to take finals.

I swear, I'm not laughing. I'm not. I mean forget the fact that basketball players play throughout finals. And forget the fact that every other division of football is able to do a playoff and be "scholar-athletes." And forget the fact that most of the teams involved in the playoff have dismal graduation rates with most of their players occupying made-for-athlete majors. Forget all of that. We care about our STUDENT-athletes… at least during December we do.

Reason 3: Our fans won't travel with only a week's notice and more than one week.

Basketball fans travel, but that's not the same. NFL fans travel. But that's not the same. Our fans are unique.

Reason 4: The Bowl is a well earned vacation for a lot of teams. Take them away, and you don't have that.

College football--a competitive sport? No. We need to reward our teams. That's why we let 6-6 teams go to bowls and we have more bowls than Brittney Spears has melt-downs. Bowls are for the children….the children I tell you.

Reason 5: The BCS stimulates discussion. Discussion all year.

Never mind it's universally negative. Never mind that it undermines the integrity of the sport. People talk about it before, during and after the game. And that's a good thing.

Reason 6: The money. The money. The money.

We won't actually say this. But the bowls pay a lot. Especially to the BCS conferences. Like 13 million dollars good. Do you know how many recruits … I mean textbooks we can buy with that money? And we BCS conferences really don't want to share with all of the lesser conferences of the world, like the WAC and the Mountain West. Could you imagine letting a team like Boise State share our money? So beneath us.

I'm sure there are more, but these are the highlights it seems. I'll go ahead and outline my 2 ideas and then explain how it solves each of these issues.

My Playoff (version 1):

If anyone knows how the West Coast Conference (a no football conference) sets up its basketball tournament, that's my first proposal. Here's a blank visual of it. http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/west/genrel/auto_pdf/2009WCCTournamentbrackets.pdf
In parentheses, I'll put what the dates would be this year. But I think you could easily push one of these weeks back and be done by Jan 17, which would make it end the same week the new "plus 1" format would.

How would it be populated
Start with 8 teams. BCS conference champions get seeds 1-6 as long as that champion is in the top 15 in the BCS. (I'll explain later why I would do that). If they're not, then the conference can send another team that is in the top 15 or it forfeits its pick (this number would be flexible). 2 wild cards based on BCS standings. Non-BCS schools in the top 8 get automatic bids as wild cards.

How the rounds would go
All playoffs played on Saturdays

First round (December 20): 8 plays at 5 and 7 plays at 6.

Second round: (December 27): Winners are re-seeded with the lower seeded winner playing at 3 and the higher seeded winner playing at 4.

Third round (January 3): Winners are again re-seeded with the lower-seeded winner playing at #1 and higher-seeded winner at #2

Championship (January 10): Championship at a neutral site, rotating bowl site.

Other details

• Teams (or conferences) would split the gate receipts.
  
• Home team would allocate tickets by offering double what is the NCAA standard for a regular season game to opposing fans. That gives the home team an actual home field advantage.
  
• Bowl games happen for all of the teams not involved in the playoff. The 2nd place conference team still goes to the bowl of choice. Those games played during the week. The old BCS bowls played on January 1. Nothing changes for the bowls other than losing these 8 teams.

How it solves each of the issues

Games don't matter:
They do. With only 8 teams making the playoffs. Every game matters. Let's take this year for instance. Other than possibly Alabama, any team that loses their conference championship this year would've been left out. Teams with one loss will be left out occasionally. Teams with 2 losses almost definitely will. Sounds like the BCS right now. All 1 loss teams are in--anything more and you're out. Every game counts. What's more. Now we have bowl games other than the BCS championship that counts. Now we have more games for teams trying to get into that top 8 that count. You can certainly drop out of the top 8 with a loss, so every game for each of those counts too. What's more, getting a home game actually gives you an advantage. So those games matter too. And the games that are just normal "bowls," Well, ask how many of those bowls matter now.
"Scholar-Athletes"
Athletes have 2 weeks to take finals. There are only four schools that play on the 20th and all of the rest are on the 27th. Almost all schools are out until the 10th anyhow. No more class missed.

Fans won't travel
They don't have to. Every site is determined almost a month in advance, the same week that Bowl games are announced. The final is at a neutral site--and I don't think you'll have any problem getting people to travel to that one. Ask the Final Four.

Bowl games are vacations
Yes. They are. And they will continue to be for all but 8 fan bases. Funny, but I don't think any of those 8 teams would trade their "vacation" for an actual shot at an actual national championship.

People talk about the BCS
And they'll talk about the 8 team playoff. You think Texas Tech or Alabama wouldn't talk about the 8 team field, since one could likely be left out. You don't think Ohio State or the mid-majors would talk about it? Do people talk about the last four teams out for the NCAA basketball tournament? I think so. Now people can talk about seeds too, as well as who's in and who's out. And since the BCS standings would determine at least to some degree, people would still talk.

Money
Each BCS conference would still get an additional home game. They could justify raising their ticket prices for each. They could still get the bowl game money. And the TV. rights alone would be staggering. Plus, the bowl game that hosts the championship could still give out 17 million bucks to each team or conference. Conferences would make more money using this than the same bowl money now, as the playoffs would be on top of any other money. That's why we have to have the 6 BCS conference winners. If it were up to me, I'd just take the 8 best, but the BCS conferences will never relinquish their control of the pot. This helps them retain control unless their conference is as bad as the ACC/Big East recently.

This model would give teams that perform better a significant advantage (home field and byes), but still give more teams a chance. That's all that teams are asking for. A chance.

How it would work this year:
Just for one last glance, here's how it would play out this year based on the recently released BCS standings.

Round 1: #8 Utah (in the top 8) at #5 Cincinnati; #7 Alabama at #6 Texas (Virginia Tech would forfeit their automatic bid because they were ranked 19);

Or, if the ACC chose to send their highest ranked team (which I would assume they would)

Round 1: #8 Utah (in the top 8, so automatic) at #5 Cincinnati; #7 Texas at #6 Georgia Tech (replacing Virginia Tech since they were ranked in the top 15);

Regardless of the first round, the next one would be.

Round 2: Lower-seeded winner at #3 USC; Higher-seeded winner at #4 Penn State

Round 3: Winner at #2 Florida; Winner at #1 Oklahoma

Championship: In Miami

Does anyone think that Alabama (in the first scenario) or Texas Tech (in both scenarios) fans would say that every game doesn't matter anymore?

An Alternative

How it would be populated:
For those that want a bigger tournament. Take 12 teams and do it in 4 weeks. 6 of the top 8 seeds are BCS conference winners (so they each get a home game) but we'll extend the cut-off to top 20. Other 6 are at large teams based on BCS standings. Top two Non-BCS teams get an automatic bid if they are in the top 12.

How the rounds would go:
Round 1: #12 at #5; #11 at #6; #10 at #7; #9 at #8

Round 2: Lowest-seeded winner at #1; 2nd Lowest at #2; 2nd highest at #3; Highest seeded at #4

Round 3: Two games either at neutral sites or at the highest seeded winner

Round 4: Championship.

Here's a visual:

Advantages of this as opposed to the other:

• This model allows for more teams and more non-BCS teams that go undefeated.
  
• More games = more money.
  
• More teams given a chance in the same amount of time.
  
• Gives a team like Texas this year a home game and doesn't make them play four road games in a row to win.
  
• Still gives BCS conference winners a home game, but doesn't give teams like Cincinnati and Virginia Tech too big of an advantage

Disadvantages of this as opposed to the other

• Two rounds of uncertainty as to where the games were. Perhaps you'd have to build in a bye weekend between rounds 2 and 3 to allow for more time to schedule travel.
  
• Might get some two loss teams. Might not. A loss late isn't necessarily going to knock you out so people might be able to argue that "Every game doesn't matter."
  
• Fewer teams get their bowl "vacation."

Same payouts; same fan allocation; neutral site tickets are split 50/50; home team gets most of the tickets.

Here's how it plays out this year:

Round #1
#12 Ohio State (Because there are already 2 non-BCS teams in the field, TCU gets left out despite being in the top 12 and tOSU being ahead of them) at #5 USC; #11 Boise State at #6 Penn State; #10 Texas Tech at #7 Cincinnati; #9 Utah at #8 Virginia Tech (since it's now in the top 20)

Round # 2
Lowest-seeded winner at #1 Oklahoma; 2nd Lowest at #2 Florida; 2nd highest at #3 Texas; Highest seeded at #4 Alabama

Round # 3 and #4: Would play out the same way as the previous model.

Whichever of the two models you prefer. It sounds like a lot more fun than arguing about what computers and pollsters that rarely watch any of the games think.

It's time for a change. Now, I challenge the Wizard or any of you readers (if there are any of you) to come up with reasons why either of these don't or won't work.

I must be honest, on a scale of one to Gus Johnson...I'd give my idea an Al Michaels.

Read full post...

SEC Football

> Nice online article about the SEC on wsj.com today. But, as an LSU alum, I have to take issue with Carville's quote. I'd say just about everyone in the stadium can spell LSU. But, unfortunately, probably only about 5% or so can spell "sober", and that includes the kids. Read full post...

The Joe Buck Story

> I guess the first order of business should be to explain the Scale of One to Gus Johnson. Well, it all starts with Joe Buck. Back in March, a bunch of my friends and I went out to Vegas for spring break. One night we were out at Moon, one of those swanky night clubs that opens its retractable roof every half hour. Why? Because it can, that's why. Anyway, one of our friends knew someone who hooked us up with a couple of tables. I’m not saying this to brag, just to establish that we had a home base at this club. Well, our base was infiltrated by Joe Buck. He displayed some incredibly bizarre behavior, and he just wouldn’t go away.

Let me back up a bit. So, we’re hanging out by our tables, and one of our friends spots Joe Buck. It really wasn’t that big of a deal to me, he’s just a dude with a gargantuan sized head who talks into a microphone for a living as far as I’m concerned. I said hi, shook his hand, and I was out. But, some of my friends thought it was pretty cool to run into him, and they engaged him in some conversation. Poor, misguided fools. I should probably leave their real names out, so instead, I think I’ll use character names from Saved By the Bell.

So, my two buddies, Slater and Preppie, were very excited to chat with Joe Buck. Slater was from Indiana, just like ol’ Joe, so they were talking about that for a while. I’m not really sure what Preppie’s excuse was. Anyway, Slater was there with his girlfriend, Muffin Sangria (yes, she was real, she almost beat Kelly for Homecoming Queen). After talking about sports and Indiana for a while, Joe Buck starts hitting on Muffin! Right in front of Slater! He’s trying to impress her by buying Miller Lites, slapping down a fresh $100 bill for each round. He even leaned in close to her at one point and asked her how much she loved her boyfriend. I think he was underestimating Slater’s dimples and stone washed Z Cavariccis.

Now, I should say that I wasn’t actually there for any of this. I was on the other side of the tables with my friend Johnny Dakota. The two of us were trying to find a lady for our buddy Screech. Anyway, back to Joe Buck. I think Slater and Preppie were just waiting for Joe Buck to get bored with them and go find the “guys from Fox” he claimed he was there with. They must have been running out of things to talk about because Slater mentioned the view from the balcony, how it was the best view he’d seen of the strip. Joe Buck says that there was no way he would go out on the balcony. And then he looks Muffin up and down, twice, and turns into one smooth talking sonofabitch. He says, “I don’t need to go out there, I got all the view I need right here.” Awww yeah. Joe Buck’s got game! Oh, keep in mind he was talking about his wife and kids like 15 minutes earlier.

After Joe Buck dropped his line on Muffin, he was hit with some shocked faces and awkward silence. As Slater and Preppie contemplated how they were going to get rid of Joe Buck, ol’ Joe dropped this one on them:

“I had a vasectomy on Friday and I’m wearing a jock right now.”

Slater and Preppie didn’t quite know how to respond to that one. But, Muffin, she’s a little quicker on her feet. She replies, “well, I guess the buck really does stop here.” Brilliant, not much more I can add to that one.

So, Slater is in a jam. He’s got this giant d-bag, B-list celebrity hitting on his girlfriend. He can’t really leave, because as I said at the beginning, our group was pretty entrenched at our tables. Obviously, when Slater’s in a tough spot, he looks to Preppie to get him out of it. Preppie’s quite the schemer, you know. Preppie decides that the only way to get rid of Joe Buck is to insult him. So, he comes at Joe with, “hey Joe, one a scale of one to…Gus Johnson, where would you rank yourself in the middle?”

Joe went apoplectic. Slater told him to calm down, and he actually whined “but he Gus Johnsoned me, he Gus Johnsoned me!” What a baby. I don’t know why he was so insulted. I mean, Gus is the guy who gave us this. Anyway, Joe was not amused. Falling in the middle of the scale of 1 to Gus Johnson was apparently just the thing to run Joe Buck off. We actually ended up running into him at the Playboy Club later that night, but our adventures with Joe Buck were effectively put to an end when he was Gus Johnsoned.

This story was talked about on a few blogs right after it happened. Preppie emailed the story to a certain guy who likes sports over at ESPN, and it made the rounds from there. I assure you that this story is 100% true. There were 19 of us in our group that night, and every one of us met Joe Buck, and had some sort of interaction with him. My interaction was limited, but it did lead to me saying something I never thought I’d ever hear come out of my mouth. I was talking to Screech, and I actually said, “hey, we’re gonna head down to the Playboy Club, is Joe Buck rolling with us?” Even at that moment, I appreciated how odd that sentence was. That’s when Screech filled me in on Joe Buck, the giant jock strap.

I don’t know if Joe Buck is always like that. Maybe he was on some medication because of his vasectomy, and that and the alcohol made him a little loopy. Maybe he’s normally a stand up guy. Or, maybe he’s always a whiny showoff d-bag whose fear that he’s peaked professionally causes him to hit on other dude’s girlfriends. Who knows? The important thing is that his douchbaggedness inspired the Scale of One to Gus Johnson. So, thank you Joe. Rise and Fire, buddy.

On a scale of one to Gus Johnson, I give this post a 7.
Read full post...