Take for example this post at the Sporting News titled "College football teams in line for a decline in '09." (lack of capitalization earns a [sic].)
Now, this article is almost 2 weeks old. So I'm sure on other college football blogs it's already been ripped to shreds. Especially by foaming BC and Arizona fans. But fear not, my peers, I shall take a looksie at it and see what I can see:
First off, Dave Curtis has Rice as his top team to decline this season. Look, while I appreciate the dark horse pick as the "biggest decline" Rice wasn't exactly a headline grabber last season. Heck, they never even got into the inevitable "BCS Buster" conversation. We might look back on this article and go "Wow, Dave Curtis was so right about Rice!" More likely, however, we'll forget this article and Rice and Dave Curtis unless he writes something totally egregious.
Curtis' next pick is Boston College. His logic is pretty good on this one, and I can't really rip him too badly except for one detail: "A first-to-worst fall is in play for BC." So you're telling me BC's going to finish last in a conference that includes Duke, UVa, and NC State? I doubt this very, very highly.
He's picked Texas Tech to plunge, but come on man! With that offense in a league that literally stopped playing defense sometime around 2002...The Red Raiders probably won't be in contention for the Big 12 South thanks to Oklahoma and Texas. But are they going to lose to Houston? Or Baylor? I have a hard time buying into either of those theories.
Arizona...I'll give them this one. Though the PAC-10 still looks mediocre. Yeah, they were undefeated in bowls. I still hate them. What's this post about again? Oh yeah. Some old article. Let's continue...
Utah's been picked to "plunge" which really isn't fair. I mean, yeah, if they lose one game then this season is worse than the last. I'm not sure that warrants a spot on the "decline" list. Maybe it's just me, but I can totally see the Utes dropping 1 game and still making it to a semi-major bowl. They only really have to worry about Oregon, TCU, and BYU.
Matt Hayes's picks look remarkably similar. BC's at the top of his list, probably due to a lack of Matt Ryan.
Tulsa: (See argument on Rice. Replace "Rice" references with "Tulsa" and "Dave Curtis" with "Matt Hayes" and you basically have what I was gonna type here. Yeah, I'm lazy, get over it)
Missouri is poised for a fall thanks to the loss of Chase Daniel (Yeah, I liked him to win the Heisman last year. I was wrong. My apologies. I will not make this mistake again. My 2010 Heisman winner: Matt Ryan). They also lost a whopping 22 seniors. Good luck, Tigers. I think Mr. Hayes might be right on this one.
Guess what? Arizona appears again. Blah de blah de blah. There. It's the same thing as what Dave Curtis typed, only longer and dealing more with the concept that "momentum" somehow carries from December to the next September.
And then comes Minnesota. Now, while I am totally opposed to ever agreeing with a sportswriter about anything...he's right. Minnesota stank last year, but playing teams like Montana State, Florida Atlantic, and Purdue (rim shot) got them into a bowl. Which they lost by 21. Sooooo, let's just say that I'm not going to disagree with Mr. Hayes on this one.
Well that's all for now. Time to get some coffee
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Brief, halfhearted post follows...
The preview magazines are out. I fail to see any relevance these things have to reality. Last year Clemson was, and I quote (I can't remember the magazine that said this...I'm a bad semi-journalist), "the top team in a mediocre ACC."
My point in this little mini-post is simple: These magazines tell us practically nothing. Preseason rankings only serve to get people prepared for what should happen, not what does. Another example was #5 Michigan being upset by Appalachian State. Now, that was an upset. Still. I do not deny that. However, 2 years later, with Michigan 12-13 in the two seasons since that loss, it's fair to say that Michigan was not the 5th best team in the nation in 2007. So...let's not hail these preseason magazines as shining examples of utter brilliance. Not yet, at least...
My point in this little mini-post is simple: These magazines tell us practically nothing. Preseason rankings only serve to get people prepared for what should happen, not what does. Another example was #5 Michigan being upset by Appalachian State. Now, that was an upset. Still. I do not deny that. However, 2 years later, with Michigan 12-13 in the two seasons since that loss, it's fair to say that Michigan was not the 5th best team in the nation in 2007. So...let's not hail these preseason magazines as shining examples of utter brilliance. Not yet, at least...
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
I can't believe I'm typing this one...
Rick Reilly is right. It hurt to type that, but if you read the column, then this moron is far worse than Reilly's drivel ever will be.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Doldrums and the Schedules
A while back (meaning "February") I posted on how the 2 weeks leading up to the Super Bowl are the most boring in all of football. I stand corrected.
Look, I love college football. Love it. But, seriously, why do we care about any of this? I'm glad to see Tony Franklin got a job, but do we really need to know where he stands on religion? I care on a personal level, but not on an entertainment level. And entertainment is why I would read a college football blog in the first place...
Meanwhile, schedules have been out for a bit. Nothing's terribly different from the last few years: A few good nonconference games coupled with atrocious 1-AA cupcakes. Let's take a look at some of the intriguing matchups while we're here, shall we?
Ohio State, perpetually overrated as they are, looks to open with a win against Navy. They'd best pray for bad weather when USC shows up in Columbus, or we'll see a repeat of last year's demolition in LA.
Since we're on the subject of a team I hate with a passion, it was pretty refreshing to see the USC Trojans not being hailed as an invincible juggernaut in this article from Yahoo/Rivals news. Still, I have a problem with their schedule being treated as though it's a challenge. The teams USC is playing that might be "threats" aren't exactly high-class football squads: Notre Dame beat Hawaii and people treat them as though they're back to being a perrenial power in college football. Trust me, they're not. Ohio State is in a conference that's not that good, and they probably don't stand a chance against the Trojans. Oregon might be a tough road game, but I'm not gonna say they can beat the Trojans. In fact, I would be totally unsurprised to see the USC Trojans go undefeated and play in the title game. Their biggest pitfall? Honestly, probably the road game at California.
NC State (a bowl team last year only because there are 753 bowls) has 8, count 'em, 8 home games on its 12 game schedule. All 4 of the road games are going to be tough, so I guess the 'Pack feels the need to pad its schedule with the home crowd at their back. Since 3 of their home games are pretty much guaranteed wins (Murray State, Gardner-Webb, and Duke) the 3rd most popular school in North Carolina only has to beat 3 other teams to be bowl eligible. Sad, isn't it?
Speaking of 8 home games, anyone else notice that two of last years awesomely underachieving teams (Auburn and Michigan) are on the cowards list of travel-wary teams? Now I know that schedules are made years in advance, but it's nice and convenient that these two schools on the rebound are going to have friendlier schedules than most other teams.
Hats off to Georgia, who has to play a tough non-conference schedule in addition to their murderous conference. (Yes, they have Tennessee Tech one week. They also have the defending national champs the week before.)
Negative points to Nebraska (who starts off a season in which they could grab headlines playing tough teams and proving that they're back) by playing one non-Sun Belt conference member in their first 4 games. Yes the non-member is a tough game at Virginia Tech, but it's a little sad to see a team with a shot at a powerful opening statement opt instead to play 3 mediocre schools and one good one.
Crazy schedule of the year award goes to Georgia Tech who plays 3 games in 12 days. Admittedly, 1 is against Jacksonville State (no colored letters for 1-AA teams yet), but the other 2 are against conference foes who are definitely worthy of attention. If the Jackets win all 3 games, you can bet that'll be a confidence boost that will help their season. I wouldn't be surprised to see Georgia Tech win the ACC this season
Aaaaand that's all for this (the first post with content in quite some time). We'll see you later, hopefully someone will write something stupid soon!
Look, I love college football. Love it. But, seriously, why do we care about any of this? I'm glad to see Tony Franklin got a job, but do we really need to know where he stands on religion? I care on a personal level, but not on an entertainment level. And entertainment is why I would read a college football blog in the first place...
Meanwhile, schedules have been out for a bit. Nothing's terribly different from the last few years: A few good nonconference games coupled with atrocious 1-AA cupcakes. Let's take a look at some of the intriguing matchups while we're here, shall we?
Ohio State, perpetually overrated as they are, looks to open with a win against Navy. They'd best pray for bad weather when USC shows up in Columbus, or we'll see a repeat of last year's demolition in LA.
Since we're on the subject of a team I hate with a passion, it was pretty refreshing to see the USC Trojans not being hailed as an invincible juggernaut in this article from Yahoo/Rivals news. Still, I have a problem with their schedule being treated as though it's a challenge. The teams USC is playing that might be "threats" aren't exactly high-class football squads: Notre Dame beat Hawaii and people treat them as though they're back to being a perrenial power in college football. Trust me, they're not. Ohio State is in a conference that's not that good, and they probably don't stand a chance against the Trojans. Oregon might be a tough road game, but I'm not gonna say they can beat the Trojans. In fact, I would be totally unsurprised to see the USC Trojans go undefeated and play in the title game. Their biggest pitfall? Honestly, probably the road game at California.
NC State (a bowl team last year only because there are 753 bowls) has 8, count 'em, 8 home games on its 12 game schedule. All 4 of the road games are going to be tough, so I guess the 'Pack feels the need to pad its schedule with the home crowd at their back. Since 3 of their home games are pretty much guaranteed wins (Murray State, Gardner-Webb, and Duke) the 3rd most popular school in North Carolina only has to beat 3 other teams to be bowl eligible. Sad, isn't it?
Speaking of 8 home games, anyone else notice that two of last years awesomely underachieving teams (Auburn and Michigan) are on the cowards list of travel-wary teams? Now I know that schedules are made years in advance, but it's nice and convenient that these two schools on the rebound are going to have friendlier schedules than most other teams.
Hats off to Georgia, who has to play a tough non-conference schedule in addition to their murderous conference. (Yes, they have Tennessee Tech one week. They also have the defending national champs the week before.)
Negative points to Nebraska (who starts off a season in which they could grab headlines playing tough teams and proving that they're back) by playing one non-Sun Belt conference member in their first 4 games. Yes the non-member is a tough game at Virginia Tech, but it's a little sad to see a team with a shot at a powerful opening statement opt instead to play 3 mediocre schools and one good one.
Crazy schedule of the year award goes to Georgia Tech who plays 3 games in 12 days. Admittedly, 1 is against Jacksonville State (no colored letters for 1-AA teams yet), but the other 2 are against conference foes who are definitely worthy of attention. If the Jackets win all 3 games, you can bet that'll be a confidence boost that will help their season. I wouldn't be surprised to see Georgia Tech win the ACC this season
Aaaaand that's all for this (the first post with content in quite some time). We'll see you later, hopefully someone will write something stupid soon!
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Rick Reilly Redux
Sorry for not posting, but if you look at the title of the blog, technically I'm off the hook until September-ish (Florida DB arrests notwithstanding)
Now...on to an article review from our friends at ESPN...Yes, I (as a baseball fan) am being baited
Still, let's go through this for some nuggets of stupidity:
We'll put in a pitch clock.
Yes. This is a great way to shorten games. Except the rapid-fire pitches will be less well-placed, leading to more hits, and thus EXTENDING the game. Or we'll end up with pitchers forcing pitches, and getting hurt. Either way, this measure is nothing short of utterly stupid.
Oh, and this brilliant idea isn't given a corresponding penalty. What do you do when your pitch clock is violated? My suggestion is simple: kill the pitcher. Murder that slow-pitching sonofagun. He deserves it.
Reilly's second point ("Players must sign autographs") I'm totally fine with. It hurt me to write that. Let's keep going.
3) We'll bring in Olympic testing. Saying "baseball players cheat" is like saying "wolves like hamburger." In the Small-Balls (Blogger's note: This is not funny) era, nobody -- not the players, not the owners, not the writers -- tried to stop it.
I think I've said this before. If I haven't, lemme say it now: Steroids are NOT a baseball-only problem. The NFL had this problem. Freakin' cycling has almost been ruined by it. There are GOLFERS who were juicing! Why on Earth are we still harping on this like baseball is the only sport where players tried to give themselves an unfair advantage?! Jeez. Let's keep moving on...
4) If you're 0-for-4, the crowd picks your at-bat music. Is it my fault if they choose "Nothing From Nothing" by Billy Preston?
Oooo. An obscure reference to a song from 1974. Clever?
5) The National League will get the DH. No more pitchers swinging a bat at a ball the way Paris Hilton swings a shovel at a moth.
No. No no no. You, Mr. Reilly, are one of those idiots who is RESPONSIBLE for the "Small-Balls" (your words, not mine) era. Because you mistake high scores for excitement. While it's a sabermatrician's nightmare, the sac bunt is still exciting. There's strategy in 1-1 games where you have to decide to pull or leave in a pitcher when he comes up to bat in the 7th. But no, let's get rid of that and replace it with one more homer every 3 games. Great idea...
6) We'll fine more players. The NFL fines guys $5,000 for not having their socks right. Nuggets forward Kenyon Martin got a $25,000 fine for shoving a guy. But often, Selig yawns when pitchers throw 95 mph retaliation beanballs. You want to brain a guy just because he stood in the box after his moon shot? Okay. We'll fine you until your kids end up in public school.
OK, yeah, you shouldn't throw at peoples' heads. Given. And the No-Fun-League fines people for uni violations. Also true. So are you going to fine baseball players for straight billed caps? Different sock types? Sure, my argument against this is flimsy, but so is his. Let's move on. My bad.
Point 7 is valid (and actually should be in place, since rainouts need to be the umpires domain)
8) Balls that hit the foul pole are foul. Duh.
Stop. The pole's an indicator of where "foul" is. So cut out your ignorance please.
9) A prospect won't be allowed to enter an MLB farm system until he's the age of a college sophomore, just like in the NBA.
*sigh* Look. The NBA is not the end-all be-all model of a sports agency. Many good baseball players don't speak the English language, but you expect them to go to a 4 year university and FURTHER cheapen the college experience. Colleges don't have unlimited scholarships, and the scholarships given to people like Derrick Rose take away from students who'll legitimately add to a university.
Schools shouldn't let people who don't meet academic standards into school. Frankly, that system needs an overhaul anyway, without adding a host of new illigetimate "students" to the mixer.
As for the "age" bit, that's a travesty too. If you're 16, don't speak English, but wind up in the US because you have 98 mph heat, then you should be able to play. What good will 3 years here do you if you can't play college or minor league baseball? It's just a thought.
Point 10 is typical Reilly sarcastic nonsense. Every sporting event features "that *%$& idiot on his phone during the game." Get over it. And fire yourself, Rick.
Now...on to an article review from our friends at ESPN...Yes, I (as a baseball fan) am being baited
Still, let's go through this for some nuggets of stupidity:
We'll put in a pitch clock.
Yes. This is a great way to shorten games. Except the rapid-fire pitches will be less well-placed, leading to more hits, and thus EXTENDING the game. Or we'll end up with pitchers forcing pitches, and getting hurt. Either way, this measure is nothing short of utterly stupid.
Oh, and this brilliant idea isn't given a corresponding penalty. What do you do when your pitch clock is violated? My suggestion is simple: kill the pitcher. Murder that slow-pitching sonofagun. He deserves it.
Reilly's second point ("Players must sign autographs") I'm totally fine with. It hurt me to write that. Let's keep going.
3) We'll bring in Olympic testing. Saying "baseball players cheat" is like saying "wolves like hamburger." In the Small-Balls (Blogger's note: This is not funny) era, nobody -- not the players, not the owners, not the writers -- tried to stop it.
I think I've said this before. If I haven't, lemme say it now: Steroids are NOT a baseball-only problem. The NFL had this problem. Freakin' cycling has almost been ruined by it. There are GOLFERS who were juicing! Why on Earth are we still harping on this like baseball is the only sport where players tried to give themselves an unfair advantage?! Jeez. Let's keep moving on...
4) If you're 0-for-4, the crowd picks your at-bat music. Is it my fault if they choose "Nothing From Nothing" by Billy Preston?
Oooo. An obscure reference to a song from 1974. Clever?
5) The National League will get the DH. No more pitchers swinging a bat at a ball the way Paris Hilton swings a shovel at a moth.
No. No no no. You, Mr. Reilly, are one of those idiots who is RESPONSIBLE for the "Small-Balls" (your words, not mine) era. Because you mistake high scores for excitement. While it's a sabermatrician's nightmare, the sac bunt is still exciting. There's strategy in 1-1 games where you have to decide to pull or leave in a pitcher when he comes up to bat in the 7th. But no, let's get rid of that and replace it with one more homer every 3 games. Great idea...
6) We'll fine more players. The NFL fines guys $5,000 for not having their socks right. Nuggets forward Kenyon Martin got a $25,000 fine for shoving a guy. But often, Selig yawns when pitchers throw 95 mph retaliation beanballs. You want to brain a guy just because he stood in the box after his moon shot? Okay. We'll fine you until your kids end up in public school.
OK, yeah, you shouldn't throw at peoples' heads. Given. And the No-Fun-League fines people for uni violations. Also true. So are you going to fine baseball players for straight billed caps? Different sock types? Sure, my argument against this is flimsy, but so is his. Let's move on. My bad.
Point 7 is valid (and actually should be in place, since rainouts need to be the umpires domain)
8) Balls that hit the foul pole are foul. Duh.
Stop. The pole's an indicator of where "foul" is. So cut out your ignorance please.
9) A prospect won't be allowed to enter an MLB farm system until he's the age of a college sophomore, just like in the NBA.
*sigh* Look. The NBA is not the end-all be-all model of a sports agency. Many good baseball players don't speak the English language, but you expect them to go to a 4 year university and FURTHER cheapen the college experience. Colleges don't have unlimited scholarships, and the scholarships given to people like Derrick Rose take away from students who'll legitimately add to a university.
Schools shouldn't let people who don't meet academic standards into school. Frankly, that system needs an overhaul anyway, without adding a host of new illigetimate "students" to the mixer.
As for the "age" bit, that's a travesty too. If you're 16, don't speak English, but wind up in the US because you have 98 mph heat, then you should be able to play. What good will 3 years here do you if you can't play college or minor league baseball? It's just a thought.
Point 10 is typical Reilly sarcastic nonsense. Every sporting event features "that *%$& idiot on his phone during the game." Get over it. And fire yourself, Rick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)