Under the Cap

Dawn of the New Age...

2010-05-14T17:36:00.001-07:00

Sorry for the overdramatic title, but it felt necessary for such a daunting post.
In this venture "Under the Cap," I decided I would take a crack at re-aligning college football.
I started with all the teams currently in so-called power conferences because that would be the only way for a solid re-alignment to hold.
Since six 12-team conferences would seem to be the most logical scenario, this left me with seven spots to hand out to teams outside the six BCS conferences.
Four teams earned their spots in the new conferences via last year's rankings: Boise St., BYU, Utah, and TCU.
One team, Notre Dame, earned its spot based on history.
Two teams, Nevada and Fresno St., earned their spots based on geography and mild success in recent years.
The system isn't perfect, as Central Michigan and Navy may be better candidates for the new re-alignment, but they aren't national title contenders, so I don't really care.
That said, here are my conferences:

NORTHERN CONFERENCE
West Division- Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Boise St., Nevada
Central Division- BYU, Utah, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa State, Iowa
Last year's title game would have most likely been Boise St. and Iowa, which would have made a good one, in my opinion.

WESTERN CONFERENCE
Pacific Division- USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Fresno St., Arizona St.
Plains Division- Colorado, Kansas St., Kansas, Baylor, Arizona, Texas Tech
Even adding a few Big 12 teams to the mix couldn't make a Texas Tech-USC matchup all that juicy for a title game.

MIDWEST CONFERENCE
West Division- Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, Notre Dame
East Division- Ohio St., Michigan, Michigan St., Cincinnati, Purdue, West Virginia
Ohio St.-Wisconsin would just be what the Big Ten title game should've been anyway, but who doesn't think Cincy would've taken down the Buckeyes?

SUPER SOUTH CONFERENCE
West Division- Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma St., TCU, Arkansas
East Division- LSU, Mississippi St., Ole Miss, Auburn, Alabama, FSU
Yeah, so I don't need to hype up this conference any more than the above names already did. Just realize that last year's national title game would've been this conference's championship game, sponsored by a company who paid a ludicrous amount of money to have their name in someone else's logo.

SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE
North Division- Vanderbilt, Tennessee, UNC, Duke, NC State, Clemson
South Division- Florida, Miami, South Florida, Georgia Tech, Georgia, South Carolina
I don't want to talk about the most likely result of the 2009 championship game between Clemson and Florida. Let's just say Clemson got off easy playing Tech in the ACC.

EASTERN CONFERENCE
North Division- Boston College, Syracuse, Connecticut, Rutgers, Penn State, Pittsburgh
South Division- Maryland, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Kentucky
This wouldn't be the toughest conference every year, but Virginia Tech and Penn State would put on an incredible game, I think.

There would be plenty more to sort out, such as how to arrange the national championship tournament. I, of course, would support a six-team bracket with two first-round byes.
Yes, that would mean that only one team per conference would make the playoffs, but the good news is that all those other athletic directors would get their teams in those meaningless pocket-lining bowl games we all love.
I'll not go into the potential playoff games from last year since the conferences would completely change for the most part.
In this way, every conference game would matter because simply winning your conference would give a team a shot at the national championship.
Thus, teams would be more likely to schedule big-time non-conference games because, for a team like Clemson, losses to Oklahoma and Alabama would leave the Tigers more prepared to make a run at the conference title than blowout wins over Louisiana-Monroe and Temple.
Plus, a win in one of those big games might make the difference in a first-round bye and a trip to someone else's turf for the first round of the national playoffs.
When the NCAA wakes up and realizes what they're missing, have them contact me.

Coaching Strategery

2010-05-08T06:57:00.000-07:00

So I was almost a coach one time.

That's a long story that I won't share if you don't know it already, but the point is that almost being a coach gave me a bit of an itch to do so.

I would've had the opportunity to coach almost any sport I wanted to, but I was most excited about basketball.

Part of that is because I have a more comprehensive knowledge of basketball than other sports, but it's also because there's so much room for creativity and unique problem-solving.

No ineligible receivers, lots of possessions, no shut-down pitching performances that completely ruin any offensive game plan.

Short of the NBA, organized basketball often comes down your one team's execution of the coach's strategy overcoming the other team's execution of their coach's plan.

Thus, I have spent some time thinking over what I would do if I ever get a chance to coach on the hardwood, and I came up with several thoughts.

1. Players should be conditioned as though they will play the entire game.

After watching the Hawks keep themselves in Game 2 of their series with the Magic by playing more of their starters while Orlando did a hockey-style line change in the second quarter, I had a thought.

What if a coach played the players who were playing the best ball all game, except for a couple of minutes throughout to give other players some playing time?

Even then, there's no reason to have less than three starters on the floor at any given time, unless players are struggling, hurt, or in foul trouble.

Why take out a hot shooter just because it's his turn to rotate off the floor?

To me, that's a sign of what many, including me, call "overcoaching."

If your team has been conditioned to have the energy and stamina to play the entire game, they will perform as such without needing to sit for the second or third quarters.

They'll also be ready for my next idea.

2. My defense would be a full-court zone press.

This portion of my plan has experienced the most changes in the last year or so.

The Missouri Tigers are the main inspiration for me here, as their "40 minutes of hell," which was inspired by NC State teams of old, is one of the most intimidating defenses in college basketball.

Initially, I thought man defense would be the best form of pressure, but that leaves no valid safety valves.

If the point guard gets beat in a stretched-out man press, no one can pick up his man without leaving their own assignment very open.

Thus, I have devised a zone plan very similar to the Cover 2 defense in football.

The point guard, shooting guard, and power forward would divide the backcourt into thirds to contest any inbounds pass.

If the passer is forced to remain stationary after a change of possession, the power forward would get in his face.

If the passer can run the baseline after a made basket, the "four" would drop back a few steps to simply contest any pass that comes towards the middle of the floor.

Any pass to the sides would result in a trap.

The small forward would play around mid court, mainly attempting to intercept long passes, with the center playing deep as the last line of defense.

Perhaps the most important part of this plan is that, when the ball moves past one of the defenders, he will then either help trap or run back to his half-court zone position depending on the scenario.

There are lots of pros and cons to the half-court zone, but I read an article about Jim Boeheim that convinced me towards the pro side with two quick facts.

The zone puts your big bodies closest to the basket for rebounding, and zone teams don't have to game plan for opponents' offenses as much as opposing offenses have to plan for them.

Which brings up my next point...

3. Offense should be as unpredictable as possible.

When I played JV Basketball, we spent an asinine amount of time learning motion plays against man defense and cutting plays against zone defense.

Most of my team mates never really "got" those plays and we lost a lot of games for what I perceive to be two reasons.

First of all, if you know exactly where you're going to go and where the passes are going to go, so will the defense by half time.

Second, it does a player no good to know that he is supposed to set a screen if he doesn't know what the screen is meant to achieve.

In my opinion, set plays work really well if a team runs them to complete perfection and hits the resulting shots at a high percentage.

Let's face it, though, most normal high school kids won't do that enough to win games, and they won't be as developed as they could be.

Instead, I would run what is known as a "blacktop" style offense that uses fundamentals like cutting, screens, and dribble-drive penetration to create shots against any defense.

I think that if you teach young players WHY the screen is set on and off the ball, they can learn to set them in unpredictable yet effective ways to create shots for team mates.

Also, they will learn how to use a screen to make their own shots easier.

The same is true for cuts and the dribble-drive; players that understand the techniques and the purpose for the techniques will make set plays unnecessary.

Furthermore, knowing my set plays without such an understanding of the actual concepts used will be useless if they try to play in college or they transfer to another school.

There are other smaller concepts and more conventional wisdom type ideals that I would also utilize, like "rebounding and defense never go cold," but these are my main unique ideas.

Feel free to critique me or agree with me, but, most importantly, help me out.

If anyone needs a coach, give them my number.

Underestimated Value

2010-04-30T18:35:00.000-07:00

In every sport, there are big-money positions.
These are the guys on each team that get the most attention, the biggest contracts, and the shortest jail time for crimes committed (cough... Ben Roethlisberger... cough).
I'm just kidding about that last part, sort of, because Mike Vick went to jail.
I don't have to tell you which positions these are.
We all know starting pitchers, point guards, centers (basketball), running backs, and quarterbacks are the studs of the team in almost every case.
In the case of pro sports, anyway, aren't all the other guys great at what they do, too?
To take it one step further, I would say that, of the Big Three sports that all red-blooded American males care about, there is a position in each that is very rarely talked about that should be talked about more.
I would say that these players are the piece of the puzzle that take a team from good to great.
For baseball, I choose the second baseman.
Every team looks for a power-hitting first baseman, a speedy or high-average shortstop, power or speed from each outfielder, and a Hispanic or bland white name at second that most haven't heard of (see Alberto Callaspo).
From a philosophical standpoint, one of the best run-saving plays is the double play, which almost always involves the second baseman. Furthermore, since the two-bag involves fewer tough defensive plays than, say, the shortstop, it would make sense that you might go for a bigger bat at that position.
Take the two World Series teams from last year. The Phillies have Chase Utley, who is a perennial MVP candidate and already has six home runs this year. Meanwhile, the Yankees have Robinson Cano, who has eight dingers.
Not that these guys are klutzes on defense, but their teams have the two most potent lineups in the bigs and also have big sticks at second.
I rest my all-too-weak case.
For the hardwood, the power forward is key.
In my mind, the "four" as it is known in contemporary circles defines a team.
If your PF is a longer, more sluggish body like Pau Gasol, you become a half-court force like the Lakers. On the flip side, if your power forward is a high-flying, shorter player like Josh Smith of the Hawks, your team becomes a matchup nightmare.
If you've never played against a team where every player seems to be the same, middle-of-the-road size, it's not exactly easy to figure out where your best defensive matchup is. When such a team takes off on a fast break, every defender seems to find someone bigger or faster than him.
Similarly, the power forward must be a versatile defender. If the Cavaliers play the Hawks in the conference finals, 6'9" Antawn Jamison will be guarding similarly-built Josh Smith, although their playing styles differ greatly. This will come after Jamison has just guarded 6'11" Kevin Garnett and his back-to-the-basket post stylings. If the Magic are the Cavs' conference finals opponents, Jamison will guard Rashard Lewis, who is 6'10" but shoots five or six threes a game.
I don't need to bring Gasol and Lamar Odom into the conversation to drive home the point that every power forward is different, do I?
Thus, if you can find the power forward who can be his own man and guard all those other possibilities at a somewhat competitive level, you will be successful.
For football, many forget the importance of a real slot receiver.
Sure, the tiny fliers are important, but ask the Washington Redskins how well your passing game works when your quarterback has no options between a lumbering tight end and Santana Moss.
Even if your slot man is smaller, like Wes Welker, the great teams have a man that will turn inward an run those "nasty" routes across the middle of the field like Anquan Boldin.
This gives the quarterback a safety valve that he can see over the linebackers and that will most likely get some yards after the catch.
Also, it forces the defense to think on a third-and-three situation, "They probably ought to run the ball, and if they pass to the tight end we'll stop him for a short gain, but THAT guy might break of a thirty-five yard gain on a four-yard throw."
I'm sure there are positions like this for other sports, but I have little knowledge of those sports.
Therefore, I will select Left Wing for Hockey, Middle Fullback for Soccer, and the guy with the most feathers for team ice dancing.
No explanations for those last three.
Just a bonus, free of charge.

Look-Out Team 2010

2010-04-23T17:30:00.000-07:00

Three years or so ago, I selected what I called the Look-Out Team for Major League Baseball about two or three weeks into the season.
This team, for lack of a more eloquent explanation, was comprised of one player at each position that I think you should look out for in your fantasy leagues, all-star votes, and general baseball fandom.
In this year's edition, I will try to select an obvious and not-so-obvious player for each position just to make things more interesting.
Let's start with the pitcher...
ROY HALLADAY has 4 wins, 28 strikeouts, and a .82 ERA. He looked absolutely brutal against the Braves this week, and he has been everything the Phillies were hoping for. MIKE PELFREY of the Mets has been a lesser-known stud, winning all three of his starts and collecting a save, which is unusual. He's also collected 16 strikeouts and a .86 ERA.
At catcher, JORGE POSADA would always be an obvious choice. He is currently batting .348 with three homers and nine RBI. My dark horse is MIGUEL OLIVO of the Rockies, who is hitting .303 with three home runs and five RBI. The big thing, though, is the fact that he's splitting time, starting only nine games to Posada's 13, and he's already caught seven potential base-stealers to lead the league in that stat.
My choice at first base is MIGUEL CABRERA. Detroit's slugger has been really impressive this year, hitting around .360 with four homers and 19 RBI. Meanwhile he's hit seven doubles and only struck out six time. JOEY VOTTO has been sneakily good for Cincy, accumulating three homers and nine RBI while batting .321.
Second base is an interesting position. I'll give CHASE UTLEY my main nod because his batting average is a not-too-shabby .339 with six home runs and 14 RBI. It's hard to ignore MARTIN PRADO'S .410 batting average in his first year as a full-time player, and only one error in these first few weeks is also impressive.
At third base, ALEX RODRIGUEZ will always be a player to watch, and his .315, 10 RBI performance so far this year with 11 walks drawn and only eight strikeouts makes 2010 no different. Furthermore, A-Rod has yet to commit an error in 46 chances. Much lesser-known CASEY MCGEHEE of the Brewers is batting .368 with four home runs and 14 RBI, and his one error in 32 chances is nothing to shake a stick at. As a side note, who just walks around shaking sticks at facts and/or people?
RAFAEL FURCAL has flirted with superstardom in recent years, hindered only by injuries. This year, the Dodgers' shortstop is off to another good start, batting .324 with six RBI and only six strikeouts. The speed demon has also stolen seven bases. In other news, ALEX GONZALEZ is trying to remind everyone there is actually still a Canadian MLB team by hitting five dingers with thirteen RBI and eight doubles. Also, he's been a part of 17 double plays.
Left field is a one-horse race because of RYAN BRAUN'S performance this year. Brauny is not a real superstar like A-Rod or even Furcal, yet he is hitting over .400 with five homers, 20 RBI, and four stolen bases. Because that is the top or near the top of the pile for left fielders in all four stats, I'm going to give him the outright Look-Out spot.
In centerfield, VERNON WELLS is representing well as the only Blue Jay I'd heard of before this column, with a .349 average behind seven home runs and 13 RBI. Meanwhile, ANDRUW JONES is back from the proverbial dead with five home runs already this season, and he's even stolen three bases. That said, he plays for the White Sox, whom I've predicted to win the AL Wild Card. They're currently dead last in their division, but I just wanted to remind everyone.
NELSON CRUZ is running away with the right field race, hitting seven home runs with 17 RBI and a .321 average. He's also stolen five bases. Right field is also a heavily defensive position, and MAGGLIO ORDONEZ has four assists thus far to go with four home runs and 10 RBI. I guess Ordonez is more well known, so that makes my formatting a bit sloppy here. Oh well... dock my pay if you want.
Let it be known that I hate the designated hitter. It takes part of the strategy out of the game and allows AL teams to lure premier hitters that are incomplete players to their rosters. That said, I will not pick a Look-Out DH representative. Take that, American League!

Three Dead Ends

2010-04-16T18:55:00.000-07:00

I'll just be honest and tell you that, "I got nothin'."
For a while, my posts were all opinion, using witty banter and some generalizations that I see in the world of sports to drive home something I just felt to be the truth.
Lately, I've been trying to be more statistics- and research- based with my writing, and I feel like I've come up with some of my better posts.
Tonight, I had no such luck.
Here are the three false trails that I followed:
1: Mike Woodson is a far better coach than local media gives him credit for.
While I still think this is true, I just couldn't find the numbers to really prove it beyond pure win totals.
His teams have never improved by less than four games from the previous year's record, but, other than that, the stats were just too fuzzy.
Mike Bibby remained the same player statistically after joining the Hawks, Josh Smith was an 18-year-old rookie the year before Woodson came (making his improvement natural), and Joe Johnson saw small improvement that could be explained by his transition to a bigger role in Atlanta's game plan.
So, BONK, that won't work...
2: Kevin Durant doesn't get to the free throw line THAT much.
Actually, yeah he does.
He attempted 99 more field goals than Kobe Bryant this year, and he took 254 more free throws than the Dobermamba. (yeah I'm keeping that nickname around)
Even if you divide that number in half to account for the idea that many free throws come in pairs, it's 127 more trips to the line compared to only 99 more shots from the field.
To oversimplify it, that's 28 fouls that Kobe just doesn't get.
I even thought that a higher percentage of Kobe's shots are from the outside, so maybe he doesn't play in traffic as much.
WRONG.
Durant took 50 more threes than Kobe this year, and Kobe got called for 16 more fouls himself than the Durantula did.
So Phil Jackson may be right, and that's a... BONK... next?
3: Who's the REAL MVP of the NBA?
Yeah, I did an advanced combination of field goal percentage, free throw percentage, percentage of player points to team points per game, same for rebounds, and same for assists.
Then, I thought, "Team results ought to come into play somehow..."
Thus, I factored in playoff seeding and distance out of the playoffs for the twelve players I was analyzing.
When those numbers came out too normal, I tried to account for team improvement from last year's finishes.
You know what I found out?
Lebron James should be the league MVP, followed by Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, and Dwight Howard.
That sounds oddly like what the votes will most likely be.
Oh yeah, D-Wade was sixth and Kevin Durant's assist numbers really killed him.
So I did about thirty minutes worth of math to find out that I didn't need to do thirty minutes of math to decide who should be the NBA MVP.
What lesson did I learn, kids?
You CAN write a blog post about how you had nothing about which to write a blog post!

The Perfect Post-Season

2010-04-09T17:29:00.001-07:00

After consulting with "Sir Boogie," I've decided that it's time the world knows what the most ideal professional post-season would look like.
College sports are exempt from this speculation, since there are so many teams playing in so many conferences made up of various levels of talent. You can guess how I feel about the BCS, though.
Anyway, here are the rules for a post-season tournament and how it should be populated.:
1. Six teams are the ideal number, per conference, that should be admitted into the playoffs.
Over half of the NBA makes the playoffs after a lengthy regular season. After an even lengthier regular season, only eight major league teams play in October. I think this makes six, the number the NFL has chosen, the best route to go. If this were the case, fewer sub-.500 basketball squads would get thumped out of the first round and more late-season baseball games would actually matter. Six teams would also require that...
2. First round byes are a good idea.
In every league, and every season, at least one of the division champions stands above the rest. Again, the NFL got this one right. Aside from the fact that there's no real way to group a twelve-team bracket without a round of byes, this would make the later-season games matter for the top teams in each league or conference as well. This would add a round to the MLB playoffs, but that would just mean that the season should end about two weeks earlier. Let's just face it, though... 162 games is just ridiculous. Sure, that would change the frame of reference for statistics, but I think a few banned substances have already done that. Get rid of some interleague play and add two teams to each side of the bracket. Oh yeah, you have to win your division to get a bye, but other than that...
3. Division has no impact on seeding.
This would serve as a replacement for the NBA's already impressive "Top Four" rule, which wouldn't work with my rule #2. If the Phillies are the second-best team in the East, but they have the second- or third-best record in the National League, they'll be the third seed in the playoffs, hosting the number six team in the first round. I'll allow that division winners can be seeded no lower than fourth to keep the spirit of the "Top Four" rule alive. No more of baseball's "no interdivision play in the first round" junk either. Whoever your seed dictates is who you play.
3b. Brackets are solid, i.e. the first seed plays the winner of the 4-5 game, and the second seed plays the winner of the 3-6 game.
4. Seven-Game series are encouraged, and the 2-2-1-1-1 format should be required.
In case you haven't caught on, I hate the Major League playoff format. Too many teams play too many meaningless games, and then the eight teams that are left play in an odd setup in the post-season. The five-game series favors only specific teams, and not always the best teams. Two good pitchers can buy a wild-card team a 2-0 lead with two home games in which they can steal a short series from the best team that doesn't play in their division. Even in the seven-game MLB series, one win in the higher-seeded team's park is all that's needed to win with the 2-3-2 home field format. Again, the NBA has the right idea. The road team should have to win at least twice on the road, or it's not really a home-facility advantage, is it?
5. All seeding, qualification, home-facility, and tie-breaking procedures should involve on-field results.
NO, BUD SELIG, THE ALL-STAR GAME DOESN'T COUNT. Also, I don't ever want strength of schedule to come into play because it is a fake statistic made up by the BCS and Satan when college football sold its collective soul in the late 1990's. This is one area where major league baseball got tie-breakers right, although not completely. The following tie-breaker order should be used for any type of tie:
--->Head-to-head results
--->Record against all teams qualified, or tied, for playoff spots.
--->If within division, division record
--->If not or if still tied, conference record
--->Play a game.
If at any point a team is removed from the tie, start the process over until the tie is resolved. The NFL would protest to playing a whole game and risking injuries to break a tie, but I really don't care. Their tie-breaking procedures are as awful as the rest of their system is awesome. That said, it would be allowable for only half or a quarter to be played to break a football tie. It's important that the steps remain in the above order because I think the most effective way to break a tie is through head-to-head results.

Now that all my rules have been laid out, I will use the current NBA standings to show you what the 2010 NBA Playoffs SHOULD look like if the season were to end right now, current games obviously excluded from records.

East
3 Atlanta hosts 6 Miami (winner faces 2 Orlando), 4 Boston hosts 5 Milwaukee (winner faces 1 Cleveland)

West
3 Dallas hosts 6 Portland (winner faces 2 Denver), 4 Phoenix hosts 5 Utah (winner faces 1 LA Lakers)

Even better, we can go back to last season and find out what the REAL playoffs should've looked like for baseball.

NL
3 Colorado hosts 6 Florida (winner faces 2 Philadelphia), 4 Colorado hosts 5 St. Louis (winner faces 1 LA Dodgers)

AL
3 Boston hosts 6 Detroit (winner faces 2 LA Angels), 4 Minnesota hosts 5 Texas (winner faces 1 NY Yankees)

Now this might not make that big of a difference to you, but consider the number seven teams from each league last year.
Atlanta went into their season-ending four-game series with the Nationals out of contention, but, under this system, they would've only finished one game out of the post-season even after getting swept by those Nationals.
I think they might've played that series differently had my rules been in place.
Also, Seattle would've been only a half-game out of sixth place, instead of 12 games out of their division race and 11 out of the wild card.
Thus their season-ending series with Texas would have been big instead of a glorified AAA series.
More teams with more vested interest in late-season games, that's my mission... Vote Jeremy Timmerman, Commissioner of Sports 2010.

Explanation, please?

2010-04-02T18:52:00.001-07:00

I at least pretend to understand the reasoning behind most rules in sports.
That said, there are a few that just don't make sense to me.
Furthermore, there are other rules that create a "punk move" potential that I just don't like.
As a side bar, I will define "punk move" as any play, game decision, or physical movement that would make me want to punch the person doing so in the head.
Not that I WOULD punch them in the head, but that I would want to.
So I decided to list my top five aggravating rules of sport for you with a detailed description of my dilemma, since you obviously care about my opinions on sports rules.

#5- College Football Pass Interference
The rule is the same as the professional game, but it's the penalty that I don't get. In the pro game, the penalty is a spot foul, with the offense getting the ball wherever the penalty occurred. In college, it's a fifteen-yard penalty, which hurts the defense...unless the penalty took place fifty yards downfield. This is the first appearance of the "punk move"- the intentional pass interference because a defensive back knows he's been beat.

#4- "Intentional" Foul in All Levels of Basketball
Basically, the Referee's Convention needs to either re-think this call, or eliminate it. If everyone in the arena knows you're going to foul in the last minute when you're losing by four, you tell the ref you're going to do so, and then you run up and hug the ballcarrier, that's an intentional foul. Yet it's not called as such, and this prolongs and even changes the game. Not that fouling is a bad strategy, but the fact that the same foul is called differently depending on what the clock says is just weird to me. If the defender clearly INTENDED to FOUL the guy with the ball, that makes the call clearly an INTENTIONAL FOUL. Note that "intentional" is the adjective form of the verb "intend," which is what makes the connection between the bold words in the above sentence. That's a little grammar lesson for the kids at home.

#3- Taking a Charge in Basketball
So I agree that the rule needs to be in place that, if a ball handler is out of control and runs over or strikes a defender, the foul should be on the ball handler. That said, intentionally taking a charge any distance from the basket is a "punk move" in my book. Many will argue that this shows an incredible amount of patience and timing, but I will argue back that so does running over a poodle with a golf cart. Neither is actually a gutsy move. The gutsy play is to find a way to block the shot, steal the ball, or just plain defend the ball handler. I especially hate to see the "help defender" slide over and take the charge because it's usually a 6'8" or taller post player wincing and flopping like a sissy while a 6'2" guard gets called for a foul for running into a brick wall. Here's a shorter synopsis... swat the shot or get out of the way!

#2 Holding... On the Offense... 10-yard Penalty from the spot of the foul... Replay the Down?

I like things to be logical. In the game of football, a false start occurs before the play begins, so it's a ten yard penalty from the line of scrimmage and you play that down again, because the down never happened. That makes sense. A holding penalty costs the offense ten yards from the spot of the foul because the play HAD to happen for the offensive player to commit the penalty, but the down is replayed. Huh? Granted, if the situation is right, the defense can just decline the penalty and take the result of the play instead, but this is odd. Wouldn't it make more sense if it was either a ten-yard penalty from the line of scrimmage with a replay of the down or a penalty from the spot and you move on to the next down? I'll use an example: My partner in crime Craig "Boogey" Foster carries the ball 15 yards down field, but I hold a defender at the 12-yard mark. Which makes the least sense as a result of a PENALTY: 1st and 20, 2nd and 8, or 1st and 8? You could argue which of the first two options is the best, but the third is the worst to me, and that's what is currently in use. What's even worse is that, under the current system, a statistician has to give the ball carrier two yards and what could result in five carries in a four-down series. Odd, just odd.

#1 The Dropped Strike, Run to First Rule in Baseball

If you claim this rule makes sense to you, you are a dirtier liar than they guys who say 96 teams in the NCAA tournament is a good idea. Under NO circumstances should a pitcher have to get four outs in an inning simply because the catcher spaced out or the breaking ball was that nasty. That would be like saying that a fly-out didn't count if the shortstop dropped the lob-in from the outfielder. Yet, for some reason, no one has thought to take this rule off the books. If you're dumb enough to swing at a pitch so far out of the strike zone that the catcher can't reach it and it rolls all the way to the back stop, there shouldn't be a reward for that. Guys already on base should be able to advance, but the batter should go sit down in the corner and think about what he just did.

So that's it. That's the list.

Feel free to disagree with me, write your own list, or just tell me how dumb my opinions on these rules really are.

My e-mail is jtimm684@gmail.com, or you can just comment on this post.

Whatever you do, tell your friends about this blog because I'm about to start writing with more regularity, and I hope there are some brilliant posts to come.

Until then, keep your "punk moves" to a minimum.

Do you feel a slight Draft?

2010-03-30T18:04:00.000-07:00

The title of this post is cheesy, I admit, but I wanted to rant for a few minutes about what I perceive to be the problems with the NFL and NBA drafts.
I won't address the MLB Draft because, well, it's REALLY complicated to me.
I also won't address the NHL Draft because... wait... is there an NHL draft? I mean, I'm sure there is, but it gets less coverage than my fantasy football league draft. I bet it's on Versus...
Anyway, I got to thinking the other day about how huge draft coverage has become and even the way teams draft players now.
Then I read a column by ESPN.com's Bill Simmons about the effects of the NCAA basketball tourney on draft status and my mind went to racing.
My first statement is that dividing NFL Draft coverage into three days is a huge risk.
Basically, ESPN better hope Tim Tebow doesn't get drafted in the first round.
If he does, and there's a clean break between rounds one and two, no one will watch the second day of coverage.
Under the old format, a casual sports addict like me might keep watching the draft to see how early Pat White got taken in the second round.
I'm certainly not going to devote a whole second night's effort to finding out if Terrance Cody will be a Lion or a Bear (oh my!... sorry).
Tebow or McCoy may draw a TV crowd if one or both fall into the second night, but that's about it.
Second, I could not possibly care less what a guy does at his pro day.
Maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about, and surely that's got to be it, but I'm not impressed with how Sam Bradford throws under zero pressure in a t-shirt and shorts when he and Bob Stoops decided it was time for everybody to see Sam throw.
I actually heard a talking head say on the radio, and apparently ESPN agrees, that Bradford had "erased all doubts" about his physical toughness with his chiseled physique at Sammy Day.
SERIOUSLY?
Did the following conversation really happen?
Scout A: "Jeez, look at the guns on Bradford!"
Scout B: "And those pecs! I totally just forgot he got hurt on normal hits the last two times he touched the field in live action."
Scout A: "Me too. Surely all that extra weight in muscle will make his shoulder less susceptible to injury."
Scout B: "I know right? In fact, I think I would take him with the first overall pick simply because of how meaty he looks, and, ooohh.... that's the prettiest undefended 65-yard pass I've seen since JaMarcus Russell's pro day. Man, we're good at this!"
In regards to how I would draft for particularly these two sports, I would look for three things: talent, wins, and durability.
Bradford has the first two, unquestionably. He threw for fifty touchdowns in his 2008-2009 season in which he won the Heisman trophy, and he won 23 games and two Big 12 titles as a starter.
Durability-wise, he's shaky.
Not that he's always been that way, but when was the last time you saw Sam Bradford in a game where he didn't get hurt?
January 8, 2009, against Florida in the National Title Game.
That's over a year ago, folks.
My third ranting point is in regards to the NBA Draft, mainly.
Call me old-fashioned, but... (you actually did it, right? Good.) ... I wouldn't draft a "one-and-done" guy like John Wall unless he was available in the second round.
I wouldn't draft him then if I didn't need a guard.
I don't care how talented he is, and I don't care about how good he supposedly is in clutch situations.
First of all, I want to see how well he plays when over half of the guys guarding him have played against him before.
In one NBA season, Wall will play against everyone twice a year, conference foes three times, and division opponents four times.
When or if he gets to the playoffs, Wall might have to face off against the same point gaurd that he already faced at least three times for seven more games.
He's played Tennessee three times, and the other teams in his division plus Mississippi State and Alabama twice. Other than that, he's feasting off of point guards that have never played against him before.
By the way, Wall's scoring looks like this against Tennessee in three games: 24, 19 (lost), 14.
Against Miss. St.: 18, 17.
Against Alabama: 22, 23 (he actually got better).
Against Vanderbilt: 13, 13.
Against Georgia: 17, 24.
Against Florida: 19, 11.
Against South Carolina: 19 (lost), 12 .
Thus, of the seven teams that played against him more than once, only two teams failed to hold him to fewer points.
The most disturbing part is the fact that he scored fewer points the next time he, as a star who was held to under twenty points in a loss, played a team that beat "his" Wildcats.
That brings me to my next point about the "one-and-done" athletes.
They leave too much to be accomplished in many cases.
Sure, Wall and the 'Cats won an SEC title and got a top seed in the Big Dance, but he didn't lead his team to a national championship, or even a Final Four for that matter.
If I'm an NBA general manager or coach, what makes me think Wall will be any more committed to winning a title?
I would feel much better about drafting a guy who came back to college to beat the guys who beat him last year and win the titles that have yet to be won.
I want a guy who got ticked off that he went three years without sniffing the Final Four and came back to cut down some nets.
That's the guy that might stay in New Jersey or Sacramento or Philadelphia just to say he brought a title to that town.
There... I think I'm done draft ranting... just in time for an "oh by the way" related to my last post.
Duke's tournament record against team's ranked in the ESPN.com RPI top twenty at the end of the season is now 3-0, having defeated #18 Cal, #16 Purdue, and #8 Baylor.
Each of the other top seeds lost to the first RPI Top 20 they faced, which in Kentucky's case was their fourth game.
Duke is so lucky they got an easy bracket.

Which Road?

2010-03-26T17:11:00.000-07:00

So I'm a Duke fan.
Also being a part-time sports writer and sports media junkie, I know that a lot of so-called experts feel like the Blue Devils got the easiest road to the Final Four and there's some sort of conspiracy involved.
Thus, I did a little research to ease their troubled minds.
Since the tournament is currently in the middle of the Sweet 16 round, I decided to take the average RPI from ESPN.com for each number one seed's first three opponents.
This posed two obstacles.
First of all, Kansas lost in the second round, so I just used Michigan State as their third opponent since that's who they would have played.
Second of all, I decided to use the average RPI of the two play-in teams for Duke's first round opponent.
(Editor's note: This touch did not make a difference. Let it be known that I've always thought the overall top seed should play the play-in winner.)
After all that math, I discovered the following standings, with the easiest road being number 1:
1. Duke avg. 68
2. Kentucky avg. 66.7
3. Kansas avg. 65.3
4. Syracuse avg. 54.7
So, there's some merit to the thought that Duke has a slightly easier road... at first glance.
I did some more math later, but just using this first set of rankings, I decided to throw out the opening round.
Why?
Because no number one has EVER lost in the first round, so those games don't matter and the 16-seeds are often lower conference champions that have to be included despite horrendous RPI's.
If you take the average of the second- and third-round opponents, the standings go as follows:
1. Kentucky avg. 41.5
2. Syracuse avg. 23.5
3. Kansas avg. 22.5
4. Duke avg. 17
So in the games where number one's are realistically susceptible to upset (see Kansas and Syracuse), Duke has had the toughest road.
Also, if you combine the two standings, Kansas' overall number one seed has earned them the most difficult road to the final four that included an upset trap with the ESPN RPI #17 Northern Iowa lurking as the number nine in their corner of the dance.
I then took my research another level to see which bracket's top seeds were the toughest, averaging seeds two through four in the regions.
This is what I got:
1. Kansas avg. 19
2. Syracuse avg. 14.7
3. Duke avg. 11.7
4. Kentucky avg. 11
After all this "assesserizing" of the bracket, I have come to one conclusion: whether you look at who they did play or who they were supposed to play, the top seeds had pretty equal roads to the Final Four.
Duke had the easiest first round opponent, but Kentucky's next two opponents were the weakest, while Kansas would've theoretically had the easiest venture in the Sweet and Elite rounds.
The only glaring injustice I discovered was that Northern Iowa was way too good to be a nine seed, but Kansas already showed us that.
The next most surprising seed was that California, the number eight seed Duke played in the second round and defeated by 15 points, was ranked 18th.
That's just one spot behind Northern Iowa, and makes Duke's second round opponent a tougher draw than any eight or nine seed other than UNI.
I thought they had a cupcake bracket?
Please give any "journalist" who feels this way my number or e-mail address. ;)

Beware of 96!

2010-03-19T18:53:00.001-07:00

Listen, I've been hearing some crazy stuff out there, and I just want you to know the truth because, hey, you're good people.
If anyone has tried to tell you something off-the-wall, like 96 teams in the NCAA tournament is a good idea, they're dirty liars.
No good would come of this.
Eight or sixteen teams in a college football tournament, now that's an excellent choice, but that's not what's on the table.
We're talking about adding 31 teams to a tournament that didn't need to add it's 65th team.
Don't get me wrong, I normally think more of a good thing is generally still a good thing, but this is not one of those times.
There are three possibilities for this scenario and only one of them is remotely good.
That scenario involves the proper 31 additional teams being invited, with an introductory round full of games like the one I'm watching right now between Michigan State and New Mexico State.
Underdogs hanging with and defeating the favorites could be even more abundant, as the opening round would consist mainly of middle teams from the big conferences facing champions and second teams from the mid-majors.
I think that's more of a utopian option.
The next possibility is that the tournament would allow more teams like Arkansas-Pine Bluff into the field.
Not a single Golden Lion scored in double digits against Duke Friday night, and there are plenty more teams like them in the NIT and the CBI just waiting on a tournament expansion.
What's also waiting in those lower tournaments are my third, and most likely scenario: more teams from the "power conferences."
As an ACC man, I'd love to say that everyone except UNC deserved a shot at the Big Dance this year, but that would be a lie as well.
Seth Greenberg can get his bald head as fired up as he wants, but Virginia Tech did nothing to show the committee they wanted in the field.
Yet, with the proposed expansion, the Hokies would most certainly have made it.
Furthermore, a completely undeserving Tar Heel team could've jumped all the way up to a one-seed in the NIT, and that would be a true injustice.

MLB Predictions

2010-03-09T17:48:00.000-08:00

As Spring Training begins, many of America's top sports writers, bottom sports writers, and even the okay sports writers will begin to assess the talent present in Major League camps.

Then, one of the most inaccurate forms of journalism is formed: the predictive column.

Last year's efforts yielded such brilliant ideas as the Mets being a far-too-popular choice to win the National League.

I've never done one of these, but, this year, you will be the first to read my candid prognostication regarding the big leaguers.

The more I think about it, I've never made public my thought on eventual champions of any kind prior to the regular season.

Thus, you should feel lucky.

Or at least you'll know who not to pick.

Anyway, I'm basing my educated guesses on three main categories: pitching, hitting, and bench. The closer will count towards pitching, with the rest of the bullpen counting towards bench.

Why, you might ask?

Because I'm just making this up as I go.

AL East

Anyone who doesn't think the Yankees are the best team in this division is kidding themselves. I loathe the pinstripes as much as the next guy, but the champs reloaded nicely. The only area where I see a weakness is the bench, but, barring big injuries, that shouldn't keep them from winning the division. Meanwhile, Tampa Bay has the hitting to keep the Sox out of the postseason. In other news, I think I found three Blue Jays I'd heard of.

Projected finish: NY, TB, BOS, BAL, TOR.

AL Central

This divistion should be one of the most tightly contested races from start to finish. The addition of Johnny Damon gives Detroit the slight hitting edge, while the recent injury to Joe Nathan may be the straw that breaks the Twins' backs. Minnesota will need a big move to climb back into this division either now or by the trade deadline in July. Cleveland's roster is surprisingly mediocre, while the Royals could be this year's '08 Rays. Notice I'm not predicting it, though.

Projected finish: DET, CHI, MIN, KC, CLE

AL West

The easy no-look pick in this division is always the Angels, and they will be fairly strong this year. With a couple of moves now or later, they could steal back their own lunch money. That said, Cliff Lee and Chone Figgins make the Mariners an early favorite to take the division crown and try to get Mr. Griffey a pennant. The Rangers' lineup is impressive with Vlad and Josh Hamilton, but their pitching is a liability as usual.

Projected finish: SEA, LA, TEX, OAK

Playoffs

The Yankees sweep the White Sox and Seattle overpowers Detroit in a short series. Then, the Yanks take Seattle in six games in the Championship Series. I don't like it, but a return trip to the World Series seems inevitable for Joey G and the boys.

NL East

This could be the year that we finally get the three-team brawl between the Braves, Mets, and Phillies that some have been predicting for a few years. As for starting rotations, the Braves and Phillies have the edge, even with Javy Vasquez donning the stripes this year. Furthermore the Braves and Mets are two of the deepest teams in the league as far as reserves and bullpen go. Meanwhile, the Phillies hitting lineup is as formidable as you'll find. I can only predict this division based on how I hope it will finish. As a side note, aren't the Marlins about due to lease another World Championship sometime soon?

Projected finish: ATL, PHI, NY, WAS, FLA

NL Central

Unless something changes, this stands to be a boring division again. The Cardinals have the sweet hitting tandem of Pujols and Holliday to go with a solid starting rotation, but not much beyond that. The Cubs are fairly deep and have a good rotation as well. The other teams in this division will dabble in mediocrity for most of the year, barring some unforeseen moves by the Astros or Brewers.

Projected finish: STL, CHI, MIL, HOU, CIN, PIT

NL West

This will be a highly contested division top-to-bottom. That said, any prediction I make has the potential to be completely wrong here. Given the proven talent in the Dodgers' starting lineup and rotation, it's hard to pick against them, but the Giants and D-Backs aren't far behind. As far as depth goes these three teams have a lot of quality talent doing bench work for them. If Arizona's rotation pitches up to potential, what they lack in offensive firepower could be overcome. Still the Giants pose the biggest overall threat to Manny and friends.

Projected finish: LA, SF, ARZ, COL, SD

Playoffs

Atlanta and the Cardinals put up a classic five gamer, but the Braves' overall better pitching and stronger lineup makes the difference. Meanwhile, the Phillies go out West and take down the Dodgers. Then the Braves ride a stronger rotation past the Phillies in six games.

World Series

So yeah, I'm a homer. I picked the Braves to face the evil Yankees in the World Series. I'll go one step further and say the Braves beat the Yankees... in seven games... on a walk-off... by Chipper... in Atlanta. That's right, I'm saying the National League is going to win the All-Star Game for once because that's what this time of the year is about, hope in a team that you haven't seen play a real game yet. So whoever your team is, here's to them playing up to the potential of their talent. Unless your team is Toronto, at which point you should realize that they're really going to be terrible this year.

Just out of love...

2009-09-17T09:10:00.000-07:00

He's been called National Champion.
He's been called "The greatest college quarterback of all time."
He's been called a hero.
He called himself the real Heisman winner.
He's been called NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year.
He's been called a flop.
He's been called crazy, even suicidal.
Anyone who watches football even casually knows who I'm talking about.
Vince Young has gone from phenom to legend back to phenom, and he now sits second on the Titans' depth chart behind the archaic Kerry Collins.
He blew off rumored emotional struggles that led to a frantic search earlier this year as a trip to a friend's house.
Even as a fan of Vince, I was skeptical about that odd adventure.
Regardless, it has been a roller coaster journey through football thus far for Vince, but his off-the-field ride took him right back to hero on Wednesday.
You see, Young was mentored through a healthy portion of his football career by Steve McNair, who, as anyone with cable or the internet knows, was shot by what seems to be his mistress on July 4.
Steve McNair was married with four kids.
Two of those kids are students at St. Paul Christian Academy, a school that had a "Dear Dads Breakfast."
According to teachers, 11-year-old Trenton and 5-year-old Tyler "were wondering what was going to happen with them" in regards to the breakfast.
Apparently Trenton and Tyler, like much of sports media, had forgotten about Vince Young's legendary capabilities when he's needed.
So Vince showed up at the restaurant where breakfast was happening, ate an omelet with the boys, signed a few autographs, and made those two boys' day.
He probably made their lives, though.
Vince summed up that, even though many have suggested he has completely lost his mind, he "gets it" better than most celebrities ever will in his quote to the Tennesseean.
"Those are my boys. I wouldn't say it was to pay anyone back; it was just out of love. Steve would do it for me. He pretty much did it for me when I was growing up. I have a history with the boys and I want to do anything I can. I am their big brother."
I'm not saying Vince Young is perfect, or he deserves to start (although he does), or that he won't ever let those boys or his fans down.
I am saying that the media outlets will probably let this story slide through the cracks before today is over in favor of something more interesting, like the latest leaked steroid user.
It's a shame because Trenton and Tyler are more important than that.
Just ask the greatest college quarterback of all time.

Dear fantasy football team,

2009-08-26T12:53:00.000-07:00

So all you guys have been drafted to play for this illustrious franchise, the Macon Babies, and you should feel lucky. To my first round draft pick, Steve Slaton, I knew when I pre-set my player rankings and draft strategy, that the chips would fall to where you would be my guy. Yes, you are more valuable to me than Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Steve Smith, and Clinton Portis. Don't let all those Pro Bowls and Super Bowls get you down. Your team is perennially awful, but you are my shining star.
In week one, I need a good performance out of you. When the Eagles play the Panthers in that opening tilt, I could use a 300-399-yard game out of Donovan McNabb. A couple of touchdowns would be great, but no interceptions please. At the same time, I need Steve Smith to get over 200 yards and a couple touchdowns. Basically, I need an offensive shootout. I'm not even going to discuss how ridiculous things need to get if Portis gets injured in the preseason and I have to put in the Panthers' Jonathan Stewart.
Furthermore, Peyton Manning, you're not on my team, and, in fact, you're my opposition. Thus, a 10-40 performance with 120 yards and a touchdown would be a blessing. Especially if all 10 of those completions are to my guy Dallas Clark. That's right, please ignore Reggie Wayne and your other speedy receivers. Clark is slower, therefore more thorough. Remember the tortoise and the hare? If not, I'll give you a hint: the rabbit loses.
Otherwise, if Brady hurts his knee again, I'm gonna need you to step up JaMarcus Russ... Okay, that's a long shot. I should just stop. Good luck, guys!

-Jeremy
Owner
Macon Babies

Simply Genius

2009-08-13T18:40:00.000-07:00

Bronson Arroyo has always been an interesting character to me.
You know, the guy who started with the Red Sox that had the long hair.
He was also the only white baseball player with braids, and he has been a singer and guitarist with produced CD's.
On the field, he's always been the type of pitcher that no one seems to be able to explain, we just know he's good.
I couldn't tell you if he's a fireballer, or if he paints the corners, or if he throws a loop-de-doo knuckleball like we all did on Nintendo games.
I just know he always seems to be successful.
Now, as it turns out, he's also a genius, and he may have used steroids.
You see, Arroyo has admitted that he's not all that careful with his supplements now, and he used to take andro and amphetamines, which have both been banned.
But they weren't when he took them.
That's the kicker that most people booing Manny, Papi, and the rest of the "Dirty 104" as I have just in the last 10 words dubbed them, don't realize.
Anyone on that 2003 list was found guilty of taking supplements that were not illegal yet or had no formalized testing or punishment.
Arroyo's stance, paraphrased:
"Yep, I took lots of stuff back then. Good stuff. Legal stuff. Was it laced with steroids? WHO KNOWS??? But it was AWESOME! In fact, I'm probably on that list from '03. Be shocking if I wasn't. If you're asking whether I'd do it again, the answer is abso-frickin'-lutely. If that stuff were legal, I'd buy the Sam's Club supersized jug. To be honest, I'm not very careful now. I don't take what's banned, but I do take anything that's not."
Do you know what that means?
If it does come out that he was on the 2003 list, no one will be shocked.
Anyone who's read the story I just read won't buy a newspaper, magazine, or tell-all book simply to find out the details about Bronson's steroid use.
No one will assume that because he was on the list, he was shooting the hard stuff into his left glute. (or perhaps the right glute; I don't know proper protocol.)
He didn't pull the Palmiero finger point, or the A-Rod "I'm sorry for what I may or may not have done that could have possibly been against a rule or statute or maybe law," or even a Papi "I think I took tainted vitamins."
He told us exactly what he took, told us what he's taking, and told us why he did what he did then and why he does what he does now.
It'll probably be taken way out of context by those who aren't used to such, but not by me.
I appreciate honesty.

Mr. James...excuse me...

2009-07-23T08:24:00.000-07:00

So, I finally saw the Lebron James video.
I know you know the one I'm talking about.
First, it was "the video that Nike confiscated of Lebron James getting dunked on by a high schooler."
Then, it was "the video that the public had the right to see."
Next, it was "well, I mean, the camp does have a 'no outside photography or recording' policy."
Finally, it was "oh somebody leaked the video. I'm shocked. We might as well watch the footage from someone's cell phone video camera."
And this is the type of trending that is keeping me out of the sports writing industry?
I even heard Dan Patrick say that Lebron didn't get dunked on; he actually just got out of the way and let the kid have his moment.
Well, as stated, I finally saw the video, and... umm... King James got dunked on by a high schooler.
He caught a face full of shoulder, gave a "swing-and-a-miss" attempt at a block, and then stumbled backwards upon landing.
That is textbook "posterization."
Perhaps, as some talking head hypothesized, Lebron could have blocked the kid if he wanted to, but we'll never know that because Lebron, that I know of, hasn't really addressed it.
Not that it matters, since getting dunked on or dunking on someone is no indicator of actual talent, but I would love to hear the interview that would occur if Lebron and a reporter had a completely truthful and accurate conversation about the incident.
"Mr. James...excuse me...rumor has it that you got... posterized at your recent camp. Is this true?"
"Why yes I did. Haven't you seen the video? It's all over every website that calls itself a news outlet, most of which are actually run by high school dropouts with poor senses of humor and decency. (Glares menacingly at the kid wearing the star trek t-shirt and no press credentials)"
"But Mr. James, I heard Nike confiscated the tape. Don't journalists have the right to everything that happens anywhere at anytime, regardless of rules in place in those locations?"
"Well yeah, they tried to keep that tape from getting out. Truthfully, nothing that happens in a private location is any of the media's business, and the camp had a rule against recordings done by anyone other than Nike. That rule is really just for the protection of the 16-17-year-olds that are attending the camp, but it actually would've been really convenient for me this time. (insert cheesy Lebron commercial smile)"
"Lebron, some have said you let the kid dunk, but I've seen the video. He made you look pretty bad; am I right? (looks around for a high five)"
"Well truthfully, I'm probably the most naturally gifted athlete on the planet, so, were I playing at game intensity and focus, I would've sent the ball into the sixth row. But I wasn't, because it's a camp and I'm the host. Thus, that high schooler dunked on me, and it should be on a poster. Because that video is nasty."
Granted that conversation won't ever happen, but that's my take on the issue.
The King got thrown down upon, but it's not really that big of a deal.
The score is still Lebron 2,000,000...the world 1.

Clash of the Titans

2009-07-10T08:32:00.000-07:00

I've heard much talk on sports radio over recent months about the level of parity in particular professional leagues.
The hosts on these shows begin to banter about which leagues have the most level playing field amongst its teams, then they move on to discuss whether parity is really important.
My personal stance is that, to the fan of mediocre teams, parity is paramount.
If your team just missed the MLB wild card by a game and a half or finished as the eight seed in the NBA's eastern conference and got spanked by the Cavs, it's nice to think, "My guys might have a chance next year."
For everyone else, especially league officials, total parity is like "ending women's suffrage."
The phrase itself sounds better than the meaning of the words.
Total parity means that this year's champion might be terrible next year.
See 1997 or 2003 Marlins.
Total parity means that fans just get frustrated when their Super Bowl Raiders disappear for years afterwards.
Are their Angels fans anyhwere outside of California because of that title the Halos won in 2002?
Did anyone else even remember that the Angels won a World Series in 2002?
On the flip side, how many Celtics and Lakers fan exist outside of Massachusetts and California simply because of the 1980's?
Take me for example, I've only seen the United Center once in the seven days I've ever spent in Chicago, but I still cheer for the Bulls as much as possible because of the Jordan era.
I'll go a step further and say that I wouldn't even watch the NBA now if Jordan's Bulls hadn't erased the word parity from the NBA lexicon in the mid-90s.
All that said, the NBA is building to what I think may be the best NBA season in years because, for once, parity isn't happening.
The teams that are making the biggest moves are last season's contenders.
The Lakers decided, "what we need is a grumpy, lanky dude."
Thus, Ron Artest.
The Celtics said, "We'll see your grumpy, lanky dude, and raise you a scruffy beard."
Thus, Rasheed Wallace.
Questionably, the Magic gave up a little too much, but they picked up Vince Carter, and I can't wait to see Vince jump off Dwight Howard's back for a 360 through his legs.
Even the Cavaliers signed Shaq, which is a way better deal than a lot of people realize for situational and match-up reasons.
Basically, the Eastern conference power forwards, or fours, should start a support group.
Imagine yourself having to decide who to help, your small forward who's getting destroyed by the King or your most likely undersized center that's getting pushed around by the Big Aristotle.
Have fun with that.
Also don't forget that the Rockets and Blazers have been reloading, and D-Wade is forcing the Heat's hand on some moves in Miami.
The NBA was already gaining popularity, but I think this may be one of the most interesting eras we've ever seen in sports.
This is no one or two-team race, but this is also no NFL, where contenders change year-to-year.
What we're about to see is essentially an eight-or-nine team league of contenders that fill their schedules with 20 or so minor-league teams.
I mean, does anyone actually view the Bucks and Andrew Bogut as anywhere near the same level as Kobe and the Lakers?
Personally, I love this direction.
Why?
Because I think it sounds more exciting to see Shaq, LeBron, Kobe, Pau, and Ron Artest on the same court without All-Star jerseys on than it would be to see Michael Redd and those ugly green uniforms get swept out of the second round.

Really?

2009-05-31T06:20:00.000-07:00

As I've listened to the coverage following last night's Eastern Conference finals game, in which Orlando eliminated Lebron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers, I can't help but laugh.
Surprise, surprise... the media have turned on Lebron.
His team lost a series in which he averaged 38 points, and the 24-year-old was aggravated, or upset, or downright pissed.
Actually no one knows what he was feeling because the man left the arena without talking to the media.
What? He just talked to his team mates in the locker room and then got on the bus?
I can't imagine why a man who was probably frustrated at the lackluster performance of his teammates Less Williams and that kid from High School Musical, aka Anderson Verejao, would want to skip the press conference.
Sure it's supposedly the media's right to needle an already frustrated athlete with such questions as...
"So, Lebron, does it bother you that Kobe is going to get a shot at another title and you guys are going home?"
"Did your team mates let you down tonight?"
"Lebron, what are you going to need this offseason to win a title?"
"So are you ready to go to New York NOW?"
Wasn't leaving the arena a better choice, as a team mate and superstar, than what I would've wanted to say in that presser?
"Yeah, I'm pretty upset that I'm gonna have to wait a year for my first title, but I'm really not competing with Kobe until we get to the Finals at the same time. Of course my team mates let me down, don't you have a television? I need Cavs management to get their heads out of their backsides and get me something better than Mo Williams and a broke-down Ben Wallace. Seriously, Mo Williams is the best you can do? And I thought about it, even hanging out with Jay-Z isn't cool enough to make me wanna play for the Knicks. If I want to go to New York, I'll buy a plane."
Now THAT would've been unprofessional. In my mind, what he did could be percieved as personal damage prevention.
Rather than risking going T.O. in the press conference, Lebron just walked away.
So before you judge, think about how you would respond to these questions.
After you don't finish a sale,
"So does it bother you that all that commission just walked out the door and, wow, Jimmy's really landing a big one over there?"
After your favorite student gets suspended for getting in a fight,
"Did Johnny let you down today?"
After you work on a project for months and your group members let you down tremendously,
"Next time, which group members would you want again and which do you want out of the group?"
After an awful work week,
"So when are you gonna start applying with other companies?"
Now imagine that your answers are going to be published all across America, without the preceding questions, leaving only your angry and potentially hurtful commentary.
I've been in the other side of the business, and I'd go straight to the bus, too.

Ridiculous...

2009-05-22T21:48:00.000-07:00

I was going to write this post about how the sports media has become tiresome with their coverage of the NBA's two brightest stars, Lebron and Kobe.
Everyone seemingly agrees that Lebron is more physically gifted than Kobe and that Kobe is a far better game closer than Lebron.
Conversely, it seems to be conventional wisdon that Kobe is a bit of a ball hog and that Lebron frequently passes up the clutch shot to include his team mates.
I had prepared a statement regarding the genius of Lebron's decision-making paradigm, and I was ready to say that his pass-first mentality would eventually pay off.
Yes, I was already on the James gang's bandwagon, but I didn't expect Lebron to answer for himself this soon.
A mere two days after the King was "too unselfish"....
I'm going to pause right here to highlight how ludicrous the notion that anyone could suggest a professional athlete is too unselfish actually is.
Let this simmer for a second.
"Yeah, the nerve of Lebron James. It's like he understands the meaning of the word 'team' or something. He actually trusts his team mates to take the final shot of the game. What a loser."
I rest my case.
Un-Pause.
A mere two days after the King was "too unselfish" to take an off-balance shot over passing to an open team mate, James addressed the only two counterpoints anyone has ever had against his otherwise flawless game.
His jump shot is shaky.
He would prefer to not take the final shot.
With exactly one second remaining on the clock, the GREATEST PLAYER IN THE GAME hit a three-point jumper without flinching and with no backboard or rim needed.
Check and check.
Many have speculated that these playoffs could be when Bron-Bron takes his place as the next Jordan, but Jordan and I would both disagree.
A direct quote from His Airness:
"Do it your own way, and see where it goes. It might not hit the way you want it to. You may not make as much money as you want to. But there's value in remaining true to yourself."
Lebron makes plenty of money, but the point remains clear.
Both Jordan and James are the best of their time.
Nobody who touched the court while Jordan was playing was as good as Jordan.
That includes Kobe, who can not lead a team of second-tier players to six rings.
Nobody who is on the court right now is as good as Lebron.
That includes Kobe, who isn't big enough or nice enough to win or lose the way Lebron does.
Basically, Lebron is ridiculous.

Trust and Loyalty

2009-03-12T06:52:00.000-07:00

While the title of this blog may seem to be a bit deep for a sports writer, these human values are, in fact, essential to the sports world.
A player must be able to trust his teammates and his team, but he must also be loyal to both of those entities.
In today's sports climate, the loyalty of a Chipper Jones, who has more than once taken less money to not only remain an Atlanta Brave but to also free up room for the salaries of other players, is rare.
More common is the "loyal to the highest bidder" mentality of a C.C. Sabathia or A.J. Burnett.
We can also see this in football, where Anquan Boldin has talked of wanting to play for someone else other than the NFC champion Arizona Cardinals.
Never mind the fact that playing with ace reciever capabilities in a system where every defense will be focused on the actual ace of the team, Larry Fitzgerald, should make any reciever drool.
That's a topic for another post.
This mindset of most athletes has forced teams to be, truthfully, untrustworthy to their players.
Why would a general manager, owner, or coach stick by a player when that same player is likely to skip town to a richer market after playing like an All Star in his contract year?
It is that attitude that, in my opinion, has created the Denver Broncos vs. Jay Cutler saga.
You see, Denver isn't stupid.
They've seen how players can treat a team, and they don't want to be the next victim.
While this attitude may be justified, that doesn't make it right.
Jay Cutler has been the franchise quarterback for the Broncos since before he was even drafted, but the lure of this year's "it" free agent Matt Cassel was just too much.
Rather than coming out from the start that Jay Cutler was the team's signal caller and nothing could change that, the Broncos entertained the idea of trading Cutler for Cassel.
Never mind the fact that Matt Cassel, before last year, was the guy wearing the cap and carrying the clip board for the Patriots.
Never mind the fact that Cassel was 11-5 with essentially the same offense that went 18-1 the year before.
Never mind the fact that the Patriots missed the playoffs for seemingly the first time this millenium.
The football world was talking about Matt Cassel as possibly even a better idea than Tom Brady, and the Broncos listened, especially once former Pats coordinator Josh McDaniel came on board as head coach.
Then, when Cassel ended up elsewhere, McDaniel and friends blew the trade talk off as no different than a water-cooler chat.
Like "Hey Josh, if you were to trade for Matt Cassel, would you trade Jay Cutler in a three-team deal that would involve the Buccaneers and players x, y, and z? I'm not saying, but I'm just sayin'..."
Totally casual, and they approached you, right?
So that makes you innocent in the whole thing, right?
Wrong.
See, what the Broncos were forgetting is that Jay Cutler has never been that guy shopping himself around.
He's established friendships and connections with his recievers.
He's never put himself out there as anything other than the Denver Broncos' quarterback, which is what McDaniel and company called him only after they didn't get Matt Cassel and they had to make nice with the guy they were willing to trade for someone else's second-stringer.
Notice who actually traded for Cassel: The Chiefs, who haven't been a relevant team in years.
Notice who didn't show up in the conversation: the Steelers, the Giants, the Ravens, the Titans.
Those are the winning franchises, who stick with their guns until their guns NEED replacing.
Those are the franchises who don't go out after the "next big thing" unless they need that position.
Those are franchises that have been to the playoffs repeatedly and even won titles this decade.
Notice a trend?

Surprise Surprise

2009-03-02T08:57:00.000-08:00

I'm about to do something I very rarely do.
I'm going to write, at length, about the NBA.
I know it sounds so unlike me to concern myself with the Association, a league I've pretty much given up on since the retirement of Michael Jordan, Round 3.
Lately, though, the newest class of NBA superstars like Dwight Howard, Dewayne Wade, King Lebron James, Chris Paul, and the new Kobe Bryant have made me love the game again.
Shaq's resurgence as a dominant figure has also played a big part in my growing interest in the league.
Thus, I'm going to layout the stretch run in the form of my playoff predictions.

EAST
First Round
1 Boston v. 8 Chicago
The Celtics currently trail the Cavaliers for the number 1 spot, but with more than 20 games left, I think "The Big Ticket" can lead the green machine back to the top. I also think that Jordan himself has one more return coming that will lead the Bulls to overtake the mighty Bucks. Just joking, I think a Michael Redd-less Bucks team is sure to collapse. BOS 4-2

2 Cleveland v. 7 Philadelphia
This, in my opinion would be an incredibly lopsided series. Basically, I have zero faith in the Sixers. CLE 4-0

3 Orlando v. 6 Detroit
I think moving Iverson to the bench will serve to spark enough of a spurt for the Pistons to jump Philly, but that's about it. If Iverson and Rip can play nice enough to work some magic of their own (sorry for the pun), this seems to be the most likely upset chance of the East side. ORL 4-3

4 Miami v. 5 Atlanta
Atlanta has seemed shaky this year, but who knows what could happen. I expect this to be the most closely contested series, as a 4-5 should be. MIA 4-3

Second Round
Boston v. Miami
I'm not actually going to predict any upsets in the Eastern first round, but I recognize the potential. This series will be a classic, as I expect big things from D-Wade. BOS 4-3

Cleveland v. Orlando
Don't expect as much of a close series as one might expect. King James and friends really make their system work, and I really don't like the way Orlando is coached. Mr. Howard will help keep the series from being a sweep. CLE 4-2

Championship
Boston v. Cleveland
I really like both of these teams. That's all i can say, other than that I can't wait for this series. CLE 4-3

WEST
First Round
1 LA Lakers v. 8 Phoenix
This one was just too easy, and will be a nightmare for those of us who hate cliche broadcasting. "Shaq vs. Kobe...too bad it's not Christmas day... blah blah blah." Expect brilliant quotes from the big fella and prolific non-answers from Kobe to follow such original inquiries as "are there any hard feelings from that trade that happened five years ago?" LAL 4-2

2 San Antonio v. 7 Utah
This is the only upset I'll actually predict. Partially because I think Utah is better than their record might indicate and partially because I flat don't like the flopaholic, complaining Spurs, I'll take Boozer and the Jazz. UTA 4-2

3 Denver v. 6 Houston
I'll just take the Nuggets and be done. Houston is the most gloriously mediocre team in sports history. You can never pick against their being in the playoff hunt, nor their ability to make absolutely no headway once they get there. DEN 4-1

4 Portland v. 5 New Orleans
The Hornets are another one of my favorite franchises, and this, like the East 4-5, will be a battle. I expect the Hornets will win, but the Blazers are slowly developing into what could be a scary good franchise in the near future. NO 4-3

Second Round
LA Lakers v. New Orleans
I wish I could say that the Hornets could pull off the upset against Kobe and friends, but I just don't think David West's 65-year-old back and Tyson Chandler can handle Pau and Drew. Also, I don't see anyone in N'Awlins stopping the Dobermamba. LAL 4-2

Denver v. Utah
Big game Chauncey and 'Melo are going to be a dream together in the postseason, and this will probably be their masterpiece series. Expect lots of highlights. DEN 4-2

Championship
LA Lakers v. Denver
I would love to be different and pick a team other than the Lakers out of the West, but that just doesn't seem realistic. LAL 4-2

NBA FINALS
LA Lakers v. Cleveland
If you bought stock in the company that produces all the "Next Michael Jordan" statements, this series will set you up for an early retirement. Also looking to profit are the "King's first crown" people and the folks who brought you "Can Kobe finally win a ring without Shaq?" CLE 4-3

Honestly I don't know who would win that last series.
I just wanted to pick a team that wasn't Lakers or the Celtics, and the Bulls and Heat seemed too unlikely.
Basic synopsis is that there are 4-5 teams with a legitimate shot at winning the East, but the Lakers are the cream of a surprisingly weak crop of Western playoff teams.
The records out West are better overall, but, for once, the Eastern teams are better, in my opinion.
By the way, I'm glad those pre-season Clipper picks went so well for everyone.

No more...

2009-02-10T09:49:00.001-08:00

I move that we, as a body of sports fans, issue a "cease and desist" letter to all those who are witch-hunting for steroid users.
I just don't want to know anymore.
There is a policy in place to help prevent future use, and necessary investigations against those who have committed perjury have taken place.
Just stop.
Why can't media members see that stories like "Oh yeah, A-Rod was using in 2003" and "Hey my brother, Big Mac, was using" only hurt the game further?
First of all, everyone knew the "Great Home Run Chase" was fueled almost exclusively by 'roids, at least in retrospect.
Sammy and Mark were literally larger than life, and there's nothing we can do about it now.
Furthermore, baseball fans everywhere took solace in the fact that Barry Bonds' records would not stand long because Alex Rodriguez, who surely was not a steroid user, would eventually save the day by crushing 800 or so home runs.
Alas, the national sports media can never really tell when enough is enough.
So, when four sources revealed that A-Rod had tested positive in a supposedly sealed survey test in 2003, before steroids were banned, of course Sports Illustrated ran the story.
As Kenny Chesney said, "Never sure when the truth won't do."
What I have realized is that baseball was way more fun when we didn't really know what the ugly truth was.
1998 was magical.
We all watched while McGwire, Sosa, and Griffey dueled it out for Maris' home run record.
Everyone had their favorite, and so many of my generation were sad when Griffey, ironically the only seemingly clean contender in that race, was knocked out of contention by injuries.
Then we started caring.
We wanted baseball to be clean again.
Now, the game is arguably cleaner, or we at least know who the cheaters were/are, but we can't enjoy it.
The man who was supposed to clean the home run king's crown off will only further tarnish it, and who will save us then?
Even feel-good story Josh Hamilton has shown up on HGH lists.
I hope there is someone out there who can do so, a superhero with a 'roid-free record who can challenge the marks set by the steroid-era's inflated superstars.
There's only one problem with that hope.
The bars may be set too high for a natural human to reach.
Let's hope our own curiosity didn't kill what was once our national pastime.

Super Bowl?

2009-01-27T08:51:00.000-08:00

I hate being wrong.
Unfortunately, I have grown far too accustomed to the state of being incorrect over the course of my life.
Don't believe me?
Here, let me list a few sports and non-sports related falsities I've uttered in the past.
"Dude, this is Clemson's year." (spoken a record 10 times, possibly more.)
"I'll never work in another retail store again. This sucks."
"Sam Bradford is terrible. He'll probably end up transferring."
"Boy, this journalism degree is really going to come in handy."
"John Smoltz is a Braves lifer. He'd never sell out to one of those big markets." (I still don't believe that happened.)
Just when I thought that I had a handle on my rampant verbal miscues, the Arizona Cardinals began to make fun of my wrongness.
I don't think I've ever been proven wrong on two consecutive "there's no way in" burning anti-paradise statements in one post-season, by the same team.
I was all over the anti-Cardinals bandwagon as the Warner-led Redbirds hosted the Falcons, even with the Cardinals home-field advantage.
Then, as the Fitzgerald show hit the road for Charlotte, I just knew the Panthers were going to put the wood to the desert-dwelling road team.
Luckily, I knew when to stop myself, and I refused to pick a winner in the NFC championship game.
I would've picked the Eagles, by the way.
Now, I'm left with what would seem like a sure choice.
The Steelers and my favorite quarterback, Big Ben Rothlisberger, are facing the lowly Cardinals.
The same Steelers that were the only team that I really had no beef with in my "Powder Rankings" post several weeks ago, are facing my "slumlords" from the same column.
In other news, this post-season does not change that assessment, as the Cardinals did win a terrible division.
One right statement in a snowstorm of terrible ideas.
What we may be seeing is the first team to successfully turn the juice off after clinching a horrible division early and then turn it right back on during the post-season.
I hope that I don't have to see the Cards win the Big Game, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Thus, I will not pick a winner.
I refuse to say that there is no way in (burning anti-paradise) that Kurt Warner could throw to Larry Fitzgerald enough times to beat the Steelers defense.
I refuse to say that Big Ben is going to make the Cardinals defense look like a bunch of middle-schoolers.
I refuse to say that Santonio Holmes and the best celebration in the NFL will score at least once with two long kick/punt returns.
I refuse to say that Troy Polomalu and his modified "Power of the Dreads" will pick Kurt Warner twice, in all likelihood.
I'll just say that it's going to be a great time, with both teams playing competitively, and that I hope the best team wins.

2008-12-24T19:11:00.000-08:00

Well, merry Christmas everybody!
I'm feeling a bit more in the spirit now that I'm here in the old homestead, so I figured I would give out a few Christmas gifts to members of the sports world.
So imagine me gracefully bounding from a fireplace as we take a peek into my giant present bag...
-Rob Parker, Detroit News columnist. Gift: Swift Kick with a Santa boot. If you haven't seen the Rod Marinelli press conference, just know that the question "Do you wish your daughter had married a better defensive coordinator?" was involved. This guy gets a 9 out of 10 on the douche-o-meter, and is on my list of guys that shouldn't get paid to do the job I wish I had.
-New York Yankees. Gift: A Giving Christmas Spirit. I don't necessarily feel bad for the other teams in the Major Leagues or even the AL East, I just hate to see Mark Texiera and CC Sabathia end up as the same type of washed-up has-beens that Johnny Damon became and Jason Giambi has barely survived. I really think the Yankees would offer $100 million if I could get the Red Sox to pretend they were interested in signing me.
-The NFL. Gift: A sense of humor. Wes Welker was fined this week for making a snow angel. Shaun Ellis was fined for throwing a snowball at fans who had just thrown snowballs at him. Frosty the Snowman was suspended because he wouldn't take off his hat, which obviously didn't meet league uniform regulations.
-The NBA. Gift: A soup kitchen. With all the coaches that have been laid off this year, I figure there may be some hard times a-comin'. I also thought about giving league general managers the gift of patience, but maybe that's too much to ask.
-University of Texas. Gift: Ohio State in a bowl game. I can't really claim this gift, since the BCS committee already gave the Longhorns the opportunity to play a team that has gotten smacked around in two straight national championship games and gotten worse since. I don't think beating the Buckeyes will make Mack Brown and friends feel any less jilted by their conference and the BCS, but I will enjoy watching the most overrated team in college football get lit up.
-Urban Meyer, University of Florida football coach. Gift: A soul. I don't have any real evidence for his lack of a soul, other than all the signs that suggest he traded his in. He went undefeated at Utah to help the Utes become the nation's first BCS-busters, then came to Florida to win a national title in his second season with a quarterback that no one believed in. That quarterback's back-up turned out to be possibly the best college football player of all time who is also a missionary. Oh yeah, Meyer's Gators have a shot at another national title on January 8. All that screams that Satan is the proud current owner of Urban's soul. Just kidding, but seriously...
That's all the fun I can handle for now, but I hope you all have a merry Christmas!

I need a new soapbox...

2008-12-11T07:33:00.000-08:00

I recognize that there are other sports out there, but college football is really all I can find important enough rants about.
Thus, I will take another opportunity to further denounce the BCS and, in this case ESPN.
ESPN absolutely perturbs me.
They make themselves the forum for discussion on big-time bowl snubs based on BCS rankings.
Their anchors slide in comments about the obvious need for a playoff.
They even have a simulator feature on espn.com that allows fans to use Accu-score predictions, whatever that means, to simulate what a playoff would look like using an assortment of seeding options.
I don't want to hear any of their crap anymore because they play both sides of the ball.
While they play up to the fans' desire for a playoff, they hand the BCS asinine amounts of cash for the rights to broadcast the same bowls their content would suggest the network was against.
If "the worldwide leader in sports" would have simply told the BCS big-wigs that ESPN/ABC wasn't interested in a formula-based champion, therefore they would not pay to broadcast them, who knows what could happen.
Furthermore, if they could somehow get Fox in on the boycott, where would the BCS turn?
They would either have to contend with the eternal fuzziness of NBC (think about it, watching "the peacock" in HD is like watching ABC on foil-covered rabbit-ears) or possibly CBS.
One of my co-workers suggested that viewers would watch the BCS games regardless of the channel because college football is so popular, even if the games were on Versus.
I disagree, seeing as how I can tell you which channels are ABC, CBS, FOX, and ESPN in two different markets off the top of my head, and I've only heard one repeated comment about Versus.
"Anybody know what number this Versus crap is on?"
ESPN has shown it's true colors on this issue, and I just want them to stop pulling a Kerry and stick to their side.
In addition, even their Accu-score predictions are biased.
I ran the simulator ten or twelve times using the BCS rankings and substituting Virginia Tech for 16th-ranked BYU.
What I got were several upsets, usually to bump Texas out of the first round against Georgia Tech or to get Ohio State past Texas Tech.
Ohio State would not beat Texas Tech ever, nor will they come within three touchdowns of Texas in the Fiesta Bowl.
What's even more interesting is that 75% of my simulations ended with the same championship game: Florida vs. USC.
How surprising, ESPN came up with "Tim Tebow, oh Tim Tebow" against the "mighty Trojans" as the most likely championship outcome of a playoff.
Give me a break.

Bowl Crappiness Series

2008-12-02T06:47:00.000-08:00

I, the great Jermdini, will now attempt my most dangerous trick yet: I will attempt to unravel the mysteries of the BCS.
I know what you're thinking; I shouldn't even attempt this because my head will probably explode.
It will do that, no doubt out of frustration rather than confusion.
Thus, I will outline a few foreseeable scenarios that involve the three most important games this coming weekend, being the SEC championship game, the Big 12 championship game, and USC vs. UCLA.
So the simplest scenario is that number one Alabama defeats Florida and second-ranked Oklahoma beats Missouri.
In that case, count these two games as national semi-finals and send those two teams to the national championship game.
I know the Texas fans think they should be ahead of Oklahoma simply because of a 40-35 head-to-head victory, but those same fans forget that their Longhorns lost to Texas Tech.
Thus, all three teams should be tied for second in the BCS, and should play Missouri in jamboree format circa high school ball.
Anyhoosers, the next scenario is that Florida, number four in the latest rankings, defeats Alabama, and Oklahoma also wins.
In my mind, this would send Oklahoma to the number one slot and Florida up to number two, and sets up a national championship game that no one other than Oklahoma and Florida fans really wants to see.
Face it, those are two of the most hated programs in the country.
These next several options bring USC into the picture.
Let's say Alabama wins and Oklahoma loses.
If USC wins, I think that would bring them back into the national championship game, just like I predicted after Pete Carroll said the BCS "stinks."
Yeah, USC would jump Texas, as they should, and it pains me to say that.
If USC loses as well, there are two options left: Texas and Utah.
Oh my, talk about "pandelirium."
Of course the voters would send Texas to the title game, despite that whole "finished third in the conference" thing, but the worst part is that even that wouldn't cause the powers that be to consider a playoff.
Think about it, Utah vs. 'Bama, or anyone for that matter, for a national championship game.
Next, consider the possibilities if Florida beats Alabama, and Oklahoma loses.
If USC wins, they'll play the Gators in another "Battle of the Hated Programs," but the ESPN guys will be excited for a whole month.
Some of them would probably start working for Fox just so they could call that game.
"Tebow versus the Trojans, the Trojans versus Tebow, oh thank you, Jesus!"
The last of my scenarios is two-fold.
If Florida wins big over Alabama, and Oklahoma and USC both lose, we're looking at Florida-Texas, just as I predicted would be the result of a playoff.
That would be a great way to end the season, but not as great as the other option.
If the same thing happens, except Florida wins a nail-biter over Alabama, both teams might get enough style points to stay one and two.
The two teams could shake hands in Atlanta and say, "See you in Miami."
In all likelihood, Texas would jump over Alabama anyway, but that is not guaranteed because there is no method to the madness that is the BCS.
I would laugh endlessly if the almighty computers and voters put together their collective pea-brain and came up with an SEC championship rematch for the national title game.
It would be an SEC fan's dream, but just another episode in the fairness nightmare that is the BCS.

Powder Rankings

2008-11-12T09:22:00.000-08:00

I believe some of the voters for ESPN.com's NFL power rankings are on crack. I don't even know what league they watch.
There is only one ranking system on earth that makes less sense is the BCS (see my last post), so at least the power rankings don't determine any sort of major championship.
In the end, the overall rankings are basically right by my estimation, but some of the voters are completely off their rockers.
Let's take Matt Williamson of Scouts, inc., for example.
His rankings are as follows:
1. New York Giants- even though they lost to Cleveland.
2. Tennessee Titans- even though they are the last remaining undefeated team. I'll let that one slide.
3. Philadelphia Eagles- 5-4...enough said. Here's another stat, they're 0-3 against their division, which kills them in almost any tie-breaker.
4. Pittsburgh Steelers- That one makes sense.
5. Carolina Panthers- I don't think the Panthers are really this good, but everyone else does, so I'll let him have this one.
6. Tampa Bay Buccanneers-These guys are 6-3, but they've lost to New Orleans, Denver, and Dallas, who Williamson ranks 20,22,16, respectively. Basically, even he knows his rankings are nonsensical.
7. Washington Redskins- Even though they beat Philadelphia. Then again, so did nearly everyone else. Their only losses are to Williamson's numbers 1, 4, and a loss to the Rams in an emotional rebound game, yet they are ranked below Philly and Tampa Bay.
8. Baltimore Ravens- Overall, a decent team for a team who doesn't have a quarterback.
9. Arizona Cardinals- These guys are the slumlords of the NFL, ruling a division full of 2-7 opponents.
10. New York Jets- A 6-3 division leader with a hall of fame quarterback and talented runningbacks, yet they're behind 3 second-place teams and a third-place team.

And that's just the screwiness at the top. There are other spots down lower where I think he got tired of thinking.
There really isn't any reason for me to question these rankings, other than to say this: Why does Matt Wiliamson get to vote in such a highly-publicized poll and make so much money while I can't get a full-time job as any sort of sports writer?
I want some of what he's snorting.

Irony, anyone?

2008-11-05T08:26:00.000-08:00

Pete Carroll thinks the BCS "stinks."
The same BCS system that, by virtue of pre-season rankings and hype always favoring his Trojans, gives his team the first crack at a number 1 BCS ranking. (See USC's mysterious jump over an undefeated UGA to number one circa, September 2008).
His team always forfeits their claim to an automatic title game bid by losing inexplicably to Stanford or explicably to Oregon State early in the season, but don't worry, Pete, you'll be back.
That said, he's calling for a playoff system in college football.
He has a point, as there are several questionable re-arrangements present in the most recent BCS rankings. (See Pat Forde on espn.com).
Thus, I see it necessary, or just plain fun, to predict what a playoff would look like if we merely substituted it for the current set-up, and predict the media surrounding each matchup.
Here we go...

FIRST ROUND
(1) Alabama vs. (8) West Virginia "Can the Tide's vaunted defense slow down the mighty Mountaineers? It's the Mountaineers versus Mount Cody (overly white chuckle from Herbstreit.)" Alabama wins, 31-17.

(2)Texas Tech vs. (7) Georgia Tech "In this battle of the Tech's, we know this: Texas Tech will have more yardage through the air, and Georgia Tech will have more rushing yards. Heck, both might get a shutout in their respective specialties (overly white chuckle from Herbstreit.)" Texas Tech wins, 42-21.

(3)Penn State vs. (6) Florida "Tim Tebow and the Gators look to contine the SEC's dominance over Big 10 teams in big-time games. I just hope the Nittany Lions haven't asked Ohio State for any advice (overly white chuckle from Herbstreit.)" Florida wins, 49-14.

(4)Texas vs. (5) USC "One thing that I think goes understated is how incredible USC is at (insert every possible factor of the game of football, excluding winning in Corvallis). Who's the underdog here? (overly white...you get the picture.)" Texas wins, 35-31.

SEMIFINALS
(1) Alabama vs. (4) Texas "This one should be a slobber-knocker, folks. That's all we got. No story lines, sorry." Texas wins, 24-21.

(2) Texas Tech vs. (6) Florida "Tim Tebow takes on his Heisman heir (Crabtree or Harrell, take your pick really). How will Texas Tech's aerial assault fare against an SEC defense?" Florida wins, 42-38.

CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
(4) Texas vs. (6) Florida "Thank God we get to say Tim Tebow some more. In fact, let's say it five more times... Tim Tebow, Tim Tebow, Tim Tebow, Tim Tebow, Tim Tebow. Oh yeah, Texas is here, too." Texas wins, 34-28.

So there you have it. That's how it would happen, if I'm any good at predicting, which I'm not. Tim Tebow.

Where's the Hype?

2008-10-31T08:11:00.000-07:00

It's not often I expect a little more hype from the national sports media, particularly from ESPN, but I have to say, I'm disappointed this time.
The Phillies are a team of baseball's good guys, with back-to-back MVP's and a comeback kid in Brad Lidge, whose career as a light's-out closer appeared to be over when Albert Pujols stole his mojo a few years ago.
Lidge was perfect in save attempts this year, and he saved the Series-clinching game 5 for the Phils.
Yet, the next day, no one seemed to care that the Phillies had won.
The same outlets that had lamented how fans wouldn't watch a Phillies-Rays Series gave fans nowhere to hear or read about what was actually an intriguing series.
ESPN gave more coverage to the bottom of the sixth inning in Game 5, which lasted two and a half days, than they did the champs.
The espn.com headline on Thursday, after the Phillies won it all on Wednesday, was a goofy Halloween feature about scary players and other fears in the NFL.
As big of a story as that was, the World Series deserves better.
Thank God there wasn't a draft going on, or we would've had to look at Mel Kiper's natural helmet instead of Series coverage.
Even the Macon Telegraph decided that ANOTHER fearure about the Georgia-Florida game was a bigger deal than a new World Series Champion. The story about the Phils was relegated to a tiny "continued on" spot in the bottom, right-hand corner of the front page.
Media outlets have become confused, I think.
We, as sports fans, actually don't care to read a Telegraph writer's seventh angle of the week on a game that hasn't happened yet nearly as much as we do a World Series.
We enjoy reading a "Top Ten Scariest Players List" that looks oddly like the list you've run approximately 37 times as "Top Ten Dirtiest Players," but a champion deserves it's due.
I can promise you that if ESPN's beloved Red Sox or LA Manny's had won the Classic, there would have been coverage.
If USC somehow wins the BCS title, there will most assuredly be a feature written about every segment of the Trojans' team and how they are the "most awesomest" in the land.
The Phillies bring a title to Philadelphia for the first time in 25 years after beating out the New York Trainwrecks for a second consecutive division title, and they get nothing.
Happy Halloween, now here's a list of "Hockey's Top Ten Scariest Faces."

Suggs for President '08

2008-10-24T08:22:00.000-07:00

Terrell Suggs would be an incredibly stereotypical presidential candidate.
In a recent "Two Live Stews" interview, he made several note-worthy comments, including the statement that the Ravens had a "bounty" on Rashard Mendenhall that caused his shoulder injury.
He also said that he and his fellow defenders had a hit out for Hines Ward because he's a dirty player, and Troy Smith will and should start over Joe Flacco.
When the NFL began investigating the "bounty" comments, Suggs pulled a Kerry-esque flip-flop and said, in effect,
"What I meant to say was we were worried about that mean ol' Hines Ward. Look, he broke a guy's jaw last week. Brrr...Scary!"
He also completely changed his opinion on the Flacco-Smith debate, saying that he meant they should platoon so the team can get some diverse packaging options.
All we're missing is a "Senator McCain is right," and Suggs could be a great Democratic party candidate.
Suggs may have a point on the quarterback issue, considering Flacco's inconsistencies, but that doesn't really matter.
I think the real issue is that someone should show Terrell Suggs his own business card, if he has one. His title is not "Offensive Coordinator," "Head Coach," or even "Anyone with a tangible connection to offensive personnel decisions."
His title is simply "Linebacker."
The idea that a linebacker even has a publicist is ludicrous, but maybe Terrell's publicist pointed to that particular line on Suggs' imaginary business card and suggested a change in stance.
Regardless, Suggs' flip-flop is one of the most pronounced I've ever seen in the sports world, so I think he should run for president with those kind of statement-bending capabilities.
Heck, it's guaranteed nearly half the country would vote for him.