Wow. What a day to make the first full Saturday in Review of the year. May as well get crackin'. We'll do the usual (Top 25 rundown with news on the Bottom 95 underneath) Let's start at the top:
Tennessee-13, #1 Florida-23
Well, I'll admit that this one surprised me more than a little. I figured we'd be talking about who would replace Lane Kiffin since he got eviscerated in Gainesville. Instead we saw a Florida team that looked a bit vulnerable, a decent Tennessee defense, and a surprisingly close game. Most disturbing for the Gators was how Tim Tebow was contained by a team that no one really considers a threat in the SEC. Sure, he ran for 76 yards and threw for 115, but it was Tennessee. I'm intrigued to see the Gators in Death Valley against LSU when October arrives.
As for the Vols, they ran a hyperconservative offense and kept it close. I'm not sure if they can win with "exciting" (read: spread offense) football this year. I'm also not sure they have to. I'll be the first to admit that Virginia Tech has built their reputation on conservative football. (NOTE: This week proved that Tech can be exciting, see below) I wish Tennessee luck, and I think we might see their hideous, Construction Zone Orange colored font on our countdown this year.
Final note from this game: Tennessee's QB Jonathan Crompton is the most hated man in Knoxville. Tim Tebow is Superman in Gainesville. Tebow had 115 yards, 1 INT, and 1 lost fumble. Crompton had 93 yards and 2 INTs. Seriously, kids. The only difference (at least in this game) was marketing. Just a thought...
Texas Tech-24, #2 Texas-34
This one wasn't surprising. A good team beat a not-as-good team by a reasonable margin. Heck, you don't even need me to review it. I will now use this space for personal expostulation...
If I saw that ad with the GameDay Crew and Mack Brown singing again...I would put an axe through my TV. It was funny at first. One time. After that, it got irritating, and now it's outright infuriating. I get it. You don't freestyle. Please cut it out. Aaaand let's move on to the upset of the day...
#3 USC-13, Washington-16
This game isn't too surprising, even though it's an unranked team beating a highly ranked one. Sure, Washington was winless last year, but having your opponent's former offensive coordinator and defensive coordinator on the sideline has to help...
As for Southern Cal, this sort of defeat happens on a regular basis. It's almost expected of them. The one (read that one, not 2) year they won the national title this millennium was the one year they went undefeated in conference. I really can't wait for the articles claiming that they would have won with Matt Barkley and how this game means nothing and how they should be national champs. Can't wait.
North Texas-7, #4 Alabama-53
I refuse to review this. It's a cupcake game that a team of Bama's caliber has no business playing.
Temple-6, #5 Penn State
I wonder, do teams feel obligated to play one another because they're in the same state? Because this is another one of those matchups that shouldn't happen. After all the crap the Big 10 + 1 have taken for their ability (or lack thereof) to win nonconference games, one of the 3 best teams in conference chooses to face the powerhouse that is Temple?!
Also, the night this game happened, a friend of mine and I text messaged one another regarding the possibility of a Penn State National Title. Here's what we got (all errors are [sic] in advance):
Wes: i'm hoping penn state runs the tables lol
Me: Haha. JoePa!
Wes: where am i?? wheres my pizza
Me: Sir, we just won the national title.
Wes: i need my ensure! get outa my way.....stupid confetti
Me: Sir, we need a shot of you and the trophy.
Wes: my hip!
Me: Sigh... I'll get the stretcher...
Wes: hahahahah we just role played them winning the natl championship....if it happens itll happen just as we said
I agree completely. Also, for continuity purposes: Utah is a boring state.
SE Louisiana-6, #5 Ole Miss-52
(See Bama review, replace "Bama" with "Ole Miss." Move on.)
Florida State-54, #7 BYU-28
Seriously, BYU. You get a shot at running the table and getting into the BCS, and instead you decide not to play defense at home against a team that nearly lost to Jacksonville State last week at home! This really hurts those of us who were hoping for a BYU-Boise State-TCU-Utah-Houston showdown in the BCS this year. It also hurts the argument for a playoff.
However, it DOES help that this makes the ACC look good. No articles about how awful the conference is this week. Just articles on how much better BC would be with Matt Ryan. I'll accept that.
#8 Cal-35, Minnesota-21
Hmmm. This one's problematic. Cal won, and went on the road to do so. Still, I think it's fair to say that the Golden Bears aren't a dominant team. From what I saw, USC will give them trouble, but the good news is that the Bears play them at home. The bad news is, aside from Jahvid Best, Cal looked quite underwhelming against a Minnesota team that stuck with them up until the final moments of the 4th quarter
UL Lafayette-3, #9 LSU-31
This in-state "rivalry" is another excuse for an easy win without being an official "cupcake" game. LSU is a National Championship contender just about every year, while UL Lafayette is normally at the bottom of the worst conference in Division 1-A football. LSU shouldn't play them, and they shouldn't annually get to smack Tulane around in the ultra-one-sided Battle for the Tiger Rag. Try scheduling some real teams for a change. If you lose the games, but are still a good team, then you can make the case for a playoff.
#10 Boise State-51, Fresno State-34
Wow...defense optional football. 987 total yards of offense. (Comparison Stat: Tennessee and Florida combined for 533 yards.) Boise looks like the last, best hope for an undefeated team to crash the BCS this year. Boise's schedule is pretty easy (only real threats: at Tulsa and at Hawaii in consecutive weeks during October) and almost all of the other BCS busters were cut out of the picture during this early upside down week of football.
Fresno, meanwhile, has one of the toughest schedules in football, and they should be applauded for it. Even if they lose every single one of their 7 road games, they at least have the backbone to play these foes, many of whom are outside of their own conference. By comparison other teams' crappy schedules (click those words for some truly amusing scheduling) should be torn up and redrawn, not rewarded with bowl games.
#11 (Really?) Ohio State-38, Toledo-0
Look, I know I pick on the Buckeyes. Some might say too much. These people are from Ohio, though, and they don't count.
Seriously, though, Ohio State is a great example of what's wrong with the BCS: It rewards teams that are the top dog in a seriously weak conference. Ohio State is sitting pretty at #11 (and moving up!) because they play no one! They played USC close, which is admirable, but a loss is a loss. Ohio State's other nonconference games: Navy (barely won), this thrashing of Toledo, and New Mexico State. If they win their conference, they go to the Rose Bowl. Heck, if the chips fall right, they can still easily go to the national title game! So...yeah, you might say this bothers me.
Tulsa-0, #12 Oklahoma-35
While I pity the loss of Sam Bradford, it really happened at the best possible time for Oklahoma. Their games after the QB went down were against Idaho State and Tulsa. The big question is: Who will start for OU when they roll into Miami on October 3? Really, it doesn't matter: Big 12 teams don't respond well to teams with actual defenses, which is why Nebraska will soon be back atop that conference. As you can tell, this game interested me about as much as last year's Oklahoma v. Tulsa grain growing competition. Riveting TV...
#19 Nebraska-15, #13 Virginia Tech-16
A great finish in a game that, frankly, should not have been that close. Tyrod Taylor made an amazing final throw, but he was allowed to do so because the Nebraska D-line committed the unforgivable sin of standing there while he scrambled. Had the lineman taking Taylor down as he threw the ball simply run forward when he was clear (about 2 seconds before he actually did run at the QB), then Tech's got 4th and goal instead of a relatively easy touchdown.
Nebraska's offense was killed by some decent defense and some bad officiating. Before the real Midwestern griping begins, allow me to state that the officials were from the Big 12, not the ACC or another conference. So Nebraska has no one to blame but themselves. Shoulda paid higher.
#14 Georgia Tech-17, #20 Miami-33
Miami's defense looked nothing short of amazing in quashing the option attack of Georgia Tech. While far too much attention is lavished on Miami's (good, but not great) quarterback, their defense forced Georgia Tech into doing the only thing that they are incapable of doing: Throwing the football.
When a specialist team like the Yellow Jackets is forced to become "normal" the results are usually not pretty. It would be like forcing Texas Tech to run the football: Unpleasant for the offense, and easy for the defense.
As for Miami, they scored easily on a team that's middle-of-the-road on defense, which does bode well. Still, I won't buy into the hype that "The U" is back until they win a tough road game at Virginia Tech this coming week. If that happens, however, then I'll be aboard the Miami train right until it inexplicably crashes against Central Florida or Duke. Remember, kids, they are an ACC team...
Texas State-21 (I don't even know their colors...), #15 TCU-56
TCU, in trying to prove they can hang with the big boys, has decided to schedule like the big boys. That is to say, they schedule an opponent they can crush early in the season so that they only have to win 5 real games to make a bowl. Know what? So long as the system that rewards such scheduling is in place, you'll see this repeated every year. I have a suggestion to fix it: It starts with "p" and ends in "layoff."
Rice-24, #16 Oklahoma State-41
Oklahoma State bounced back nicely from their practically inexplicable loss to Houston last week. In fairness, when your whole nonconference schedule is played at home and 3 of the 4 opposing teams aren't in BCS conferences, it would be nice not to have to look at this as a bounce-back game. Still, good to see that 50% of the time a Big 12 team can beat a Conference USA foe. Let's see how they do against 1-AA Grambling State in this coming week's cupcake bakeoff in Stillwater.
#17 Cincinnati-28, Oregon State-18
Now, I didn't watch this one, but judging from the score, I do have an observation:
Cincinnati should be ranked higher than Southern Cal. Why? Because they can win at Oregon State, something the Trojans seem to be incapable of doing...
#18 Utah-24, Oregon-31
It was a bad day for the BCS-buster demographic. Scratch that, it was a horrible day for the BCS-buster demographic, a fact that makes me a bit sad, if unsurprised.
The Utes needed to win this game to: A) Make the case they were as good as Boise and thus deserving of a BCS bid and B) prove they can beat BCS teams in their own home stadiums, something that teams from automatic qualifying conferences are expected to do week in and week out. It's an unpleasant fact, but many times these giant killer teams only play the big boys once a year (admittedly the big schools' cowardly fault) at a major stadium, and then again at a neutral site. Having been to a bowl game I will say this with 100% confidence: it is much easier to beat a big school in a bowl than it is to beat them at their place.
Let's use a big school on the mend as an example: Tennessee. The Vols have not been a real threat in college football for a few years, yet I still venture that many teams pause before thinking they can face 102,000 fans in Neyland Stadium with ease. UCLA came in last week and won at Neyland because they face teams with large fan bases and are used to the environment. If Boise, TCU, Utah, Houston, and BYU rolled into Neyland to play Tennessee, I think maybe 1 of them comes away with a win (Boise). Move the game to a neutral site, and I think the number jumps to 3 of the smaller schools getting the win. Move the games to the smaller schools and force UT to play there, and I think 4 of the smaller schools win (Houston, I'm pretty sure is a fluke) (NOTE: I've been wrong before...) And the sad fact is, that's using a crummy school as an example. Go into a decent school and you might be seeing a buster beat-down
In conclusion, if you want to make the BCS, you have to prove you'd make it in a BCS conference. It's that simple, and Utah failed the test. Alabama lost 1 conference game last year and got shut out of the championship, as did Southern Cal. If you want to hang out with them, you must be willing to suffer the same fate for losing.
Oh, and Utah is a boring state.
Duke-16, #22 Kansas-44
Kansas fans, don't get too excited. Congrats on your 4th victory all-time against the ACC (<-Not sarcasm, as the last ACC win came against Virginia Tech), but to be fair you beat friggin' Duke. Not that major of an accomplishment. #23 Georgia-52, Arkansas-41
Just one question: When did the "defense first" SEC turn into the Big 12? I'm just kidding.
This is one game between 2 teams square in the middle of the conference: Neither as bad as Vandy or Mississippi State, neither anywhere near as good as Florida or Alabama. This score is what statisticians call an outlier: it's an exception rather than a rule.
East Carolina-17, #24 North Carolina-31
I saw a stat on how few points Carolina had allowed early on during this game. It said they had allowed 9 points per game thus far in the season, as well as having one of the top ranked defenses in the nation.
My problems with this statement:
They have played 2 teams.
These 2 teams are the Citadel (1-AA Southern Conference) and UConn (Big (L)East)
They barely (as in, shouldn't have) won one of these 2 games
Using 2 games as an "assessment tool" for how well your season will go is totally idiotic. By this logic, the NFL's Drew Brees will throw, like, 700 TD passes this year and half the NFL and college football teams will not win a game.
As a totally unrelated note: I'm sure ECU's quarterback Pinkney has been playing college football for, like, 9 years. Just an observation.
East Michigan-17, #25 Michigan-45
Dear Michigan,
I appreciate that you're a storied program with loads of talent, pro alumni, and recruiting violations, but until you beat someone other than overrated Notre Dame I refuse to believe that you are "back" on the football landscape. Also, please quit insulting my intelligence by playing 8 home games. That's just ridiculous. Heck, even Ohio State had enough backbone to schedule USC.
Sincerely,
Bones
Tales from the Bottom 95 (or, random thoughts and opinions about everyone else.)
First off, UVa finally has a chance to win a game, and they successfully blew a 4th quarter lead. I look forward to seeing Al Groh get out of this one...Boston College's decision to get rid of Jeff Jagodzinski has worked out really well. The team looks flaccid, got killed in its first real game, and Jags doesn't have a job anymore. The rest of the ACC, I'm sure, appreciates it...Speaking of ACC, Maryland has really looked awful this year. Barely beating a 1-AA school last week, then losing to Middle Tennessee State this week...Note that I didn't drink the "Notre Dame is back" Kool-Aid, and they're proving why again. Barely beating MSU at home, not a good sign...Everyone paid attention to Cal sort of nudging itself past Minnesota, but the other Pac-10/Big 10 + 1 matchup actually went the way of the Midwestern team. Good job and a good win for the Iowa Hawkeyes...Syracuse beat Northwestern in the "Who cares?" Bowl this week...Vandy lost to Mississippi State in the battle for the SEC cellar...Vandy's lone win? My alma mater: Western Carolina (0-3)...Auburn seems to have found something they lost last year: an offense...West Virginia, meanwhile, is reeling without Rich Rodriguez and Pat White. They're probably the second or third best team in their conference, which would be good news if they were in any BCS conference but the Big East...
That's all for this week! See you soon with a Rankings Rant!
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Unfortunate timing...
As you well know, posts on this blog are generally glacially paced to begin with. Unfortunately, yours truly had to have hernia surgery last week, so I missed the first 2 weeks of the blog season, though I did watch the game. Here's a recap of some reactions I had (many while on painkillers):
First off, good job by BYU and Houston. I don't think (see previous post) that there were BCS-employed snipers in the stands, trying to off the players. Seriously, an excellent job by the little schools that could, and a rather pathetic showing by the Big 12 during this first 2 week period (this includes the first half of that Texas-Wyoming game).
Secondly, Ohio State did pretty well in the "Collision in Columbus" game vs. USC. Problem was...USC had a running game. Not a quarterback who proved to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. If I were USC's running back, I would be seriously ticked off at the media and my own coach. "Great job by Matt Barkley," say the sports pundits. Yeah, great job of handing the football to his teammate. Woo.
The Virginia Tech-Alabama game didn't go so hot for the Hokies. Sure, the score was close, but the yardage sure wasn't. Tech bounced back and thrashed Marshall, so this week's game against Nebraska should be informative of Tech as a football team.
Speaking of the ACC...the conference looked dang bad on opening week. 2 losses to 1-AA teams, a loss for the best team in the conference, and a thrashing of Maryland at the hands of California. UVa has looked nothing short of horrific during it's first 2 games. As a Hokie fan, I'm not too bothered by it...
Aaaand that's it. Might try a review of the Thursday night Miami-GT
First off, good job by BYU and Houston. I don't think (see previous post) that there were BCS-employed snipers in the stands, trying to off the players. Seriously, an excellent job by the little schools that could, and a rather pathetic showing by the Big 12 during this first 2 week period (this includes the first half of that Texas-Wyoming game).
Secondly, Ohio State did pretty well in the "Collision in Columbus" game vs. USC. Problem was...USC had a running game. Not a quarterback who proved to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. If I were USC's running back, I would be seriously ticked off at the media and my own coach. "Great job by Matt Barkley," say the sports pundits. Yeah, great job of handing the football to his teammate. Woo.
The Virginia Tech-Alabama game didn't go so hot for the Hokies. Sure, the score was close, but the yardage sure wasn't. Tech bounced back and thrashed Marshall, so this week's game against Nebraska should be informative of Tech as a football team.
Speaking of the ACC...the conference looked dang bad on opening week. 2 losses to 1-AA teams, a loss for the best team in the conference, and a thrashing of Maryland at the hands of California. UVa has looked nothing short of horrific during it's first 2 games. As a Hokie fan, I'm not too bothered by it...
Aaaand that's it. Might try a review of the Thursday night Miami-GT
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Back to having a purpose!
Well, it's finally here! September 3 is the start of the college football season, and I'm pleased to note that, even though it's the first week of the season, there are some actual games!
Oregon and Boise State match up tonight in a battle on that hideous blue turf. Plus, South Carolina is about to go against NC State in a matchup of....uh....football teams!
Either way, football of the college variety has returned, and with it profoundly stupid sportswriting! Mr. Wilbon, take it away! Wilbon, who's awesome on PTI (<-Honestly not sarcasm), opens up this article with some stuff about why he's cheering for Boise State. I have no problem with this. Heck, Boise holds a soft spot in everyone outside of Oklahoma's heart. They're the team that's helped hurt the BCS. It's great. I agree with Wilbon for 3 whole sentences. Then, the idiocy begins in earnest:
College football hates party crashers
No, the BCS hates party crashers. College football loves them. For crying out loud, upsets and trick plays are some of the best viewing there is. Yeah, ratings are lower. The school's in Idaho, what do you expect? This article could get ugly...
The powers that be — that would be the people who run the BCS — want you to focus on the ACC, Big East, Southeastern Conference, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pacific-10 and divert your eyes from those little giant killers, notably Boise State, Texas Christian, Utah and Brigham Young.
Number of wins for these "Giant Killers" against BCS conference foes during the 06-08 seasons:
TCU: 5 (2 wins against Stanford and Baylor each, and 1 against Texas Tech.)
Utah: 5 (Michigan, UCLA, Louisville, Oregon State, Alabama)
BYU: 5 (Oregon, Arizona, UCLA (twice), and Washington)
Boise State: 3 (Oregon State, Oklahoma, Oregon)
Look, I appreciate good, upstart football, but this isn't giant killing. It's like beating up on Goliath's little brother. It's just not that impressive to beat Oregon State, a now-mediocre Michigan, and other teams scribbling at the bottom of their BCS-bound conferences. (Hawaii sucked, remember?)
They certainly don't want you to remember that the Mountain West was 6-1 against the Pac-10 last season and that three teams from the Mountain West (Utah, TCU and BYU) were all ranked above the ACC champion (always overrated Virginia Tech) going into the 2008 bowl season.
OK, first off, you're an idiot. "Always overrated" I guess is slang for "willing to play nonconference foes that don't suck." Seriously, if legitimate BCS schools scheduled Stanford, Baylor, and UCLA over and over again, they'd be accused of padding the schedule (*cough* Tennessee *cough*). And, as App State and Michigan proved, rankings (other than that #1 and #2 in the computer) are near meaningless. It doesn't matter if you're #3 or #30, you're going to a bowl, but it's not the national championship. Therefore, most of America won't care.
Teams from the Mountain West aren't going to a National Championship game. Not under the current system. Lobby for a playoff, don't grasp at straws!
The Broncos, voted 16th in the coaches' poll but a top-10 team in some preseason forecasts, are ranked high enough to have a chance to be No. 2 in the BCS ratings at the end of the regular season, but only if they beat Oregon impressively to start the season.
Or do. Either way.... Moving on, here in a country with a growing deficit, a terrorist threat, and a raging healthcare debate, Wilbon then stumps for some good ol' fashioned Congressional hearings. Let's see the argument:
[Inquiries] might not be out of the question given the increasing annoyance in legislative circles with some of the systematic inequities — like the ACC getting $18.6 million last year from BCS games while the Mountain West got $9.8 million, even though Mountain West teams were so much better than the ACC teams.
OK, couple of things here. 1) Where's your evidence that the MWC schools were better than the ACC. When did the conferences play one another?! The good MWC schools did well. The crappy ones did crappy. Same in the ACC, but I'll take Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech over Boise State and BYU any day.
As for the money thing...yeah, I'm in favor of a playoff. Don't drag Congress into it. This system is already unfair: Big schools take in more money than little ones by virtue of size alone. Once again: Idaho...not the center of the universe.
There's then some spotlighting of talented players from the little schools and some whining about the National Championships won by BYU and others, but it's time for this post to end.
In conclusion, college football's back, and I can't wait for the first Saturday in Review!
Oregon and Boise State match up tonight in a battle on that hideous blue turf. Plus, South Carolina is about to go against NC State in a matchup of....uh....football teams!
Either way, football of the college variety has returned, and with it profoundly stupid sportswriting! Mr. Wilbon, take it away! Wilbon, who's awesome on PTI (<-Honestly not sarcasm), opens up this article with some stuff about why he's cheering for Boise State. I have no problem with this. Heck, Boise holds a soft spot in everyone outside of Oklahoma's heart. They're the team that's helped hurt the BCS. It's great. I agree with Wilbon for 3 whole sentences. Then, the idiocy begins in earnest:
College football hates party crashers
No, the BCS hates party crashers. College football loves them. For crying out loud, upsets and trick plays are some of the best viewing there is. Yeah, ratings are lower. The school's in Idaho, what do you expect? This article could get ugly...
The powers that be — that would be the people who run the BCS — want you to focus on the ACC, Big East, Southeastern Conference, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pacific-10 and divert your eyes from those little giant killers, notably Boise State, Texas Christian, Utah and Brigham Young.
Number of wins for these "Giant Killers" against BCS conference foes during the 06-08 seasons:
TCU: 5 (2 wins against Stanford and Baylor each, and 1 against Texas Tech.)
Utah: 5 (Michigan, UCLA, Louisville, Oregon State, Alabama)
BYU: 5 (Oregon, Arizona, UCLA (twice), and Washington)
Boise State: 3 (Oregon State, Oklahoma, Oregon)
Look, I appreciate good, upstart football, but this isn't giant killing. It's like beating up on Goliath's little brother. It's just not that impressive to beat Oregon State, a now-mediocre Michigan, and other teams scribbling at the bottom of their BCS-bound conferences. (Hawaii sucked, remember?)
They certainly don't want you to remember that the Mountain West was 6-1 against the Pac-10 last season and that three teams from the Mountain West (Utah, TCU and BYU) were all ranked above the ACC champion (always overrated Virginia Tech) going into the 2008 bowl season.
OK, first off, you're an idiot. "Always overrated" I guess is slang for "willing to play nonconference foes that don't suck." Seriously, if legitimate BCS schools scheduled Stanford, Baylor, and UCLA over and over again, they'd be accused of padding the schedule (*cough* Tennessee *cough*). And, as App State and Michigan proved, rankings (other than that #1 and #2 in the computer) are near meaningless. It doesn't matter if you're #3 or #30, you're going to a bowl, but it's not the national championship. Therefore, most of America won't care.
Teams from the Mountain West aren't going to a National Championship game. Not under the current system. Lobby for a playoff, don't grasp at straws!
The Broncos, voted 16th in the coaches' poll but a top-10 team in some preseason forecasts, are ranked high enough to have a chance to be No. 2 in the BCS ratings at the end of the regular season, but only if they beat Oregon impressively to start the season.
Or do. Either way.... Moving on, here in a country with a growing deficit, a terrorist threat, and a raging healthcare debate, Wilbon then stumps for some good ol' fashioned Congressional hearings. Let's see the argument:
[Inquiries] might not be out of the question given the increasing annoyance in legislative circles with some of the systematic inequities — like the ACC getting $18.6 million last year from BCS games while the Mountain West got $9.8 million, even though Mountain West teams were so much better than the ACC teams.
OK, couple of things here. 1) Where's your evidence that the MWC schools were better than the ACC. When did the conferences play one another?! The good MWC schools did well. The crappy ones did crappy. Same in the ACC, but I'll take Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech over Boise State and BYU any day.
As for the money thing...yeah, I'm in favor of a playoff. Don't drag Congress into it. This system is already unfair: Big schools take in more money than little ones by virtue of size alone. Once again: Idaho...not the center of the universe.
There's then some spotlighting of talented players from the little schools and some whining about the National Championships won by BYU and others, but it's time for this post to end.
In conclusion, college football's back, and I can't wait for the first Saturday in Review!
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
When Sports Journalists Try to Rhyme, No one wins...
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
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
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.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
I hear the FJM guys screaming in the distance
While watching the Braves/Astros Spring Training game today, John Kruk went on a good ol' fashioned anti-sabermetrics rant. He kept repeating, "Baseball players" as though it was a mantra of some sort.
Because numbers tell you NOTHING about how a baseball player plays baseball. Derek Jeter is apparently a baseball player. Never mind that he has been called the worst fielding shortstop in baseball (Link!). He's got grit and heart and stuff.
Guys like Jimmy Rollins. They're baseball players. I mean, statistics say he's good, but it's the heart and guts and stuff that REALLY make him good.
A-Rod...he's not clutch. Statistics say that he's the best player in baseball. But he doesn't have heart and guts. He's crap. Shouldn't even be in the league.
Look, to deny that there's a psychological aspect of the game is stupid. Plain, outright, stupid. But it's just as stupid to think that there's some sort of quotient for heart. If a guy's good at baseball, why complain that numbers indicate it? Who cares what he looks like? *sigh* I miss the Fire Joe Morgan guys. They could have done this much better than me.
Because numbers tell you NOTHING about how a baseball player plays baseball. Derek Jeter is apparently a baseball player. Never mind that he has been called the worst fielding shortstop in baseball (Link!). He's got grit and heart and stuff.
Guys like Jimmy Rollins. They're baseball players. I mean, statistics say he's good, but it's the heart and guts and stuff that REALLY make him good.
A-Rod...he's not clutch. Statistics say that he's the best player in baseball. But he doesn't have heart and guts. He's crap. Shouldn't even be in the league.
Look, to deny that there's a psychological aspect of the game is stupid. Plain, outright, stupid. But it's just as stupid to think that there's some sort of quotient for heart. If a guy's good at baseball, why complain that numbers indicate it? Who cares what he looks like? *sigh* I miss the Fire Joe Morgan guys. They could have done this much better than me.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Please Fire Rick Reilly
Mr. Reilly's new column on ESPN.com (remember, highest paid sportswriter ever) features a sarcastic "giving back" of MVP awards to the players who finished second to 'roiders during the infamous "Steroid Era" of baseball.
This, I have no problem with. I mean, it's a decent concept. The problem is, Reilly's assuming that all these other players weren't on steroids. This is not a good thing to do, as we've learned that NO ONE should be trusted during this era in baseball.
Also, in defense of the game of baseball (and totally off the subject of Reilly): It is absolutely ludicrous that baseball is the game being picked on by the sportswriters and the public. To say that baseball is tainted is ridiculous. The game is being treated differently on the basis that steroids help people more in baseball than in other sports.
Really? Because, and I'm young so I might be way off, I thought that being stronger than your opponent conferred a slight advantage to a football player. I was way off.
The MLB's steroid rules dictate suspensions and fines. The NFL says, if you're caught (which basically requires you to go into a crowded room and shout: "SOMEONE SHOULD STICK A NEEDLE IN MY BUTT!!!! I LOVE DA 'ROIDS!!!!") you don't get to go to the Pro Bowl. Wooo. Wow, what a punishment! I'd hate to make, say, 1 million dollars a year (Shawne Merriman, anyone?) and miss out on $45,000 for the Pro Bowl.
So please, someone stop the madness. Baseball players aren't clean. They weren't clean. Neither were football players. Cyclists weren't clean for crying out loud. Make it stop!
This, I have no problem with. I mean, it's a decent concept. The problem is, Reilly's assuming that all these other players weren't on steroids. This is not a good thing to do, as we've learned that NO ONE should be trusted during this era in baseball.
Also, in defense of the game of baseball (and totally off the subject of Reilly): It is absolutely ludicrous that baseball is the game being picked on by the sportswriters and the public. To say that baseball is tainted is ridiculous. The game is being treated differently on the basis that steroids help people more in baseball than in other sports.
Really? Because, and I'm young so I might be way off, I thought that being stronger than your opponent conferred a slight advantage to a football player. I was way off.
The MLB's steroid rules dictate suspensions and fines. The NFL says, if you're caught (which basically requires you to go into a crowded room and shout: "SOMEONE SHOULD STICK A NEEDLE IN MY BUTT!!!! I LOVE DA 'ROIDS!!!!") you don't get to go to the Pro Bowl. Wooo. Wow, what a punishment! I'd hate to make, say, 1 million dollars a year (Shawne Merriman, anyone?) and miss out on $45,000 for the Pro Bowl.
So please, someone stop the madness. Baseball players aren't clean. They weren't clean. Neither were football players. Cyclists weren't clean for crying out loud. Make it stop!
Monday, February 2, 2009
Further Super Bowling
If you're reading this, then I've been captured and eaten by cannibals, please send my belongings to President Obama, who, apparently is supposed to be thanked for everything that happens, including Super Bowl victories. Also, if you are reading this, then you know I'm a sarcastic jerk, and we should all just go down a line and try restarting this paragraph.
Ahem...
If you're reading this, then you watched the Super Bowl. You know all about the Steelers, the Cardinals, the commercials that were good, the commercials that were bad, the 3D commercials, and Springsteen's crotch. Given that, would there be a point to reviewing this game?
No, since it's the most watched sporting event there is every single freakin' year.
In fact, the only really egregious thing to me is James Harrison not being tossed from the game for assaulting a Cardinals player. (Well, that and Harrison's 100 yard touchdown run which was impressive. Less so because it featured some holding and a pretty flagrant clip that would have been called on a kickoff or punt return. But, hey, I'm not a Cardinals fan, so whatever.) The NFL needs to crack down on this sort of thing. Fining Harrison will be completely ineffectual. I mean, the man makes how much a year? It's absurd to think that fining him for about a quarter's worth of "work" will do anything to him.
PS to the NFL rules change committee: Change the "roughing" rule. Please. There is no reason Pittsburgh should have gotten 8 tries inside the 10 to score during the 3rd quarter of the SUPER BOWL!
PPS to ESPN: Please fire Rick Reilly, as reading his articles causes me to question if there is justice in the world. If you do not believe me, please watch this video which you have put on your website's own front page.
It is not about the "right team" winning, sir. It's about who scores more points during the game. The only time the "right team" doesn't win is if, somehow, they score more points and don't win the game. I do not care which fan base cares more. If UVa scores more points than Virginia Tech, then the right team wins the game. If Arizona had scored more points than Pittsburgh, then the right team would have won the game! This inane crap about having a good fan base/"family" is utterly bizarre. The Cubs have a great fan base. Does this mean that the "wrong" team has won the World Series every year since 1908?! In conclusion, please, please quit ruining sports journalism. Thank you.
Ahem...
If you're reading this, then you watched the Super Bowl. You know all about the Steelers, the Cardinals, the commercials that were good, the commercials that were bad, the 3D commercials, and Springsteen's crotch. Given that, would there be a point to reviewing this game?
No, since it's the most watched sporting event there is every single freakin' year.
In fact, the only really egregious thing to me is James Harrison not being tossed from the game for assaulting a Cardinals player. (Well, that and Harrison's 100 yard touchdown run which was impressive. Less so because it featured some holding and a pretty flagrant clip that would have been called on a kickoff or punt return. But, hey, I'm not a Cardinals fan, so whatever.) The NFL needs to crack down on this sort of thing. Fining Harrison will be completely ineffectual. I mean, the man makes how much a year? It's absurd to think that fining him for about a quarter's worth of "work" will do anything to him.
PS to the NFL rules change committee: Change the "roughing" rule. Please. There is no reason Pittsburgh should have gotten 8 tries inside the 10 to score during the 3rd quarter of the SUPER BOWL!
PPS to ESPN: Please fire Rick Reilly, as reading his articles causes me to question if there is justice in the world. If you do not believe me, please watch this video which you have put on your website's own front page.
It is not about the "right team" winning, sir. It's about who scores more points during the game. The only time the "right team" doesn't win is if, somehow, they score more points and don't win the game. I do not care which fan base cares more. If UVa scores more points than Virginia Tech, then the right team wins the game. If Arizona had scored more points than Pittsburgh, then the right team would have won the game! This inane crap about having a good fan base/"family" is utterly bizarre. The Cubs have a great fan base. Does this mean that the "wrong" team has won the World Series every year since 1908?! In conclusion, please, please quit ruining sports journalism. Thank you.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Super Bore!
While I understand that Americans' addiction to football is something that is not new, I really wonder where our priorities as a nation lie when it comes to Super Bowl week. I mean, we are given a feast of college and professional football stories from roughly mid-August to late January. And then...for 2 weeks we're given crumbs.
Why do we have this avalanche of information on the Cardinals and Steelers? There is more unimportant writing out there about these two football programs than a normal human can fathom. Heck, ESPN even spoofs itself on this topic. Mind you, they do that and still shovel this crap down our throats until everyone wants to watch the game for the ads, rather than to see if Kurt Warner can recover from being old, or if Larry Fitzgerald's hair is actually a living organism, or some stupid jargon about the Steelers.
And after that we'll have to wait for several months (and doubtless 7 trillion stories about Michael Vick, Pacman Jones, TO's ego and everything else that's wrong about the NFL) to get more crack, I mean, football into our systems.
On a totally unrelated note, tune in on Sunday for the CFR 24 hour Super Blog! I'm gonna write for 24 hours about the Super Bowl experience in Cullowhee, NC! Isn't that amazingly awesomely great?*
*Answer to this question: No.
Why do we have this avalanche of information on the Cardinals and Steelers? There is more unimportant writing out there about these two football programs than a normal human can fathom. Heck, ESPN even spoofs itself on this topic. Mind you, they do that and still shovel this crap down our throats until everyone wants to watch the game for the ads, rather than to see if Kurt Warner can recover from being old, or if Larry Fitzgerald's hair is actually a living organism, or some stupid jargon about the Steelers.
And after that we'll have to wait for several months (and doubtless 7 trillion stories about Michael Vick, Pacman Jones, TO's ego and everything else that's wrong about the NFL) to get more crack, I mean, football into our systems.
On a totally unrelated note, tune in on Sunday for the CFR 24 hour Super Blog! I'm gonna write for 24 hours about the Super Bowl experience in Cullowhee, NC! Isn't that amazingly awesomely great?*
*Answer to this question: No.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Final Rankings Rant (of the '08 season)
Not sure why I didn't post this earlier...let's look at what's egregious in college football's final rankings!
So someone in the AP honestly thought Southern Cal deserved to be ranked over Utah and Florida? Really? Utah who, you know, BEAT Oregon State (yeah, Penn State did, too, and USC killed them. USC also played a home game for its bowl, so shut up).
Texas didn't get any #1 votes at all which surprises me, given that we've had to hear their griping for quite some time. I guess Ohio State sticking with them was a mark of shame or something? It really doesn't make that much sense. Also, was it just me or did the Big 12 look hideous in all of its big bowl games?
Sliding down...Alabama is 6th?! How is that possible? How can you lose 2 straight and still be in the top 10. If Alabama was in the Big East (or Big 10, or PAC-10, or ACC, or any non-BCS conference...) we'd have to tolerate all of the "Overrated! Easy non-conference schedule!" articles. Instead, they sit pretty at #6. I guess it's because their losses are to the #1 and #2 teams in the country. Still...2 straight losses generally doesn't equal a top 10 finish.
It's good to see TCU in the top 10. They deserve it, and its pretty awesome to see a small conference team in the final top 10 again. Wait, positivity?! What the heck am I doing?!
How is Ohio State still in the Top 10? A well played game against Texas, a spanking at the hands of USC, and a loss to Penn State gave them a 10-3 record, which is respectable if one doesn't look at where their wins came from (a sample: Youngstown State, Ohio, Troy, Minnesota, Purdue, Illinois, Michigan, and like 3 legitimately good teams). Once you look at that...this really isn't a top 10 team. Top 25, possibly, but not Top 10.
Texas Tech slides to 12, and frankly they should have slid further. I do have a question, though, how is TT still ranked higher than the team that JUST BEAT THEM?! Mississippi might not be the 14th best school in the country, but they proved, head to head, on the field that they were better than Texas Tech.
Nothing else is too terrible in the bottom half of the poll, though I must ask voters how BYU got enough votes to be 25th, while the team that beat them (Arizona) only got 4 points in the poll! The PAC-10 had a horrible regular season, including a winless team, a terrible out of conference schedule, and a friggin' 1-6 record against the MWC. Then they win every game in the bowl season, and look pretty dang good doing it. (I hate admitting that.) So BYU should NOT be ranked above California.
Aaaaand that's all I got.
So someone in the AP honestly thought Southern Cal deserved to be ranked over Utah and Florida? Really? Utah who, you know, BEAT Oregon State (yeah, Penn State did, too, and USC killed them. USC also played a home game for its bowl, so shut up).
Texas didn't get any #1 votes at all which surprises me, given that we've had to hear their griping for quite some time. I guess Ohio State sticking with them was a mark of shame or something? It really doesn't make that much sense. Also, was it just me or did the Big 12 look hideous in all of its big bowl games?
Sliding down...Alabama is 6th?! How is that possible? How can you lose 2 straight and still be in the top 10. If Alabama was in the Big East (or Big 10, or PAC-10, or ACC, or any non-BCS conference...) we'd have to tolerate all of the "Overrated! Easy non-conference schedule!" articles. Instead, they sit pretty at #6. I guess it's because their losses are to the #1 and #2 teams in the country. Still...2 straight losses generally doesn't equal a top 10 finish.
It's good to see TCU in the top 10. They deserve it, and its pretty awesome to see a small conference team in the final top 10 again. Wait, positivity?! What the heck am I doing?!
How is Ohio State still in the Top 10? A well played game against Texas, a spanking at the hands of USC, and a loss to Penn State gave them a 10-3 record, which is respectable if one doesn't look at where their wins came from (a sample: Youngstown State, Ohio, Troy, Minnesota, Purdue, Illinois, Michigan, and like 3 legitimately good teams). Once you look at that...this really isn't a top 10 team. Top 25, possibly, but not Top 10.
Texas Tech slides to 12, and frankly they should have slid further. I do have a question, though, how is TT still ranked higher than the team that JUST BEAT THEM?! Mississippi might not be the 14th best school in the country, but they proved, head to head, on the field that they were better than Texas Tech.
Nothing else is too terrible in the bottom half of the poll, though I must ask voters how BYU got enough votes to be 25th, while the team that beat them (Arizona) only got 4 points in the poll! The PAC-10 had a horrible regular season, including a winless team, a terrible out of conference schedule, and a friggin' 1-6 record against the MWC. Then they win every game in the bowl season, and look pretty dang good doing it. (I hate admitting that.) So BYU should NOT be ranked above California.
Aaaaand that's all I got.
Friday, January 9, 2009
National Championship blowout!
Well, the national championship came and went. Florida won the game, and in-depth analysis is for losers who get paid to write. So let's review the practically unreviewable (because everyone else beat me to it...)
The most enigmatic play of the whole game, for me at least, was early in the 4th Quarter, when Tim Tebow ran back to pass, and stopped because he heard a whistle. While this has happened before, it's interesting to note to whom it happened. You see, normally when there's a fake whistle, there's confusion amongst, oh, half the players on the field. In this episode, there was one player who was confused, and that was Tebow! The saddest part of this little affair: the commentators took his side, and not that of the other 21 guys on the field!
Since we're talking Tebow, what was up with that taunting penalty at the end of the game? I mean, he's intense and all, and that's great, but there's a HUGE problem with making the Gator chomp at someone. Especially since Timmy's the golden child of college football. Does this action make him a bad guy? No. But we must avoid talking about how wonderful anyone is, lest we turn him into some sort of mini-god. Think I'm overreacting? The following is an actual quote from the Fox announcer: "I think that might be the first think Tim Tebow's ever done wrong!" Watch it, now. That's Matt Ryan's turf.
Networks that handle college football should be the ones broadcasting it. Now, since ESPN is still not in every house in America (dang Amish...), this leaves us with ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox as our networks of choice. Problem is, NBC has an agreement with Notre Dame and no one else, so they're out. Fox doesn't broadcast college football, so they should be out. That leaves CBS and ABC, both networks with experienced college football analysts. Sure, they have their problems, but they at least know what the heck is going on (exception made for Lee Corso...). So who broadcasts four of the five most important games in college football? You guessed it: Fox! Thank you, amateur and (theoretically) unpaid college athletes! Your hard work has earned you massive ratings, which will be auctioned to the highest bidder!
As for the name of the game....why did we have to hear that it was the FedEx National Championship Game presented in High Definition by DirecTV a subsidiary of Pepsi-Cola Corporation, property of Wal-Mart? Seriously, corporate sponsorship kills the fun of things.
And while we're on the subject of corporate sponsorship, what the heck is up with those ads for the "Angry Whopper?" I'm not sure if I should be frightened by this sandwich, or simply freaked out by the bizarre ad campaign/name of the food. Who wants to eat something called an "Angry Whopper"? What's next, black-dyed, ketchup filled, emo fries? Slogan: "Emo fries: They cut themselves and bleed ketchup because no one understands them. Now available at Burger King. Free if you go cry in the corner."
Props to Percy Harvin, Florida's defense, OU's defense (The top 2 teams in the country in scoring finished 24-14. Both sides did well), and Bob Stoops. Stoops, boys and girls, is an excellent coach who doesn't deserve the "big game choker" reputation. That is a stupid label to put on a coach. A player might get nervous and fumble a ball. A coach will not get nervous and punt on 2nd down, and I don't recall seeing anything else particularly egregious from Oklahoma. Other than that stupid wagon, and that's not Stoops' fault.
Finally, a hearty congrats to Urban Meyer and the Florida Gators for being the National Champions. Before the whining begins, know this: Texas and USC are both excellent football programs. Both of their conferences agreed to the current arrangement, and USC profited from this system during the 2004 season when they had to play undefeated Oklahoma instead of undefeated Auburn. Utah has a legitimate gripe as the little man being shut out. They're not in the title picture because when this system was put in place, Utah was not a top-tier team, and thus has no shot at playing in the title unless every other team loses at least 2 games while they go undefeated! Which (cue music) is why we need a playoff!
Side note: As the purpose of this blog (see title of blog) has ended until, like, September, we'll be dabbling in basketball, baseball, pro football, hockey, and potentially poking in on the filthiest part of college football: recruiting.
So keep in touch! All 2 of you!
The most enigmatic play of the whole game, for me at least, was early in the 4th Quarter, when Tim Tebow ran back to pass, and stopped because he heard a whistle. While this has happened before, it's interesting to note to whom it happened. You see, normally when there's a fake whistle, there's confusion amongst, oh, half the players on the field. In this episode, there was one player who was confused, and that was Tebow! The saddest part of this little affair: the commentators took his side, and not that of the other 21 guys on the field!
Since we're talking Tebow, what was up with that taunting penalty at the end of the game? I mean, he's intense and all, and that's great, but there's a HUGE problem with making the Gator chomp at someone. Especially since Timmy's the golden child of college football. Does this action make him a bad guy? No. But we must avoid talking about how wonderful anyone is, lest we turn him into some sort of mini-god. Think I'm overreacting? The following is an actual quote from the Fox announcer: "I think that might be the first think Tim Tebow's ever done wrong!" Watch it, now. That's Matt Ryan's turf.
Networks that handle college football should be the ones broadcasting it. Now, since ESPN is still not in every house in America (dang Amish...), this leaves us with ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox as our networks of choice. Problem is, NBC has an agreement with Notre Dame and no one else, so they're out. Fox doesn't broadcast college football, so they should be out. That leaves CBS and ABC, both networks with experienced college football analysts. Sure, they have their problems, but they at least know what the heck is going on (exception made for Lee Corso...). So who broadcasts four of the five most important games in college football? You guessed it: Fox! Thank you, amateur and (theoretically) unpaid college athletes! Your hard work has earned you massive ratings, which will be auctioned to the highest bidder!
As for the name of the game....why did we have to hear that it was the FedEx National Championship Game presented in High Definition by DirecTV a subsidiary of Pepsi-Cola Corporation, property of Wal-Mart? Seriously, corporate sponsorship kills the fun of things.
And while we're on the subject of corporate sponsorship, what the heck is up with those ads for the "Angry Whopper?" I'm not sure if I should be frightened by this sandwich, or simply freaked out by the bizarre ad campaign/name of the food. Who wants to eat something called an "Angry Whopper"? What's next, black-dyed, ketchup filled, emo fries? Slogan: "Emo fries: They cut themselves and bleed ketchup because no one understands them. Now available at Burger King. Free if you go cry in the corner."
Props to Percy Harvin, Florida's defense, OU's defense (The top 2 teams in the country in scoring finished 24-14. Both sides did well), and Bob Stoops. Stoops, boys and girls, is an excellent coach who doesn't deserve the "big game choker" reputation. That is a stupid label to put on a coach. A player might get nervous and fumble a ball. A coach will not get nervous and punt on 2nd down, and I don't recall seeing anything else particularly egregious from Oklahoma. Other than that stupid wagon, and that's not Stoops' fault.
Finally, a hearty congrats to Urban Meyer and the Florida Gators for being the National Champions. Before the whining begins, know this: Texas and USC are both excellent football programs. Both of their conferences agreed to the current arrangement, and USC profited from this system during the 2004 season when they had to play undefeated Oklahoma instead of undefeated Auburn. Utah has a legitimate gripe as the little man being shut out. They're not in the title picture because when this system was put in place, Utah was not a top-tier team, and thus has no shot at playing in the title unless every other team loses at least 2 games while they go undefeated! Which (cue music) is why we need a playoff!
Side note: As the purpose of this blog (see title of blog) has ended until, like, September, we'll be dabbling in basketball, baseball, pro football, hockey, and potentially poking in on the filthiest part of college football: recruiting.
So keep in touch! All 2 of you!
Thursday, January 8, 2009
News: BC Defensive Coordinator fired for saying "hi" to man in Detroit Lions Shirt
Not really. Just pointing out, however, that the firing of Jeff Jagodzinski is a simply idiotic maneuver by the Boston College Eagles. Had he gotten the Jets job, yes, he would be axed. Duh. But to throw him out for interviewing?! That's insane!
Look, the ultimate goal of any good football coach should be to succeed at the highest level. There's probably thousands of high school coaches out there right now who would LOVE to win a Super Bowl. If Jagodzinski winds up in New York, he'll have that chance! Of course he's going to interview! If you're a fry cook at McDonald's, and the local Burger King has an interview for a manager position, you'll interview! It's a better job!
He had time left on his contract and is, I quote ESPN here, "a long shot" for the Jets job. He took the team to 2 ACC Championship Games (albeit with players he didn't recruit...) and had a pair of good seasons. With all that knowledge, how are you going to fire the guy?
So, in conclusion, good luck to Jagodzinski, since he might need it. If he can't get the Jets job, maybe he can get a position somewhere else. I mean, he did get near Matt Ryan, which automatically qualifies him for CEO positions in most businesses.
Look, the ultimate goal of any good football coach should be to succeed at the highest level. There's probably thousands of high school coaches out there right now who would LOVE to win a Super Bowl. If Jagodzinski winds up in New York, he'll have that chance! Of course he's going to interview! If you're a fry cook at McDonald's, and the local Burger King has an interview for a manager position, you'll interview! It's a better job!
He had time left on his contract and is, I quote ESPN here, "a long shot" for the Jets job. He took the team to 2 ACC Championship Games (albeit with players he didn't recruit...) and had a pair of good seasons. With all that knowledge, how are you going to fire the guy?
So, in conclusion, good luck to Jagodzinski, since he might need it. If he can't get the Jets job, maybe he can get a position somewhere else. I mean, he did get near Matt Ryan, which automatically qualifies him for CEO positions in most businesses.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Texas/Ohio State mashup/matchup/thing
Oh, it's 2009. Oops. See, real sportswriters have an advantage over bloggers in that bloggers have jobs that don't entail writing and aren't paid. That said, I will not be attempting to review the previous bowls, though I would like to say that going to Miami for the Orange Bowl was pretty awesome.
But now, for the review of the Fiesta Bowl....
Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Texas-24, Ohio State-21
The Buckeyes have nothing to be ashamed of here, as this is the best bowl that they've played in recent memory. Plus, were it not for an absolutely, shamefully bad "roughing" of Colt McCoy on the first of Texas's 3rd quarter scoring drives, we might have seen a different final score.
If there's a rule in college football that must be amended, it's the 15 yard roughing the kicker penalty. 99 times out of 100 that flag is thrown because the kicker treats a defender's accidental tap as if it were a gunshot wound. If there's a second rule that should be amended, it's the 15 yard roughing the passer penalty.
Quarterbacks need to be protected. To deny that would be, well, stupid. But QBs ARE football players. Getting hit is a part of the friggin' game, just as much as it is for any other player at any other position! When you release a football and are hit 3 seconds later, of course it's roughing! The defender had time to stop. When you're hit half a second later, it's not roughing, because the defender couldn't stop. And, back to the Texas/OSU game, when you're NOT hit in the head, it's NOT illegal contact!
Meanwhile, the Big 12's performance in Bowl games has been shoddy at best. Thus far, the conference's only bowl wins have come against the Big 10 (2 close ones and Kansas's crushing of Minnesota) and the ACC (Nebraska's comeback against Clemson). Since football pundits (including me) spent all season talking about who was better, Big 12 or SEC, I think we've gotten our answer...
As a side note, PTI was talking about the Texas/OSU matchup and felt the need to rip the Orange Bowl. Allow me a moment for rebuttal:
The Orange Bowl featured the champion of a muddled, highly competitive conference who everyone wrote off as crappy (Virginia Tech of the ACC) and an upstart squad who had the best season in school history (Cincinnati of the Big East). Now, we had to put up with fawning and "oooh"s and "ahhh"s over the Fiesta bowl, which featured a 2 loss Ohio State team against a just-shafted out of the title game Texas. Cincinnati had two losses! AND the Big East had a winning bowl record, compared to the 1-6 Big 10! Texas Tech finished in a 3-way tie (with Texas!) for first in the conference, and lost its bowl to an SEC team that was 4th in its conference! Virginia Tech finished in a 4-way tie for first in its conference and beat a Big East team that was first in its conference!
So let's play a little reversal. Let's put Ohio State and Texas Tech against one another. Seems fair. There would be so much hype surrounding these two teams, and if Texas Tech won? Well, then we'd have to put up with news that the Big 12 was superior and that the ACC and Big East certainly didn't deserve to be in such a prestigious bowl.
Am I saying that Cincy or Virginia Tech deserved a BCS berth? No. But if you're going to market the wonder of an Ohio State/Texas matchup, you'd best not bash a Virginia Tech/Cincinnati matchup. Especially since, inevitably, we are going to have to tolerate a spate of "USC is the REAL national champion!" articles in the coming future.
I, for one, look forward to mocking them...
But now, for the review of the Fiesta Bowl....
Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Texas-24, Ohio State-21
The Buckeyes have nothing to be ashamed of here, as this is the best bowl that they've played in recent memory. Plus, were it not for an absolutely, shamefully bad "roughing" of Colt McCoy on the first of Texas's 3rd quarter scoring drives, we might have seen a different final score.
If there's a rule in college football that must be amended, it's the 15 yard roughing the kicker penalty. 99 times out of 100 that flag is thrown because the kicker treats a defender's accidental tap as if it were a gunshot wound. If there's a second rule that should be amended, it's the 15 yard roughing the passer penalty.
Quarterbacks need to be protected. To deny that would be, well, stupid. But QBs ARE football players. Getting hit is a part of the friggin' game, just as much as it is for any other player at any other position! When you release a football and are hit 3 seconds later, of course it's roughing! The defender had time to stop. When you're hit half a second later, it's not roughing, because the defender couldn't stop. And, back to the Texas/OSU game, when you're NOT hit in the head, it's NOT illegal contact!
Meanwhile, the Big 12's performance in Bowl games has been shoddy at best. Thus far, the conference's only bowl wins have come against the Big 10 (2 close ones and Kansas's crushing of Minnesota) and the ACC (Nebraska's comeback against Clemson). Since football pundits (including me) spent all season talking about who was better, Big 12 or SEC, I think we've gotten our answer...
As a side note, PTI was talking about the Texas/OSU matchup and felt the need to rip the Orange Bowl. Allow me a moment for rebuttal:
The Orange Bowl featured the champion of a muddled, highly competitive conference who everyone wrote off as crappy (Virginia Tech of the ACC) and an upstart squad who had the best season in school history (Cincinnati of the Big East). Now, we had to put up with fawning and "oooh"s and "ahhh"s over the Fiesta bowl, which featured a 2 loss Ohio State team against a just-shafted out of the title game Texas. Cincinnati had two losses! AND the Big East had a winning bowl record, compared to the 1-6 Big 10! Texas Tech finished in a 3-way tie (with Texas!) for first in the conference, and lost its bowl to an SEC team that was 4th in its conference! Virginia Tech finished in a 4-way tie for first in its conference and beat a Big East team that was first in its conference!
So let's play a little reversal. Let's put Ohio State and Texas Tech against one another. Seems fair. There would be so much hype surrounding these two teams, and if Texas Tech won? Well, then we'd have to put up with news that the Big 12 was superior and that the ACC and Big East certainly didn't deserve to be in such a prestigious bowl.
Am I saying that Cincy or Virginia Tech deserved a BCS berth? No. But if you're going to market the wonder of an Ohio State/Texas matchup, you'd best not bash a Virginia Tech/Cincinnati matchup. Especially since, inevitably, we are going to have to tolerate a spate of "USC is the REAL national champion!" articles in the coming future.
I, for one, look forward to mocking them...
Monday, December 29, 2008
Bowling!
34.
34 bowls. 68 teams. There's 120 teams in Division 1-A (or FBS for the super-literal among you.) and more than half of them make the post-season. Ridiculous, yes?
Oh, well. Let's size up the bowl picture thus far, starting over a week ago with the...
Eaglebank Bowl: Wake Forest-29, Navy-19
Normally we don't deal with unranked teams here at CFR, but we'll make an exception here (and in about 20 other bowls...) This game was a rematch, and not the best one. It was two weird option offenses facing off against one another, and Wake won. Do these small bowls merit such analysis? No. So let's get brief!
New Mexico Bowl: Colorado State-40, Fresno State-35
So...I watched this game out of the corner of my eye while eating dinner. Fresno lost by five but got outgained by 185 yards. So...I wouldn't say that this one was as close as the score says it was. Honestly, most people couldn't care less about this game. But, come on, this wasn't anywhere near the worst bowl matchup this year!
MagicJack St. Petersburg Bowl: South Florida-41, Memphis-14
Know what I'm sick of? Teams getting to play in home games for their bowls. Saint Pete is a bit closer for South Florida (hometown: Tampa, just a bridge away) than it is for Memphis (I am not explaining where Memphis's hometown is. Wikipedia it). There is a distinct home field advantage, and I'm not just talking about crowd noise. Teams are built around the weather that they are used to. The pass-wacky spread offense would not work well in Michigan, especially if there's a snowstorm going on. So South Florida had a leg up on Memphis before this game started. And this is a trend that's been going on for a while now.
Seriously, USC playing in Pasadena every year? It's ridiculous! Hawaii in Hawaii? Why? Boise playing on that hideous blue abomination they call a field? Come on! It's just a little bit silly, at least as far as I'm concerned...Oh, and South Florida destroyed the Tigers thus proving that the #6 team in the Big East is better than the #5 team in C-USA. I guess this is important.
Pioneer Las Vegas Bowl: Arizona-31, #16 BYU-21
So much for the Cougars being potential BCS busters, eh? Honestly, it's best that this defeat happened here, rather than on the big stage where Hawaii failed so miserably last year. As for 'Zona...good to see them win a bowl. I guess. The PAC-10 still has a lot to prove this bowl season, but they got off to a good start, beating a ranked opponent from a conference that owned them during the regular season. (Positive PAC-10 press?! What am I doing?!)
R + L Carriers New Orleans Bowl: Southern Miss-30, Troy-27
Nothing snarky to say here. Other than the fact that Southern Miss has the ugliest uniforms known to man. Seriously, looks like they killed the entire canary population of...wherever the heck canaries live...and slathered it on their uniforms. As a side note, a get well message to Southern Miss receiver DeAndre Brown, who suffered a nasty leg injury during the game.
Aaaaaand that is all for the first part of this little review. Tune in next time when we take a look at some Christmas-themed bowls. And the inferiority bowl!
34 bowls. 68 teams. There's 120 teams in Division 1-A (or FBS for the super-literal among you.) and more than half of them make the post-season. Ridiculous, yes?
Oh, well. Let's size up the bowl picture thus far, starting over a week ago with the...
Eaglebank Bowl: Wake Forest-29, Navy-19
Normally we don't deal with unranked teams here at CFR, but we'll make an exception here (and in about 20 other bowls...) This game was a rematch, and not the best one. It was two weird option offenses facing off against one another, and Wake won. Do these small bowls merit such analysis? No. So let's get brief!
New Mexico Bowl: Colorado State-40, Fresno State-35
So...I watched this game out of the corner of my eye while eating dinner. Fresno lost by five but got outgained by 185 yards. So...I wouldn't say that this one was as close as the score says it was. Honestly, most people couldn't care less about this game. But, come on, this wasn't anywhere near the worst bowl matchup this year!
MagicJack St. Petersburg Bowl: South Florida-41, Memphis-14
Know what I'm sick of? Teams getting to play in home games for their bowls. Saint Pete is a bit closer for South Florida (hometown: Tampa, just a bridge away) than it is for Memphis (I am not explaining where Memphis's hometown is. Wikipedia it). There is a distinct home field advantage, and I'm not just talking about crowd noise. Teams are built around the weather that they are used to. The pass-wacky spread offense would not work well in Michigan, especially if there's a snowstorm going on. So South Florida had a leg up on Memphis before this game started. And this is a trend that's been going on for a while now.
Seriously, USC playing in Pasadena every year? It's ridiculous! Hawaii in Hawaii? Why? Boise playing on that hideous blue abomination they call a field? Come on! It's just a little bit silly, at least as far as I'm concerned...Oh, and South Florida destroyed the Tigers thus proving that the #6 team in the Big East is better than the #5 team in C-USA. I guess this is important.
Pioneer Las Vegas Bowl: Arizona-31, #16 BYU-21
So much for the Cougars being potential BCS busters, eh? Honestly, it's best that this defeat happened here, rather than on the big stage where Hawaii failed so miserably last year. As for 'Zona...good to see them win a bowl. I guess. The PAC-10 still has a lot to prove this bowl season, but they got off to a good start, beating a ranked opponent from a conference that owned them during the regular season. (Positive PAC-10 press?! What am I doing?!)
R + L Carriers New Orleans Bowl: Southern Miss-30, Troy-27
Nothing snarky to say here. Other than the fact that Southern Miss has the ugliest uniforms known to man. Seriously, looks like they killed the entire canary population of...wherever the heck canaries live...and slathered it on their uniforms. As a side note, a get well message to Southern Miss receiver DeAndre Brown, who suffered a nasty leg injury during the game.
Aaaaaand that is all for the first part of this little review. Tune in next time when we take a look at some Christmas-themed bowls. And the inferiority bowl!
Monday, December 8, 2008
Saturday in Review: Conference Championship Edition
Nothing on the non-championship games this week. Do you really want another article on how much I hate Pete Carroll? Or how the PAC-10 is right down there with the Big East and ACC but you never hear how much they suck because (Omigosh!) that would require belittling the might of the USC Trojans?
No, you don't want to read that, and I don't want to write it. So let's move on, shall we?
#12 Ball State-21, Buffalo-42
This is like one of those new-wave sports movies where the lovable team loses in the championship game. I hate those sports movies. Imagine Remember the Titans with the Titans losing! Sorry, angry tangent there.
This one here, though, does suck. I really wish the Cardinals had pulled it off, but I think they'll still settle for the best season in school history. Aaaaaand that's about all I got. I didn't watch this game, can you tell?
#25 Virginia Tech-30, #17 Boston College-12
While winning a conference two straight years is certainly something to celebrate, I still don't think Virginia Tech needs to be in a BCS bowl (though they're playing Cincinnati, so cheers for that: 2 undeserving teams in the same bowl!). Still, hard to argue with results, and the Hokie defense looked very good against the Eagles. Then again, BC was working with a redshirt freshman QB, not Chris Crane.
The Eagles will be going to the Gator Bowl to play against Vanderbilt. A reminder to the Eagles: Despite the ACC beating itself up badly this year, the conference has a winning record against the SEC. Duke beat Vandy! So....we expect something good out of you! Call Matt Ryan, he can help. He can do anything...
#20 Missouri-21, #2 Oklahoma 62
Want my review of this game? Look at the dang score! There! There's your review!
Seriously, though, Oklahoma played its way into the national title game, and it'll be good to see them play against the winner of...(drum roll)
#1 Alabama-20, #4 Florida-31
A pretty darn good game by anyone's standards. For 3 straight years now an SEC team has gone to the national title game. It'll be interesting to see if they can win it 3 straight years. This blurb is short because, frankly, I failed you dear readers. I did not watch this game because (don't tell the other bloggers) I have a social life.
But enough about me...College Football Review's BOWL (P)REVIEW™ will be coming up soon! That's right, a sardonic, somewhat poorly written review of all 976 bowl games!
(NOTE: No, there's not that many, it just seems like it. I think my 4-7 high school team is bowl eligible this year)
No, you don't want to read that, and I don't want to write it. So let's move on, shall we?
#12 Ball State-21, Buffalo-42
This is like one of those new-wave sports movies where the lovable team loses in the championship game. I hate those sports movies. Imagine Remember the Titans with the Titans losing! Sorry, angry tangent there.
This one here, though, does suck. I really wish the Cardinals had pulled it off, but I think they'll still settle for the best season in school history. Aaaaaand that's about all I got. I didn't watch this game, can you tell?
#25 Virginia Tech-30, #17 Boston College-12
While winning a conference two straight years is certainly something to celebrate, I still don't think Virginia Tech needs to be in a BCS bowl (though they're playing Cincinnati, so cheers for that: 2 undeserving teams in the same bowl!). Still, hard to argue with results, and the Hokie defense looked very good against the Eagles. Then again, BC was working with a redshirt freshman QB, not Chris Crane.
The Eagles will be going to the Gator Bowl to play against Vanderbilt. A reminder to the Eagles: Despite the ACC beating itself up badly this year, the conference has a winning record against the SEC. Duke beat Vandy! So....we expect something good out of you! Call Matt Ryan, he can help. He can do anything...
#20 Missouri-21, #2 Oklahoma 62
Want my review of this game? Look at the dang score! There! There's your review!
Seriously, though, Oklahoma played its way into the national title game, and it'll be good to see them play against the winner of...(drum roll)
#1 Alabama-20, #4 Florida-31
A pretty darn good game by anyone's standards. For 3 straight years now an SEC team has gone to the national title game. It'll be interesting to see if they can win it 3 straight years. This blurb is short because, frankly, I failed you dear readers. I did not watch this game because (don't tell the other bloggers) I have a social life.
But enough about me...College Football Review's BOWL (P)REVIEW™ will be coming up soon! That's right, a sardonic, somewhat poorly written review of all 976 bowl games!
(NOTE: No, there's not that many, it just seems like it. I think my 4-7 high school team is bowl eligible this year)
Friday, December 5, 2008
Since everyone else is doing it...
Here's the Florida/Alabama preview!
Florida: Tim Tebow, Percy Harvin. That's about it.
Alabama: Defense.
Honestly, the way the college football season's been going, I'd say that the following is going to happen: Florida will kill Alabama. Slaughter them. Like, 30 points, Tebow runs for 150 and throws for 200. Oklahoma gets upset by Missouri. Florida plays USC in the title game filled with teams I hate.
Sorry, went on a tangent there...
The way Florida is playing right now, I think that they are going to benefit from the twisted logic of college football that a loss in September means less than a loss in November. Oklahoma, by the way, will beat Missouri.
In fairness, I've been wrong before.
Florida: Tim Tebow, Percy Harvin. That's about it.
Alabama: Defense.
Honestly, the way the college football season's been going, I'd say that the following is going to happen: Florida will kill Alabama. Slaughter them. Like, 30 points, Tebow runs for 150 and throws for 200. Oklahoma gets upset by Missouri. Florida plays USC in the title game filled with teams I hate.
Sorry, went on a tangent there...
The way Florida is playing right now, I think that they are going to benefit from the twisted logic of college football that a loss in September means less than a loss in November. Oklahoma, by the way, will beat Missouri.
In fairness, I've been wrong before.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Varia 12/1/08
Well, we're back! Just a side note, the actual site called collegefootballreview.com is actually a defunct website which hasn't been updated since 2006. For spite, and no other purpose, I would now like to point out the last article on there. It reads as follows:
I wonder if we could get that domain name...on the grounds that we'd type more intelligent gibberish. Let's move along...
Considering how few good games there were recently, it's unsurprising that there's not been much action on here. I mean, I could write you an in-depth review of the Virginia Tech/UVa game, but does anyone really want to read that? I mean, UVa sucks. No offense.
Which I guess brings me to a point. College football needs a playoff. There is no reason that the winner of the ACC Championship (even if it's my beloved Hokies) should go to a BCS bowl, while Texas, Texas Tech, or Oklahoma will get left in the cold. It's simply inconceivable! The ACC was a middle-of-the-road conference this year, the PAC-10 has only one half-decent team, and the Big East was horrible. Of those three conferences, only one team really should go to a major bowl (and that one team, USC, would get killed by Oklahoma, Texas, or Texas Tech)
Seriously, does anyone want to see the Cincinnati/Boston College game? No. Get more Big-12/SEC teams in there this year. Next year the ACC will be a competitive and good and fun conference. This year the conference isn't that good, and that's OK! Neither is the PA(theti)C-10! Honestly (I can't believe I'm about to type this) I say that, if the system must stay the same, we should send Utah and Boise State to the BCS bowls. Seriously.
As for the Big 12...wow. Texas got screwed, Oklahoma got lucky, and Texas Tech has the misfortune of being the new kid on the block.
I could keep going, but time is short, and our predominant reading audience has ADD. So...yeah, we'll see you later.
No doubt about it, The Ohio State University is the #1 team in the country. The are the real deal and have it going not only on offense but defense also!
I wonder if we could get that domain name...on the grounds that we'd type more intelligent gibberish. Let's move along...
Considering how few good games there were recently, it's unsurprising that there's not been much action on here. I mean, I could write you an in-depth review of the Virginia Tech/UVa game, but does anyone really want to read that? I mean, UVa sucks. No offense.
Which I guess brings me to a point. College football needs a playoff. There is no reason that the winner of the ACC Championship (even if it's my beloved Hokies) should go to a BCS bowl, while Texas, Texas Tech, or Oklahoma will get left in the cold. It's simply inconceivable! The ACC was a middle-of-the-road conference this year, the PAC-10 has only one half-decent team, and the Big East was horrible. Of those three conferences, only one team really should go to a major bowl (and that one team, USC, would get killed by Oklahoma, Texas, or Texas Tech)
Seriously, does anyone want to see the Cincinnati/Boston College game? No. Get more Big-12/SEC teams in there this year. Next year the ACC will be a competitive and good and fun conference. This year the conference isn't that good, and that's OK! Neither is the PA(theti)C-10! Honestly (I can't believe I'm about to type this) I say that, if the system must stay the same, we should send Utah and Boise State to the BCS bowls. Seriously.
As for the Big 12...wow. Texas got screwed, Oklahoma got lucky, and Texas Tech has the misfortune of being the new kid on the block.
I could keep going, but time is short, and our predominant reading audience has ADD. So...yeah, we'll see you later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)