A News In Brief from your weekly Onion:
Report: Colts Poised For Biggest Upset In Super Bowl History
DETROIT—Coaches, front-office executives, and players around the NFL all agree that an Indianapolis victory in Detroit next Sunday would result in the greatest underdog story in Super Bowl history, if not in all of sports. "After losing to Pittsburgh in the second round of the playoffs, for the Colts to come into Detroit and beat them—as well as the Seahawks, their nominal opponent—that would almost certainly be the comeback of the century," said Bills general manager Marv Levy. "No one would ever dare say that Manning or Dungy couldn't win the big one after that. Yes, it's a long shot—the longest—but with the Steelers and Seattle concentrating on beating each other, Indy is perfectly poised to come from literally out of nowhere to complete their all-time greatest triumph." At press time, no member of the Colts would comment on the possibility of a Super Bowl victory, further fueling speculation of a colossal upset in the making.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Humility and Sports
This post my seem a little biased, but it makes me proud to that Paul Konerko prefers to no wear a 'C' on his uniform to denote him as a captain. Clearly, this guy has the credentials, look at his playoff stats last year and the way he always came through when the White Sox needed them most. He is a leader and now, gets paid like one. Yet, with all that, he still was quoted as saying '...everyone has an equal voice.' This humility is hard to find in sports with guys like TO and Kobe and A-Rod's salary.
I hope other players and teams, both in MLB and elsewhere, see what happens when everybody plays for a common goal. The 2005 White Sox didn't win with great hitting or a single superstar to carry them. They saw that as a group they could accomplish more and ignored the stats that don't matter and focused on what does, winning. That is why they won, and if they can achieve the same synergy as last year, they could repeat.
That is if the Cards don't make it to the World Series.
I hope other players and teams, both in MLB and elsewhere, see what happens when everybody plays for a common goal. The 2005 White Sox didn't win with great hitting or a single superstar to carry them. They saw that as a group they could accomplish more and ignored the stats that don't matter and focused on what does, winning. That is why they won, and if they can achieve the same synergy as last year, they could repeat.
That is if the Cards don't make it to the World Series.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Wait, so who's #1?
As of last week, the AP Rankings first-place votes were as awarded: Duke (71), Connecticut (0).
As of today, the AP Rankings first-place votes are as awarded: Duke (7), Connecticut (64).
And more relevent, as of when both teams were still undefeated: Duke (63), Connecticut (7)
Duke lost to Georgetown by 3. UConn's single loss was to Marquette by 15. (But it was 3 weeks ago.)
Going into this week, looking at every team objectively, without chronological consideration, I doubt 64 people would have placed UConn #1. Actually, I know they wouldn't because when both had an equal record, they didn't. In fact, it was the opposite.
And THAT is what is wrong with college rankings.
As of today, the AP Rankings first-place votes are as awarded: Duke (7), Connecticut (64).
And more relevent, as of when both teams were still undefeated: Duke (63), Connecticut (7)
Duke lost to Georgetown by 3. UConn's single loss was to Marquette by 15. (But it was 3 weeks ago.)
Going into this week, looking at every team objectively, without chronological consideration, I doubt 64 people would have placed UConn #1. Actually, I know they wouldn't because when both had an equal record, they didn't. In fact, it was the opposite.
And THAT is what is wrong with college rankings.
This Just In: Kobe Likes To Shoot
Last night's 81 point performance finally gave me enough motivation to write a peice on Kobe, something I have actually been brewing for a few days. Coincidentally, I was going to write about the Kings-Lakers game from Thursday night and how until I actually sat down and watched a Lakers game, I really hadn't visually grasped how many shots Kobe really does take. It's absolutely incredible to watch a player with such disregard for the other four guys out there wearing purple and gold. Here is how the fourth quarter broke down:
-They begin with the game tied at 76 apiece
-Kobe's teammates make their first six shots to put LA up by eight
(Enter Kobe's ego with 7.5 min to go)
-Kobe then takes 11 of the final 15 shots (most of which he didn't even look to pass) including six in a row at one point
-Sacramento rallies to send the game into overtime
-In OT, Kobe takes 7 of LA's 10 shots and they get outscored 14-5 to lose.
Now, one game isn't enough to claim a correlation, nor is it fair to assume that had the ball been spread around in a more even distribution the Lakers would have done 'better.' However, it can be deduced that Kobe shooting 18/25 (72%) down the stretch did not win the game, especially considering how well the rest of the team was doing before he entered.
Three nights later came 81.
I'll begin by making it clear that since I was a young boy and was told about the legendary Wilt Chamberlain game of 100 my initial thought was "how selfish." I know scoring points is essential to winning and that the truly talented can score on any defender and help his team win. Still, I am more of a believer in a team game and that the best player on a team is the one that can shoot, pass, rebound, playmake, get everyone involved in the offense, etc. I'm convinced that if Steve Kerr went out there one night and threw up 40 3-pointers there might be similar results. Now, I don't want to take away from the magnitude of Kobe's night because it honestly is very amazing and significant for the record books, and I have always thought Kobe was a terrific athlete and shooter. (My past bias towards him always rooted in their shady defeat of the Kings in 2002 and his refusal to admit Shaq was the reason for the three rings.) But can it really be fun for any of his teammates? Last night was the pinnacle of Kobe's talent, but would you liked to have been out there on the floor (or any other night he shoots 35+)? I wouldn't. I give him props for the feat (the 61% from the field is incredible) and know he is a tremendous player and I do realize they came back from 18 down to win the game (which is the most important thing, right?), but this article is meant for his teammates. Here are a few stats you won't see on Sportscenter:
-He took 52% (46/88) of the total shots
-He took 82% (18/22) of the shots in the 4th quarter
-In the 4th, during a stretch he took 11 shots in a row
-His Assist/Point ratio was 0.0247 (2/81)
Kobe hit his previous career high earlier this season against the Mavs with 62 points...and zero assists. A bit "selfish", you might say. But that's just my opinion.
UPDATE:
I was reminded by my buddy Sport that when a player shoots the ball and is fouled and does not make the shot it does not get recorded as an attempt. Yeah, so if you throw in the number of times Kobe was fouled to reach that free throw total of 20, his shot total actually exceeded 46. The numbers above are without foul consideration.
-They begin with the game tied at 76 apiece
-Kobe's teammates make their first six shots to put LA up by eight
(Enter Kobe's ego with 7.5 min to go)
-Kobe then takes 11 of the final 15 shots (most of which he didn't even look to pass) including six in a row at one point
-Sacramento rallies to send the game into overtime
-In OT, Kobe takes 7 of LA's 10 shots and they get outscored 14-5 to lose.
Now, one game isn't enough to claim a correlation, nor is it fair to assume that had the ball been spread around in a more even distribution the Lakers would have done 'better.' However, it can be deduced that Kobe shooting 18/25 (72%) down the stretch did not win the game, especially considering how well the rest of the team was doing before he entered.
Three nights later came 81.
I'll begin by making it clear that since I was a young boy and was told about the legendary Wilt Chamberlain game of 100 my initial thought was "how selfish." I know scoring points is essential to winning and that the truly talented can score on any defender and help his team win. Still, I am more of a believer in a team game and that the best player on a team is the one that can shoot, pass, rebound, playmake, get everyone involved in the offense, etc. I'm convinced that if Steve Kerr went out there one night and threw up 40 3-pointers there might be similar results. Now, I don't want to take away from the magnitude of Kobe's night because it honestly is very amazing and significant for the record books, and I have always thought Kobe was a terrific athlete and shooter. (My past bias towards him always rooted in their shady defeat of the Kings in 2002 and his refusal to admit Shaq was the reason for the three rings.) But can it really be fun for any of his teammates? Last night was the pinnacle of Kobe's talent, but would you liked to have been out there on the floor (or any other night he shoots 35+)? I wouldn't. I give him props for the feat (the 61% from the field is incredible) and know he is a tremendous player and I do realize they came back from 18 down to win the game (which is the most important thing, right?), but this article is meant for his teammates. Here are a few stats you won't see on Sportscenter:
-He took 52% (46/88) of the total shots
-He took 82% (18/22) of the shots in the 4th quarter
-In the 4th, during a stretch he took 11 shots in a row
-His Assist/Point ratio was 0.0247 (2/81)
Kobe hit his previous career high earlier this season against the Mavs with 62 points...and zero assists. A bit "selfish", you might say. But that's just my opinion.
UPDATE:
I was reminded by my buddy Sport that when a player shoots the ball and is fouled and does not make the shot it does not get recorded as an attempt. Yeah, so if you throw in the number of times Kobe was fouled to reach that free throw total of 20, his shot total actually exceeded 46. The numbers above are without foul consideration.
The Next Big Thing
I know that now that Big Ben won the AFC title game and the Steelers are on their way to the Super Bowl, people will be jumping on this bandwagon pretty quickly. (Much like Vince Young following the Rose Bowl showcase he put on) But the fact is, Mr. Roethlisberger is for real and anybody who knows football could have told you that when left Miami (OH). Minus his lost to the Hawkeyes, in which he threw 3 or 4 picks I think, he never lost the rest of the season, putting up solid numbers throughout. At 6' 5" and 240 lbs, this guy has size and smarts. He is quickly become a premier QB in the league and makes Bill Cowher look more like a Hall of Fame coach.
Pittsburgh's struggles in the playoffs often came from poor QB play, see Neil O'Donnell, and now with their strong running game, and a slew of above average WR, this team, on the offensive side of the ball, looks great. Having running backs like Bettis and Parker takes some of the burden off Big Ben, but the Steelers leading rusher, Bettis, only had 39 yards. This put a lot of pressure on Roethlisberger to make plays, and he did. He was 21 of 29 for 275 yards and 2 TDs with no picks. He played very efficiently. He made plays when he needed to and took care of the ball when he had to. Jake Plummer led to 4 turnovers, two INTs and two fumbles. Big Ben was also 7 of 9 on third down. Want to see the true test of a QB, this is it. Most of these were 3rd and long. He found a way to exploit, as did offensive coordinator Ken Wisenhunt, rookie CB Foxworth and take advantage of their 29th ranked pass defense all day.
Pittsburgh looked good, as did Seattle. In a Super Bowl with two very talented teams, QB play can make the difference. It may be to early to pick a winner, but right now it looks like Roethlisbeger and the Steelers are the early favorites. And the 2006 season may see a new MVP in Ben Roethlisberger.
Note: Look for USC QB Matt Lienart to grow into a second coming of Big Ben. He also has the size and ability to read the field that makes a good NFL QB.
Pittsburgh's struggles in the playoffs often came from poor QB play, see Neil O'Donnell, and now with their strong running game, and a slew of above average WR, this team, on the offensive side of the ball, looks great. Having running backs like Bettis and Parker takes some of the burden off Big Ben, but the Steelers leading rusher, Bettis, only had 39 yards. This put a lot of pressure on Roethlisberger to make plays, and he did. He was 21 of 29 for 275 yards and 2 TDs with no picks. He played very efficiently. He made plays when he needed to and took care of the ball when he had to. Jake Plummer led to 4 turnovers, two INTs and two fumbles. Big Ben was also 7 of 9 on third down. Want to see the true test of a QB, this is it. Most of these were 3rd and long. He found a way to exploit, as did offensive coordinator Ken Wisenhunt, rookie CB Foxworth and take advantage of their 29th ranked pass defense all day.
Pittsburgh looked good, as did Seattle. In a Super Bowl with two very talented teams, QB play can make the difference. It may be to early to pick a winner, but right now it looks like Roethlisbeger and the Steelers are the early favorites. And the 2006 season may see a new MVP in Ben Roethlisberger.
Note: Look for USC QB Matt Lienart to grow into a second coming of Big Ben. He also has the size and ability to read the field that makes a good NFL QB.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Forward Progress
I had splendid plans for this article – unfortunately, my efforts resulted in the following:
What’s the deal with “forward progress?” It is, in my opinion, a necessary rule to prevent a defender from carrying the ball carrier up the field and dropping him in the end zone for a safety. However, the rule seems inconsistent, well, I should say: the rulings seem inconsistent. I ought to mention at some point (now is as good as any) that I have no idea what the rule actually says. Furthermore, I have no aspiration to find out because, like my father often facetiously asks, “why complicate the issue with facts?” (Note while I’m thinking about it: commentators need to read rules straight out of rule books more often during games; it provide comfort to all involved to know that some order does, in fact, exist). Since I don’t know how the forward progress rule reads, I decided to write a “reverse rule” (a rule written to encompass the various rulings I’ve seen). Frankly, this was a bitch to write. The following is Revision IL (49):
(Start “official” rule)
Definition of terms:
Ball carrier – a player who has secured possession of the football
Location 1 – the best field position achieved by the ball carrier during a play
Location 2 – the location where the ball carrier was tackled
Rule Verbiage:
When Location 2 is in worse field position (from the view point of the offense) than Location 1, the play will result with the ball spotted at:
a) Location 2 if the ball carrier voluntarily sacrificed field position in an attempt to gain field position
b) Location 1 if the ball carrier lost the field position as a result of:
i) his own backward momentum upon achieving possession
ii) being physically forced backwards by defender(s)
Exception 1: if a the ball carrier initially lost field position due to (i) or (ii) above, and then attempted to regain position in what the field official determines to be a “realistic attempt” then the ball will be spotted at Location 2.
(End “official” rule)
Note: exception 1 refers to the situation when a player is knocked back 5 yards, struggles to maintain his footing for a some time (during which he loses, say, another 5 yards), then tries to advance the ball but doesn’t gain back any of the yards he lost.
If that’s all the deeper it went, then the forward progress issue would merely be a midsize nightmare. However, the nightmare quickly matures into full-blown bedlam when a fumble is introduced into the mix and how to determine whether or not the fumble should “count” due to its being before or after a player lost forward progress. Writing another reverse rule (a little more mockingly this time) would result in the following:
(Start “official” rule)
When the ball carrier fumbles or is stripped of the football, the fumble does not “count” if the field official decides (after the fumble, mind you) that prior to the fumble, there existed a good moment in time for that play not to continue anymore.
(End “official” rule)
(just take a moment to reflect…maybe even chuckle)
(by the way, 49 in Roman numerals is XLIX, not IL)
Contrary to what you may be thinking, I actually have some suggestions to “fix” this relative football anarchy.
If I were God of the World, this is how I would write the rules:
(Start “Alberty” Rules)
The play is ruled dead when (and only when) the ball carrier:
a) is ruled down by contact
b) steps or is forced out of bounds
c) throws an incomplete (legal) forward pass
Any fumble or strip that happens before the play is dead (as ruled above) “counts.”
After the play, assuming no fumble, the ball is always spotted at the best position the ball carrier achieved (Location 1).
(End “Alberty” Rules)
Think about what this would mean. First off, a play would never be blown dead before a player goes down simply because he is swarmed by the defense and being forced backwards. Currently, this happens roughly 6 times a contest. Furthermore, any strip that occurs during that scenario would be a legitimate fumble. Although this at first seems harshly unfair to the ball carrier, I would argue that all it really does is shift responsibility to the ball carrier to go down when swarmed and not futilely fight for yards and risk a fumble. It also takes the power away from the officials to “bail out” the ball carrier after the ball carrier’s over-zealousness ultimately resulted in a fumble – power I feel is often grossly abused by officials (suspiciously almost entirely in favor of the home team). Remember, under these rules there is no penalty for the ball carrier to voluntarily go down, since he will always be awarded his best field position (Location 1). That in itself would be a huge difference. Think about a player in the open field: there would be nothing (“rules-wise”) deterring him from reversing his direction and sacrificing 30 yards in an attempt to break the big one. But what a great improvement to the game that would be! The best and most memorable plays in football happen exactly that way (think Seneca Wallace). There would constantly be jaw-dropping plays of players running 200 total yards just to gain 25…true open-field athleticism (I like to call it “electricity”) would be allowed to shine bright. Another consequent change to the game (possibly not so appealing) is that a QB sack would always result in the ball being spotted at the QB’s best position (likely wherever he obtained possession). Although I’m not a huge fan of that, at least it provides consistency. Also, there would be additional motivation for offenses to operate under-center instead of the shotgun – something of which many football “purists” would approve.
It can be argued that these changes in rules would improve the game, and the opposite can be argued. But at the very least, the rule would be simple, consistent, and would greatly reduce the capacity of a ref to make a very questionable judgment call that consequently determines the outcome – something I, for one, am growing increasingly tired of.
What’s the deal with “forward progress?” It is, in my opinion, a necessary rule to prevent a defender from carrying the ball carrier up the field and dropping him in the end zone for a safety. However, the rule seems inconsistent, well, I should say: the rulings seem inconsistent. I ought to mention at some point (now is as good as any) that I have no idea what the rule actually says. Furthermore, I have no aspiration to find out because, like my father often facetiously asks, “why complicate the issue with facts?” (Note while I’m thinking about it: commentators need to read rules straight out of rule books more often during games; it provide comfort to all involved to know that some order does, in fact, exist). Since I don’t know how the forward progress rule reads, I decided to write a “reverse rule” (a rule written to encompass the various rulings I’ve seen). Frankly, this was a bitch to write. The following is Revision IL (49):
(Start “official” rule)
Definition of terms:
Ball carrier – a player who has secured possession of the football
Location 1 – the best field position achieved by the ball carrier during a play
Location 2 – the location where the ball carrier was tackled
Rule Verbiage:
When Location 2 is in worse field position (from the view point of the offense) than Location 1, the play will result with the ball spotted at:
a) Location 2 if the ball carrier voluntarily sacrificed field position in an attempt to gain field position
b) Location 1 if the ball carrier lost the field position as a result of:
i) his own backward momentum upon achieving possession
ii) being physically forced backwards by defender(s)
Exception 1: if a the ball carrier initially lost field position due to (i) or (ii) above, and then attempted to regain position in what the field official determines to be a “realistic attempt” then the ball will be spotted at Location 2.
(End “official” rule)
Note: exception 1 refers to the situation when a player is knocked back 5 yards, struggles to maintain his footing for a some time (during which he loses, say, another 5 yards), then tries to advance the ball but doesn’t gain back any of the yards he lost.
If that’s all the deeper it went, then the forward progress issue would merely be a midsize nightmare. However, the nightmare quickly matures into full-blown bedlam when a fumble is introduced into the mix and how to determine whether or not the fumble should “count” due to its being before or after a player lost forward progress. Writing another reverse rule (a little more mockingly this time) would result in the following:
(Start “official” rule)
When the ball carrier fumbles or is stripped of the football, the fumble does not “count” if the field official decides (after the fumble, mind you) that prior to the fumble, there existed a good moment in time for that play not to continue anymore.
(End “official” rule)
(just take a moment to reflect…maybe even chuckle)
(by the way, 49 in Roman numerals is XLIX, not IL)
Contrary to what you may be thinking, I actually have some suggestions to “fix” this relative football anarchy.
If I were God of the World, this is how I would write the rules:
(Start “Alberty” Rules)
The play is ruled dead when (and only when) the ball carrier:
a) is ruled down by contact
b) steps or is forced out of bounds
c) throws an incomplete (legal) forward pass
Any fumble or strip that happens before the play is dead (as ruled above) “counts.”
After the play, assuming no fumble, the ball is always spotted at the best position the ball carrier achieved (Location 1).
(End “Alberty” Rules)
Think about what this would mean. First off, a play would never be blown dead before a player goes down simply because he is swarmed by the defense and being forced backwards. Currently, this happens roughly 6 times a contest. Furthermore, any strip that occurs during that scenario would be a legitimate fumble. Although this at first seems harshly unfair to the ball carrier, I would argue that all it really does is shift responsibility to the ball carrier to go down when swarmed and not futilely fight for yards and risk a fumble. It also takes the power away from the officials to “bail out” the ball carrier after the ball carrier’s over-zealousness ultimately resulted in a fumble – power I feel is often grossly abused by officials (suspiciously almost entirely in favor of the home team). Remember, under these rules there is no penalty for the ball carrier to voluntarily go down, since he will always be awarded his best field position (Location 1). That in itself would be a huge difference. Think about a player in the open field: there would be nothing (“rules-wise”) deterring him from reversing his direction and sacrificing 30 yards in an attempt to break the big one. But what a great improvement to the game that would be! The best and most memorable plays in football happen exactly that way (think Seneca Wallace). There would constantly be jaw-dropping plays of players running 200 total yards just to gain 25…true open-field athleticism (I like to call it “electricity”) would be allowed to shine bright. Another consequent change to the game (possibly not so appealing) is that a QB sack would always result in the ball being spotted at the QB’s best position (likely wherever he obtained possession). Although I’m not a huge fan of that, at least it provides consistency. Also, there would be additional motivation for offenses to operate under-center instead of the shotgun – something of which many football “purists” would approve.
It can be argued that these changes in rules would improve the game, and the opposite can be argued. But at the very least, the rule would be simple, consistent, and would greatly reduce the capacity of a ref to make a very questionable judgment call that consequently determines the outcome – something I, for one, am growing increasingly tired of.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Eh, It's Better Off Without Sammy
I don't know about you, but my interest in the Yanks-Sox feud is wearing thin. Actually, I don't ever remember it being very thick. The midwest gets no love since every team is boring and unappealing and full of players who just go out there and do their jobs. The Cubs are nothing but lovable losers. The Cards aren't 'sexy' enough. The Reds won't ever be anything worth noting without a healthy Griffey Jr. We'll just look the other way on the Brewers... Where's the drama? Big time sports writers insist the nation will never rally behind a central team until they induce some controversy. They don't call each other names or flip flop back and forth via free agency. Where's the drama? Oh right, it does exist. They just keep it on the field.
I've been reading Three Nights in August, the biography of Tony La Russa written by Buzz Bissinger, and the first passage I will share couldn't make my above point any more clear.
"The rivalry between the Cubs and the Cardinals is probably the oldest and perhaps the best in baseball, no matter how the Red Sox and Yankees spit and spite at each other. That's a tabloid-fueled soap opera about money and ego and sound bites. That's a pair of bratty high-priced supermodels trying to trip each other in their stilettos on the runway. But the Cards-Cubs epic is about roots and geography and territorial rights. It's entwined in the Midwestern blood and therefore refreshing and honest and even heroic. It isn't simply two teams throwing tantrums at each other but two feudal city-states with eternal fans far beyond their own walls..."
I suppose this is a good time to throw out my thanks to those damn White Sox for returning the midwest to glory through dominant, smart, hard-working baseball. Can't wait til spring training...
I've been reading Three Nights in August, the biography of Tony La Russa written by Buzz Bissinger, and the first passage I will share couldn't make my above point any more clear.
"The rivalry between the Cubs and the Cardinals is probably the oldest and perhaps the best in baseball, no matter how the Red Sox and Yankees spit and spite at each other. That's a tabloid-fueled soap opera about money and ego and sound bites. That's a pair of bratty high-priced supermodels trying to trip each other in their stilettos on the runway. But the Cards-Cubs epic is about roots and geography and territorial rights. It's entwined in the Midwestern blood and therefore refreshing and honest and even heroic. It isn't simply two teams throwing tantrums at each other but two feudal city-states with eternal fans far beyond their own walls..."
I suppose this is a good time to throw out my thanks to those damn White Sox for returning the midwest to glory through dominant, smart, hard-working baseball. Can't wait til spring training...
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Championship Weekend II
Let us continue our discussion...
Carolina-Seattle
Another interesting match-up here pits one over-achieving team against a odds on favorite. Seattle showed why they earned a first round bye as well as showed how much home-field advantage will play into this game. Seattle fans went nuts after that game, their first playoff win ever. Matt Hasselback, as much as I hate him, showed he can play consistently enough to win (2 ints in last 190 attempts) and Shaun Alexander is slated to start, though I wonder how long he can go with his concussion. Still, this team is solid, healthy and looking to show they are a serious contender.
Carolina on the other hand has everything and nothing going for them all at once. DeShaun Foster is out with broken ankle (A side note, on ESPN.com, they listed Foster as 'probably out with a broken ankle'; probably, holy hell can he even walk, why is there even a question about it?) Steve Smith, the best receiver under 6 feet tore Da Bears apart. Over 200 yards and 14 receptions will be hard to top, but he may have to do so. Unless Nick Goings can gain some ground for Carolina, the Panthers become a little one dimensional. DE Julius Pepper is questionable with a bad ankle along with 6 other Panthers. However, Jake Delhomme is 5-1 as a starter in the postseason and looked pretty good against the Bears. I think the Carolina offense will find a way to move the ball and have the defense carry them throw the game.
As tough as Seattle is, Carolina won't go down with out a fight. Goings will get going and gain enough yards that Delhomme can get the ball to Steve Smith. I predict an upset, Carolina wins 31-29.
Carolina-Seattle
Another interesting match-up here pits one over-achieving team against a odds on favorite. Seattle showed why they earned a first round bye as well as showed how much home-field advantage will play into this game. Seattle fans went nuts after that game, their first playoff win ever. Matt Hasselback, as much as I hate him, showed he can play consistently enough to win (2 ints in last 190 attempts) and Shaun Alexander is slated to start, though I wonder how long he can go with his concussion. Still, this team is solid, healthy and looking to show they are a serious contender.
Carolina on the other hand has everything and nothing going for them all at once. DeShaun Foster is out with broken ankle (A side note, on ESPN.com, they listed Foster as 'probably out with a broken ankle'; probably, holy hell can he even walk, why is there even a question about it?) Steve Smith, the best receiver under 6 feet tore Da Bears apart. Over 200 yards and 14 receptions will be hard to top, but he may have to do so. Unless Nick Goings can gain some ground for Carolina, the Panthers become a little one dimensional. DE Julius Pepper is questionable with a bad ankle along with 6 other Panthers. However, Jake Delhomme is 5-1 as a starter in the postseason and looked pretty good against the Bears. I think the Carolina offense will find a way to move the ball and have the defense carry them throw the game.
As tough as Seattle is, Carolina won't go down with out a fight. Goings will get going and gain enough yards that Delhomme can get the ball to Steve Smith. I predict an upset, Carolina wins 31-29.
Championship Weekend
Though I am a bigger fan of college football than I am of the NFL, it is hard not to get excited about the playoffs this year. The top teams everyone thought would still be playing are not. New England and Indianapolis are out, suprisingly and the Bears are too, which is not so shocking. (Hard to win games with Kyle Orton or a QB who has never played a full season in the NFL and only two in college, Grossman left after his redshirt Sophomore year) But I digress, Pittsburgh-Denver and Carolina-Seattle both lack the 'star power' of the Mannings and Bradys of the world, but what great matchups.
Pittsburgh-Denver
Maybe the best game this postseason looks to take place in Denver. Bill Cowher, one of the most consistent coaches ever in the NFL, continues to show why he keeps winning. This is the 6th time in 12 years they have been in the AFC title game but their postseason success in much like that of the Atlanta Braves. (Cowher reminds me a lot of Bobby Cox - regular season genius, and then nothing in the playoffs) But with Jerome Bettis playing to cap off a great career and a top three QB at the helm with Big Ben, this team looks good. They shut down the high powered Indy offense and moved the ball fairly well on their much improved defense. Even with their sluggish mid-season, this team just came off a huge upset, one of the biggest in a decade, and has a lot going for them...
However, Denver's success story is much the same. They handed the playoff god Tom Brady his first loss ever and knocked off a team people though could go far. Their offense is truly balanced. Mike Shanahan, who could turn Tony Yelk into a great running back, can run or throw on you. Jake Plummer, an underrated QB who needed a chance to prove himself, has done just that. Their defense is stout and playing at home will be a definite advantage.
Knowing all this, let me throw out my prediction. Denver will be tough, but Pittsburgh wants the Bus to get a ring. Their playing really well and if their offense gets going and Big Ben doesn't make mistakes, the Steelers come away with a win, 23-17.
Pittsburgh-Denver
Maybe the best game this postseason looks to take place in Denver. Bill Cowher, one of the most consistent coaches ever in the NFL, continues to show why he keeps winning. This is the 6th time in 12 years they have been in the AFC title game but their postseason success in much like that of the Atlanta Braves. (Cowher reminds me a lot of Bobby Cox - regular season genius, and then nothing in the playoffs) But with Jerome Bettis playing to cap off a great career and a top three QB at the helm with Big Ben, this team looks good. They shut down the high powered Indy offense and moved the ball fairly well on their much improved defense. Even with their sluggish mid-season, this team just came off a huge upset, one of the biggest in a decade, and has a lot going for them...
However, Denver's success story is much the same. They handed the playoff god Tom Brady his first loss ever and knocked off a team people though could go far. Their offense is truly balanced. Mike Shanahan, who could turn Tony Yelk into a great running back, can run or throw on you. Jake Plummer, an underrated QB who needed a chance to prove himself, has done just that. Their defense is stout and playing at home will be a definite advantage.
Knowing all this, let me throw out my prediction. Denver will be tough, but Pittsburgh wants the Bus to get a ring. Their playing really well and if their offense gets going and Big Ben doesn't make mistakes, the Steelers come away with a win, 23-17.
One Vote Doesn't Make A Difference
The voters don't always know what they're doing when they cast annual all-star ballots. Actually, they rarely do. They only reason I vote online is to cancel out at least one idiot who perenially checks Vince Carter's name and thinks Tracy McGrady is automatically entitled to a starting spot no matter how poorly his team is doing or how often he is carried out of stadiums on a stretcher. (In fact, the NBA.com voting ballot contains the header "Vote For Your Favorite Players.") Although it was suprisingly difficult, I've gone online and voted and here are my proposed 12-man rosters:
Eastern Conference Starting Five
PG: Allen Iverson: noone can deny AI is one of the toughest guys in the league. He's second in scoring (33.2 p/g), seventh in assists (7.5), and fourth in steals (2.1). His heart is disproportionately large to his size as he is truly one of the few inspiring players left in the money-driven NBA.
SG: Dwayne Wade: he's got the Heat sitting in the two seed in the eastern conference (right behind the ridiculous Pistons) while carrying a team often without the injury-prone Shaq and a handful of has-beens. A prolific scorer that has a good inside and outside game and who throws in about 7 assists and rebounds each night.
SF: Lebron James: along with Iverson, the easiest picks on the entire ballot. I was a doubter two years ago but have since changed my opinion of this all-around player who at least appears to be humble enough to put the team first. His numbers of 31.1/6.6/6.0 are good enough that any GM would gladly take this young buck and create a team around him.
PF: Chris Bosh: alright viewers, begin the debate. Bosh is probably the most questionable player on my ballot, but deserving nonetheless. He plays for an awful team with awful players and fights through the double and triple teams to notch over 22 points and 9 boards a game. The stats aren't stellar, but look around at the rest of the forwards in the East; aside from Lebron, you can go down the list and pass the top eight forwards from the West before you get to a big man from the East that can hold his ground. The Raps are getting better, and even though they still dwell near the basement, just think where they would be without Bosh.
C: Ben Wallace: the first reason would be the same as above--there just aren't any dominant centers. And yes, this season that include Shaquille O'Neal. The Pistons are playing phenominal ball and should be recognized with at least one member in the starting five, and Big Ben gets the nod because he does lead the league in rebounding, afterall. I wish there was something else that supports this pick, but there just isn't.
Subs (in deserving order): Paul Pierce (F), Chauncey Billups (G), Jason Kidd (G), Jermaine O'Neal (F/C), Gilbert Arenas (G), Shaquille O'Neal (C), Dwight Howard (F)
Western Conference Starting Five
PG: Baron Davis: another questionable call, but he is having a career year. I know, how could I possibly not start Steve Nash, but even with their numbers being very comparable (Davis' 18.1/4.6/9.3/1.7 to Nash's 19.1/4.2/11.2/0.9) I think Baron has had slightly less to work with and has managed to give this dismal program at least a little hope of making the playoffs. I consider Shawn Marion to be one of the top 5 best all-around players in the league, a significant upgrade from Jason Richardson. Baron wins by a nose.
SG: Kobe Bryant: because I had to. No matter how much I dislike the guy, his gutsy performances night in and night out while carrying an awful team on his shoulders make him an all-star. I often criticise how much he shoots and refuses to play a team game, but when was the last time you looked at the standings? His 'team' is currently in the #6 spot.
SF: Shawn Marion: the Suns picked up right where they left off last season, without Amare and Q. Marion continues to fill in the stat line from points to blocks. He's a guy I think is underrated as a defender and is extremely athletic. In a conference with so many great forwards he narrowly beats out Timmy and Elton (as much as I'd like to see Brand get his due) as it is his time to get some credit owed to him from last years Pheonix success.
PF: Kevin Garnett: and it's not only because he is one of my favs. KG is silently having his typical MVP-caliber season of 22.2/11.3/4.9/1.4/1.4 while not being surrounded by much talent, again. The MN owners teased for one year by bringing in valuable free agents, but only an overrated Olowakandi and Wally remain. Using the formula that calculates fantasy points for the league I am currently in, a point allocation that I do consider reasonable, the website has Garnett as the top fantasy point attainer to date. The numbers don't lie. Then again, neither does the T-Wolves' record.
C: Marcus Camby: another odd pick that is partially justified through reasons not related to his performance. First off, neither Dirk or Duncan are available under the center position. Secondly, much like the East, the West is lacking true centers. Although he's been injured the past ten games, he did jump out to an amazing start to the season and helped fool us into thinking Denver might actually be a contender this year. The only alternative to Camby are Brad Miller (underachieving on a bad team), Yao (spent even more time on DL), and Mehmet Okur (team has same record, but individual numbers are less). I should give him credit, though, for being the early favorite for Defensive Player of the Year with 13 boards and over 3 blocks a game.
Subs: Steve Nash (G), Elton Brand (F), Tim Duncan (F/C), Dirk Nowitzki (F/C), Pau Gasol (F), Sam Cassell (G), Ray Allen (G)
Eastern Conference Starting Five
PG: Allen Iverson: noone can deny AI is one of the toughest guys in the league. He's second in scoring (33.2 p/g), seventh in assists (7.5), and fourth in steals (2.1). His heart is disproportionately large to his size as he is truly one of the few inspiring players left in the money-driven NBA.
SG: Dwayne Wade: he's got the Heat sitting in the two seed in the eastern conference (right behind the ridiculous Pistons) while carrying a team often without the injury-prone Shaq and a handful of has-beens. A prolific scorer that has a good inside and outside game and who throws in about 7 assists and rebounds each night.
SF: Lebron James: along with Iverson, the easiest picks on the entire ballot. I was a doubter two years ago but have since changed my opinion of this all-around player who at least appears to be humble enough to put the team first. His numbers of 31.1/6.6/6.0 are good enough that any GM would gladly take this young buck and create a team around him.
PF: Chris Bosh: alright viewers, begin the debate. Bosh is probably the most questionable player on my ballot, but deserving nonetheless. He plays for an awful team with awful players and fights through the double and triple teams to notch over 22 points and 9 boards a game. The stats aren't stellar, but look around at the rest of the forwards in the East; aside from Lebron, you can go down the list and pass the top eight forwards from the West before you get to a big man from the East that can hold his ground. The Raps are getting better, and even though they still dwell near the basement, just think where they would be without Bosh.
C: Ben Wallace: the first reason would be the same as above--there just aren't any dominant centers. And yes, this season that include Shaquille O'Neal. The Pistons are playing phenominal ball and should be recognized with at least one member in the starting five, and Big Ben gets the nod because he does lead the league in rebounding, afterall. I wish there was something else that supports this pick, but there just isn't.
Subs (in deserving order): Paul Pierce (F), Chauncey Billups (G), Jason Kidd (G), Jermaine O'Neal (F/C), Gilbert Arenas (G), Shaquille O'Neal (C), Dwight Howard (F)
Western Conference Starting Five
PG: Baron Davis: another questionable call, but he is having a career year. I know, how could I possibly not start Steve Nash, but even with their numbers being very comparable (Davis' 18.1/4.6/9.3/1.7 to Nash's 19.1/4.2/11.2/0.9) I think Baron has had slightly less to work with and has managed to give this dismal program at least a little hope of making the playoffs. I consider Shawn Marion to be one of the top 5 best all-around players in the league, a significant upgrade from Jason Richardson. Baron wins by a nose.
SG: Kobe Bryant: because I had to. No matter how much I dislike the guy, his gutsy performances night in and night out while carrying an awful team on his shoulders make him an all-star. I often criticise how much he shoots and refuses to play a team game, but when was the last time you looked at the standings? His 'team' is currently in the #6 spot.
SF: Shawn Marion: the Suns picked up right where they left off last season, without Amare and Q. Marion continues to fill in the stat line from points to blocks. He's a guy I think is underrated as a defender and is extremely athletic. In a conference with so many great forwards he narrowly beats out Timmy and Elton (as much as I'd like to see Brand get his due) as it is his time to get some credit owed to him from last years Pheonix success.
PF: Kevin Garnett: and it's not only because he is one of my favs. KG is silently having his typical MVP-caliber season of 22.2/11.3/4.9/1.4/1.4 while not being surrounded by much talent, again. The MN owners teased for one year by bringing in valuable free agents, but only an overrated Olowakandi and Wally remain. Using the formula that calculates fantasy points for the league I am currently in, a point allocation that I do consider reasonable, the website has Garnett as the top fantasy point attainer to date. The numbers don't lie. Then again, neither does the T-Wolves' record.
C: Marcus Camby: another odd pick that is partially justified through reasons not related to his performance. First off, neither Dirk or Duncan are available under the center position. Secondly, much like the East, the West is lacking true centers. Although he's been injured the past ten games, he did jump out to an amazing start to the season and helped fool us into thinking Denver might actually be a contender this year. The only alternative to Camby are Brad Miller (underachieving on a bad team), Yao (spent even more time on DL), and Mehmet Okur (team has same record, but individual numbers are less). I should give him credit, though, for being the early favorite for Defensive Player of the Year with 13 boards and over 3 blocks a game.
Subs: Steve Nash (G), Elton Brand (F), Tim Duncan (F/C), Dirk Nowitzki (F/C), Pau Gasol (F), Sam Cassell (G), Ray Allen (G)
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
The Future of ISU
I read a great piece on Jamie Pollard, the new AD at ISU. In the article, it details his goals and ambitions for the program. His number one goal strikes me as the most important. Raising the expectations of the University, athletes, fans, and coaches to the point were we expect to win. I don't that ISU has ever felt that way, and to have a guy come in and say we will, that is great. ISU needed fresh blood in the AD role, and they found a winner. This guy has more drive in him than anyone out there.
The real trick will be getting State fans to buy into the idea. I mean this in two ways: financially and emotionally. We're like the Keytsone Light of the Big XII. You pay a little but get a pretty good reward. If we can get our budget to the mid-level of the Big XII, we'll be in good shape. I don' know if ISU can ever get to the level of Texas, Nebraska, or Oklahoma as far as budgets. Yet, I feel like in a year or two, we'll be able to compete with those teams. And yes, with Dan McCarney as head coach.
Second, fans need to believe. It will take time. ISU has a young football team that can only go up in talent. Recruitment will need to be big this year and can really set the tone for the next few years. I am excited to see where ISU Athletics head in the next few years. The Big XII better watch out, because this university is on its way up.
Note: Since I'm not good with computers, I cannot figure out to link you to website with the article. Go to the Iowa State Website and you'll see it on the right. My deepest apologies.
Here you go, Cale. -KG
The real trick will be getting State fans to buy into the idea. I mean this in two ways: financially and emotionally. We're like the Keytsone Light of the Big XII. You pay a little but get a pretty good reward. If we can get our budget to the mid-level of the Big XII, we'll be in good shape. I don' know if ISU can ever get to the level of Texas, Nebraska, or Oklahoma as far as budgets. Yet, I feel like in a year or two, we'll be able to compete with those teams. And yes, with Dan McCarney as head coach.
Second, fans need to believe. It will take time. ISU has a young football team that can only go up in talent. Recruitment will need to be big this year and can really set the tone for the next few years. I am excited to see where ISU Athletics head in the next few years. The Big XII better watch out, because this university is on its way up.
Note: Since I'm not good with computers, I cannot figure out to link you to website with the article. Go to the Iowa State Website and you'll see it on the right. My deepest apologies.
Here you go, Cale. -KG
Where's the D?
My own team proved me wrong. For quite a while now I've had the faulty belief that there is nothing more consistent than defense. If given the chance to model a team after the Detroit Pistons/Alabama Tide or the Dallas Mavs/TT Red Raiders you'd have to pick the former because there will be those nights offense abandons you but you can always fallback on not letting your opponent score. A guy can miss open shots, a receiver can drop passes, a batter can swing at the most perfect pitch and hit nothing but air. However, defense isn't about quickness, but rather beating your opponent by getting there first. Isn't it? I always assumed defense was more mental than physical and it tested not only athleticism, but the ability to read a play and just play smarter than the guy coming at you.
Last Sunday the Bears showed otherwise--that defense can just as easily as offense be turned off like a lightswitch. Every time I go to the rec to play basketball I go in expecting that my shots might fall or they might not, but I ALWAYS have defense to rely upon. Every night I see guys that just can't play defense, and I'm not talking about the lazy players, but those who try and just can't seem to challenge shots, box out, stay in front, not bite obvious fakes, etc. Until now I attributed that to not knowing how, just lacking that court awareness and ability to see the angles. Maybe it was wishful thinking that anyone can play great defense without the skills of mad offense.
Still, how does a team that sets ridiculous benchmarks in points allowed, fewest TD's, and constant and ruthless QB pressure just lie down when it mattered most. It's possible that it is unfair to compare basketball with football, where defense requires more speed and althleticism, but Carolina had more yards by halftime than Chicago averaged all season per game. The physical d-line didn't apply pressure, the run defense was non-existant, and the secondary just plain got beat. All on a day when the offense was actually clicking. I dunno, maybe the key to great defense in all sports is simply hustle and the will to want it more...
Last Sunday the Bears showed otherwise--that defense can just as easily as offense be turned off like a lightswitch. Every time I go to the rec to play basketball I go in expecting that my shots might fall or they might not, but I ALWAYS have defense to rely upon. Every night I see guys that just can't play defense, and I'm not talking about the lazy players, but those who try and just can't seem to challenge shots, box out, stay in front, not bite obvious fakes, etc. Until now I attributed that to not knowing how, just lacking that court awareness and ability to see the angles. Maybe it was wishful thinking that anyone can play great defense without the skills of mad offense.
Still, how does a team that sets ridiculous benchmarks in points allowed, fewest TD's, and constant and ruthless QB pressure just lie down when it mattered most. It's possible that it is unfair to compare basketball with football, where defense requires more speed and althleticism, but Carolina had more yards by halftime than Chicago averaged all season per game. The physical d-line didn't apply pressure, the run defense was non-existant, and the secondary just plain got beat. All on a day when the offense was actually clicking. I dunno, maybe the key to great defense in all sports is simply hustle and the will to want it more...
Friday, January 13, 2006
Upon Further Review...
The 2004 NCAACF season marked the coming-out of instant replay at the collegiate level, with the Big X (XI) using a tweaked version of the popular NFL system; in 2005, it was unveiled to the world. Rarely does the topic lack opinions, and there is no exception here. First let me say that the point of this article is not to argue whether the game is better or worse or – heaven forbid I say it – fairer with instant replay. That being said, it’s important to at least list out the pros and cons of replay (in general) so that all are on the same page:
Instant replay makes the game worse because:
1) It slows down the game
2) It holds officials to an unrealistic standard – to be able to call a play after seeing it one time, in real-time, and from one vantage point with the same accuracy of seeing it many times, frame-by-frame, and from every angle imaginable…except coincidentally from the best angle
3) It attempts to take human error out of officiating which, fair or not, at least adds a little spice and controversy to the game which, c’mon, is the main reason we are all addicted to sports
4) It will NEVER be infallible
Instant replay makes the game better because:
1) It (from time to time) results in the correction of an incorrect call
2) It (from time to time) provides fans with assurance that the correct call was made on the field
3) It adds more spice and controversy than human error could ever add alone (note: human error still remains and is still spicy)
4) It…boy…there really should be something else here…
From this point forward, lets just all assume that instant replay is here to stay, but that the details of the system are “up for review.” Note: the system "under review" is the Big X (XI) system which was used for bowl season.
I guess I’m already way ahead of instant replay, in that I was able to watch the season, evaluate the system, and decide that further evaluation is required…AND I did it all of that before the first snap of next season!
But first things first, can the NCAA please step in, evaluate the scattered and mildly dissimilar conference systems, and establish a consistent NCAA Instant Replay System? If the NCAA has authority to regulate individual schools’ names, mascots, and traditions – whether or not having anything to do with collegiate athletics (expect additional blogs on this issue) – then it ought to have authority to regulate the GAME itself!
Second, just push the damn button! I’m a seasoned veteran at sitting on my ass and watching college football games, and I can tell you it usually doesn’t take but half a glance to know that something fishy just happened. No that I have DVR (and know how to operate it), I can tell you it takes about 5 additional seconds to spot fishiness in the rare occasion that you missed it the first time. As long as the “booth guys” (they don’t deserve the title of “officials”) have the authority to stop play and take another look, then they need to do just that! Not after seeing the replay to confirm that they should look at the replay, or after seeing the replay twice to confirm that they should look at the replay, or even seeing the replay thrice to confirm that they should look at the replay…but as soon as the play happens. Half of the time they should be pushing the button before the play in question is even finished (ref. Alamo Bowl [Michigan-Nebraska] finale that still might be going on). To expect that coaches should waste timeouts (for which ,unlike in the NFL, they are not reimbursed) in order to give the “booth guys” more time to sit on their respective asses and watch replays until they’re blue in the face at which point to decide whether or not they need to sit and watch more replays, is absurd. It’s also the entire reason that coaches were not allowed to challenge as in the pros: because it’s not fair for teams to lose timeouts in order to get questionable plays reviews (again ref. Alamo Bowl when Michigan was forced to use all but 0 timeouts to “encourage” the “booth guys” to do their job). This happens far too often – not coaches using timeouts to get plays reviewed (they just started to figure that out late in the season), but questionable plays not getting reviewed in time. Listing all the examples would take most of the off-season. The sad part is that there are only 3 reasons for this (and none of them understandable):
1) the booth guys just missed it
2) the booth guys weren’t sure and were gun-shy to push the button
3) the technical staff could not provide the replays to the booth guys
and all three (even #3) were exposed during this season’s grande finale – the highest rated college football game in like 500 years. Note: as long as I’m on that game, expect an additional blog on what constitutes a lateral/backward pass and what constitutes a forward pass…seems like a simple concept, but apparently “needs further review.”
Well, you should be happy to know now that I’ve finished my ranting. Further more, I’ve almost finished my article…
Third, don’t reverse calls which where not clearly (I like the NFL’s “indisputably”) called incorrectly on the field.
Fourth (and actually a responsibility of the field officials – if they have such a thing anymore), don’t blow the whistle until the play is dead…meaning: dead, dead, dead…i.e. in the Alamo Bowl finale, dead would have been when the player with the ball was tackled by the 2 safeties at the 10 yard line whom, from that play alone, should both be inducted into some-sort of “Heads-up Hall of Fame.”
Fifth, and finally, don’t always rule reviewed plays in favor of the home team. I’m not employed by the NCAA so I don’t expect to be fined (and any American must just accept that they may at any time be fined by the NBA) so I can go ahead and suggest home-field favoritism in the system (to the overdramatic, that means suggesting “conspiracy”). All I’m really saying is that I, for one, would like to take a look at the numbers to see what percentage of replay reviews were ruled in favor of the home team. Then, and only then, would I entertain a discussion about the fairness that the system brings to college football. There’s quite a bit of time now before the next play, so maybe someone with a competent technical staff (rules out ABC) would be able to conduct such a review and provide those numbers…and maybe without even needing to push the button.
Instant replay makes the game worse because:
1) It slows down the game
2) It holds officials to an unrealistic standard – to be able to call a play after seeing it one time, in real-time, and from one vantage point with the same accuracy of seeing it many times, frame-by-frame, and from every angle imaginable…except coincidentally from the best angle
3) It attempts to take human error out of officiating which, fair or not, at least adds a little spice and controversy to the game which, c’mon, is the main reason we are all addicted to sports
4) It will NEVER be infallible
Instant replay makes the game better because:
1) It (from time to time) results in the correction of an incorrect call
2) It (from time to time) provides fans with assurance that the correct call was made on the field
3) It adds more spice and controversy than human error could ever add alone (note: human error still remains and is still spicy)
4) It…boy…there really should be something else here…
From this point forward, lets just all assume that instant replay is here to stay, but that the details of the system are “up for review.” Note: the system "under review" is the Big X (XI) system which was used for bowl season.
I guess I’m already way ahead of instant replay, in that I was able to watch the season, evaluate the system, and decide that further evaluation is required…AND I did it all of that before the first snap of next season!
But first things first, can the NCAA please step in, evaluate the scattered and mildly dissimilar conference systems, and establish a consistent NCAA Instant Replay System? If the NCAA has authority to regulate individual schools’ names, mascots, and traditions – whether or not having anything to do with collegiate athletics (expect additional blogs on this issue) – then it ought to have authority to regulate the GAME itself!
Second, just push the damn button! I’m a seasoned veteran at sitting on my ass and watching college football games, and I can tell you it usually doesn’t take but half a glance to know that something fishy just happened. No that I have DVR (and know how to operate it), I can tell you it takes about 5 additional seconds to spot fishiness in the rare occasion that you missed it the first time. As long as the “booth guys” (they don’t deserve the title of “officials”) have the authority to stop play and take another look, then they need to do just that! Not after seeing the replay to confirm that they should look at the replay, or after seeing the replay twice to confirm that they should look at the replay, or even seeing the replay thrice to confirm that they should look at the replay…but as soon as the play happens. Half of the time they should be pushing the button before the play in question is even finished (ref. Alamo Bowl [Michigan-Nebraska] finale that still might be going on). To expect that coaches should waste timeouts (for which ,unlike in the NFL, they are not reimbursed) in order to give the “booth guys” more time to sit on their respective asses and watch replays until they’re blue in the face at which point to decide whether or not they need to sit and watch more replays, is absurd. It’s also the entire reason that coaches were not allowed to challenge as in the pros: because it’s not fair for teams to lose timeouts in order to get questionable plays reviews (again ref. Alamo Bowl when Michigan was forced to use all but 0 timeouts to “encourage” the “booth guys” to do their job). This happens far too often – not coaches using timeouts to get plays reviewed (they just started to figure that out late in the season), but questionable plays not getting reviewed in time. Listing all the examples would take most of the off-season. The sad part is that there are only 3 reasons for this (and none of them understandable):
1) the booth guys just missed it
2) the booth guys weren’t sure and were gun-shy to push the button
3) the technical staff could not provide the replays to the booth guys
and all three (even #3) were exposed during this season’s grande finale – the highest rated college football game in like 500 years. Note: as long as I’m on that game, expect an additional blog on what constitutes a lateral/backward pass and what constitutes a forward pass…seems like a simple concept, but apparently “needs further review.”
Well, you should be happy to know now that I’ve finished my ranting. Further more, I’ve almost finished my article…
Third, don’t reverse calls which where not clearly (I like the NFL’s “indisputably”) called incorrectly on the field.
Fourth (and actually a responsibility of the field officials – if they have such a thing anymore), don’t blow the whistle until the play is dead…meaning: dead, dead, dead…i.e. in the Alamo Bowl finale, dead would have been when the player with the ball was tackled by the 2 safeties at the 10 yard line whom, from that play alone, should both be inducted into some-sort of “Heads-up Hall of Fame.”
Fifth, and finally, don’t always rule reviewed plays in favor of the home team. I’m not employed by the NCAA so I don’t expect to be fined (and any American must just accept that they may at any time be fined by the NBA) so I can go ahead and suggest home-field favoritism in the system (to the overdramatic, that means suggesting “conspiracy”). All I’m really saying is that I, for one, would like to take a look at the numbers to see what percentage of replay reviews were ruled in favor of the home team. Then, and only then, would I entertain a discussion about the fairness that the system brings to college football. There’s quite a bit of time now before the next play, so maybe someone with a competent technical staff (rules out ABC) would be able to conduct such a review and provide those numbers…and maybe without even needing to push the button.
Speculation on this upcoming Draft
With regards to all the talk about Reggie Bush, Vince Young, and the rest of this very talented draft class, something is being left out of the picture. The teams that will be drafting these young men are not good at all. As talented as these players are, and trust me, we didn't see all of Reggie Bush's talent at the rose bowl, will struggle in their first year or two. The Texans lack any talent on offense outside of David Carr, who could make it if he had a line.
Vince Young also lacks the ability to read complex defensive schemes he'll see in the NFL. Clearly he is ready to take that step, but it will take time to adjust to the new speed and talent of the NFL. In the NFL, everybody you play against is very talented, not so much in college and it will take these stars time to adjust.
I feel like Matt Lienart may make the adjustment the quickest because of experience in Pete Carroll's and Norm Chow's system, but the player that stands to gain the most is LenDale White. A great player that may slip to the 5-12 pick and end up with a team that sucks less.
But hey, it could be worse, they don't have to deal with what Marcus Vick does...
Vince Young also lacks the ability to read complex defensive schemes he'll see in the NFL. Clearly he is ready to take that step, but it will take time to adjust to the new speed and talent of the NFL. In the NFL, everybody you play against is very talented, not so much in college and it will take these stars time to adjust.
I feel like Matt Lienart may make the adjustment the quickest because of experience in Pete Carroll's and Norm Chow's system, but the player that stands to gain the most is LenDale White. A great player that may slip to the 5-12 pick and end up with a team that sucks less.
But hey, it could be worse, they don't have to deal with what Marcus Vick does...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)