The Thirsty Scholars: The BCS is Nothing More than a Cartel: Now that the official Bowl Championship Series is under way and we all start bowling for the pursuit of the National Championship, I have to give one more yell to this Hancock concoction, that when we get right down to it, is nothing more than a cartel.
We've all talked about "why" the BCS stinks, stank and stunk, and our different solutions for a playoff. But something caught my eye this week. Connecticut is going to the Fiesta Bowl (which we know is a joke and another rabbit trail to go down) to play Oklahoma. The Fiesta Bowl (like MOST Bowls) gave Connecticut 17,000 tickets to sell. There you go Husky fans and now you owe us upward of 2 point something million. Connecticut has sold 4,000 of those 17,000 tickets, and I am sure there won't be that many more ducats flying out the ticket window. But they still have to pay the Fiesta Bowl for those tickets. So right off the bat they are in the hole for a couple million. And we aren't talking about the hotel rooms and other expenses incurred. Doesn't matter, Fiesta Man gets his pay.
Not all bowls do this, but the majority of them do. Is it any wonder each year we get a few more bowls? Now we have 35. 35...are you kidding me? I wanted to name my Bowlmania Team "We have to pick how many bowl games?" but I didn't have enough character spaces. Like there are 70 deserving teams to play in these games? 70 teams better than mediocre? 70 teams we care about watching, let alone know what the frig conference they even play in? And of course they don't want to end the bowl system, they're making too much money. Realistically, it's cheaper for Connecticut to stay home. No joke. But what are they or the athletic department going to do, "Uh, no I'm sorry, we don't want to go to the Fiesta Bowl, we'll just stay home this year in the tropical splendor of Storrs."
I'm sorry but that smacks to me of a cartel. The Bowl Cartel Series.
On the first day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Remeber Frank Solich? Once he coached Nebraska, now he's at Ohio. Remember when Ohio last won a bowl? Trick question, the Bobcats never have. But maybe they can versus Troy!
On the 4th day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Louisville versus SOUTHERN Mississippi in the Beef 'O' Brady's. That's a bowl not an entree.
On the 5th day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Boise State, still wishing that kick at Nevada had been good. Nothing against Utah, but this is what we get. And unless that BS kicker wins the game on a last second 50 yard kick for redemption, we won't even talk about it.
On the 7th day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Hawaii versus Tulsa, averaging 79.6 points between them. Classic football.
On the 9th day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Florida International in it's first bowl, that should be a big deal for the Golden Panthers, even if it is against Toledo.....in Detroit!
On the 10th day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Georgia Tech, Air Force and a lot of hand offs.
On the 11th day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Iowa, hoping to stop a free fall, vs. Missouri. The Hawkeyes lost their last 3 games, suspended their top running back and had a star wide out charged with operating a drug house. Happy Holidays!
On the 12th day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Oklahoma State and their 27 year old quarterback trying to give Arizona it's fifth loss.
On the 13th day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: A bowl game at Yankee Stadium, as Kansas State and Syracuse savor winter in the Bronx. Also Nebraska (which beat Washington 56-21 in September) - playing, uh Washington. The long awaited sequel I guess.
On the 14th day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Notre Dame versus Miami. Those wearing Catholics versus Convicts shirts from the 1980's should get in free.
On the 15th day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Jan. 1 (which used to be the BIG end all day of games) otherwise known as New Years/ Big 10 Day. Five lodge members from a conference that can't count versus three Southeastern conference teams.
On the 17th day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Virginia Tech's 11 game winning streak against Stanford's high SAT scores in the Orange.
On the 20th day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Miami (the one from Ohio) and it's 9-4 record (the one that was 1-11 last year) and it's coach - the one leaving for Pittsburgh, against Middle Tennessee.
On the 22nd day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Kentucky versus Pittsburgh in the BBVA Compass. Pitt was so eager to get there, they fired their coach.
On the 23rd day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Boston College vs. Nevada, and I have no idea why they are waiting so long to play the Fight Hunger Bowl which I assume is being sponsored by Children's Choice.
On the 24th day of Bowl-mas the BCS gives to me: Oh yay, the actual National Championship game. Auburn will be lead by the winner of the most awkward Heisman Trophy presentation ceremony in history. All Oregon wants is a game its new uni's can be proud of.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Why Cam Newton is bad for college football
Dear Auburn Fan,
This college football season has been one hell of a ride for you. Thrilling come from behind victories, huge wins over perennial rivals, a Heisman Trophy winner and a trip to the National Championship game. There's not much more that you can ask for as a fan.
But not everyone is reveling in your success. Cam Newton has polarized the college football community with his on-field performance and his off-field controversy, made all the more intriguing by the fact that the controversy was captained by his FATHER, and not Cam himself. (It should be noted however that he and his father are not estranged and this was not a rogue dad trying to trade in his son for cash. He did thank his father in his Heisman trophy acceptance speech, though his father was not in attendance - good PR move.)
I'm sure it's frustrating to have so many fans of the game and pundits attempting to tarnish your dream season by focusing on Cam Newton's off the field dealings. You could, of course, just ignore all of the noise and just be thrilled your playing in the BCS Championship. Or you can get up in arms and engage in the fray, rushing to the defense of your Heisman trophy winner. But before you decide the latter, there are a few things to consider.
This college football season has been one hell of a ride for you. Thrilling come from behind victories, huge wins over perennial rivals, a Heisman Trophy winner and a trip to the National Championship game. There's not much more that you can ask for as a fan.
But not everyone is reveling in your success. Cam Newton has polarized the college football community with his on-field performance and his off-field controversy, made all the more intriguing by the fact that the controversy was captained by his FATHER, and not Cam himself. (It should be noted however that he and his father are not estranged and this was not a rogue dad trying to trade in his son for cash. He did thank his father in his Heisman trophy acceptance speech, though his father was not in attendance - good PR move.)
I'm sure it's frustrating to have so many fans of the game and pundits attempting to tarnish your dream season by focusing on Cam Newton's off the field dealings. You could, of course, just ignore all of the noise and just be thrilled your playing in the BCS Championship. Or you can get up in arms and engage in the fray, rushing to the defense of your Heisman trophy winner. But before you decide the latter, there are a few things to consider.
- He's a mercenary. A hired gun. (And I'm only partially joking on the "hired" part). He's going to swoop in, spend a year at Auburn, and bolt for the NFL. He could have just as easily donned a Miss St uniform or an Alabama uniform, or stayed at Florida. But he chose you. Whether that choice was influenced by a financial transaction, we may never know. But if he wasn't wearing your uniform, you'd be crying foul.
- He doesn't meet the alleged Heisman criteria. The first line of the Heisman Trust Mission Statement outlines that the award "recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity". Cam Newton deserves it hands down if it wasn't for the last two words. That caveat should, in effect, disqualify him. Cam Newton, while dynamic on the field in his single season at Auburn, is a college football player who first was caught stealing a laptop, left Florida before they had the chance to kick him out on allegations of academic fraud, and was surrounded by controversy almost his entire Heisman season around allegations of bidding out his services to the highest bidder. Cam Newton himself continues to refer to his decision to attend Auburn as "a business decision". If the award is going to be strictly about performance, then just leave integrity out of the mission statement and don't pay lip service to it. But to put Newton ahead of Andrew Luck and Kellen Moore and even pretend that the award has the slightest thing to do with integrity is a farce.
- He's no Tim Tebow. As much as most of us were nauseated by all of the Tim Tebow montages throughout his career, it's hard to deny that this guy was special. He was everything you want in a college football player - charismatic, passionate, a fierce competitor. He played four years at the same school, and stayed for his senior year. He performed on and off the field. While Cam Newton was stealing laptops, Tim Tebow was probably mentoring disadvantaged orphans in the Philippines. I mean, c'mon - Tebow wore penned scripture verses in his eye black. So as much as Verne Lundquist insists that Cam Newton is the second coming of Tebow, Newton is no Tim Tebow.
 |
| This isn't the first time Cam Newton's integrity has been called into question |
I have no dog in this fight, and I have no preconceived bias against Auburn. Quite the contrary - I have always thought highly of Auburn folk. I attended a national intercollegiate conference in college with Auburn students and found them very pleasant. I even traded one of them for an Auburn hat. Prior to that, I had a poster of Bo Jackson on my wall growing up, and "Bo Knows Bo" was the first autobiography I ever read. I have no reason to dislike Auburn, even though I'm admittedly annoyed by the sports establishment's SEC bias despite the fact that they rarely are able to support their alleged dominance with wins against quality out of conference opponents. (While they have performed very well in the national championship game in recent years and the top of the conference is always very good, they regular season out of conference schedule and bowl top to bottom bowl performance do not warrant the continual reverence the conference receives.) My position, and that of many others across the country, has nothing to do with our opinion of Auburn at large.
I would also contend that Cam Newton has gotten off pretty easy in light of the allegations in comparison to Reggie Bush. I don't view their controversies as being all that different. But I do believe the fact that Newton's came to light while he is still playing has helped him tremendously. It was much easier to deny Reggie Bush's dominance once everyone was viewing it in retrospect years latter. At the time he was defending himself, he was a multi-millionaire NFL star running back who was much easier to villanize after he had already "got his". To the contrary, Cam Newton is still out there "fighting through the distraction" as a college kid, flashing his winning smile and playing the victim in this whole situation. The media is by and large treating him as a wounded puppy, and putting on the "hey, just leave the kid alone" face and giving him a substantial benefit of the doubt.
It's got to be tough as a Heisman voter though. What do you do? Judge the kid in the court of public opinion and deny him in spite of his recent dominance? This is a hard sell, though admittedly not that hard given the circumstances surrounding his departure from Florida. Do you give him a pass because it was supposedly just his dad going after the dollars and not him? And what about the fact that there really isn't any proof that anything happened at Auburn? I ask you though, how many of you would get your car or house appraised and begin shopping it on the market, only to then just give it away? Doesn't seem very plausible, does it.
The real problem here is not whether or not Cam Newton is guilty of the allegations. The real problem is the precedent that has been created in the sport. Future college athletes now have a blueprint for how to game the system - have a close family member shop your recruitment, but make sure to maintain plausible deniability throughout. And just don't be stupid like Reggie Bush and take your payment in hard, traceable assets like a house. But even if Newton gets caught down the line, there's a blueprint for that too. Chizik can bolt to the NFL right before the decision comes down. Kiffin will be out of a job by then, and he's already proven he's perfect SEC material.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
The Thirsty Scholars: World Cup 2022
The Thirsty Scholars: World Cup 2022: "It was announced today that Qatar will host the 2022 world cup. Not only will they be the first ever Middle Eastern nation to host the game..."
I'm in Joel. I want to take one of those water taxis like freakin Helen of Troy with several vuzuvelas trumpeting our arrival. The Olympics should take notice. I recently watched "Invictus" and was compelled how small countries can do something huge. Basically Invictus was South Africa's version of our "Miracle on Ice". Loved how Qatar designed these venues. The ribbon of friendship should be called the Easter Basket. Thank you Joel that was awesome and count me in for 2-0-2-2!
I'm in Joel. I want to take one of those water taxis like freakin Helen of Troy with several vuzuvelas trumpeting our arrival. The Olympics should take notice. I recently watched "Invictus" and was compelled how small countries can do something huge. Basically Invictus was South Africa's version of our "Miracle on Ice". Loved how Qatar designed these venues. The ribbon of friendship should be called the Easter Basket. Thank you Joel that was awesome and count me in for 2-0-2-2!
Thursday, December 2, 2010
World Cup 2022
It was announced today that Qatar will host the 2022 world cup. Not only will they be the first ever Middle Eastern nation to host the games, but the country is the smallest ever to play host. At only 1.7 million people, Qatar's population is less than that of Nebraska, and only 3 times that of the least populated US state , Wyoming. To make this even more shocking, Qatar's national team has never even qualified to play in the history of the World Cup. So, why you ask were they selected to host the 2022 games? See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcAi3GLQyOI
All I want to know is, who's coming with me?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
All I want to know is, who's coming with me?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Why Cleveland is Angry about Lebron
[Author's Note: With the highly anticipated Cavs-Heat game in Cleveland on Thursday, I thought it would be a good time to revisit my perspective on Cleveland's reaction to Lebron's departure. I originally posted this article on Facebook on July 9, 2010 - a few days after Lebron took his talents to South Beach... ]
Before anyone gets all high and mighty and starts talking about how Lebron was right to leave Cleveland and how Cleveland fans just need to get over it, they need to understand a few things about Clevelanders:
1) We know Cleveland isn't perfect.
It's not New York or Los Angeles, Chicago or San Francisco, DC or Atlanta. It has awful public schools, obscene unemployment, above average crime rates, a shoddy public transit system, a miserable tax code that drives (or keeps) businesses away, and shortsighted public planners who turned a sublime piece of waterfront property into a concrete mess. It's a city that, occasional sparks of life notwithstanding, has been on a gradual decline since the days of the great steel mills. None of this is news to us.
2) It's still our hometown.
We love Cleveland, problems and all, and we aren't afraid to say so. We appreciate it for the things it does have - a sense of history, great neighborhoods, strong ethnic communities, a world-class hospital, well-respected theater and orchestra organizations, surprisingly good dining, three major sports teams (we'll get to that later), a hub airport, exceptional regional parks, great colleges/universities, pleasant suburbs, and substantial smaller cities (Akron, Canton, Youngstown) that are close enough to add value as part of an extended family.
Most anyone who grew up in Northeast Ohio will be happy to tell you great things about it. And if you decide to belittle it, be prepared for an argument. Clevelanders wear loyalty to their town like a badge of honor. Yeah, the winters can suck, but we're tough enough to handle it. Yeah, the local economy is a mess, but we'll soldier on and find a way to make it. And if there was anything we could do as one person to lift the collective spirit or fortune of our hometown, you can take it to the bank that we'd do it in a heartbeat.
3) Sports teams are like family.
If you grew up in greater Cleveland - and for sports purposes, that's a swath of land roughly from the Pennsylvania border to Toledo and from Lake Erie to Columbus - you were born and raised to love your hometown teams religiously. Fall Sundays have always been about church and the Browns game, winter evenings usually mean Joe Tait on the radio, and each spring brings renewed enthusiasm even if the Indians are staring down the barrel of another 100-loss season.
As a Cleveland sports fan, you know you are taking a bet with long odds, but that's part of the charm. You know that the Browns last won a title in 1964, the Indians in 1948, the Cavaliers never. You know that our teams break our hearts repeatedly and in ever more excruciating ways - Herb Score, Rocky Colavito, Red Right 88, The Drive, The Fumble, Jordan over Ehlo, the MLB lockout, Jose-freaking-Mesa, Art $%^@# Modell - but you stick with them anyway. We have to; it's in our DNA. It's the right thing to do. These are our teams, they represent our city, and supporting them is the most public way we can show love for our hometown. Even those of us who move to other parts of the country still pull for our Brownies, our Tribe, and our Cavs as if we had never left. And we know that someday, when that bet finally pays off, when one of our teams finally gets over the hump and brings home a title, it is going to be one of the sweetest and most satisfying days that sport has ever produced.
...
Now take all of that, and script this story: A local kid, from 30 miles down the road in Akron, with the remarkable single-name potential of "Lebron", turns out to be the most sought-after high school basketball player in a generation, maybe ever. Comparisons to the legendary MJ abound, Sports Illustrated does a cover article on him, and his high school team moves its home games to the University of Akron to accommodate the crowds. The Cavs win the draft lottery (what, a Cleveland team gets lucky?) in the year that he enters the league. They draft him, and unbelievably, he actually lives up to the hype. He helps pull the Cavs from the dredges of the lottery to a playoff team, then to the NBA Finals, to the brink of that magical championship. He adopts the moniker "King James" and becomes a global icon. And all the while, he stays out of trouble and strongly advocates for his hometown, repeatedly proclaiming his loyalty to his roots and appreciation to to those who have supported him throughout his career.
As a fan, after decades of disappointment, this has all the makings of The Team That Finally Does It. The team's management does their part and surrounds Lebron with a solid supporting cast. The Cavs become the class of the NBA regular season but falter in the playoffs. The next season, management convinces a superstar in his twilight years to come in and play second fiddle to Lebron as a key addition, then makes a deadline move to acquire what looks to be the final piece of the puzzle. The Cavs again lead the NBA through the regular season and are the prohibitive favorites to win it all in the final year of Lebron's contract.
Then something amazing happens. The Cavs lose a playoff series to Rajon Rondo and the withering remains of the Boston Celtics not despite Lebron's efforts, but because of them. Lebron misses shots, makes poor decisions, plays sloppy defense, turns the ball over, and retreats from his typical leadership role in the most critical moments of the series. It is a shocking development that calls his very status as the "Chosen One" into question.
With that disappointment fresh on his mind, Lebron has a decision to make: to re-sign with the Cavs or to take his free agent opportunity to go elsewhere.
If he goes somewhere else, he'll probably win a few more MVP awards. And he could certainly win a title or two for an appreciative fan base. Chicago definitely knows how to celebrate NBA championships. New York has been aching for one for a while themselves. Hell, Dwayne Wade won one a few years back with Miami, and it sure could be fun to go try to win a couple more with him, right?
But if he stays with Cleveland and wins a championship here, redeeming himself and exorcising the demons of decades of Cleveland sports futility...the payout is nothing short of immortality. Streets and children would be named after him, statues would be raised - he might even get his own holiday. Even with his eleventy billion dollars, he'd never have to buy a thing in Northeast Ohio ever again. A buzz in Manhattan that only lasts until the Yankees hit the postseason? Another trophy next to Jordan's ridiculous collection? A title in a town that didn't even have a basketball team 20 years ago? How could any of that compare to being the hometown boy who finally brought a championship after more than 45 years to the most brutalized sports fans in the country - to Cleveland, of all places? You couldn't write a better story.
And here's the kicker: Lebron knows this. He is from here. He is one of us. The choice is obvious.
...
So when he turned his free agency into a narcissistic media spectacle, created an hour-long live prime time event to announce his decision, and then proceeded, on national television, to disavow an entire fan base - his own hometown - in the interest of going down south to play with his friends, it wasn't just another player leaving because Cleveland is a mid-market town that can't afford to keep him. It wasn't a freak accident or boneheaded front office move or a team that couldn't overcome the heroics of an opposing superstar. It was personal. It was a local guy turning his back on his own people, abandoning his own city. It was an unimaginable betrayal to a Clevelander.
Don't get me wrong, we've all been preparing ourselves for the worst. We are, after all, Cleveland fans - we're accustomed to heartbreak. But deep down a part of us still believed that it was going to work out. That he got it. That he would back up his words and prove that loyalty wasn't just a sound bite. That he understood the challenge and the opportunity before him. That he bought into the dream as much as we did. That he really was one of us. That he'd do the right thing.
He didn't. And that cuts to the very core of who we are. And that's why we are angry.
Before anyone gets all high and mighty and starts talking about how Lebron was right to leave Cleveland and how Cleveland fans just need to get over it, they need to understand a few things about Clevelanders:
1) We know Cleveland isn't perfect.
It's not New York or Los Angeles, Chicago or San Francisco, DC or Atlanta. It has awful public schools, obscene unemployment, above average crime rates, a shoddy public transit system, a miserable tax code that drives (or keeps) businesses away, and shortsighted public planners who turned a sublime piece of waterfront property into a concrete mess. It's a city that, occasional sparks of life notwithstanding, has been on a gradual decline since the days of the great steel mills. None of this is news to us.
2) It's still our hometown.
We love Cleveland, problems and all, and we aren't afraid to say so. We appreciate it for the things it does have - a sense of history, great neighborhoods, strong ethnic communities, a world-class hospital, well-respected theater and orchestra organizations, surprisingly good dining, three major sports teams (we'll get to that later), a hub airport, exceptional regional parks, great colleges/universities, pleasant suburbs, and substantial smaller cities (Akron, Canton, Youngstown) that are close enough to add value as part of an extended family.
Most anyone who grew up in Northeast Ohio will be happy to tell you great things about it. And if you decide to belittle it, be prepared for an argument. Clevelanders wear loyalty to their town like a badge of honor. Yeah, the winters can suck, but we're tough enough to handle it. Yeah, the local economy is a mess, but we'll soldier on and find a way to make it. And if there was anything we could do as one person to lift the collective spirit or fortune of our hometown, you can take it to the bank that we'd do it in a heartbeat.
3) Sports teams are like family.
If you grew up in greater Cleveland - and for sports purposes, that's a swath of land roughly from the Pennsylvania border to Toledo and from Lake Erie to Columbus - you were born and raised to love your hometown teams religiously. Fall Sundays have always been about church and the Browns game, winter evenings usually mean Joe Tait on the radio, and each spring brings renewed enthusiasm even if the Indians are staring down the barrel of another 100-loss season.
As a Cleveland sports fan, you know you are taking a bet with long odds, but that's part of the charm. You know that the Browns last won a title in 1964, the Indians in 1948, the Cavaliers never. You know that our teams break our hearts repeatedly and in ever more excruciating ways - Herb Score, Rocky Colavito, Red Right 88, The Drive, The Fumble, Jordan over Ehlo, the MLB lockout, Jose-freaking-Mesa, Art $%^@# Modell - but you stick with them anyway. We have to; it's in our DNA. It's the right thing to do. These are our teams, they represent our city, and supporting them is the most public way we can show love for our hometown. Even those of us who move to other parts of the country still pull for our Brownies, our Tribe, and our Cavs as if we had never left. And we know that someday, when that bet finally pays off, when one of our teams finally gets over the hump and brings home a title, it is going to be one of the sweetest and most satisfying days that sport has ever produced.
...
Now take all of that, and script this story: A local kid, from 30 miles down the road in Akron, with the remarkable single-name potential of "Lebron", turns out to be the most sought-after high school basketball player in a generation, maybe ever. Comparisons to the legendary MJ abound, Sports Illustrated does a cover article on him, and his high school team moves its home games to the University of Akron to accommodate the crowds. The Cavs win the draft lottery (what, a Cleveland team gets lucky?) in the year that he enters the league. They draft him, and unbelievably, he actually lives up to the hype. He helps pull the Cavs from the dredges of the lottery to a playoff team, then to the NBA Finals, to the brink of that magical championship. He adopts the moniker "King James" and becomes a global icon. And all the while, he stays out of trouble and strongly advocates for his hometown, repeatedly proclaiming his loyalty to his roots and appreciation to to those who have supported him throughout his career.
As a fan, after decades of disappointment, this has all the makings of The Team That Finally Does It. The team's management does their part and surrounds Lebron with a solid supporting cast. The Cavs become the class of the NBA regular season but falter in the playoffs. The next season, management convinces a superstar in his twilight years to come in and play second fiddle to Lebron as a key addition, then makes a deadline move to acquire what looks to be the final piece of the puzzle. The Cavs again lead the NBA through the regular season and are the prohibitive favorites to win it all in the final year of Lebron's contract.
Then something amazing happens. The Cavs lose a playoff series to Rajon Rondo and the withering remains of the Boston Celtics not despite Lebron's efforts, but because of them. Lebron misses shots, makes poor decisions, plays sloppy defense, turns the ball over, and retreats from his typical leadership role in the most critical moments of the series. It is a shocking development that calls his very status as the "Chosen One" into question.
With that disappointment fresh on his mind, Lebron has a decision to make: to re-sign with the Cavs or to take his free agent opportunity to go elsewhere.
If he goes somewhere else, he'll probably win a few more MVP awards. And he could certainly win a title or two for an appreciative fan base. Chicago definitely knows how to celebrate NBA championships. New York has been aching for one for a while themselves. Hell, Dwayne Wade won one a few years back with Miami, and it sure could be fun to go try to win a couple more with him, right?
But if he stays with Cleveland and wins a championship here, redeeming himself and exorcising the demons of decades of Cleveland sports futility...the payout is nothing short of immortality. Streets and children would be named after him, statues would be raised - he might even get his own holiday. Even with his eleventy billion dollars, he'd never have to buy a thing in Northeast Ohio ever again. A buzz in Manhattan that only lasts until the Yankees hit the postseason? Another trophy next to Jordan's ridiculous collection? A title in a town that didn't even have a basketball team 20 years ago? How could any of that compare to being the hometown boy who finally brought a championship after more than 45 years to the most brutalized sports fans in the country - to Cleveland, of all places? You couldn't write a better story.
And here's the kicker: Lebron knows this. He is from here. He is one of us. The choice is obvious.
...
So when he turned his free agency into a narcissistic media spectacle, created an hour-long live prime time event to announce his decision, and then proceeded, on national television, to disavow an entire fan base - his own hometown - in the interest of going down south to play with his friends, it wasn't just another player leaving because Cleveland is a mid-market town that can't afford to keep him. It wasn't a freak accident or boneheaded front office move or a team that couldn't overcome the heroics of an opposing superstar. It was personal. It was a local guy turning his back on his own people, abandoning his own city. It was an unimaginable betrayal to a Clevelander.
Don't get me wrong, we've all been preparing ourselves for the worst. We are, after all, Cleveland fans - we're accustomed to heartbreak. But deep down a part of us still believed that it was going to work out. That he got it. That he would back up his words and prove that loyalty wasn't just a sound bite. That he understood the challenge and the opportunity before him. That he bought into the dream as much as we did. That he really was one of us. That he'd do the right thing.
He didn't. And that cuts to the very core of who we are. And that's why we are angry.
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Thirsty Scholars: Teams that are good enough vs. teams that deserve ...
I am hoping and praying for total chaos and bedlam to ensue to see the BCS go down in flames. I hope Auburn loses to Alabama and/or South Carolina; I too think Oregon right now is probably the best team in the country, but I'd like to see them lose to create further chaos and bedlam. (I actually live in Bedlam and vacation in Chaos, which explains my proclivity to these terms.)
All the frickin' BCS gives us is a NC game of polling a 1 and 2 team. They give us meaningless bowls. Do you think anybody cares who plays in what used to be the Peach Bowl, now the Chic Filet Bowl? The Sun Bowl? Nobody cares. Bowl games were supposed to be special. They aren't. They have eliminated that aspect. And that mediocre teams with 6 wins can go helps in that rendering.
Everything is cyclical, and right now the Big East is pathetic and ACC's not far behind. They should have some stipulation that an AQ from a conference must at least be in the top 10 or top 8. That Connecticut or Pittsburg gets in over Alabama, TCU, Stanford and a host of others is laughable. And that's all the BCS has become is a system they keep having to tweak. Well here's a clue fella's, you don't have to tweak a playoff.
Then the bowls leading into the NC game would not be meaningless. They would all mean something as some team is advancing. So for the sake of dissolutionment I am praying for chaos, bedlam, and possibly their cousin mayhem to show up at the BCS party.
All the frickin' BCS gives us is a NC game of polling a 1 and 2 team. They give us meaningless bowls. Do you think anybody cares who plays in what used to be the Peach Bowl, now the Chic Filet Bowl? The Sun Bowl? Nobody cares. Bowl games were supposed to be special. They aren't. They have eliminated that aspect. And that mediocre teams with 6 wins can go helps in that rendering.
Everything is cyclical, and right now the Big East is pathetic and ACC's not far behind. They should have some stipulation that an AQ from a conference must at least be in the top 10 or top 8. That Connecticut or Pittsburg gets in over Alabama, TCU, Stanford and a host of others is laughable. And that's all the BCS has become is a system they keep having to tweak. Well here's a clue fella's, you don't have to tweak a playoff.
Then the bowls leading into the NC game would not be meaningless. They would all mean something as some team is advancing. So for the sake of dissolutionment I am praying for chaos, bedlam, and possibly their cousin mayhem to show up at the BCS party.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Teams that are good enough vs. teams that deserve to go...
It seems that the elections killed this blog.... back to football... and back to Boise State vs. the world!
I was listening to ESPN radio on the way to work and a guy framed the argument perfectly. Basically, BSU is a team that looks like it is good enough to play for a national championship. They've absolutely destroyed everybody in the WAC and it is clear that they are a team that looks as though they could beat anybody on a neutral field in a one-for-all-the-marbles scenario if they play well. On the other hand, you have Auburn... they are a team that has played and beaten the #5 ranked schedule in the country (and that includes their win against 1-AA Chatanooga last week). Auburn has a couple of convincing wins and a bunch of relatively close wins, but they have won every game against a schedule that is just about as tough as it comes. So who should play for it all? The team that is good enough? The team that deserves to go? Of course, there's also TCU that put a serious beat-down on ND's next victim (please don't let my homerism for the Irish ruin my credibility... I'm aware that we just lost to Navy and Tulsa, and conventional wisdom has us losing badly this weekend... I just don't want my call of 5-7 after the Stanford game to come back to haunt me). Anyways, TCU is kind of a hybrid of Auburn and BSU... They've played a better schedule than BSU (but still not as tough of a slate as Auburn), and they've blown out just about everybody (but not as convincingly as BSU). This season continues to scream for a playoff. I've always tried to look at this situation as if ND were in the positions of these teams. If ND ran through a schedule as poor as BSU's, and we were left out of the NC game in favor of a team that played the 5th toughest schedule in the country and also went undefeated, I would undoubtedly be pissed, but I would probably be able to swallow that jagged little pill since the other team played a schedule that was so much tougher than ours. Conversely, If ND went undefeated against the #5 schedule in the country and got left out in favor of a team that played a bunch of complete patsies, I would NEVER get over it. It would be similar to '93 FSU getting the national championship over ND... the same ND that BEAT THEIR ASSES by 2 scores! The same ND that missed out on a national championship when Miami beat us in '89 and lost the following week but the voters said that the head-to-head matchup was the tipping point... God damnit... that was bullshit, but I digress... where was I... Oh, if ND were left out after defeating the #5 schedule in the country. This is why I would want to see Auburn in the game (assuming they are undefeated at the end of the year, and Cam Newton isn't found guilty of recruiting infractions... can anybody defend the SEC against my allegation that it is the dirtiest/scummiest conference in college football?). Oregon looks like the best team this year, the other team for the big game is completely up in the air...
Another thing that came up was that BSU (or some other VERY deservant team) could be left out of a BCS bowl due to the obligation that the BCS must include the Big East and ACC champs. Just think... 4 of the 6 AQ conferences stand to send 2 teams: The big 10 (from the pool of OSU/Wisc/Iowa/MSU). The Pac 10 (Oregon/Stanford). The big 12 (Nebraska, OK State). The SEC (Auburn, LSU, Alabama). The BCS has 4 bowls and the NC game. Let's assume the NC game is Oregon/Auburn. That leaves 8 slots that must be filled. The SEC and Pac 10 champs will be represented in the NC game. Now we have 4 AQ teams (including two awful teams from the Big East/ACC) and 4 at large bids. Let's say that two of those go to BSU and TCU... this could leave a real possibility that a team like Stanford (who looks GREAT this year) could go to the Alamo bowl... another possibility would be that BSU gets left out in favor of teams from the AQ conferences due to monetary reasons... either way, this STINKS! I actually hope that the season turns out this way so that the BCS will have even more reason to go down in flames.
I was listening to ESPN radio on the way to work and a guy framed the argument perfectly. Basically, BSU is a team that looks like it is good enough to play for a national championship. They've absolutely destroyed everybody in the WAC and it is clear that they are a team that looks as though they could beat anybody on a neutral field in a one-for-all-the-marbles scenario if they play well. On the other hand, you have Auburn... they are a team that has played and beaten the #5 ranked schedule in the country (and that includes their win against 1-AA Chatanooga last week). Auburn has a couple of convincing wins and a bunch of relatively close wins, but they have won every game against a schedule that is just about as tough as it comes. So who should play for it all? The team that is good enough? The team that deserves to go? Of course, there's also TCU that put a serious beat-down on ND's next victim (please don't let my homerism for the Irish ruin my credibility... I'm aware that we just lost to Navy and Tulsa, and conventional wisdom has us losing badly this weekend... I just don't want my call of 5-7 after the Stanford game to come back to haunt me). Anyways, TCU is kind of a hybrid of Auburn and BSU... They've played a better schedule than BSU (but still not as tough of a slate as Auburn), and they've blown out just about everybody (but not as convincingly as BSU). This season continues to scream for a playoff. I've always tried to look at this situation as if ND were in the positions of these teams. If ND ran through a schedule as poor as BSU's, and we were left out of the NC game in favor of a team that played the 5th toughest schedule in the country and also went undefeated, I would undoubtedly be pissed, but I would probably be able to swallow that jagged little pill since the other team played a schedule that was so much tougher than ours. Conversely, If ND went undefeated against the #5 schedule in the country and got left out in favor of a team that played a bunch of complete patsies, I would NEVER get over it. It would be similar to '93 FSU getting the national championship over ND... the same ND that BEAT THEIR ASSES by 2 scores! The same ND that missed out on a national championship when Miami beat us in '89 and lost the following week but the voters said that the head-to-head matchup was the tipping point... God damnit... that was bullshit, but I digress... where was I... Oh, if ND were left out after defeating the #5 schedule in the country. This is why I would want to see Auburn in the game (assuming they are undefeated at the end of the year, and Cam Newton isn't found guilty of recruiting infractions... can anybody defend the SEC against my allegation that it is the dirtiest/scummiest conference in college football?). Oregon looks like the best team this year, the other team for the big game is completely up in the air...
Another thing that came up was that BSU (or some other VERY deservant team) could be left out of a BCS bowl due to the obligation that the BCS must include the Big East and ACC champs. Just think... 4 of the 6 AQ conferences stand to send 2 teams: The big 10 (from the pool of OSU/Wisc/Iowa/MSU). The Pac 10 (Oregon/Stanford). The big 12 (Nebraska, OK State). The SEC (Auburn, LSU, Alabama). The BCS has 4 bowls and the NC game. Let's assume the NC game is Oregon/Auburn. That leaves 8 slots that must be filled. The SEC and Pac 10 champs will be represented in the NC game. Now we have 4 AQ teams (including two awful teams from the Big East/ACC) and 4 at large bids. Let's say that two of those go to BSU and TCU... this could leave a real possibility that a team like Stanford (who looks GREAT this year) could go to the Alamo bowl... another possibility would be that BSU gets left out in favor of teams from the AQ conferences due to monetary reasons... either way, this STINKS! I actually hope that the season turns out this way so that the BCS will have even more reason to go down in flames.
Monday, November 1, 2010
The Thirsty Scholars: The Next Governator: Why not a CEO?
The Thirsty Scholars: The Next Governator: Why not a CEO?: "Zach and Oracle... I TOTALLY agree with you. Having said that, where was this logic in the last presidential election? Mit Romney was very..."
Matt, the reason Mitt didn't get in is the same reason Ross Perot didn't get in, (although Perot's VP choice "The Admiral" was a cartoon character), he was 1, O-N-E business man. A singular business guy, not a private enterprise. So he's still running the government WITH a bunch of politicians. I am talking about an entire company, organization ergo Disney running the government. If we just put in one business man, then hell, why don't we just elect the econ prof from Harvard every 4 years and be done with it. That won't work. These business guys became politicians too. We need a COMPANY with several men like Warren Buffett, fixing the country/economy. But here in lies the rub my fledgling scholars, these smart men a la Mr. Buffett, are too smart for the dirty business of politics.
Matt, the reason Mitt didn't get in is the same reason Ross Perot didn't get in, (although Perot's VP choice "The Admiral" was a cartoon character), he was 1, O-N-E business man. A singular business guy, not a private enterprise. So he's still running the government WITH a bunch of politicians. I am talking about an entire company, organization ergo Disney running the government. If we just put in one business man, then hell, why don't we just elect the econ prof from Harvard every 4 years and be done with it. That won't work. These business guys became politicians too. We need a COMPANY with several men like Warren Buffett, fixing the country/economy. But here in lies the rub my fledgling scholars, these smart men a la Mr. Buffett, are too smart for the dirty business of politics.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Next Governator: Why not a CEO?
Zach and Oracle... I TOTALLY agree with you. Having said that, where was this logic in the last presidential election? Mit Romney was very successful in both the public and private sectors? I would have thought that a guy that was a success as Governor of Massachusetts and an incredibly successful buisnessman would be a shoe-in for the presidency when our country faced an economic crisis. Why then, are we dealing with a man that took that crisis and made it worse? A man with no executive experience whatsoever... a man who never ran anything well except for a campaign? The question has been on my mind for a long time. I'm glad that this line of thinking is starting to catch on! I could not be sicker of campaign ads that say that people are unqualified for public office because they don't have political experience when we have people that have no actual LEADERSHIP experience running the damn country! I think a big part of the problem is that we have more people receiving government aid than we have EVER had... these people don't want to vote someone in that might take a hard look at all of the free money we're giving out in order to balance the budget... they will continue to live under the soft tyranny that our politicians have set up for them in order to get reelected.
The Thirsty Scholars: The Next Governator: Why Not A CEO?
The Thirsty Scholars: The Next Governator: Why Not A CEO?: "Fellow scholars, as much as I love the pursuit of the national championship, it's high time we start a conversation on the 'life and liberty..."
My fellow scholar and college pick 'em podium chaser, I could not agree with you more. I have said for years, YEARS since I was in college, that the government should be run by a private enterprise. I am serious. We have our laws and constitution in place that must be followed, so why can't a private enterprise be contracted to run what has turned into a ginormous fiscal entity? I believe, and I am not trying to be funny for once, that someone like Disney should be running our government. They are clean, dependable and on time. I'd vote for that in a minute.
My fellow scholar and college pick 'em podium chaser, I could not agree with you more. I have said for years, YEARS since I was in college, that the government should be run by a private enterprise. I am serious. We have our laws and constitution in place that must be followed, so why can't a private enterprise be contracted to run what has turned into a ginormous fiscal entity? I believe, and I am not trying to be funny for once, that someone like Disney should be running our government. They are clean, dependable and on time. I'd vote for that in a minute.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The Next Governator: Why Not A CEO?
Fellow scholars, as much as I love the pursuit of the national championship, it's high time we start a conversation on the "life and liberty" portion of our tagline.
As I sat (and sat...and sat...) in the jury room today, pondering the inefficiencies of public service, I was reminded that with November comes another election. And there's one in particular that perfectly illustrates what I believe to be the fundamental problem of our political system: Whitman v. Brown in the California gubernatorial race.
Now, I realize some of you don't live in California or give two shakes about left-coast politics, but I assure you that my thesis is universal. I'm not going to go into the distasteful and embarrassing grade-school antics of each side's television ads. I'm not even going to talk about specific issues or platforms. Truth be told, I haven't followed that much of the campaign because I don't think the choice should be that difficult.
Consider: Fiscally, California has been operating like a reckless trust fund brat on a bender for as long as I've lived here (5+ years), and no doubt longer than that. ("Whatever, brah...my old man will take care of it.") The state is nearly $80 billion dollars in debt, with another $43 billion approved but not yet issued. And no one in Sacramento seems to possess even a basic understanding of cash flow, requiring 100 days beyond their deadline to pass a budget that is still $19 billion in the red. Clearly, this is a path that is unsustainable.
Also consider: The two candidates for the highest office in the state are 1) a lifelong politician and former holder of said office, and 2) a retired CEO with no political ties who ran one of the most successful companies in Silicon Valley for ten years.
Think about that for a moment...and then answer me this: Why is this race even close? Isn't a successful business leader exactly the kind of person we should want in public office? Shouldn't we be begging the ridiculously smart people of Silicon Valley to run our public policy instead of private enterprises? Wouldn't our government function better if it were being run by people whose careers were built on sink-or-swim meritocracy instead of political maneuvering?
Back in 2007-2008, rumors started flying that Ms. Whitman was considering a run at governor after she completed her resignation from eBay. (Full disclosure: I was a consultant at eBay at the time, though I never did get the chance to meet Meg.) My immediate thought was, "Wow, that's great that she is interested in public service. Why wouldn't you vote for her?"
But on the eve of the election, I am baffled to be asking that same question non-rhetorically. Here is a candidate who has an MBA from Harvard, who has held leadership positions at an impressive list of companies (Bain, Disney, FTD, Hasbro), and who grew the employee base 500x and revenue 2000x in ten years at eBay. She's the type of person any company would want on their board. So why, fellow scholars - why wouldn't we want her as our governor?
As I sat (and sat...and sat...) in the jury room today, pondering the inefficiencies of public service, I was reminded that with November comes another election. And there's one in particular that perfectly illustrates what I believe to be the fundamental problem of our political system: Whitman v. Brown in the California gubernatorial race.
Now, I realize some of you don't live in California or give two shakes about left-coast politics, but I assure you that my thesis is universal. I'm not going to go into the distasteful and embarrassing grade-school antics of each side's television ads. I'm not even going to talk about specific issues or platforms. Truth be told, I haven't followed that much of the campaign because I don't think the choice should be that difficult.
Consider: Fiscally, California has been operating like a reckless trust fund brat on a bender for as long as I've lived here (5+ years), and no doubt longer than that. ("Whatever, brah...my old man will take care of it.") The state is nearly $80 billion dollars in debt, with another $43 billion approved but not yet issued. And no one in Sacramento seems to possess even a basic understanding of cash flow, requiring 100 days beyond their deadline to pass a budget that is still $19 billion in the red. Clearly, this is a path that is unsustainable.
Also consider: The two candidates for the highest office in the state are 1) a lifelong politician and former holder of said office, and 2) a retired CEO with no political ties who ran one of the most successful companies in Silicon Valley for ten years.
Think about that for a moment...and then answer me this: Why is this race even close? Isn't a successful business leader exactly the kind of person we should want in public office? Shouldn't we be begging the ridiculously smart people of Silicon Valley to run our public policy instead of private enterprises? Wouldn't our government function better if it were being run by people whose careers were built on sink-or-swim meritocracy instead of political maneuvering?
Back in 2007-2008, rumors started flying that Ms. Whitman was considering a run at governor after she completed her resignation from eBay. (Full disclosure: I was a consultant at eBay at the time, though I never did get the chance to meet Meg.) My immediate thought was, "Wow, that's great that she is interested in public service. Why wouldn't you vote for her?"
But on the eve of the election, I am baffled to be asking that same question non-rhetorically. Here is a candidate who has an MBA from Harvard, who has held leadership positions at an impressive list of companies (Bain, Disney, FTD, Hasbro), and who grew the employee base 500x and revenue 2000x in ten years at eBay. She's the type of person any company would want on their board. So why, fellow scholars - why wouldn't we want her as our governor?
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
BSU, Strength of Schedule, Margin of Victory, and Mutual Exclusivity... Spare me!
JAngry, you are the BIGGEST BSU apologist I've ever encountered, and to say that you are approaching this subject from an objective point of view is laughable. You also misrepresent my take on the whole matter... I won't be devastated or outraged if BSU goes and plays for a national championship. Good for them... If they win it... good for them. I will, however, wonder if one of the other top teams this year may also deserve a shot since they played a more difficult schedule from top to bottom. It's about the fact that there is NO fair way to determine what the top 2 teams are right now. You could put any 2 of the top 5 teams in the BCS rankings in the NC game, and nobody could justify leaving the other three out. Now prepare for my longwinded response to your claims. (Warning to those that have a life... you may just want to skip the rest and assume that I am right on these matters... just kidding, reading is fun-damental, so get to it).
Let's talk about BSU's schedule. 10 games on that schedule would be games that I'd expect ND (yes, the one that just got its ass handed to it by Navy) to dominate. Maybe not by 35 points a game (like we did against Nevada last year... in a season that featured yet another loss to Navy, or Hawaii in the year before after we lost to a powerhouse Syracuse team at home), but I would expect 2 TD wins in 10 games on that schedule. I don't blame BSU for being in a shitty conference, but it is a fact that they are in a shitty conference. I know it's not for lack of trying to join a better conference (going to the MWC is a step up for them... except that the PAC-10 took Utah away), but they are in a shitty conference and you can't just say 'they're trying to schedule tough games' and make that go away. Games against most of the teams in the WAC and teams like Wyoming and Toledo are scheduled as easy wins on most teams' schedules. The SEC may be overrated, but there's no denying that they have some of the most talented teams in the country and that they have a few legitimately good teams every year. Even Tennessee and Georgia are loaded with good players, they are not playing at a high level, but the average/bad teams in the SEC schedule teams like Wyoming/Idaho and most WAC teams in order to get a few easy wins after getting handled by the better teams in their conference. Look at Mississippi, by all accounts they are a bad SEC team... one of the worst, in fact. They lost to a 1-AA opponent to start the year. They scheduled Fresno State between Vandy and Kentucky to ease their transition into the tougher part of their conference schedule. A BAD SEC team took Fresno to the woodshed and beat them 55-38 (I think a 17 point win is pretty convincing, and for having a shitty SEC offense, 55 points is damn impressive). Look at Colorado (sorry Oracle, but they're not good this year... if it makes you feel any better, ND isn't good this year either)... They've lost all three of their Big 12 matchups but they took Hawaii (4-0 in the mighty WAC) and absolutely crushed them to the tune of 31-13. When you have a conference full of teams that average/bad teams crush on a fairly consistent basis, you open yourself up to speculation that you MAY not be as dominant as you think. My point about Texas being a "very good team" is based on their talent... they are loaded with talent, and that makes them dangerous. ND is loaded with talent too... this is why, when they play a decent game, they can take Michigan State to the brink even though they still have a long way to go in terms of being consistent. Texas is one of those teams this year that can beat almost anybody on a good day, but they have sucked in a couple of games as well. If you want, I can use your argument about VaTech to explain away Texas' woes... maybe they were on an emotional letdown after crushing Nebraska and they overlooked Iowa State... at least Iowa State wasn't a 4-3 team from 1-AA. Name one WAC team, aside from BSU, that has the talent to beat just about anybody? This is what makes the stronger conferences dangerous... there is more talent. Even the middle of the road teams in the Big 10/Pac 10/SEC can rise up and smoke someone when they put it together. Now, I agree that the SEC isn't as mighty as the 'experts' say, but it is hard to deny that they aren't one of the strongest conferences in the country from top to bottom. They have a very good record in bowl games, and they're undefeated in national championship games... I think they've earned some of their hype... I just don't think that they have 4-5 top-ten caliber teams every year like the damn preseason pollsters like to think. I do, however, think that they have 4-5 top 25 caliber teams pretty much every year. At this point... 7 games into the year, there are 6 SEC teams in the top 25... that's a conference FULL of land-mines. On the other hand, 66% of BSU's schedule is horseshit... and 50% of their out-of-conference schedule is horseshit as well. Having the 16.7% of their schedule that comes against one team that is currently ranked #23 and another that is unranked but pretty good, as a reason to walk into the national championship game is somewhat of a joke in my book. How can you say that I lack objectivity with regard to Boise State when I've continually praised them as a DAMN good football team (with a SHITTY schedule), and you say that you would deny Auburn outright for 'not being a complete team'? ND certainly didn't look like a complete team over the past couple of years (especially on Defense), but they looked unstoppable and impenetrable against Nevada last year (35-0) and Hawaii in the Hawaii Bowl (49-14). It is results like these that make me wonder exactly how impressive Boise really is... Decidedly average ND teams looked AWESOME against two of the BEST teams in the WAC. I've already mentioned how Colorado destroyed Hawaii (4-0 in the WAC) this year too. This is why I think there's an argument for teams like Auburn (who has only had 2 games against teams that would be comparable in shittiness to the typical WAC opponents that BSU has been playing) to be ahead of them. Auburn has an amazing athlete at QB and they've beaten 4 teams that are CURRENTLY ranked. Oregon has beaten 1 team that is currently ranked and no other team has a winning record... they are getting the same treatment as BSU in the computers right now... it's not that BSU is not in a BCS conference... it's that their schedule SUCKS! Oregon's schedule has SUCKED so far... at least they have a couple of tough games coming up which will allow them to basically control their own destiny. BSU will have to hope that other teams lose. I'll tell you this, there are two reasons that I don't think BSU will lose before the bowl game... one is that they are very good... the other is that their opponents all suck. All of the other undefeated teams still have major tests left on their respective schedules... if they win out, they will make a better case for themselves. It sucks for BSU, but it is what it is... it is also WHY WE NEED A DAMN PLAYOFF!
Here's another point to ponder when you look at BSU's schedule versus anyone's schedule in the SEC/Big10/Pac10/Big12.... When Alabama played San Jose State, it was their first game of the year before what was supposed to be a big matchup with Penn State (#18 at the time). They obviously scheduled it as a tune-up game... basically a practice for them in order to work out the kinks before the Penn State game and before they get into the SEC schedule. Typically, in a game like that, Alabama (or any other team that basically schedules a soft opponent before a tougher opponent) wants to win the game convincingly without showing too much for their future opponents to get out of the game tape, and without getting anyone hurt. They really want their starters to come in, put the game away early, and make way for the back-ups to get some meaningful reps. They play with a bare-bones game plan as well. They are acutely aware that, while they want to look impressive, they want to do it with as little exertion as possible because they KNOW that they will have tougher games coming up. Now let's look at Boise State... because they didn't dominate Virginia Tech or Oregon State, and because VaTech hurt their credibility by losing to a 1-AA team, they KNOW that they have to absolutely skull-fuck every remaining opponent on their schedule. They will leave their starters in, run all of their gadget plays, and do whatever it takes to make their win over a truly shitty opponent look impressive. Maybe that makes the 3 point difference... Alabama doesn't give a shit about allowing a couple of points in an easy win, but Boise KNOWS that they need to run it up! Because of their TERRIBLE schedule, they can't really do much more to impress anybody and sway the voters... they need these other teams to lose a game. I think I actually made a case in my post that TCU, with a win over Utah, would probably leapfrog BSU (and rightly so in my estimation) in the BCS standings. TCU isn't an AQ team, so why do you think I'm an apologist for AQ teams? I couldn't care less about what conference you come from, but if you beat a schedule that features more good and talented teams, an undefeated run is more impressive because it is SO difficult to beat good teams every week. Right now, BSU has a schedule that includes ten teams that they are expected to win, and win easily. None of the other teams that are currently undefeated have a schedule like that. Auburn may not be crushing their schedule, but it has featured a lot of tough games. It makes more of an impression to me when a team can get through a schedule filled with land-mines than it does for BSU to walk through theirs. If BSU traded remaining schedules with ANY of the other undefeated teams, they would control their own destiny... unfortunately, they have NO good teams left.
I give BSU credit for trying to schedule a tough OOC slate, and they got credit for the wins, but VaTech losing to a 1-AA team (regardless of their emotional state) makes a strong case that VaTech was never a top-ten caliber team. When I say that they might beat BSU if they played again, it doesn't mean that I think they're a better team than BSU... Here is how I meant it: If VaTech played as well against BSU (on week 1) as they are playing right now, they probably would have been able to pull off the win. I don't know why that's far fetched... BSU needed a heroic come-from-behind drive after a VaTech clock management gaffe to win the game by 3. By all accounts it was ANYBODY's game! Boise may have improved as much, or more, than Va Tech, but it's hard to tell because they are playing such bad opponents... you can't deny that VaTech is playing better after losing to 1-AA JMU... they've obviously righted the ship, but they still haven't beaten anything other than mediocre competition in a less-than-stellar ACC conference. You give NO credit to MSU for beating Wisconsin, you give NO credit for Missouri beating Oklahoma. I think Wisconsin and Oklahoma are both better than VaTech. If Boise State had ANY more good teams on their schedule, they wouldn't have to hope that VaTech and OSU turn out to actually be good...
Was there ANY outrage when Cincinnati (an undefeated team from an AQ conference that beat Oregon State (badly), Illinois and Fresno State out of conference, got left out last year? There may have been outrage from a couple of Cincy fans, but just about everybody agreed that the Big East was pretty weak and that Cincy was not a real NC contender. There was really no shock when Florida decimated them in the bowl game either... and I don't care if Kelly had not just left the team... Cincy would have gotten rolled by that Florida team either way. The AQ status didn't help Cincy... actually, the fact that the Big East was weak last year HURT Cincy... just like it HURTS BSU! Why is that so hard to understand? If the SEC laid an egg for a year or two, they would probably be left out of the game... oh wait, that happened to Auburn when the computers decided that the Big 12 and Pac 10 had more worthy teams... BSU isn't the only victim of BCS bias, so quit saying that this is a unique situation... it isn't. If your conference sucks, you will probably need a little help to get into our current 2-team playoff... even if you're undefeated.
You say that all of the games in the SEC are (allegedly) difficult? Fair enough, but it is ridiculous to compare an SEC slate with a WAC slate... If you're in a conference full of good teams, that shouldn't hurt you. It seems that you would rather that it does. Let BSU in... forgive them for having such an easy road to the championship game... They have won so many games in a row that they deserve a shot or else it's unfair! I'd say it's unfair to leave a team out if they've managed to remain undefeated against a slate of good opponents with a couple of great ones sprinkled in. BSU had 4 opportunities to schedule ranked teams since their conference had NONE... they got 2 on their schedule (1 remains ranked)... if they wanted to make a better statement, they should have put 4 respectable teams (instead of Wyoming and Toledo, add Northwestern and Baylor) on. If you are in the Big 10 (4 ranked teams), Pac 10 (3 ranked teams), SEC (6 ranked teams), or Big 12 (5 ranked teams), you have a tough schedule to begin with... While I still think you should schedule at least one good team OOC, it is understandable if you want to schedule a WAC team in order to get a breather.
Finally, I DO NOT think that, if BSU gets left out, 'the BCS did the trick'! If the championship game were today (between Oregon and Auburn), I would not consider either team undisputed as champions... It has been that way in previous years too (Utah impressed the hell out of me after they beat Alabama... of course I could make the same excuse for Alabama's loss to a very GOOD Utah team that you do for VaTech's loss to a very BAD JMU team... they mailed it in after losing their shot at the NC game or some crap like that).
Anyways, you keep flying the Bronco flag... I will keep flying the flag for a Playoff and reasoning that strength of schedule is important... At this point, there is NO right answer for a 2-team playoff. That is and has been my point all along... BSU could be in the 2-team playoff... but there are a few other teams that have strong arguments as well!
Let's talk about BSU's schedule. 10 games on that schedule would be games that I'd expect ND (yes, the one that just got its ass handed to it by Navy) to dominate. Maybe not by 35 points a game (like we did against Nevada last year... in a season that featured yet another loss to Navy, or Hawaii in the year before after we lost to a powerhouse Syracuse team at home), but I would expect 2 TD wins in 10 games on that schedule. I don't blame BSU for being in a shitty conference, but it is a fact that they are in a shitty conference. I know it's not for lack of trying to join a better conference (going to the MWC is a step up for them... except that the PAC-10 took Utah away), but they are in a shitty conference and you can't just say 'they're trying to schedule tough games' and make that go away. Games against most of the teams in the WAC and teams like Wyoming and Toledo are scheduled as easy wins on most teams' schedules. The SEC may be overrated, but there's no denying that they have some of the most talented teams in the country and that they have a few legitimately good teams every year. Even Tennessee and Georgia are loaded with good players, they are not playing at a high level, but the average/bad teams in the SEC schedule teams like Wyoming/Idaho and most WAC teams in order to get a few easy wins after getting handled by the better teams in their conference. Look at Mississippi, by all accounts they are a bad SEC team... one of the worst, in fact. They lost to a 1-AA opponent to start the year. They scheduled Fresno State between Vandy and Kentucky to ease their transition into the tougher part of their conference schedule. A BAD SEC team took Fresno to the woodshed and beat them 55-38 (I think a 17 point win is pretty convincing, and for having a shitty SEC offense, 55 points is damn impressive). Look at Colorado (sorry Oracle, but they're not good this year... if it makes you feel any better, ND isn't good this year either)... They've lost all three of their Big 12 matchups but they took Hawaii (4-0 in the mighty WAC) and absolutely crushed them to the tune of 31-13. When you have a conference full of teams that average/bad teams crush on a fairly consistent basis, you open yourself up to speculation that you MAY not be as dominant as you think. My point about Texas being a "very good team" is based on their talent... they are loaded with talent, and that makes them dangerous. ND is loaded with talent too... this is why, when they play a decent game, they can take Michigan State to the brink even though they still have a long way to go in terms of being consistent. Texas is one of those teams this year that can beat almost anybody on a good day, but they have sucked in a couple of games as well. If you want, I can use your argument about VaTech to explain away Texas' woes... maybe they were on an emotional letdown after crushing Nebraska and they overlooked Iowa State... at least Iowa State wasn't a 4-3 team from 1-AA. Name one WAC team, aside from BSU, that has the talent to beat just about anybody? This is what makes the stronger conferences dangerous... there is more talent. Even the middle of the road teams in the Big 10/Pac 10/SEC can rise up and smoke someone when they put it together. Now, I agree that the SEC isn't as mighty as the 'experts' say, but it is hard to deny that they aren't one of the strongest conferences in the country from top to bottom. They have a very good record in bowl games, and they're undefeated in national championship games... I think they've earned some of their hype... I just don't think that they have 4-5 top-ten caliber teams every year like the damn preseason pollsters like to think. I do, however, think that they have 4-5 top 25 caliber teams pretty much every year. At this point... 7 games into the year, there are 6 SEC teams in the top 25... that's a conference FULL of land-mines. On the other hand, 66% of BSU's schedule is horseshit... and 50% of their out-of-conference schedule is horseshit as well. Having the 16.7% of their schedule that comes against one team that is currently ranked #23 and another that is unranked but pretty good, as a reason to walk into the national championship game is somewhat of a joke in my book. How can you say that I lack objectivity with regard to Boise State when I've continually praised them as a DAMN good football team (with a SHITTY schedule), and you say that you would deny Auburn outright for 'not being a complete team'? ND certainly didn't look like a complete team over the past couple of years (especially on Defense), but they looked unstoppable and impenetrable against Nevada last year (35-0) and Hawaii in the Hawaii Bowl (49-14). It is results like these that make me wonder exactly how impressive Boise really is... Decidedly average ND teams looked AWESOME against two of the BEST teams in the WAC. I've already mentioned how Colorado destroyed Hawaii (4-0 in the WAC) this year too. This is why I think there's an argument for teams like Auburn (who has only had 2 games against teams that would be comparable in shittiness to the typical WAC opponents that BSU has been playing) to be ahead of them. Auburn has an amazing athlete at QB and they've beaten 4 teams that are CURRENTLY ranked. Oregon has beaten 1 team that is currently ranked and no other team has a winning record... they are getting the same treatment as BSU in the computers right now... it's not that BSU is not in a BCS conference... it's that their schedule SUCKS! Oregon's schedule has SUCKED so far... at least they have a couple of tough games coming up which will allow them to basically control their own destiny. BSU will have to hope that other teams lose. I'll tell you this, there are two reasons that I don't think BSU will lose before the bowl game... one is that they are very good... the other is that their opponents all suck. All of the other undefeated teams still have major tests left on their respective schedules... if they win out, they will make a better case for themselves. It sucks for BSU, but it is what it is... it is also WHY WE NEED A DAMN PLAYOFF!
Here's another point to ponder when you look at BSU's schedule versus anyone's schedule in the SEC/Big10/Pac10/Big12.... When Alabama played San Jose State, it was their first game of the year before what was supposed to be a big matchup with Penn State (#18 at the time). They obviously scheduled it as a tune-up game... basically a practice for them in order to work out the kinks before the Penn State game and before they get into the SEC schedule. Typically, in a game like that, Alabama (or any other team that basically schedules a soft opponent before a tougher opponent) wants to win the game convincingly without showing too much for their future opponents to get out of the game tape, and without getting anyone hurt. They really want their starters to come in, put the game away early, and make way for the back-ups to get some meaningful reps. They play with a bare-bones game plan as well. They are acutely aware that, while they want to look impressive, they want to do it with as little exertion as possible because they KNOW that they will have tougher games coming up. Now let's look at Boise State... because they didn't dominate Virginia Tech or Oregon State, and because VaTech hurt their credibility by losing to a 1-AA team, they KNOW that they have to absolutely skull-fuck every remaining opponent on their schedule. They will leave their starters in, run all of their gadget plays, and do whatever it takes to make their win over a truly shitty opponent look impressive. Maybe that makes the 3 point difference... Alabama doesn't give a shit about allowing a couple of points in an easy win, but Boise KNOWS that they need to run it up! Because of their TERRIBLE schedule, they can't really do much more to impress anybody and sway the voters... they need these other teams to lose a game. I think I actually made a case in my post that TCU, with a win over Utah, would probably leapfrog BSU (and rightly so in my estimation) in the BCS standings. TCU isn't an AQ team, so why do you think I'm an apologist for AQ teams? I couldn't care less about what conference you come from, but if you beat a schedule that features more good and talented teams, an undefeated run is more impressive because it is SO difficult to beat good teams every week. Right now, BSU has a schedule that includes ten teams that they are expected to win, and win easily. None of the other teams that are currently undefeated have a schedule like that. Auburn may not be crushing their schedule, but it has featured a lot of tough games. It makes more of an impression to me when a team can get through a schedule filled with land-mines than it does for BSU to walk through theirs. If BSU traded remaining schedules with ANY of the other undefeated teams, they would control their own destiny... unfortunately, they have NO good teams left.
I give BSU credit for trying to schedule a tough OOC slate, and they got credit for the wins, but VaTech losing to a 1-AA team (regardless of their emotional state) makes a strong case that VaTech was never a top-ten caliber team. When I say that they might beat BSU if they played again, it doesn't mean that I think they're a better team than BSU... Here is how I meant it: If VaTech played as well against BSU (on week 1) as they are playing right now, they probably would have been able to pull off the win. I don't know why that's far fetched... BSU needed a heroic come-from-behind drive after a VaTech clock management gaffe to win the game by 3. By all accounts it was ANYBODY's game! Boise may have improved as much, or more, than Va Tech, but it's hard to tell because they are playing such bad opponents... you can't deny that VaTech is playing better after losing to 1-AA JMU... they've obviously righted the ship, but they still haven't beaten anything other than mediocre competition in a less-than-stellar ACC conference. You give NO credit to MSU for beating Wisconsin, you give NO credit for Missouri beating Oklahoma. I think Wisconsin and Oklahoma are both better than VaTech. If Boise State had ANY more good teams on their schedule, they wouldn't have to hope that VaTech and OSU turn out to actually be good...
Was there ANY outrage when Cincinnati (an undefeated team from an AQ conference that beat Oregon State (badly), Illinois and Fresno State out of conference, got left out last year? There may have been outrage from a couple of Cincy fans, but just about everybody agreed that the Big East was pretty weak and that Cincy was not a real NC contender. There was really no shock when Florida decimated them in the bowl game either... and I don't care if Kelly had not just left the team... Cincy would have gotten rolled by that Florida team either way. The AQ status didn't help Cincy... actually, the fact that the Big East was weak last year HURT Cincy... just like it HURTS BSU! Why is that so hard to understand? If the SEC laid an egg for a year or two, they would probably be left out of the game... oh wait, that happened to Auburn when the computers decided that the Big 12 and Pac 10 had more worthy teams... BSU isn't the only victim of BCS bias, so quit saying that this is a unique situation... it isn't. If your conference sucks, you will probably need a little help to get into our current 2-team playoff... even if you're undefeated.
You say that all of the games in the SEC are (allegedly) difficult? Fair enough, but it is ridiculous to compare an SEC slate with a WAC slate... If you're in a conference full of good teams, that shouldn't hurt you. It seems that you would rather that it does. Let BSU in... forgive them for having such an easy road to the championship game... They have won so many games in a row that they deserve a shot or else it's unfair! I'd say it's unfair to leave a team out if they've managed to remain undefeated against a slate of good opponents with a couple of great ones sprinkled in. BSU had 4 opportunities to schedule ranked teams since their conference had NONE... they got 2 on their schedule (1 remains ranked)... if they wanted to make a better statement, they should have put 4 respectable teams (instead of Wyoming and Toledo, add Northwestern and Baylor) on. If you are in the Big 10 (4 ranked teams), Pac 10 (3 ranked teams), SEC (6 ranked teams), or Big 12 (5 ranked teams), you have a tough schedule to begin with... While I still think you should schedule at least one good team OOC, it is understandable if you want to schedule a WAC team in order to get a breather.
Finally, I DO NOT think that, if BSU gets left out, 'the BCS did the trick'! If the championship game were today (between Oregon and Auburn), I would not consider either team undisputed as champions... It has been that way in previous years too (Utah impressed the hell out of me after they beat Alabama... of course I could make the same excuse for Alabama's loss to a very GOOD Utah team that you do for VaTech's loss to a very BAD JMU team... they mailed it in after losing their shot at the NC game or some crap like that).
Anyways, you keep flying the Bronco flag... I will keep flying the flag for a Playoff and reasoning that strength of schedule is important... At this point, there is NO right answer for a 2-team playoff. That is and has been my point all along... BSU could be in the 2-team playoff... but there are a few other teams that have strong arguments as well!
The Boise State Debate rages on
Leprechaun - I did read the post, but you claiming that you are objectively evaluating Boise State is totally untrue. You obsess about the schedule, but what you're avoiding is the fact that most of Boise's schedule is conference games, which is beyond their control (with the exception of Idaho and Wyoming). 67% of their games are conference games - which, by the way, is the same percentage you described as "VERY prevalent" when applying it to margin of victory in the formula. So it would appear that Boise's conference schedule is having a VERY prevalent impact on how their overall schedule difficulty is viewed.
You said it won't be because they weren't in a good conference, but because they played an easy schedule and someone else played a more difficult one. How can you say that when all of the (allegedly) difficult games the SEC teams are playing are coming IN CONFERENCE? Have you seen Auburn's non-conference slate? Arkansas State, Clemson, Louisiana-Monroe, and Chattanooga. Tell me that VaTech, Wyoming, Oregon State, and Toledo aren't a tougher slate than that. This is all about conference affiliation, and the conferences in power protecting the status quo.
You admit Texas isn't a good team this year, but when Nebraska goes down to them, you said verbatim "That's what happens when you play tough teams. Sure, Texas looked like ass against UCLA and Oklahoma, but they are still a very good team. Don't worry, I'm sure Boise will beat up on Southwest San Diego State today :)"
When VaTech lost to James Madison, I said it was a letdown game, and VaTech would still win the ACC. You said VaTech isn't a good team, because any decent team could have a letdown week and still pull it out against 1-AA competition. But now you say that despite Boise's victory over VaTech, that you don't think they would beat them if they played now. What about the way Boise is playing would lead you to believe this? The answer is nothing...you just figure that since VaTech is playing better right now than they were then, that Boise would go down to them.
Oregon State is only mediocre now because they lost James Rodgers. They weren't mediocre then.
Looking at common opponents is standard practice when evaluating teams. It can not be used as a primary indicator or in a transitive nature (e.g. JMU beat VaTech by 4 but Boise beat them by 3, ergo, JMU would beat BSU by 1), but when all else is equal, as in two top ranked teams in Alabama and Boise State both playing well by all objective measures, it can provide supplemental perspective. Boise has proven they belong in the conversation with 1-loss Alabama, if not in the pole position ahead of them.
I give no credit to Auburn because they are not a complete football team. They are a slightly better version of Michigan from earlier this year with Denard. And look how that turned out. Oregon and Boise both play offense AND defense.
But here's the crux of my beef with you. It appears that in your mind, there is nothing...NOTHING...Boise can do on the field that will change your mind. As long as there is an undefeated from an AQ conference or a 1-loss "powerhouse", you have no problem with jumping them ahead of Boise because of the schedule. Boise could drop 100 on Nevada, and it wouldn't change your mind. My problem with that is you are hinging who should get into the NC game based solely on the decisions of the AD in deriving a schedule, which is often based on availability, interest, and logistics, not to mention an overall willingness from an opponent to schedule the matchup. None of this is based on how the players are performing on the field. This, to me, is ridiculous. Furthermore, even when the AD has done their job and scheduled a decent non-conference slate, or so it would appear at the time, you are taking away from that team when those opponents stumble after losing the head to head matchup. Look at Utah. In addition to the Mountain West schedule (which is tougher than both they ACC and Big East), they scheduled Notre Dame AWAY. They decided to come play in freakin' Notre Dame stadium! At first glance, it would appear that takes balls, and is a legitimate scheduling move to prove their worth. But they ND gets their ass handed to them by Navy, and all of a sudden it's Utah who is really fucked. How does that make sense?!
We both agree we need a playoff, and this year is a PERFECT example of that. But the only shot we have at a playoff is the fans standing up and crying "FOUL!" for a purported injustice. So long as you're OK with a 1-loss SEC team and any and all undefeated AQ teams jumping Boise State, we have no outrage. We have no discontent. We have "a playoff would have been better, but the BCS did the trick". And I call bullshit on this.
You said it won't be because they weren't in a good conference, but because they played an easy schedule and someone else played a more difficult one. How can you say that when all of the (allegedly) difficult games the SEC teams are playing are coming IN CONFERENCE? Have you seen Auburn's non-conference slate? Arkansas State, Clemson, Louisiana-Monroe, and Chattanooga. Tell me that VaTech, Wyoming, Oregon State, and Toledo aren't a tougher slate than that. This is all about conference affiliation, and the conferences in power protecting the status quo.
You admit Texas isn't a good team this year, but when Nebraska goes down to them, you said verbatim "That's what happens when you play tough teams. Sure, Texas looked like ass against UCLA and Oklahoma, but they are still a very good team. Don't worry, I'm sure Boise will beat up on Southwest San Diego State today :)"
When VaTech lost to James Madison, I said it was a letdown game, and VaTech would still win the ACC. You said VaTech isn't a good team, because any decent team could have a letdown week and still pull it out against 1-AA competition. But now you say that despite Boise's victory over VaTech, that you don't think they would beat them if they played now. What about the way Boise is playing would lead you to believe this? The answer is nothing...you just figure that since VaTech is playing better right now than they were then, that Boise would go down to them.
Oregon State is only mediocre now because they lost James Rodgers. They weren't mediocre then.
Looking at common opponents is standard practice when evaluating teams. It can not be used as a primary indicator or in a transitive nature (e.g. JMU beat VaTech by 4 but Boise beat them by 3, ergo, JMU would beat BSU by 1), but when all else is equal, as in two top ranked teams in Alabama and Boise State both playing well by all objective measures, it can provide supplemental perspective. Boise has proven they belong in the conversation with 1-loss Alabama, if not in the pole position ahead of them.
I give no credit to Auburn because they are not a complete football team. They are a slightly better version of Michigan from earlier this year with Denard. And look how that turned out. Oregon and Boise both play offense AND defense.
But here's the crux of my beef with you. It appears that in your mind, there is nothing...NOTHING...Boise can do on the field that will change your mind. As long as there is an undefeated from an AQ conference or a 1-loss "powerhouse", you have no problem with jumping them ahead of Boise because of the schedule. Boise could drop 100 on Nevada, and it wouldn't change your mind. My problem with that is you are hinging who should get into the NC game based solely on the decisions of the AD in deriving a schedule, which is often based on availability, interest, and logistics, not to mention an overall willingness from an opponent to schedule the matchup. None of this is based on how the players are performing on the field. This, to me, is ridiculous. Furthermore, even when the AD has done their job and scheduled a decent non-conference slate, or so it would appear at the time, you are taking away from that team when those opponents stumble after losing the head to head matchup. Look at Utah. In addition to the Mountain West schedule (which is tougher than both they ACC and Big East), they scheduled Notre Dame AWAY. They decided to come play in freakin' Notre Dame stadium! At first glance, it would appear that takes balls, and is a legitimate scheduling move to prove their worth. But they ND gets their ass handed to them by Navy, and all of a sudden it's Utah who is really fucked. How does that make sense?!
We both agree we need a playoff, and this year is a PERFECT example of that. But the only shot we have at a playoff is the fans standing up and crying "FOUL!" for a purported injustice. So long as you're OK with a 1-loss SEC team and any and all undefeated AQ teams jumping Boise State, we have no outrage. We have no discontent. We have "a playoff would have been better, but the BCS did the trick". And I call bullshit on this.
The Thirsty Scholars: Counterpoint on Margin of Victory... but the BCS a...
The Thirsty Scholars: Counterpoint on Margin of Victory... but the BCS a...: "Justin, I agree with most of your post, but I want to make a few points. I'll just go point by point on this: Margin of victory is VERY pre..."
And this is why we need a playoff system. Some teams actually do improve, especially those stacked with younger guys. Likewise some teams fall apart due to injury or suspensions, whatever. And I don't care what you say and who you are, anyone that has played college or pro sports, especially in football with a small amount of games, understands how hard it is to go undefeated. Doesn't even matter if you're in the Mountain West or SEC or MAC. It's very hard to bring your best, week in and week out and not lose one game. To be your most focused and sharpest is a tough thing to do. If Boise State goes undefeated that's amazing. What if we have a year with 4 undefeateds? The playoff would decide, it's just too simple.
And this is why we need a playoff system. Some teams actually do improve, especially those stacked with younger guys. Likewise some teams fall apart due to injury or suspensions, whatever. And I don't care what you say and who you are, anyone that has played college or pro sports, especially in football with a small amount of games, understands how hard it is to go undefeated. Doesn't even matter if you're in the Mountain West or SEC or MAC. It's very hard to bring your best, week in and week out and not lose one game. To be your most focused and sharpest is a tough thing to do. If Boise State goes undefeated that's amazing. What if we have a year with 4 undefeateds? The playoff would decide, it's just too simple.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Counterpoint on Margin of Victory... but the BCS and Automatic Qualifiers still suck!
Justin, I agree with most of your post, but I want to make a few points. I'll just go point by point on this:
- Margin of victory is VERY prevalent in 66% of the BCS formula. The human polls consider margin of victory. This is why the Harris and AP polls have Oregon/BSU at #1 and #2 respectively. These teams have passed the eyeball test for the human pollsters. The BCS tries to do a better job of considering strength of schedule and quality wins (based on the state of the season at present). Unfortunately for Oregon and BSU, the computers see Tennessee (correctly) as a TERRIBLE team and UCLA and Oregon State as mediocre teams. I'd say that is fair. The problem, as I see it, is that it seems like the computers, by taking margin of victory COMPLETELY out of the picture, don't give a team credit for administering an absolute beat-down of a team (whether they are average, poor, or great) while giving too much credit for beating a terrible team by 3 on a fluke play (see LSU before this week), or beating a 'good' team by 3 in relatively unimpressive fashion (Oklahoma over Air Force before Air Force fell out of the rankings). The early BCS results have a small sample size and generally work themselves out in the end, but there are flaws for sure. I think that there should be 'tiers' when it comes to margin of victory. If you beat a team by one score or less, it's a close win and you don't get any extra benefit. If you beat a team by 1-2 scores (8-14 points), you get a small boost for administering a more convincing win. Anything over 14 points gets the maximum boost for basically establishing your clear dominance over a team. I know that this may lead to teams scoring an 'eff-you' touchdown to obtain those style points, but that's fine by me... it's a risk reward proposition... Imagine if Oregon tried to score an eff-you td and lost their stud RB in the process? Or if Boise, in trying to run it up, lost their QB?
- Texas has clearly established that it is NOT a Big 12 Powerhouse this year... actually, the big 12 has begun to establish that it is really not that great overall... that said, I was impressed with Missouri, but more on that later....
- I will return to a familiar argument regarding your beef about Auburn being #1. If you have two basketball players and they each take 8 shots, one of them taking 6 layups a freethrow and a 20-foot jumper, and the other taking one layup, 5 freethrows, and 2 twenty foot jumpers, which one is the better shooter? Let's add that the guy that took all of the layups made every one of them easily and seemed to be comfortable with the freethrow while rattling home the jumper, and the other guy rattled home a couple of the freethrows and one of the twenty foot jumpers... I think anyone would say that you really couldn't say who is better based on that... I think this analogy works for football... Throw Missouri, Michigan State, Utah, TCU, BSU, Auburn, Oregon... hell, even Alabama in the mix. The eyeball test makes me lean towards Oregon being a sure thing, but they have beaten Stanford and a bunch of teams that (based on their records) are pretty average to flat-out terrible. The same could be said for BSU and pretty much every team on this list. Some have better degree of difficulty than others, but I wouldn't want to definitively say that BSU would easily 'handle' Missouri. I think it'd be a hell of a game. BSU only beat VaTech by 3, and I tend to agree with the guy that said if VaTech played them as they've been playing lately, the outcome may be different (similarly, I think Oregon would have fared better against them when they got on a roll at the end of the year last season). That said, they had their chance and failed, so kudos to Boise, they got it done when it mattered... all of the rest is just speculation. I think that this point is why a playoff is so necessary for college football. I want these teams to play each other instead of spending the whole year wondering if that 1-loss Alabama team really deserved to jump BSU to #2 and play for a national championship against Oregon after beating undefeated Auburn and avenging their loss to South Carolina in dominating fashion... Or, to go to things that have actually happened: Would Auburn have beaten USC in 2004? Was USC better than LSU in 2003? Was a team like USC in 2002, who lost 2 close ones to good teams early before hitting their stride and playing like they were the best team in the country at the end of the season, have been able to play their way into a national championship game in a playoff scenario? What about Ohio State in 2005 when they lost a heartbreaker AT Texas early in the year, but, unfortunately, put on a show against a very good Notre Dame team to finish the year... I'd have LOVED to see that rematch with Texas. Seriously, a playoff MUST happen! Sorry for the run-on sentences and lack of paragraphs on this one, but I was rolling... sue me! Oh, and just because I used them so many times in my examples, it doesn't mean I'm a USC apologist... I loathe USC, but know that it would be absurd to say that their cheating asses weren't damn good in those years.
- I think BSU is getting PLENTY of credit from the human polls. They're ranked #2 in both of them (all three if you include the coaches poll). The computers don't like them because they put a premium on strength of schedule and degree of difficulty. I like this because I hate how teams in the 'Power' conferences schedule a bunch of absolute cupcakes (which actually works against BSU since these 'power teams' will avoid BSU and other strong teams from weak conferences like the plague) out-of-conference and cite their 'tough conference schedules' as the reason that they need to have some easy games sprinkled in.... I really like degree of difficulty as strong component of a team's overall ranking... the problem is that there is a lot of nuance that a computer can't account for... What's more impressive: Oregon's CRUSHING of Tennessee or MSU's ten point win over Wisconsin? Both were impressive... my eyeballs tell me that Oregon's dominance (and BSU's) is not an accident and it is damn impressive to beat teams that easily... no matter how crappy they are. At the same time, it is very impressive to go toe-to-toe with an excellent football team and beat them by 2 scores (which Oregon did against Stanford). I think the human polls are closer to being right, but I will return to my opinion that the human polls should not be officially recognized, or even posted, until at least half-way through the season. This allows the voters to provide fresh perspective for their first cut at the polls based on actual play instead of speculation and extrapolation based on last year's results and recruiting rankings which leads to pride getting in the way of admitting you were dead wrong about Florida being #5 in the country until they've looked shitty for about 5 weeks. After 6-7 games, you can get a good feel for which teams are really good, and which teams aren't and the first set of official human polls would be much more accurate and unbiased.
The Thirsty Scholars: Margin of Victory: Why the computer rankings are ...
The Thirsty Scholars: Margin of Victory: Why the computer rankings are ...: "Watching the BCS Countdown show is getting to be more frustrating that listening to Mark May on College Football Final. Both Robert Smith a..."
JAngry you speak the truth. First Robert Smith and Craig James are a couple of knuckleheads extraordinaire. Craig is just dumb, as in SMU Pony Express dumb. And Robert Smith is an arrogant SOB. Remember his tantrum he pulled while at Ohio State? And Kirk Herbstreit is the best non biased analyst going. He is the Tim Russert of college football. Period. Todd McShay is pretty good too. Saw Knucklehead Smith act so condescending to McShay on TV this weekend too.
You certainly have to wonder about the BCS poll. Oklahoma # 1 was wrong, and they nearly dropped out of the top 10 this week. And so will Auburn. Oregon is so the best team in the conference RIGHT NOW. But what is upsetting about this years "let's tweak it again" BCS poll, is that to avoid what happened in past years they have decided to give more weight to the two human polls. 2/3 to be exact. And if the Harris Interactive and USA Today Coaches Poll BOTH have Oregon at # 1 then how can they be #8 overall??? Talk about fuzzy math. To properly do the percentages to arrive at 8 with two number 1's mean they had a 24 ranking in the formula to get to be # 8. Ridiculous. And that's the problem. It's not about computers and numbers, it's about the eye test. What do you see? And I am sorry but Oklahoma and Auburn are not # 1 teams.
The quackerbacks in the northwest should be dancing in the streets of Eugene, in what are probably the ugliest uni's on the face of the earth. (Pick any one, the gold & gangrene, the green & gangrene, the black and gray.) That # 1 ranking is the kiss of death. Auburn can have that auspicious ranking and Oregon should be thrilled they do not heading into Troy.
War Kirk Herbstreit for being the King of College Football.
War Robert Smith for being an ass clown.
War Craig James for being a butt swab.
JAngry you speak the truth. First Robert Smith and Craig James are a couple of knuckleheads extraordinaire. Craig is just dumb, as in SMU Pony Express dumb. And Robert Smith is an arrogant SOB. Remember his tantrum he pulled while at Ohio State? And Kirk Herbstreit is the best non biased analyst going. He is the Tim Russert of college football. Period. Todd McShay is pretty good too. Saw Knucklehead Smith act so condescending to McShay on TV this weekend too.
You certainly have to wonder about the BCS poll. Oklahoma # 1 was wrong, and they nearly dropped out of the top 10 this week. And so will Auburn. Oregon is so the best team in the conference RIGHT NOW. But what is upsetting about this years "let's tweak it again" BCS poll, is that to avoid what happened in past years they have decided to give more weight to the two human polls. 2/3 to be exact. And if the Harris Interactive and USA Today Coaches Poll BOTH have Oregon at # 1 then how can they be #8 overall??? Talk about fuzzy math. To properly do the percentages to arrive at 8 with two number 1's mean they had a 24 ranking in the formula to get to be # 8. Ridiculous. And that's the problem. It's not about computers and numbers, it's about the eye test. What do you see? And I am sorry but Oklahoma and Auburn are not # 1 teams.
The quackerbacks in the northwest should be dancing in the streets of Eugene, in what are probably the ugliest uni's on the face of the earth. (Pick any one, the gold & gangrene, the green & gangrene, the black and gray.) That # 1 ranking is the kiss of death. Auburn can have that auspicious ranking and Oregon should be thrilled they do not heading into Troy.
War Kirk Herbstreit for being the King of College Football.
War Robert Smith for being an ass clown.
War Craig James for being a butt swab.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Margin of Victory: Why the computer rankings are destroying the BCS
Watching the BCS Countdown show is getting to be more frustrating that listening to Mark May on College Football Final. Both Robert Smith and Craig James are complete morons, and Kirk Herbstreit continues to prove that he is the only college football analyst with a shred of intelligence and objectivity.
For those of you not tuning in, let's recap the rankings.
So what sticks out at you? Hmmm...Oregon with an average computer ranking of 8?! EIGHT?!?!?! "How in the hell is this possible?", you ask yourself. Well, it's simple. The computers don't take into account margin of victory. So when the Ducks rolled into Neyland Stadium in hallowed SEC country and dropped 48 on a Tennessee squad who could only muster 13? No style points. And when they rolled UCLA 60-13, the SAME UCLA team that embarrassed perennial Big 12 powerhouse Texas (yes, the same Texas that ruined Nebraska's unbeaten streak), all the computers saw was a win against a 3-4 Pac-10 foe.
Likewise, Boise St, who is 4th in the country with 47.5 points per game and 2nd in the country for points against at 12.3 (read, they blow teams out by an average of 35 points per game), doens't get credit for it. It's all about who you beat. Well we all know Boise's schedule isn't hot. That's no secret. But allowing 1/3 of our system to be decided by a computation that simply cannot measure the qualitative aspects of a victory and factor in a team's dominance is asinine. Auburn, on the other hand, can squeak by Mississippi State, Clemson, South Carolina, and Kentucky, and beat an absolutely awful LSU team (that should have lost to Tennessee...see above for how Oregon faired against the same SEC foe), and the computers regard them as being the best team in the land. Puh-lease. Did you see what Arkansas did to Auburn with a backup quarterback?! Both LaMichael James and Kellen Moore would have a freakin' field day against the Tigers. The difference is, both Oregon and Boise can play defense as well.
Kirk Herbstreit gets this. That's why he points out that as a football team, pure X's and O's, Boise State deserves more credit than they're getting. Contrast that with those two ass clowns flanking the set in Robert Smith and Craig James, who Herbie flat out called to the mat on week in and week out looking for any reason to jump any AQ team du jour over both Boise and TCU. Herbie even laughed at the idea of Boise and Missouri taking the field together, and was confident that Boise would "handle" Missouri.
But Robert Smith even went so far as to turn last week's (valid) argument that Oregon State isn't the same (read, they're much worse) without James Rodgers on it's head by claiming that Va Tech is a much different team than the one that Boise played in the beginning of the year and that - wait for it - HE WASN'T SURE IF BOISE WOULD EVEN BEAT THEM IF THEY PLAYED THE VIRGINIA TECH FROM TODAY. Are you fucking kidding me?! Who is this guy?! Are you telling me that Oregon State losing their star player in the middle of the year is somehow on par with the fact that VaTech, who had ALL FREAKING YEAR to prepare for Boise, couldn't come out and knock them off even though they were at full strength?! Is there even a more insulting assertion you could make against a team than to discredit one of their top wins by saying they couldn't do it again several weeks later? Well then why even play the f'n games?! Someone needs to take both Robert Smith and Craig James and lock them in a dark shed for a while, because it's clear that both of these dumbasses have concussions. Where's Mike Leach when you need him?
For those of you not tuning in, let's recap the rankings.
So what sticks out at you? Hmmm...Oregon with an average computer ranking of 8?! EIGHT?!?!?! "How in the hell is this possible?", you ask yourself. Well, it's simple. The computers don't take into account margin of victory. So when the Ducks rolled into Neyland Stadium in hallowed SEC country and dropped 48 on a Tennessee squad who could only muster 13? No style points. And when they rolled UCLA 60-13, the SAME UCLA team that embarrassed perennial Big 12 powerhouse Texas (yes, the same Texas that ruined Nebraska's unbeaten streak), all the computers saw was a win against a 3-4 Pac-10 foe.
Likewise, Boise St, who is 4th in the country with 47.5 points per game and 2nd in the country for points against at 12.3 (read, they blow teams out by an average of 35 points per game), doens't get credit for it. It's all about who you beat. Well we all know Boise's schedule isn't hot. That's no secret. But allowing 1/3 of our system to be decided by a computation that simply cannot measure the qualitative aspects of a victory and factor in a team's dominance is asinine. Auburn, on the other hand, can squeak by Mississippi State, Clemson, South Carolina, and Kentucky, and beat an absolutely awful LSU team (that should have lost to Tennessee...see above for how Oregon faired against the same SEC foe), and the computers regard them as being the best team in the land. Puh-lease. Did you see what Arkansas did to Auburn with a backup quarterback?! Both LaMichael James and Kellen Moore would have a freakin' field day against the Tigers. The difference is, both Oregon and Boise can play defense as well.
Kirk Herbstreit gets this. That's why he points out that as a football team, pure X's and O's, Boise State deserves more credit than they're getting. Contrast that with those two ass clowns flanking the set in Robert Smith and Craig James, who Herbie flat out called to the mat on week in and week out looking for any reason to jump any AQ team du jour over both Boise and TCU. Herbie even laughed at the idea of Boise and Missouri taking the field together, and was confident that Boise would "handle" Missouri.
But Robert Smith even went so far as to turn last week's (valid) argument that Oregon State isn't the same (read, they're much worse) without James Rodgers on it's head by claiming that Va Tech is a much different team than the one that Boise played in the beginning of the year and that - wait for it - HE WASN'T SURE IF BOISE WOULD EVEN BEAT THEM IF THEY PLAYED THE VIRGINIA TECH FROM TODAY. Are you fucking kidding me?! Who is this guy?! Are you telling me that Oregon State losing their star player in the middle of the year is somehow on par with the fact that VaTech, who had ALL FREAKING YEAR to prepare for Boise, couldn't come out and knock them off even though they were at full strength?! Is there even a more insulting assertion you could make against a team than to discredit one of their top wins by saying they couldn't do it again several weeks later? Well then why even play the f'n games?! Someone needs to take both Robert Smith and Craig James and lock them in a dark shed for a while, because it's clear that both of these dumbasses have concussions. Where's Mike Leach when you need him?
The Thirsty Scholars: Rush Happy Buffaloes
The Thirsty Scholars: Rush Happy Buffaloes: "Oracle - you should be ashamed. Levying personal attacks against the good Dr. Lou, and somehow turning this into an attack on the Irish. As..."
Dr. Lou is an "ass" and should be stuffed somewhere with Beano Cook where they can kiss all things Notre Dame. Even though JAngry you took what the CU students of 2010 did to be buffoonery, and I was just trying to defend my naive, robust brethren of the Flatirons, we do agree on the basic truth we know to be self evident, that both our programs have sunk far below where they should be. I admit to your point our bar has been lowered. So lowered we rushed the field after beating a 1-3 Georgia. I agree it is a sad commentary. No one has been more upset with where this program has been going since Bill McCartney stepped down. I'll be the first to tell you how BAD we are. And I am sure it is tough on you golden domers, as Notre Dame is one of the most storied houses in all of collegiate football. You are a blue blood program, we are not. We stink worse than you. Michigan St. beat you on a trick play at the end. Sparty would have cleaned our clock. Yes we have dropped so low we rushed the field after we beat Georgia. But at least it wasn't Western Michigan or the Akron Zips. At least it was a program with no direction in their name. And does it compare to last night's Mizzou beating Oklahoma? No my man, it pales to that. Is it something Iowa State should do after triumphing over Nebraska? Absolutely, they've never won anything the poor bastards. But the students are the life blood of the University and they decided Georgia was their battle of Trafalgar. So be it. Because the season looks bleak from here on out facing Oklahoma and Nebraska and Oklahoma State. My only hope is that as we enter the Pac 10 (12?) we turn a new leaf and start a new chapter right. New conference, new coach, new set of rules and standards. We need a better coach to make us a better program and one that can compete in the Pac 10 with regularity. So here's to agreeing that we both are suffering with our respective alma maters, and if the future alumni of CU want to have an experience, then let them. If Notre Dame wants to wear green jerseys then let them.
Dr. Lou is an "ass" and should be stuffed somewhere with Beano Cook where they can kiss all things Notre Dame. Even though JAngry you took what the CU students of 2010 did to be buffoonery, and I was just trying to defend my naive, robust brethren of the Flatirons, we do agree on the basic truth we know to be self evident, that both our programs have sunk far below where they should be. I admit to your point our bar has been lowered. So lowered we rushed the field after beating a 1-3 Georgia. I agree it is a sad commentary. No one has been more upset with where this program has been going since Bill McCartney stepped down. I'll be the first to tell you how BAD we are. And I am sure it is tough on you golden domers, as Notre Dame is one of the most storied houses in all of collegiate football. You are a blue blood program, we are not. We stink worse than you. Michigan St. beat you on a trick play at the end. Sparty would have cleaned our clock. Yes we have dropped so low we rushed the field after we beat Georgia. But at least it wasn't Western Michigan or the Akron Zips. At least it was a program with no direction in their name. And does it compare to last night's Mizzou beating Oklahoma? No my man, it pales to that. Is it something Iowa State should do after triumphing over Nebraska? Absolutely, they've never won anything the poor bastards. But the students are the life blood of the University and they decided Georgia was their battle of Trafalgar. So be it. Because the season looks bleak from here on out facing Oklahoma and Nebraska and Oklahoma State. My only hope is that as we enter the Pac 10 (12?) we turn a new leaf and start a new chapter right. New conference, new coach, new set of rules and standards. We need a better coach to make us a better program and one that can compete in the Pac 10 with regularity. So here's to agreeing that we both are suffering with our respective alma maters, and if the future alumni of CU want to have an experience, then let them. If Notre Dame wants to wear green jerseys then let them.
Rush Happy Buffaloes
Oracle - you should be ashamed. Levying personal attacks against the good Dr. Lou, and somehow turning this into an attack on the Irish. As a fan of a fellow storied program that is down as of late (and has been for a while), my point was not to claim that CU had fallen further than Notre Dame, and never did I say CU's program was poor, pathetic, or lowly. I, for one, would LOVE to CU return to prominence. I did say that it was a sad commentary, and an indication of a low bar. Rushing the field when you defeat a 1-3 Georgia team is a mark of desperation that is not befitting of the Buffaloes. I would expect it from Northern Colorado, and even CSU. Colorado is much, much better than that. At least I believe so, but apparently the students are not in agreement.
But don't listen to me on this. I offer this from a friend and CU alum who saw my post on Facebook that read simply "An assessment on when it is, and isn't, appropriate for college football fans to rush the field in victory." She wrote, "Never ok to rush the field after beating a 1 win, 3 loss team by one point. See colorado v georgia..I was so embarrassed." Ay, but here's the rub - she then posted "Here is the kicker - I didnt even read the article before posting that comment. It is still so freshly embarrasing..." She offered this up WITHOUT even have read the post!
Or how about this from the Denver Post?
Rushing the field and tearing down goal posts used to be a time-honored football tradition reserved for the spontaneous outburst after a big upset or trouncing a traditional rival or ending a long losing streak. But beating a No. 5 team or ending a 22-game losing streak is no longer required. Colorado's victory two weeks ago against a 1-3 Georgia team proves the point. Buff fans took to the field as if CU had won a conference title...Historically, CU's postgame field mayhem was reserved for special occasions, such as wins over Oklahoma or Nebraska. But beating a 1-3 Georgia team with its coach under fire?
Read more: College football teams tackling the storming of fields - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/ci_16402873?source=email#ixzz13INP3A1c
But don't listen to me on this. I offer this from a friend and CU alum who saw my post on Facebook that read simply "An assessment on when it is, and isn't, appropriate for college football fans to rush the field in victory." She wrote, "Never ok to rush the field after beating a 1 win, 3 loss team by one point. See colorado v georgia..I was so embarrassed." Ay, but here's the rub - she then posted "Here is the kicker - I didnt even read the article before posting that comment. It is still so freshly embarrasing..." She offered this up WITHOUT even have read the post!
Or how about this from the Denver Post?
Rushing the field and tearing down goal posts used to be a time-honored football tradition reserved for the spontaneous outburst after a big upset or trouncing a traditional rival or ending a long losing streak. But beating a No. 5 team or ending a 22-game losing streak is no longer required. Colorado's victory two weeks ago against a 1-3 Georgia team proves the point. Buff fans took to the field as if CU had won a conference title...Historically, CU's postgame field mayhem was reserved for special occasions, such as wins over Oklahoma or Nebraska. But beating a 1-3 Georgia team with its coach under fire?
Read more: College football teams tackling the storming of fields - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/ci_16402873?source=email#ixzz13INP3A1c
The Thirsty Scholars: The Thirsty Scholars: To Rush or not to Rush
Queen of Smack - OUT!
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Thirsty Scholars: To Rush or not to Rush
The Thirsty Scholars: To Rush or not to Rush: "Oracle, We've gotta open up discussion on the embarrassment that was CU students rushing the field after defeating 1-3 Georgia. You have t..."
TO RUSH OR NOT TO RUSH.....THAT ISETH THE QUESTION!
When CU students stormed the field against Georgia after a thrilling win, it attracted the scorn of sports fans from across the nation. Most notably JAngry of Compound legend. Many consider Georgia too weak a team to justify storming the field, but for CU students who saw their team get rolled 2 weeks earlier at Cal, this game was a rejuvenation.
Justin, I can't believe you of all people are talking about the sad commentary that is Colorado football. True, we have fallen quite far from where we were 20 years ago, and have not "deserved" much respect of late, but Notre Dame has not been a beacon of excellence of late either. And even though you want to indicate how low our program is, at least we HAVE the more recent National Championship. But the scholarly topic brought up was rushing the field, and not Colorado versus ND.
We did rush the field when we played Georgia. And on one hand you tell us what a poor, pathetic, lowly program we have sunk too. With dramatically reduced expectations. If we are that bad, then isn't Georgia a better team than us? A perennial powerhouse in the SEC? A tradition rich program? More so than Purdue has ever been. And who cares about Drew Brees at Purdue, Georgia has UGGA the bulldog!! Right there you have more swagger than any thing a boilermaker has. Did anybody expect CU to beat Georgia?? No. And we are not drinking Mark May Koolaid. Although I would rather drink all the Mark May Koolaid there is than "lisp" along with Lou Holthz. He has become an antiquated, Notre Dame homer of a joke. But back to rushing the field.......
I think it's wonderful that CU students stormed the field the past game against Georgia, I think it shows exuberance and excitement. Do you know the Southeastern Conference now prohibits rushing of the field and fines schools progressive amounts starting at $5,000 and up to $50,000 after the third offense? The Pac-12 Conference, which CU will be joining next year, permits fans to rush the field, but it must wait until five minutes after the game has ended to allow opposing players and officials time to get off the field. Rushing the field is a time honored tradition in collegiate football, and an important part of college. A rite of passage that NO football loving collegian should be denied. It feels part of the college experience to have a little fun and get a little bit out of hand, as long as it's not too bad.
I agree, we are in a bad place right now with our football program, and there have been way too many low points with a coach who is no more than a figure head before his contract expires come November. So we take our wins where we can get them. All programs go through times of great success as well as their seasons of discontent. It is cyclical for EVERYBODY. And some of these students now at CU were not around to see the glory days where the goalposts only came down when you you finally toppled a Nebraska 24-17 in a landmark victory. My point is that the students themselves haven't experienced it before. The students aren't sitting there thinking about where their program is at or what other students did in the past before them. They just want to go out there and experience things for themselves. The grown ass men can stay in the stands, let the students have their fun. As long as everyone stays safe, the tradition will no doubt continue to be a staple of CU school spirit.
Other than that Justin, perhaps you should run for the NCAA minister of protocol. And first on the list would be "rushing the field" or RTF. Screw the BCS and their championship bowl games, we need a spread sheet formula for rushing the field. A quotient and tangent that I know you could extrapolate in decimal forms of when the paradigm of differences between two such teams allow for rushing and when not. In fact I think "Ye Olde College Try" should have a rallying cry of "RTF".....Rusheth the field!
With all honor and due respect, I thank you for this chance to parlay on a much worthy topic.
"Forsooth!" Sayeth The Oracle
TO RUSH OR NOT TO RUSH.....THAT ISETH THE QUESTION!
When CU students stormed the field against Georgia after a thrilling win, it attracted the scorn of sports fans from across the nation. Most notably JAngry of Compound legend. Many consider Georgia too weak a team to justify storming the field, but for CU students who saw their team get rolled 2 weeks earlier at Cal, this game was a rejuvenation.
Justin, I can't believe you of all people are talking about the sad commentary that is Colorado football. True, we have fallen quite far from where we were 20 years ago, and have not "deserved" much respect of late, but Notre Dame has not been a beacon of excellence of late either. And even though you want to indicate how low our program is, at least we HAVE the more recent National Championship. But the scholarly topic brought up was rushing the field, and not Colorado versus ND.
We did rush the field when we played Georgia. And on one hand you tell us what a poor, pathetic, lowly program we have sunk too. With dramatically reduced expectations. If we are that bad, then isn't Georgia a better team than us? A perennial powerhouse in the SEC? A tradition rich program? More so than Purdue has ever been. And who cares about Drew Brees at Purdue, Georgia has UGGA the bulldog!! Right there you have more swagger than any thing a boilermaker has. Did anybody expect CU to beat Georgia?? No. And we are not drinking Mark May Koolaid. Although I would rather drink all the Mark May Koolaid there is than "lisp" along with Lou Holthz. He has become an antiquated, Notre Dame homer of a joke. But back to rushing the field.......
I think it's wonderful that CU students stormed the field the past game against Georgia, I think it shows exuberance and excitement. Do you know the Southeastern Conference now prohibits rushing of the field and fines schools progressive amounts starting at $5,000 and up to $50,000 after the third offense? The Pac-12 Conference, which CU will be joining next year, permits fans to rush the field, but it must wait until five minutes after the game has ended to allow opposing players and officials time to get off the field. Rushing the field is a time honored tradition in collegiate football, and an important part of college. A rite of passage that NO football loving collegian should be denied. It feels part of the college experience to have a little fun and get a little bit out of hand, as long as it's not too bad.
I agree, we are in a bad place right now with our football program, and there have been way too many low points with a coach who is no more than a figure head before his contract expires come November. So we take our wins where we can get them. All programs go through times of great success as well as their seasons of discontent. It is cyclical for EVERYBODY. And some of these students now at CU were not around to see the glory days where the goalposts only came down when you you finally toppled a Nebraska 24-17 in a landmark victory. My point is that the students themselves haven't experienced it before. The students aren't sitting there thinking about where their program is at or what other students did in the past before them. They just want to go out there and experience things for themselves. The grown ass men can stay in the stands, let the students have their fun. As long as everyone stays safe, the tradition will no doubt continue to be a staple of CU school spirit.
Other than that Justin, perhaps you should run for the NCAA minister of protocol. And first on the list would be "rushing the field" or RTF. Screw the BCS and their championship bowl games, we need a spread sheet formula for rushing the field. A quotient and tangent that I know you could extrapolate in decimal forms of when the paradigm of differences between two such teams allow for rushing and when not. In fact I think "Ye Olde College Try" should have a rallying cry of "RTF".....Rusheth the field!
With all honor and due respect, I thank you for this chance to parlay on a much worthy topic.
"Forsooth!" Sayeth The Oracle
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
To Rush or not to Rush
Oracle,
We've gotta open up discussion on the embarrassment that was CU students rushing the field after defeating 1-3 Georgia. You have to admit that is an incredibly sad commentary on the state of the program. Colorado should expect to ROLL a 1-3 Georgia team, and should stop drinking Mark May's SEC Kool-Aid concoction. This is simply not a "rushable" victory, and to have done so illustrates dramatically reduced expectations on the part of the CU student body. Trust me, I know how it goes. Those students just want SOMETHING to get behind and celebrate. But celebrating with a field rush for that victory is an indication of a program with a pretty low bar.
Our junior year at ND, we beat defending national champion Michigan 36-20 at home to start the season. Of course we rushed the field, and it was incredibly exhilarating. The next week we were punked by Sparty in East Lansing, and all of the air came out. The real interesting thing was what happened the following week. We pulled out a close one against a Drew Brees-led Purdue squad, 31-30, including two late Brees INT's resulting in ND field goals. The freshman section, not knowing any better, thought a close and exciting win meant "hey, let's rush the field!". This annoyed the upperclassman to no end, because clearly, the newbies hadn't yet learned one very simple rule - we never, ever, rush the field for Purdue (or any lesser opponent, for that matter). No matter how exciting the game, rushing the field in victory is reserved for momentous occasions where the field rush not only signals the excitement you feel as a fan, but the magnitude of the obstacle you have conquered. Purdue, plain and simply, should never be a rush worthy opponent. And neither is a 1-3 Georgia team.
-JAngry OUT!
We've gotta open up discussion on the embarrassment that was CU students rushing the field after defeating 1-3 Georgia. You have to admit that is an incredibly sad commentary on the state of the program. Colorado should expect to ROLL a 1-3 Georgia team, and should stop drinking Mark May's SEC Kool-Aid concoction. This is simply not a "rushable" victory, and to have done so illustrates dramatically reduced expectations on the part of the CU student body. Trust me, I know how it goes. Those students just want SOMETHING to get behind and celebrate. But celebrating with a field rush for that victory is an indication of a program with a pretty low bar.
Our junior year at ND, we beat defending national champion Michigan 36-20 at home to start the season. Of course we rushed the field, and it was incredibly exhilarating. The next week we were punked by Sparty in East Lansing, and all of the air came out. The real interesting thing was what happened the following week. We pulled out a close one against a Drew Brees-led Purdue squad, 31-30, including two late Brees INT's resulting in ND field goals. The freshman section, not knowing any better, thought a close and exciting win meant "hey, let's rush the field!". This annoyed the upperclassman to no end, because clearly, the newbies hadn't yet learned one very simple rule - we never, ever, rush the field for Purdue (or any lesser opponent, for that matter). No matter how exciting the game, rushing the field in victory is reserved for momentous occasions where the field rush not only signals the excitement you feel as a fan, but the magnitude of the obstacle you have conquered. Purdue, plain and simply, should never be a rush worthy opponent. And neither is a 1-3 Georgia team.
-JAngry OUT!
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The BCS clean-up
I feel that it is universally accepted that the BCS is not a good way to decide a national champion in college football. The best you can get from a BCS 'supporter' is that, barring a playoff, it is the best solution. That is like saying that the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STD's, barring abstinence, is a condom. There is a perfectly good solution, and everybody knows it could be successful, but there would have to be sacrifices made... in the case of college football, the sacrifice would have to be made by the BCS and their beloved BCS bowl games.
For a long time, I thought that a playoff was a no-brainer, but as I was pondering the idea this morning, I came up with a couple of potential showstoppers, as well as the usual challenges and issues in the debate over a playoff.
I'm the Flying Leprechaun and I approve this message.
For a long time, I thought that a playoff was a no-brainer, but as I was pondering the idea this morning, I came up with a couple of potential showstoppers, as well as the usual challenges and issues in the debate over a playoff.
- The first issue that everyone goes to is the number of teams. Obviously, since football is a hard-hitting sport that can only be played on a weekly basis and takes a massive physical toll on these young men, a 65-team tournament like they do in basketball is out. A plus-one concept has been brought up by many, and it would definitely be the simplest option with the easiest implementation... the only problem is that, in today's college football world with so much parity, a four-team playoff would probably be open to as much criticism as the 2-team playoff that we currently employ. I think that the BCS's goal has it right... the point of the exercise is to determine a national champion. If you have 12 teams vying for #1 in a playoff that is structured similarly to the NFL, you could live with the fact that teams ranked from #13-16 are feeling left out... If you didn't play well enough to be considered by the polls and the computers as one of the top 12 teams in the country, you probably aren't national championship material.
- The next issue is deciding on the teams. If the BCS had their way, they'd still want to keep their automatic bids and at-large rules intact when determining the playoff teams. I think that the automatic bids are a bunch of crap. When you consider that the Big East and ACC don't have ANY teams ranked better than 16 (Florida State) and 20 (West Virginia), you have got to come to the conclusion that automatic qualifiers need to go away. This would obviously be a hard sell to the BCS conference monopoly.... Maybe the automatic qualifier rules could be rewritten to state that if a conference champion is not ranked in the top 15, they will lose their automatic bid (unless that team beat a top-12 team in the conference championship game... then they get a wildcard bid for defeating a team that would otherwise have qualified), and if a conference has more than 2 teams ranked in the top 12, they get to send more than two teams to the playoffs. I'd prefer to just send the top 12 as determined by an end of season computer ranking that is similar to the BCS formula and seed them as such. The top 4 get a bye week and the bottom 8 play to determine who the 'elite 8' are. The benefit to doing this would be that it makes the regular season VERY important. Teams will look to ensure that they have a strong 'resume' in order to qualify for the national championship playoff.
- The next issue is the rankings. All 'official' preseason rankings must go away. The only reason that they exist is to ensure that there is hype over games that occur early in the season. Remember how Virginia Tech was ranked #6 to start the season? They have clearly improved since their loss to 1-AA James Madison, but it is also clear that they aren't a top-6 team. Remember #4 Florida and #15 Pittsburgh? How 'bout #16 Georgia Tech and #23 Georgia? Or what about unranked Stanford? These rankings are silly, but the worst part about them is the fact that the people that make them are prideful human beings.... They don't want to be wrong, so when the SEC has 6 teams in the preseason top-25... they just cook up the excuse that it is the power of that conference that has those teams losing or beating up on clearly inferior opponents... and they stay ranked ahead of teams that are winning... and beating quality opponents. Let's take Florida... they had 4 absolutely unimpressive wins against horrible teams to start the year (one was against Miami (OH) where they had 29 total yards in the beginning of the 4th quarter). They remained in the top-10 throughout. Had the rankings come out after those 4 games, Florida would probably have been amongst 'others recieving votes' if the voters were basing it purely on the quality of play. It took 3 straight losses (one to a good Alabama team, one to a horribly overrated LSU team, and one to a bad Mississippi State team) for Florida to FINALLY fall from the rankings. If it were up to me, the first official human polls would come out in the same week as the first official BCS poll. This would add to excitement and build-up as teams go through the first half of their season and would, once again, encourage teams to play some quality out-of-conference opponents in order to bolster their resume. I think that there is a good feel for which teams are good and which teams are not... I am convinced that LSU is only ranked as high as they are because of how overrated the SEC was before the season started.
- Now comes the issue that will be the most difficult issue to deal with... LOGISTICS. The problem with having a playoff is that not all teams travel well, and it is hard to get people to make last-minute travel plans to see their team play in a neutral-site playoff game. If you see the attendance at the ACC Championship game in Jacksonville every year, you'll know what I'm talking about. Having less than a week to decide to go to the game, purchase tickets, book travel/hotels, and make arrangements for the trip is not something that the average fan can do... and most fans would rather save up for the possible national championship game appearance if they're going to go through the hassle. Nobody wants to see the shiny new playoff games with a bunch of empty stadiums. This is why the "use the Rose Bowl/Orange Bowl/Fiesta Bowl/Cotton Bowl/etc. for the playoff games" idea wouldn't work. I'll apologize to all of the traditionalists that want to keep the Rose Bowl as a sacred event for the Pac-10 Champion and Big-10 Champion, but using that venue for the playoffs would not work... and even so, you'd have to change the dates. Another idea would be the basketball tourney model which would have a bunch of regional venues... unfortunately, if most of the teams come from one region, it wouldn't work. I honestly think the best thing would, once again, be the NFL model. Let's give home-field advantage to the higher seeds. I know that most fans at any game are coming from around the country, but I also know that you can fill a stadium with local populations of fans that are within driving distance to the stadiums... especially in a game of this magnitude. This would have the added benefit of the electricity of a home crowd in a do-or-die game! The national championship game could then rotate between the beloved Rose/Orange/Fiesta/Cotton/Sugar bowl venues. You could also have the rest of the bowl games continue to exist... similar to the NIT... they are basically exhibitions now... so nothing needs to change there.
I'm the Flying Leprechaun and I approve this message.
The Thirsty Scholars: The BCS Mess
The Thirsty Scholars: The BCS Mess: "It's time. For years, we have talked about a Thirsty Scholars blog that would allow for the free exchange of ideas from Beantown to the Com..."
The situation has been clear most of this college football season for Boise St, which is doing all it can to make its case as being worthy of the Bowl Championship Series title game. No mater what they do, the Broncos know they probably continue to need some help. The first task was obvious. The Broncos needed to beat the" high profile" opponents in their non-conference schedule. Boise St. did that, knocking off Virginia Tech and Oregon State in the first month of the season.
The next chore is ongoing - beat all of its "non BCS" opponents handily. Boise State has done that, including a 48-0 thrashing of San Jose State Saturday night. And Boise State still needed and needs some of the high-profile schools with their own visions of a BCS title game to lose.
That has happened. Alabama obliged by getting dumped by South Carolina. The trend continued Saturday. First, previously unbeaten Nebraska (I still hate them so very much with a passion) was beaten at home by Texas. Then Whiskey upset # 1 Ohio State. The Broncos still have work to do since Oklahoma jumped to no. 1 in the first BCS standings. Oregon is # 2 , with Boise St. 3rd., then Auburn and TCU. The difference between # 2 in the AP poll where they currently are and # 3 is HUGE for the Broncos. If they are the # 3 team, people who do the non-computer polls still can come up with excuses to keep the Broncos out of the title game. But if they are # 2, it becomes more difficult to drop the Broncos. Boise State still must win the rest of it's games by a healthy margin, including a match up at Nevada on Thanksgiving weekend.
Broncos though are in much more of a position of strength . Nevada looked like a real threat until they were upset by Hawaii Saturday night. Oklahoma if they win out in the Big 12 still have the conference championship to play through. The ACC - Florida State was properly shaken up by one of the worst BC teams I've ever seen with their 24-19 escape. The SEC is a 6 team pileup. With South Carolina which beat Alabama a week ago, losing to Kentucky, with Florida faltering again, this time to Mississippi State, no team in the east has fewer than 2 conference losses. Anyone can win it, even Georgia, which started 0-3 in the conference with the "fire Mike Richt" faction growing after losing to a terrible Colorado team. (Justin your goal post smack was noted and had the blog been up we'd have gone blitzkrieg on each other for that slight.) Now Georgia has won 2 in a row and can be contenders. When did the SEC become Arena Football? Auburn's wild 65-43 win over Arkansas defies description. And they are # 4 in the BCS? Well Auburn must deal with unbeaten LSU Saturday which will be another challenge. If the Tigers can stay unbeaten until their game at Alabama, QB Cam Newton should be near the top of the Heisman Trophy voting list.
As is usually the case in college football there are no guarantees as the Bama and OSU losses showed. Oregon # 1 in the AP top 25 and Harris Interactive poll could be the next victim. I know they have UCLA Thursday but then they travel to So. Cal the following week to face a Trojan team that suddenly looked nasty against Cal.
The situation has been clear most of this college football season for Boise St, which is doing all it can to make its case as being worthy of the Bowl Championship Series title game. No mater what they do, the Broncos know they probably continue to need some help. The first task was obvious. The Broncos needed to beat the" high profile" opponents in their non-conference schedule. Boise St. did that, knocking off Virginia Tech and Oregon State in the first month of the season.
The next chore is ongoing - beat all of its "non BCS" opponents handily. Boise State has done that, including a 48-0 thrashing of San Jose State Saturday night. And Boise State still needed and needs some of the high-profile schools with their own visions of a BCS title game to lose.
That has happened. Alabama obliged by getting dumped by South Carolina. The trend continued Saturday. First, previously unbeaten Nebraska (I still hate them so very much with a passion) was beaten at home by Texas. Then Whiskey upset # 1 Ohio State. The Broncos still have work to do since Oklahoma jumped to no. 1 in the first BCS standings. Oregon is # 2 , with Boise St. 3rd., then Auburn and TCU. The difference between # 2 in the AP poll where they currently are and # 3 is HUGE for the Broncos. If they are the # 3 team, people who do the non-computer polls still can come up with excuses to keep the Broncos out of the title game. But if they are # 2, it becomes more difficult to drop the Broncos. Boise State still must win the rest of it's games by a healthy margin, including a match up at Nevada on Thanksgiving weekend.
Broncos though are in much more of a position of strength . Nevada looked like a real threat until they were upset by Hawaii Saturday night. Oklahoma if they win out in the Big 12 still have the conference championship to play through. The ACC - Florida State was properly shaken up by one of the worst BC teams I've ever seen with their 24-19 escape. The SEC is a 6 team pileup. With South Carolina which beat Alabama a week ago, losing to Kentucky, with Florida faltering again, this time to Mississippi State, no team in the east has fewer than 2 conference losses. Anyone can win it, even Georgia, which started 0-3 in the conference with the "fire Mike Richt" faction growing after losing to a terrible Colorado team. (Justin your goal post smack was noted and had the blog been up we'd have gone blitzkrieg on each other for that slight.) Now Georgia has won 2 in a row and can be contenders. When did the SEC become Arena Football? Auburn's wild 65-43 win over Arkansas defies description. And they are # 4 in the BCS? Well Auburn must deal with unbeaten LSU Saturday which will be another challenge. If the Tigers can stay unbeaten until their game at Alabama, QB Cam Newton should be near the top of the Heisman Trophy voting list.
As is usually the case in college football there are no guarantees as the Bama and OSU losses showed. Oregon # 1 in the AP top 25 and Harris Interactive poll could be the next victim. I know they have UCLA Thursday but then they travel to So. Cal the following week to face a Trojan team that suddenly looked nasty against Cal.
Monday, October 18, 2010
The BCS Mess
It's time. For years, we have talked about a Thirsty Scholars blog that would allow for the free exchange of ideas from Beantown to the Compound. And what a better day to open the forum than the day after the 2010 BCS rankings are released. Just a few thoughts.
- This season SCREAMS for a playoff. I'm tired of the "BCS system is only designed to pit the top two teams in the country" BS. Where in the hell did Oklahoma come from?! The computers are giving them the bump for sure. And it's all based on who they played, and not how they played them. Close wins to Utah State, Cincinnati, and Air Force? Sure, they blew out FSU, and kudos to scheduling decent out of conference games and bringing home the W, but c'mon. TCU allowing 3 points in 3 games to lesser competition is more impressive to me than Oklahoma playing these game tight. Put that in your computer and smoke it.
- Speaking of computers, both TCU and Boise State are getting the hose job by Oregon State losing to Washington. One of the ESPN commentators summed it up best by saying Oregon State WITH James Rodgers is a very different team than Oregon State WITHOUT James Rodgers. Computers can't factor in that fact that the Oregon State team that both of them beat is a MUCH better team with Rodgers in the lineup. It's all wins and losses to the computers.
- F%&# Tate Forcier. No real reason here. Just screw that kid. QB Force this, punk ass.
- Auburn, LSU, and Alabama all in the Top 10. Really, voters? Can't we just admit that the SEC isn't nearly as strong as in years past? Cam Newton is awesome, but that Auburn D is ATROCIOUS. Kellen Moore would shred them for 600 yards, and LaMichael James would rush for 200, easy. LSU is a joke of an undefeated, and 'Bama is the best team in the bunch. Even still, they don't deserve a title shot with a loss by 14 and with undefeateds in front of them.
- It's REALLY annoying how everyone says that you can't count last season, and you have to base this year's rankings on THIS YEAR. That knife cuts perfectly for the Boise argument, even though they're returning 20 of 22 starters from an undefeated team that socked a Top-10 Oregon team in the face on opening night last year. Yet the voters insist on inflating the rankings of any and all SEC team simply because the conference has historically had success.
- Back to Auburn/Arkansas - What is with everyone gawking over someone scoring "63 points on an SEC defense". The commentators say it as if they're foaming at the freakin' mouth, and as if it's a forgone f'n conclusion that 63 points against an SEC defense is like 163 points against any other team. Guaranteed they wouldn't put up 63 on Boise or TCU. Not a chance in hell.
- And while I'm on the SEC, can I just point out that the only thing more annoying that Mark May riding this conference's jock is when he says "SEC conference". That's like "ATM machine", dumbass.
- Can we PLEASE stop saying "oh, you have to say one thing about the BCS...at least the regular season is exciting, and every game counts!" It would be just as freakin' exciting with a plus-one play-off, and with only four spots, every game and every week would still count. The NFL playoff analogy is stupid as hell because over 1/3 of the teams make it in. That'd be equivalent to a 45-team college football playoff, which isn't what anyone is proposing. Even an 8-team arrangement would carry every bit the same level of intensity and excitement in the regular season, and would be MINDBLOWINGLY exciting in the postseason.
- Cal is horrible. I mean HORR-I-BLE. And this is coming from a Notre Dame fan.
- I'm not saying we should usher Boise or TCU into the National Title game, but it's getting old every week hearing "How could you leave our such a dominant Nebraska team?" and "But Ohio State plays a much tougher schedule and is a far superior undefeated!" Then said top team from an AQ conference gets there ass handed to them, and the subject of the defense changes to the latest team-du-jour. "But Michigan St is DOMINANT in the Big Ten!" and "We couldn't even think about leaving Mizzou out if they run the table!" The sad thing is, as soon as all of the AQ undefeateds fall, the logic will shift to the 1-loss SEC and Big Ten teams. Look, if you want to lock out the non-AQ teams from a title run and not give them a shot, just come out and freakin' say it! Stop pretending like they're getting the same shake as everyone else.
JAngry, OUT!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)