We are the Peanut Vendors

Sports Christmas Wish #4

2008-12-22T16:10:00.001-08:00

I wish for: the NBA to man up and run their own minor leagues

And no, the NBA D-League doesn't count.

This is easily the most far reaching and sweeping wish I've made, and as such, also would probably require the most intervention from "Santa". The current arrangement in which college basketball functions as the de facto minor leagues for the NBA is mutually beneficial (translation: lucrative) to both parties, and so has about as much chance at being dissolved as I do of becoming the next commissioner of baseball. The NCAA and its member schools rake in the dough that comes to having the next best thing (or even a better thing, in some minds) to the NBA, and the NBA and its teams save the money involved in running their own minor leagues, along with getting a yearly in-flux of well-known, instantly marketable players who have made their name on the national scene in college.

I get why it is this way, and why it will never change, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. People like to romanticize the student-athlete (and I won't hesitate to do that in the right circumstances) , but major college hoops stopped having any meaningful connection with academics years ago. This is not to say that there aren't athletes out there playing big-time basketball that take academics seriously. This isn't even to say there aren't a number of programs out there that put a strong emphasis on making sure their players making the most of their education. It is, however, to say that say that major college hoops is about basketball first and foremost, and about having the best and most entertaining product out there.

Even without a minor league system, the NBA almost had it right until a few years ago. Kids who were talented enough, or on the verge of being talented enough, to play in the NBA out of high school were allowed to head there right away. But the NBA got tired of having to teach kids whose games were far from ready, so the now famous age limit of 19 was put into place. Since the NBA doesn't have a legitimate minor league system, the only viable option for 18 year olds who dream of NBA glory? Go to college. You know what? A kid who is only killing time until he's allowed to enter the NBA has no business on a college campus, no matter how much his basketball skills entertain us.

And, please, don't tell me it's about the importance of education. It's not - almost all of the 18 year olds who decided to forgoe college prior to the age limit made a ton of money in doing so, at least for a time. They're fine. If we really concerned ourselves with kids bypassing an opportunity for an education, we'd look squarely at baseball, where every year many, many high schoolers who are destined to never see the big leagues, and who don't get big signing bonuses, choose pro ball over a free ride to college. Hockey is the same way, heck, many of those athletes are heading out to play juniors before they even finish high school. As a whole, people care about players leaving school early, or forgoing it altogether, because they want to watch them play at college, or because (in the case of the NBA), they want someone else to take responsibility for teaching them how to play.

Baseball has this thing right, or at least as close to right as is currently out there, if you ask me. You can go pro after you graduate high school, but if you go to college, you're committing to at least 3 years. That preserves the right of the athlete to choose his career path, and preserves continuity at the college level, because coaches don't constantly have to be playing the "what if" with their rosters and the players who may be talented enough to make the early leap. Do I think that a lot of the kids who make these jumps early would be better served by heading to college and getting some form of education? Sure I do, but I don't think it's my job to mandate their decision-making from them. If an 18 year old athlete thinks he would be better served playing pro ball, then that should be his call.

That's what I want - for the NBA to adopt such a system, and the corresponding changes that would go with it: a real minor league (not just a collection ground for guys who aren't good enough for the bigtime and likely never will be) and an expanded draft.

So, having made that wish, I will now sit back and wait for hell to freeze over...

Sporting World Christmas Wish #3

2008-12-20T11:30:00.000-08:00

I wish: for Mark Cuban to buy the Pittsburgh Pirates

I've been beating the drum on this one for probably 2 years now, and Cuban having been recently brought up on insider trading charges hasn't really changed my opinion.

I'm actually being somewhat altruistic with this wish, because from a selfish perspective, my real wish would be for Cuban to buy the Phillies, were he to buy a baseball franchise, but a) Cuban has Pittsburgh roots and has been connected to other dealings in the city, and b) it would be much better for baseball as a whole if Cuban grabbed the Pirates.

As you probably know, Cuban was actually bidding for the Chicago Cubs, but did not make it to the second round of bidding - likely much to the joy of MLB ownership. I was pleased too, because it also means my wish still has a chance of coming true. I understand why existing ownership is afraid of Cuban, but it's my opinion that he would be spectacular for baseball, and much more so in Pittsburgh as opposed to Chicago.

Why Pittsburgh, and why Cuban? Because Cuban would do something in Pittsburgh that people swear up and down can't be done in the current baseball setup - he would win, and he would make money doing it.

Look, I get that there are serious built in inequities in terms of revenue potential across the various MLB markets. And I also believe that, if we're committed to this large league model that characterizes American pro sports leagues, then there has to be some sort of sharing of the pie in order to keep the league viable from top to bottom. This is why I'm not against the current concept of revenue sharing, at least in prinicple. However, I firmly believe that all the current franchises have the available resources to be competative under the current setup, but there are a number of franchises that are either just woefully run, or have ownership that's content to sit back and make a profit of other owner's revenue. I'm not here to debate which of these is most prominent in the current Pittsburgh setup, but there's no question they are characterized by some combination of the two.

However, Pittsburgh is also a fine sports town, with a pretty storied tradition in baseball, and an absolutely beautiful baseball venue in PNC Park. With ownership that was committed to winning, willing to spend money to make money, and to selling the team to the fans, I firmly believe they could be a competetive franchise again.

Enter Cuban. I'm not sure, from a pure fan's perspective, that there's a better owner in sports. Cuban is passionate, willing to invest in his teams, and really strong about catering to the fans. I think just his sheer presence as owner would spark interest and attendance notably in the early years, even before much changes on the field. Let's look at what Cuban did in Dallas: when he took over, the Mavs were in the bottom 5 of the NBA in yearly revenues, last year, they were 7th. They were in the bottom half of the league in attendance, now they are consistently top 5. And, while they've yet to go over the hump and win a title, and currently seem to be in a bit of a rebuilding mode, they've been one of the better teams in the Western Conference for a number of years after years as a perennial doormat.

And never fear, MLB owners, due to the realities of geography, the Pirates would likely get the benefits of Cuban as owner, without having to deal with some of the drawbacks that come with the hands on, upfront sytle he employs with the Mavericks. I'm sure he'd still be quotable here and there, but you won't have the equivalent of him sitting courtside and bawling out the refs at every opportunity.

This is a winning situation, but I think it even goes beyond Pittsburgh, because with Cuban in Pittsburgh demonstrating what you can do in a small market if you're willing to make the right efforts, the excuse factor would be gone for similar small market ownership groups who have convinced their fanbases that it's the MLB system, and not them, that keeps their team from winning. In Chicago, Cuban would have been a more entertaining version of George Steinbrenner - a big personality with big pockets in a big market. In Pittsburgh, Cuban could be transformational for baseball.

Do it Mark! I dare you!

Sports World Christmas Wish #2

2008-12-19T13:34:00.000-08:00

I wish: for Bob Knight to take Dick Vitale's job

Yup, that's right.

Bob Knight was a polarizing figure throughout his coaching career, and rightfully so. The man was a brilliant and successful coach, whose teams were disciplined and whose players graduated. And yet, his own temper and lack of self-discipline at times led to a series of highly regretable actions. Love him, hate him, pity him - everyone has an opinion on Bob Knight the coach.

Now, with his coaching career at least on hold, and perhaps over, Coach Knight has moved to the broadcast booth, as a studio and game analyst for ESPN. The sheer irony of Knight becoming a member of the media, after his career long run of contempt for it, is awesome enough - but that's not the most important item in play here - Coach Knight is an absolutely brilliant game analyst. I knew this to be true when, in the first game I ever heard him call, I was very aware of his analysis, and it was because of how good it was. That's a very rare thing - I usually judge an analyst by how little I notice him, because when I'm noticing the analyst, it's almost invariably for what they are doing wrong. Coach Knight, however, is putting the brilliant basketball mind that made him the winningest coach in NCAA history on full display. He'll break down what just happened in such a simple and profound way that you'll wonder how you never noticed that before. I feel like I would understand basketball much better than I ever have if I watched games that he called on a regular basis. And, unlike a number of other former coaches in the booth, Coach Knight has enough personality to be interesting, without being so over the top as to completely overpower the game.

Unlike Mr. Vitale. Now, I used to hate Dick Vitale, but I'm long past that. Dickie V is what he is - an excitable, passionate man full of genuine enthusiasm for college basketball. I've read a lot about college hoops in the last year or so, and everything I read about Dick Vitale the guy comes back the same way - that's just who he is. I get that, I appreciate it, and it's made watching games he calls more bearable - which is good, because he calls virtually every Duke game of note. But here's the thing about Vitale - he just doesn't enhance the game. He gets so excited and enthused about everything that his analysis (and I really think he knows the game very well) gets buried in his gushing. He doesn't provide me with real insight into what is going on out there. He can be entertaining, but he doesn't tell me anything I don't already know.

Dick Vitale is a great personality, and he belongs around college hoops, but not as a lead analyst for the dominant sports network, despite his seniority. The man who was made for that chair now works for ESPN, and if this Christmas wish comes true, he'll be in it in short order, as opposed to buried with Brent Musberger (ugh) on one Thursday night game a week.

My Christmas List for the Sporting World - Part 1

2008-12-18T14:05:00.000-08:00

So, I, along with my partner, have been failing in the way of regular posts to this blog. I've been trying to get back into a posting groove, but hitting a writer's block in terms of material to talk about. So, it occurred to me today that, in the spirit of the season, I could start a list of things I'd like to ask Santa for, in terms of changes in the world of sports. This will be a series, and I have no clue how long it might last. If we get past Christmas, I'll roll with it and change to "Proposed New Year's Resolutions for the Sporting World", or something like that. So, basically, I've come up with an excuse to tell you all about the things I don't like in sports, and what I would do to change them. Some will broad, well-known, sweeping, and meaningful, whereas others will just be personal pet peeves. And I hope to at least keep somewhat original (ie, don't expect to see my wish for a major college football playoff)

Jeff, feel free to chime in with your own additions, I think this could be fun.

Okay, so without further adieu, here is the first item on my sporting Christmas list.

I wish for: A new way to end tied soccer games

Like I said, these aren't all going to be something that most people care about, and given the relative lack of popularity of soccer in this country, I guess I'm proving my point right from the get go.

But I do enjoy soccer, and the penalty shootout used to decide soccer games in playoff scenarios is probably one of my biggest pet peeves in all of sports. I'll be honest, my original frustration with the practice came because for years, anytime my alma mater, Messiah College, went to a penalty shootout, they lost, and shootouts almost invariably came after games where the Falcons were clearly dominating, and would have been the ones to score given enough time. However, the Messiah boys just used a shootout to win their 6th national title (with one of the coolest stories I've ever encountered, check out my personal blog for more info if you haven't heard about it), so I'm past all that, and I stand by my belief that penalty shootouts are, without question, the dumbest tie-breaker used in major sports today.

Let me summarize for those not totally in the know on this issue. If, in a playoff scenario, a soccer game is tied after regulation and the requisite overtimes (2 10 minute periods in college, 2 15s in the international/pro game), we stop playing actual soccer, and to determine a winner, each team, in alternating fashion, has 5 players take penalty shots against the opposing goalie. In a penalty shot, the shooter is stationed 12 yards from the goal, and the keeper is not allowed to move off his line until the shooter strikes the ball. At the highest levels of soccer, penalty shots are not converted for only 1 of 2 reasons: the goalie makes an incredibly lucky guess on where the shooter is going, or the shooter makes an incredibly poor shot. (Okay, there's a 3rd reason, and that's if the keeper cheats forward off his line and doesn't get called for it...)

For comparison's sake, this is roughly equivalent to ending a tied baseball game with a home run derby (which, by the way, is how they SHOULD end a tied All-Star game). You're taking an beautiful game of skill, precision, endurance, and teamwork, and deciding it with a 1 on 1 type showdown that might as well be a glorified coin flip. Just off the top of my head, I know that this is how the last 2 NCAA D-III men's championships were decided, and also how the '94 and '06 World Cup, and I also believe the 2008 European championships as well. And that's ignoring the many other games in these and other tournaments that were decided in such fashion prior to the title games.

Soccer haters who are at least quasi-informed about the game love to use shootouts as one of their favorite points of attack, and I hate that I can't even begin to defend the sport on this point. It's as lame as it gets. I appreciate that, at least in the pro/international ranks where there are limited subs, you just can't keep playing and playing, because eventually no one will be able to move, but there's got to be other options.

I'll leave it to Santa (and the soccer powers that be) to come up with the actual solution, but here are a few suggestions of mine:
#1. Just keep playing. This is obviously the simplest. In the college world, there's really no reason to not keep playing, because substitution can occur very liberally. I understand the objections in the pro/international setting, but they can be addressed. Allow teams to field a new lineup at the beginning of OT, and reset the substitutions.

#2. Play OT with fewer players on the field. Field hockey goes to 7 on 7 for OTs, and I believe that the NHL now goes to 5 v. 5 for regular season OT. The principle here is that you open up the game and increase the number of scoring opportunities, thus limiting increasing the possibility of the tie being broken. This would suffer the same objections as "keep playing" in the pro and international world, objections which could be met with the same modifictations.

#3. Run some sort of alternating 5 on 3 (or similarly configured setup) contest, in lieu of a shootout. I haven't thought this one all the way out yet, in terms of the rules, timing, etc. But at least this would preserve some team aspects and end the game playing something that actually resembles soccer.

#4. Go to a judge's decision at the end of overtimes. I hate this for a number of reasons, but assuming it could be implemented fairly, giving the win to the team judged to have had the better of play would still be better than a shootout.

T.O. is being T.O.

2008-12-12T18:47:00.000-08:00

Remember when the Cowboys loss to the Giants and this happened:

Well, apparently Terrell Owens has come to his senses and has found out that Tony Romo is plotting against him.

In fact, it looks like Owens has recruited other players to come to a meeting with offensive coordinator Jason Garrett over whether quarterback Tony Romo is relying too heavily on tight end Jason Witten in the passing game.

Over and over again, T.O. has said that he just cares about winning. Sorry, T.O. but what you care about is getting the ball.

On the Jim Rome show today, Al Michaels stated that T.O. is not just egotistical, but "egocentric." Owens is the center of his own universe and is constantly flubboxed by the rest of us not grasping that reality.

What Owens doesn't realize is that being a great wide receiver isn't always about catching the ball (something Owens has actually had a bit of problem doing even when it's thrown to him). A good receiver also draws coverage, creating opportunities for his teammates to catch the ball and make plays. A good receiver blocks when the running back heads his way. A good receiver goes to his quarterback when he has an issue with what he's doing. A good receiver doesn't go over his quarterback's head and whines about him to the offensive coordinator.

T.O. is a great receiver. But he's a pretty lousy teammate, and unfortunately, that makes him a pretty lousy football player.

Knucklehead of the Week Award

2008-12-10T15:33:00.000-08:00

This week's Knucklehead of the Week Award goes to Joe Barton.

If you're currently going "Who?", you're probably not alone, and you shouldn't be alone. Sports fans shouldn't know this guy's name. He's a Texas Congressman, and he's in the sports news today because he plans to introduce legislation to force a college football playoff. That, coupled with President-elect Obama's not so subtle hints that he intends to push for a playoff, probably has a number of pro-playoff types exceedingly excited that they might finally get what they want. I, however, am not among them.

Look, I want a playoff just as much as the next guy, but this isn't the way to go about it. I've been readily disgusted with each forary the government has taken into regulating sports, and this is no different. I understand the interstate commerce line that Congress uses to claim jurisdiction over this kind of thing, but it's just ridiculous for the government to constantly be stepping in and telling sporting organizations how to run things, especially now, given that there are significantly larger issues going on in the country. Granted, meddling in college football would only stand about 4th or 5th on my list of most infuriating things coming out of Congress at the moment, but still. If a playoff is forced by government intervention, I'm sorry, but the ends will not justify the means.

With the steroids issue, it at least kind of made sense. Steroids are illegal, and while I'd prefer that the government just use the Justice Department to enforce its laws on steroids (you want to see sports crack down on this stuff like never before, send a couple guys to the poke for drug offenses) rather than having a dog and pony show to strong arm them into taking a bigger look for themselves, I can at least see the angle. It was still pandering, but at least it was only a misguided attempt to deal with a deeper societal issues.

This, this is just stupid. So college football doesn't have the most inclusive, clear-cut or widely accepted method for choosing a champion. There's nothing criminal going on, and you'd have to really stretch to find anyone who is being wronged in any way.

The schools? The NCAA is a democratic organization, the rules are what the majority say they are. You might make a case for the non-BCS schools, but that's a significant block of schools that would have a ton of power if they really wanted to wield it. And virtually all of the schools are raking in off the current system in some way or another, though some obviously do better.

The coaches? Yeah, I'm really feeling for a bunch of guys who become millionaires by coaching guys who are playing for a free education that they may or may not be availing themselves of.

The players? Well, you could probably make some argument here, but if we're going to start working on exploitation of players in major college athletics, I'd like to think we could find something bigger than some members of deserving teams that don't get to play for the national championship to start with.

The fans? For all of our "outrage" with the current system, we still willingly shell out our money for tickets, watch the games on TV, buy our favorite team's gear, and in general enable the continuation of the status quo.

In addition to all of that, the thing that makes this clearly Knucklehead territory is that Barton is a Texas rep, making this announcement only days after the Texas Longhorns were made this year's poster child for BCS unfairness. Could the motivations be any more transparent? Is this really any different than Georgia's president calling for a playoff last year after the Bulldogs were left out in the cold, or any other case of BCS sour grapes? Not really, except that now my tax dollars could be involved.

So, congrats, Mr. Barton. Here's hoping (but doubting) that this "Knucklehead of the Week" award is the last we'll ever hear of you and your fun little proposal.

In Defense of the Detroit Lions Thanksgiving Home Game

2008-11-26T13:10:00.000-08:00

There has been a lot of buzz this year that the Detroit Lions should be stripped of their annual (nationally televised) Thanksgiving home game.

The Lions have played at home every Thanksgiving Day since 1934 when they hosted the rival Chicago Bears. In those 74 seasons (excluding 2008) they have won 4 NFL Championships (the last in 1957) and had 14 Playoff appearances (18.7 % of years - the last in 1999). In comparison, the Dallas Cowboys have hosted Thanksgiving Day games since 1966 (with the exception of 1975 and 1977) and have made the playoffs 29 of those 40 years (72.5% - again, excluding 2008).

This year is the Lions eighth consecutive losing season. But is that really material when talking about stripping a city of its 74-year old tradition?

There are two avenues of success in major sports in America. The first is measured in wins and losses, the second is tougher to measure, but is centered around that team's branding.

Consider the Chicago Cubs. They have not been very successful in terms of wins and losses. But they have been highly successful in building a dedicated fan base that is party connected to the traditions of the Cubs. Wrigley Field, the ivy on the outfield wall, Harry Carey singing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" during the seventh inning stretch.

The Green Bay Packers maintained their popularity even during the lean years of the late seventies and the Cleveland Browns fan base is as strong as ever despite losing their team thanks to a greedy owner in the mid-1990's.

The Detroit Lions don't have the same kind of fan base as the Packers, the Browns, and certainly not the Cubs. But taking the traditional Thanksgiving game out of Detroit could do irreparable harm to their branding, and well...it would be just plain mean.

But the bottom line is this: Ending a 74-year old tradition because of a team's win-loss record is asinine. In a league where a player can be fined for wearing the wrong colored socks, it doesn't make sense that a team that follows the rules should have something taken from them due to their win-loss record. Besides, the Curse of Bobby Layne is over...isn't it?

Knucklehead of the Week Award

2008-11-20T15:04:00.000-08:00

Donovan McNabb has won this week's "Knucklehead of the Week" award. Conveniently, my partner has already made a post that details the feats that won McNabb this week's honor, so I shall just be lazy and refer you to the post below this one.

Congrats, Mr. McNabb.

Tiki Barber May Have Just Saved Donovan McNabb His Job

2008-11-19T13:54:00.000-08:00

According to ProFootbalTalk.com, NBC commentator and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle look-alike Tiki Barber criticized Donovan McNabb because McNabb stated in a post-game interview that he had no idea that an NFL football game could end in a tie. (So, Donovan, what did you think that "T" column was for in the standings?)

This could be a good thing for McNabb. The last quarterback that Tiki slammed won the Super Bowl last year. Barber ripped Giants quarterback Eli Manning for his lack of leadership in 2007:

"His personality hasn't been so that he can step up, make a strong statement and have people believe that it's coming from his heart."

Six months later Manning had his hands all over the Lombardi Trophy.

Also in McNabb's favor is that he has responded well to controversy in the past. In 2003, after Rush Limbaugh said that McNabb was being hyped up by a media longing for a successful black quarterback, Donovan proved he was more than just hype and took the Eagles all the way to NFC Championship game, and then to the SuperBowl the following season.

So Eagles fans (at least those that haven't already burned their number five jerseys in effigy) take heart. Donovan McNabb may prove that Tiki Barber is the anti-curse of quarterbacks. And if he is, I really hope he rips Trent Edwards a new one soon.

I'm just sayin' - the resemblance is uncanny!

Knucklehead of the Week Award

2008-11-13T15:01:00.000-08:00

This week's "Knucklehead of the Week" award goes to the coaching staff of the San Francisco 49ers, specifically to head coach Mike Singletary, and offenive coordinator Mike Martz.

The beauty of this award is that it could have been awarded on Monday night/Tuesday morning immediately following Monday's night's near-miss against the Arizona Cardinals. However, as the week has gone on, the choice has become even more clear.

I'm not going to run through all the gory details of the end of the game in this space. If you want a good synopsis, look here. Suffices to say, some very poor clock management, and overall game management, cost the 49ers their chance at a big comeback win on the road, which would have been the first since Singletary took over as interim coach, in place of the fired Mike Nolan. Anyone who watched the final plays of that game probably wouldn't even think of arguing with this selection.

However, the coaches have since compounded their knucklehead status by blaming the refs for their misfortune, an assertion which truly boggles the mind. Did the refs handle the situation perfectly? Probably not, but they never do. However, there's a couple of realities in play here. First of all, the 49ers should have never been in the kind of clock crunch that they wound up in, because after converting the first down that got them down close to the goal line, they wasted a good 10-15 seconds because they couldn't get organized enough to run a spike play. It was crazy to watch, there was confusion all over the place, and while they did have a new QB running the show, that blame HAS to fall on the coaches.

Given that, let's deal with a few of these accusations against the refs:
#1. The 49ers thought the refs might put time back on the clock after the replay, back to where it was when Gore was initially ruled down. Um, no. That's not how it works. Gore was ruled down within the field of play, and San Francisco didn't have a timeout. That means the clock continues to run, which is why San Francisco was scrambling to spike the ball before the signal came down from the booth to review the play (more on this later). Running the clock back to where it was when Gore went down would have been the equivalent of giving the 49ers the benefit of a timeout they didn't have, and couldn't call.

#2. The refs didn't tell the 49ers that the spot was going to be moved, which is why 49ers ran a dive play from the 2 1/2 yard line. Okay, first of all, the ref told ME, the viewer on TV, along with everyone in the stadium via the loudspeaker where the ball was going to be spotted. Secondly, any time a review happens, any thing the refs see is fair game, even if something that isn't what they were supposed to look for. So, even though the purpose of the review was to see if Gore was down by contact, the spot of the ball comes into play. I know that, so I'm assuming that's a tidbit coaches should have in their file. Teams have their own people up in the booth looking at replays, so Martz should have been asking, or someone should have told him, what they were seeing and where the ball was going to be spotted.

#3. The way the refs handled the situation left the 49ers no choice but to go with their poor play call. I will say that there was very little time between when the announcement was made and the whistle was blown starting the clock, so if I were to give the coaches the benefit of the doubt regarding not doing their own homework to figure out where the ball was going to be, they'd have a point here. Except for the fact that it was 3rd down. I understand that they didn't have enough time to call another play, but it doesn't take a lot of time to scream "SPIKE IT!", which is all the 49ers would have needed to do to stop the clock and let them collect themselves with a new play. That's what they were planning to do with their 3rd play anyhow, why not go with it?

#4. If the refs had just let them go ahead with the original spike on 3rd down, instead of the review, none of this would have happened. Well, Martz was dead right about that. If they had let the spike stand, they would have also had to let the procedure penalty they had flagged on the spike play stand. Such penalties stop the clock, so in order to prevent a team from effective using such a penalty to give them an extra timeout late in the game, there's a mandatory 10 second run-off of the clock. There was less than 10 seconds left, so game over, in a much cleaner fashion. In other words, Martz criticized the refs for a decision that was actually a big help to the 49ers chances.

I'm going to cut Mike Singletary a bit of slack here, he's not just a new head coach with the 49ers, he's a first time head coach, you're going to expect some rookie mistakes. Mike Martz, however, has spent years as a coordinator and head coach, and clearly has bought into his prior status as an offensive "genius". He should know better. (Martz also added to his knucklehead status by later claiming that the ball was actually spotted on the 3 1/2 yard line (it wasn't) and that he was given that information by the fired Mike Nolan who was watching on TV. Good stuff. Was Martz actually at the game?). Come on guys. You screwed up, just own it. Is that too much to ask? (Yeah, I know it is)

Maybe the "Knucklehead of the Week" award will help take some of the sting out of this loss. Congrats, gentlemen.

Okay, so I was wrong

2008-11-09T07:20:00.000-08:00

and Penn State IS Ohio State, in a manner of speaking. In fact, they are worse in some ways, because they stumbled before the national title game. I, of course, acknowledged my deficiencies in football analysis at the time, so this isn't really a total "I told you so" moment, and besides, there were, in fact, many analysts (including my co-contributor) who had them going to the title game.

However, yesterday's developments will more than likely mean that everyone (except Penn State fans, of course) will get what they wanted all along, and there will be a Big 12/SEC matchup in the title game. Florida and Texas Tech both took care of their business in resounding fashion, and Alabama did just enough to get by against LSU. So, barring the kind of craziness we haven't seen since, well, last year, the winner of the SEC title game between 'Bama and Florida will face whomever comes out on top of the whole Texas Tech, Texas, Oklahoma mess in the Big 12 South, assuming they don't lay an egg against Missouri or someone else along the way.

By the way, if you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on out in the Big 12 the last couple weeks, I urge you do so. You've been missing some serious fireworks, and some of the most incredible displays of offensive football you're going to see at any level. If, as many people expect, the national title comes down to Florida and one of these Big 12 beasts, it might be one of the wildest title games in recent memory. I, for one, am looking forward to whatever comes through (as long as USC doesn't somehow sneak in) in the end.

It had to be this way

2008-11-03T14:42:00.000-08:00

I try not to be too much of a fan boy when I post on this site, but on the occasion of my Phillies winning the World Series, I was left with no choice. It took me longer than planned to get this ready, but I have to post it anyhow, even if it's a bit late.

It had to be this way.

When the season started, the Phillies weren’t even the popular pick to win their own division, despite their status as the defending champions. That honor belonged to the New York Mets, who had made a big splash in the offseason by trading for ace Johan Santana. They weren’t even necessarily the second most popular pick, as many people were picking the Braves as a result of, well, I never did figure out why the “experts” liked the Braves so much this year.

It had to be this way.

The big acquisition of the offseason, closer Brad Lidge, hurt his knee the first time he threw off the mound in spring training. Another poor spring training performance left the team with all kinds of concerns, mainly about the starting pitcher. The marathon of the regular season kicked off, once again, with a loss. Brett Myers couldn’t pitch, Ryan Howard couldn’t hit, Jimmy Rollins got hurt. The team muddled through, showing flashes of brilliance, but overall being maddeningly inconsistent.

It had to be this way.

Brett Myers went to AAA and returned pitching brilliantly. The bullpen locked down one late game lead after another. The offense sometimes sputtered and sometimes flourished. They spent weeks in first place, but could never come close to putting away either the Mets or the surprising Marlins. A late August, early September swoon left them once again staring at a significant deficit to the Mets with 17 games to play.

It had to be this way.

Another late charge sent them roaring past the swooning Mets and Brewers, and with a week to go, the postseason suddenly looked like a forgone conclusion – until 2 straight losses to the Braves, who they had previously dominated, left them but a single game ahead of both teams with 3 to play, and doubt started to creep back in. With a 2 run lead in the potential division clincher, the thus far perfect Brad Lidge used every bit of his breathing room, needing a fine defensive play from Rollins to turn a double play and preserve a 1 run lead, letting a team and its fans exhale and celebrate a 2nd straight trip to the postseason.

It had to be this way.

They weren’t the favorites to win the National League. No, that honor belonged to the Cubs, sentimental favorites for sure, in this their 100th year since their last World Series title, but this year also the favorites on paper, having been 5 games better than everyone else in the league. But as the Phillies efficiently dispatched the Brewers, including roughing up the seemingly invincible CC Sabathia, everyone’s favorites fell to the Dodgers in resounding fashion.

It had to be this way.

They weren’t necessarily the favorites in the NLCS. No, despite their hot play (13-3 to close the season, 3-1 in the postseason thus far), many bestowed that honor on the Dodgers, led by the incredible Manny Ramirez and on a roll of their own. And they certainly weren’t the team “everyone” wanted to win the series. Not with Joe Torre seeking vindication after the way things ended for him in New York, and Manny seeking a potential matchup with his former Boston teammates. After two quality wins at home, the Phils were defeated soundly in Game 3, and were trailing late in Game 4 when a Flyin’ Hawaiian and a 40 year old Canadian re-wrote the script, and left it up to ace Cole Hamels to send them on to the 6th NL pennant in team history.

It had to be this way.

They definitely weren’t the favorites in the World Series, neither in the eyes of Vegas or of the public. After all, the AL was a much better league, don’t you know? And the Rays turn around from last season’s worst record in baseball was such a great story.

It had to be this way.

The ace got the job done in Game 1, almost no thanks to the offense. A couple of bad calls, and the offense still struggling, and Game 2 goes the wrong way. Another bad call and some late game bungling in Game 3 had Phans thinking they’d seen this script before, when suddenly the Phils got the final set of late game breaks to take the Series lead, and then broke out with a resounding victory in Game 4. Could it be? A chance to win the Series at home in Game 5, with Hamels on the mound?

It had to be this way.

A quick lead had us believing this was finally going to happen, and then nature intervened to make us doubt again, leaving the game timed, taking the ace off the mound, and making us all wait. After all that wait, suddenly a quick run made it look like it was going to happen again. And then the previously unhittable bullpen lets one out of the park, and hope fades again for moment.

It had to be this way.

Unshaken, the bottom of the lineup responded with a quick run, and there we were again, on the verge of jubilation, before a leadoff baserunner made us hold our breath once more, until the glorious double play! Finally, the 9th inning arrived, and the “perfect” closer stepped. First out came easy enough, and then that weak broken bat hit, and a pinch runner stealing second. There was the gasp when that line drive jumped off the next bat, and the sigh of relief when we realized it was right at Mr. Werth.

It had to be this way.

One out away. A weak ground ball foul, a check swing on a slider called a strike, and one final swing and a miss, and pandemonium ensues! 28 years of baseball frustration, and 25 years of sports frustration in general melt away on that pitchers mound, and in that stadium, and in that city, and even beyond.

It had to be this way.

It had to be this way because, more than just a championship, this city and these fans needed to be able to believe in a team. In the end, it looked like it had come easily (24-6 finish, 11-3 postseason run), but it certainly didn’t feel easy. So many times this team was presented with the moments where it had all gone wrong for other teams, and this team somehow made them go wrong. This city, these fans, needed to see a team that embraced the history they were fighting against, and overcome it – a team that represented them, without quit, without acceptance of defeat. They needed a team that could both win the games and win them over when they took the field.

I’m not sure which was the bigger challenge, but it had to be this way, so they could do both.

Penn State is NOT Ohio State

2008-10-28T14:12:00.001-07:00

That's right folks, it's "State the Obvious" Tuesday. In similarly eye-opening revelations, I will now announce that the sky is blue, and that I am not a Pulitzer Prize winning writer, yet.

However, I have been noticing the tendancy amongst fans and media to write this year's Penn State team off as the updated version of the last two Ohio State teams - one that will put up a gaudy record against a lackluster Big 10, and then get crushed by an SEC (or Big 12 this year) team in the title game, leaving the rest of the nation wondering if there wasn't a more deserving team for the spot from a tougher conference. Now, I don't tend to get too passionate about college football, and the World Series has been occupying my heart and mind for the last week or so, but now that this perception has made it to this blog, and the World Series is on a weather-imposed hiatus, I decided I needed to speak up.

First of all, I always like to lay out any potential bias, so its there in the open. I grew up a Notre Dame fan amongst a large extended family of Penn State fans, and thus hated Penn State as a defense mechanism. I have since grown out of that hatred, although I do like to see myself as an outside voice of "reason" whenever the Penn State faithful get all hyped up about their team. I see plenty of them because they are always on around here. It's not in my nature to rally to their defense, but yet here I am. And I would be rooting for Penn State in any national title game matchup against an SEC team, because, well, rooting for the SEC is like rooting for the Yankees (you know, maybe I should update that line and go with the Red Sox...).

I must be clear on one point at the outset - I'm not sitting here saying that Penn State is the best team in the country, I'm not predicting a victory over whomever they might face should they run the table and make the title game. I think both the SEC and Big 12 have at least one team I'd consider a clear favorite over the Nittany Lions, and probably each another one or two I think would beat them more times than not. What I will make a case for is that the Lions not getting blown off the field, and for them making a good showing of themselves in any games.

Here's a few points to that end:
#1 - Unlike Ohio State, Penn State has a history (both distant and recent) of handling similar caliber SEC and Big 12 teams in bowls. I'm not going to launch into a detailed analysis of why this is the case, but I will say that I think Penn State's defensive schemes tend to hold up better against the offensive skill position talent the other conferences tend to feature, and the simple fact is that Joe Paterno has always had a knack for preparing for bowls.

#2 - The gap between Penn State and Ohio State this year is not as small as Saturday's game might suggest. Let's remember first that this game was played in Columbus, and that's no small thing, especially in this series. Penn State came into the game AVERAGING about 7 points a game in their last 7 trips to OSU. There were some pretty fair teams in that span. And here's the real issue - Paterno has always had trust issues with his offense, no matter how good they might be. He virtually always reigns in the offense on the road, to the extent that the game allows it, and asks his defense to win the game. Even this year, with an offense that has looked dominant at times, is no different. With the exception of an early game against a terrible Syracuse team, Penn State has only put big points on the board on the road when the defense has forced turnovers (see Wisconsin). If you play that game in Happy Valley, I think everyone ends up coming away much more impressed with Penn State. As it was, their first real national scrutiny this year comes away less than favorable. At a neutral site, and as needed, I think the Lions can put on a less "boring" offensive display.

#3 - Penn State is running an almost modern offensive scheme, with quality wideouts. Look, I won't kid you - the "Spread HD" isn't exactly cutting edge, as much as it appears so in the Big 10 and at Penn State, however, it's considerably more innovative than anything Ohio State has run out there the last few years (this will likely change during the career of Terrelle Pryor). Penn State has the ability to spread the field and create match-up problems, even for the defenses of the SEC, and they have a mobile quarterback able to make plays with his legs when things break down. They aren't going to be wowing these defenses, since they see the same or much better regularly throughout their conference seasons.

#4 - Let's be realistic, this non-conference schedule thing is a red herring. Virtually none of the top teams challenge themselves in the non-conference. The USC/OSU games are the exceptions, not the rule. As a reference, to date, both the Big 10 and SEC have had their teams play a combined 10 games against other BCS conference opponents (that's less than one per team), and most of these are closer to Northwestern v. Duke than USC/OSU. 7 of the SEC's out of conference BCS opponents were from the ACC and Big East, which are clearly not elite conferences at the moment (I'm not arguing that the Big 10 is either, however). Both are 5-5. SEC folks argue that that doesn't matter for them, because the in-conference competition is so tough. I agree, to a point, but the reality is that most years, we have to take that assertion on faith until bowl season. Even the Big 12, whose 12 teams have played 16 BCS opponents in the non-con, has nine of those matchups against the ACC and Big East. Penn State blew out Oregon State (who beat USC), and a quick look tells me that that is probably among the top 5 toughest non-conference games played by a team in the national title picture.

So, there's my take. I think, if Penn State does wind up in the title game that they will represent well, though they may not win. I'm not the worlds greatest football analyst, so if I'm wrong, you don't need to bother telling me so, I'll know it, and I won't be that surprised. Heck, I won't be surprised, given my prognostication track record, if PSU lays an egg against Iowa this week. I take comfort in knowing that, should Penn State make the title game and get torched, there will be people getting paid a lot more than me (nothing) to analyze college football who will say the same thing I'm saying now, or even pick a PSU win, and will be every bit as wrong as me!

Selig gets it right, and wrong...

2008-10-28T13:33:00.000-07:00

Bud Selig has done it again!

Before I go into more detail, let me be clear that, unlike many baseball fans, I am not a Bud Selig hater, nor am I a fan of his. I feel like I have a fairly balanced view on the commissioner of Major League Baseball, and on his accomplishments and failures. I think he’s been a passable commish, but one who has a massive PR problem, one that he bears a lot of responsibility for bringing on himself.

In fact, let’s do a quick review on the Selig era. He got off to a very poor start with the fans, when, while still owner of the Milwaukee Brewers and acting commish in 1994, he oversaw the failed labor negotiation that brought about the 1994 strike and the cancellation of that year’s World Series. Since then, however, baseball has had a resurgence, with revenues and attendance at all-time highs. Since 1994, Selig has done twice what no other commissioner had been able to since the players’ union was formed, and that is negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement with the players, without a work stoppage of any kind – and while getting significant concessions from the players on issues like revenue sharing. Selig was also the man behind the wild card, which, despite the objections of purists (like me) has clearly been a success for the business of baseball.

It hasn’t all been good, however, and as pretty much everyone knows, Selig was the man on watch while steroid use became rampant in baseball – the discovery and fallout from which was a significant black eye for the game. I will say, however, that given the fact that EVERY entity in baseball (players, owners, media, fans, etc) turned a blind eye to the problem for years, it’s my opinion that Selig has taken too much of the blame for the rise of the problem and gotten too little credit for his work in addressing it. There’s also been blunders on a smaller scale, one of the most noteworthy being the infamous tie at the All-Star Game a few years back, and the subsequent failed efforts to make the game more meaningful.

Really, I think Selig’s problem lies more in perception than anything else. He’s really not the best communicator, and as such has given his detractors plenty of leeway in characterizing him as something of a bumbler. He also seems to be all too frequently caught unprepared for foreseeable situations, or at the very least he gives the appearance of being caught unprepared. The All-Star Game debacle was probably the most classic illustration of this, until last night.

Last night, if you weren’t aware, was Game 5 of the World Series in Philadelphia, with the Phillies needing one win to clinch the championship. The game started in a mist that gradually became a driving rain, coupled with cold and wind. It was clear that conditions were only going to get worse as the night went on, so that if the game was stopped, it would not be resumed last night. The umpires, who have control of such decisions, kept the game moving. Once the game became official, with the Phillies in the lead, the umpires were clearly acutely aware of the fact that stopping the game would effectively decide the series, and so they pushed on through ridiculous conditions, until the Rays pushed the tying run across in the top of the 6th. This gave the umpires the opportunity to stop the game, knowing that were it not resumed last night, it would be a suspended game and could be resumed in the bottom of the 6th tonight, or the next night, or whenever, within the rules.

Enter Selig, who in a press conference announcing the suspension of the game until tonight at 8 (the game has since been delay to tomorrow night), let it be known that under no circumstances would the game have been cut short. Had the Rays not scored in the top of the 6th, the commissioner would have declared an indefinite rain delay, and the game would have resumed whenever possible.

Let me be very clear here – I absolutely think that was the right plan. First of all, while some have suggested that the commissioner would have been using his powers to ignore the rules, I’m not really sure that’s the case. I haven’t had a chance to look it up, but I don’t think the baseball rules are particularly clear on how long a game can be in a rain delay before it has to be called. In the confines of the regular season, or perhaps even earlier in the playoffs, you basically have to do something that night, for the sake of the schedule. But this is the World Series, these are the only two teams playing, so there’s no other schedule considerations except what these two teams can do. Further, the commissioner knows that all he has to do is get 3.5 more innings played in Philly, and then if the series is still on, it moves to a dome in Florida, so there’s no concern about pushing games later in the year. A World Series game should not be decided by the weather, either via a game being shortened, or via craziness from the game being played in unplayable conditions. I support the commissioner on this position.

Where the problem comes in is that the commissioner’s position clearly never made it to the umpires before they actually stopped the game. There’s just no way the umpires keep that game going through the top of the 6th if they had known they could have stopped the game without effectively handing the Phillies the championship. Exhibit A: in the top of the 5th, Phillies SS Jimmy Rollins dropped what would have otherwise been a routine popup due to losing it in the rain and wind. That led to the umpires refusing to call the infield fly rule on a similar pop up to Tampa 1B Carlos Pena in the bottom of the inning. If the umpires are recognizing the conditions are so poor that a pop-up on the infield no longer requires “normal effort” to catch, I don’t see anyway they would be continuing the game, if they thought they could stop the game without ending it. If the umpires were aware of Selig’s position, I don’t see anyway that they would have let the game continue through the top of the 6th (let’s remember that there was a significant delay before that inning while the grounds crew tried to make the infield playable) and I think there’s a distinct possibility they would have stopped the game before the bottom of the 5th. Instead, we get a full inning of baseball played in absolutely ridiculous conditions, and who knows how long they might have tried to keep going had the score not been tied when the Rays finished batting in the 6th.

So, as he’s done at various times throughout his career, Selig had the right idea but seems to have executed it very poorly, and as a result, he’s taken another PR black eye, and that’s unfortunate. More unfortunate is the fact that this time, this poor execution has had/will have a direct impact on the outcome of a World Series game. And before anyone assumes anything due to my Philly allegiance, let me state clearly that this is not preemptive sour grapes. I don’t think the Phillies somehow got jobbed by this, even though the Rays did score in the top of the 6th. They had the middle of their order up, maybe under better conditions they score more runs. You just don’t know. But if you watched the last inning or so of that game, you just can’t tell me that this apparent breakdown in communication didn’t impact the game on the field.

I’ll leave the debate over whether the impact favored one team or another for someone else, and just hope the Phillies can capitalize on what is still a golden opportunity to bring home a championship, so that I don’t ever have to really dwell on the “what if” question.

Penn State Will Play in the National Championship Game

2008-10-27T17:03:00.000-07:00

...and they will lose. Badly.

Saturday night I watched the (very boring) game between Penn State and Ohio State. And I believe I speak for college football fans everywhere (including Columbus) when I say, "Thank You Penn State". Thank you for sparing us another lopsided Ohio State loss in a National Championship Game.

Unfortunately, by defeating the Buckeyes you usurped them from the "over-hyped, overrated Big Ten champion" thrown and firmly planted yourselves there. And now, chances are you will win your last three games (Iowa, Indiana and your only remaining ranked opponent, Michigan State)and receive a berth in the National Championship Game.

There are three other undefeated BCS teams; Texas, Alabama and Texas Tech. All three of whom have had a much tougher schedule than PSU.

Texas has already defeated #4 Oklahoma (then ranked #1), #14 Missouri and #9 Oklahoma State. And next week they play the other undefeated team from the Lone Star State, #7 Texas Tech. They have scored less than thirty points only once, and less than forty points only twice in eight games.

Alabama has defeated #5 Georgia and plays #19 LSU in two weeks. They have allowed more than 20 points only once. While Alabama hasn't had the kind of schedule that the two Texas schools, their defence would give PSU a very tough time considering the struggle that the Nittany Lions had agains Ohio State.

Texas Tech has thus far had a pretty easy schedule, but they will finish the regular season against a flurry of ranked opponents. Next week they play #1 Texas, then the week following they play #9 Oklahoma State and then #4 Oklahoma the week after that. If they can deafeat three top-10 opponents three weeks in a row, they will certainly earn a berth in the National Title Game (unless of course they are upset by Baylor four weeks from now). Did I mention that the Red Raiders haven't scored less than 35 points yet this year? I probably should have.

Meanwhile, Penn State has defeated #12 Ohio State (who was routed by USC 35-3 in September) and...oh, I guess that haven't played any other ranked opponents. Illinois was ranked #22 at the time of their drubbing, but there really hasn't been any kind of test for Penn State this season.

The fact of the matter is that the Big Ten is no longer an elite conference. Big Ten teams don't play tough inter-conference games, and when they do they get routed (Ohio State at USC, Michigan State at Cal) Certainly one - and possibly two - of the other three undefeated teams will remain undefeated through the end of the year, and assuming Penn State can defeat it's last three opponents we will see yet another Big Ten team lose big in the National Title game.

Man Bites Dog, or In This Case, Ref Hits Player

2008-10-22T18:32:00.001-07:00

Today on the Dan Patrick Show, the talked about a really strange event that happened in the LSU-South Carolina game this weekend. The referee actually takes out the South Carolina quarterback. Or was he just bracing himself from an inevitable bump?

I've seen many plays where a referee gets creamed by a player running with a full head of steam (or as Reggie Miller might say, "a full steam of head"), but it's always the ref that goes down, never the player. Of course in this instance, it was a quarterback, and the ref in question is a former linebacker from the University of Kentucky.

But it looks like the ref is tracking him down preparing to deliver the hit, like he was having a flashback to his playing days. Dan Patrick listeners voted that they believe the hit on the South Carolina quarterback was intentional - 79% to 21%. What do you think? Was it intentional? And if so, why would he do it?

Breaking the "Curse"

2008-10-20T13:34:00.000-07:00

Well, it's finally time for the World Series, and much like everyone was expecting all season long, one of the teams has a shot to end a long, dark, championship drought.

However, it's not the team everyone was "expecting." That team would be the Chicago Cubs, who initially lived up to their pre-season hype, having the best record in the NL and looking like clear favorites to return to the World Series for the first time since 1945, with an excellent chance to win their first World Series since 1908. That would be 100 years ago, if you hadn't heard or couldn't do the math...

Instead, however, my beloved Phildelphia Phillies have only 4 wins in 7 games against the Tampa Bay Rays standing between them and ending the roughly 100 season championship drought for the city of Philadelphia. That's right, despite fielding a team in each of the 4 major professional sports, it's been 25 years since the city of Philadelphia had a championship parade down Broad Street, the last one being for the 76ers NBA title in 1983.

When such a drought occurs, it's cliche to look for a reason, and the "answer" is often some sort of curse. The most famous sports curse was the "Curse of the Bambino", which was attributed to the Boston Red Sox 86 year championship drought following their sale of Babe Ruth to the Yankees. That curse was "broken" in 2004, and the Red Sox won a second title just last year. The Cubs "curse" has something to do with a Billy Goat. And the most famous explanation for the woes of the Philly sports teams is the "Curse of Billy Penn". The statue of William Penn atop Philly's City Hall was long the highest point in the city. However, shortly after the 76ers title game, plans were drawn up for One Liberty Place, which opened in 1987 and was the first building to exceed the height of the Penn statue. The rest, as they say is history.

Curses are fun to talk about, and it's nice media fodder, and you know, I think some people actually buy into them. However, whether the Phillies win or lose this week (and whether the Cubs, Red Sox, etc win or lose) has nothing to do with any curse. It will solely come down to whether the Phillies play better than the Rays over the next week plus. The idea of a curse is particularly laughable in Philly. The nice run of success that ended with the 76ers '83 title may have made people forget this fact, but failure has always been the rule and success the exception in Philly sports. Every Philly franchise has been in the city for at least 40 years, with the Phillies being around for all of 125 years. That's over 250 seasons of professional sports, with 6 championships (1 MLB, 1 NFL (pre-Super Bowl era), 2 NBA, and 2 NHL). Everyone waxes poetic about the Cubs and their hundred years of ineptitude, but, while they've had the longest current streak without a championship for about 30 years (I think), they only recently passed the Phillies, who went 98 years from their inception until their first championship of any kind, with their 1980 World Series title. The Phillies, are in fact, the losingest franchise in professional sports, having "celebrated" their 10,000th loss last season.

The "curse" in Philadelphia has nothing do with William Penn, or any other mythical force. The city, throughout its sports history, has been cursed with bad ownership, bad management, bad talent, etc. And it's not like Philly has this long history of close calls, chokes, injuries, etc. The teams just haven't been good enough, period. And honestly, I think that's why sports "curses" are so prevalent - it's a solid form of denial for a fan base.

So, while I'm not going to do a detailed analysis and breakdown of the World Series, complete with predictions, after all, my objectivity is slightly compromised here, I will say this - the 2008 Phillies have a very legitimate chance to be the 2008 World Series champions. On paper, this is probably one of the very best chances a Philly team has had going into a title game/series. And win or lose, Mr. Penn won't have one say in the outcome, nor will any other weird or quirky piece of history.

However, for those who enjoy such things, and perhaps are already thinking doom and gloom with relation to this edition of the Phillies, allow me to feed you some historical tidbits that make things "look bad" for the Phils, despite having no actual connection to the 2008 Phillies or Rays, just for fun:
- The Phillies played the Dodgers in the NLCS this year. In all previous times this occurred, the winner went on to lose the World Series to a team from the AL East.
- The Phillies have lost 4 World Series in their franchise history, once to each of the four current members of the AL East other than Tampa.
- Tampa pro sports teams have never lost in the championship round, with the Bucs having won their only Super Bowl, and the Lightning having won their only trip to the Stanley Cup Finals. Furthermore, both those title teams defeated their Philly counterparts in the conference championship round on the way to those titles.

Enjoy!

I am So Confused!

2008-10-17T19:21:00.000-07:00

Why?

Because the NFL is downright confusing! Just when I think I've got things figured out there's a string of upsets. Big upsets. It's like all the chaos of the 2007 college football season was drafted in the 1st round and is starting for every team.

The Giants looked unstoppable. Until the hapless Browns beat them on Monday night for their second win of the season.

Washington was a team on the rise and Jason Campbell was going to dominate as a quarterback. Until the 13-point underdog Rams came to town and got their first win of the season.

Nothing makes sense anymore. For the first few weeks of the season I thought that it was a shame that all four NFC East teams couldn't go to the playoffs. Now I'm thinking the Arizona Cardinals could be the next big thing.

Oh, and consider this: the only team left undefeated is being quarterbacked by the aging Kerry Collins.

Yet still I feel the need to test my skill of prognostication and make some picks on this very blog - so here's some likely upsets:

Likely: New England over Denver. Denver is only a three point favorite, but c'mon - New England's quarterback is Matt Cassell.

Possible: Cincinatti over Pittsburgh. The Bengals are due, and this is a divisional matchup. And anything can happen in a divisional matchup.

Improbable: Cleveland over Washington. The Browns may very well be "feelin' it" after last week's victory over the Giants. Don't be surprised if they continue their winning ways.

Impossible: Detroit over Houston. The Lions are 9 1/2 point underdogs to Houston. The 1-4 Houston Texans. Call me crazy, but I see a dream unfolding. The dream that the 1976 Buccaneers will not be alone in the pantheon of football impotence. I won't say that Detroit will go 0-16, but I'll be rooting for it.

Knucklehead of the Week - Week of October 12th, 2008

2008-10-14T14:13:00.000-07:00

First, an update on the inaugural "Knucklehead of the Week." LSU defensive tackle Ricky Jean-Francois actually came up injured PRIOR to the Florida/LSU game, and sat idly while Florida destroyed LSU. Well played Ricky. Well played.

And now, for this week's Knucklehead. If you've been following the sports headlines, this one should come as no surprise to you. In fact, had this site and this honor been around over the last couple years, the award would probably already be named after this individual.

That's right, you guessed it. Knucklehead of the Week honors for this week go to none other than Dallas Cowboy cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones. As you MIGHT remember, Mr. Jones missed the entire 2007 season as a result of a suspension issued by Commissioner Roger Goodell for his numerous off-the-field incidents, involving script clubs (that's strip club for those who don't speak Pacman), guns, "rain", and other assorted things. Anyhow, after being on his best behavior through the suspension, Jones was traded from the Tennessee Titans to the Cowboys, and reinstated to the NFL by Goodell, with a laundry list of conditions to meet in order to insure his continued participation in the NFL.

Well, apparently that list of conditions was too long for Mr. Jones, because, as you may have hear, Commissioner Goodell has once again suspended him from the NFL. The suspension is at present indefinite, but will last no fewer than 4 games. The incident that sparked this most recent suspension: an alleged alcohol-related scuffle with a bodyguard that had been assigned to him by the Cowboys.

First of all, let me say, once again, good for Mr. Goodell. I thought the unwillingness of the Cowboys to do anything about this (Jones played this past Sunday) was pathetic, and given the fact that Cowboy owner Jerry Jones has been one of Goodell's strongest supporters, I was a little concerned that the NFL might look the other way as well. Thankfully, that concern was unjustified. You know what, I get that athletes aren't all going to be model citizens. They don't become pro athletes because of their high moral character, but because of their physical gifts. If a guy screws up once, fine. However, I'm sick of the consistent pattern of enabling and making excuses for guys like this who clearly just don't get it. I really hope that Goodell throws a further book at Jones here - it's the only way to send a message to him. History tells us that as long as he has talent, he will get further chances, so the only thing to do is to delay those chances as long as possible.

Aside from all that, I find Jones' situation sad. The man is tremendously talented, and in all likelihood is going to completely waste that gift in relatively short order. No, I'm not some bleeding heart who is going to blame society for Jones' total lack of self-control, but I will say this - we're talking about a guy who was very clearly never told "No" throughout his early life because of his tremendous athletic giftings. He wasn't "makin' it rain" in high school and college, I'm sure, but these kind of behavior patterns don't just magically appear when a guy hits the NFL. While, as I've already done, I applaud the NFL for taking action now, we have to acknowledge and examine the extent to which the football culture in this country, and really the athletic culture as a whole, enables and engrains this kind of stuff.

But anyhow - that's all really heavy, and that's not what this award is truly about. Congrats on your first "Knucklehead of the Week" award Mr. Jones. Here's hoping that, for one reason or another, it's your last as well.

Knucklehead of the Week Award

2008-10-07T16:50:00.001-07:00

I'm going to try to keep this award up as a regular feature. Given my recent posting habits, I'm sure none of you are holding your breath.

However, the inaugural "Knucklehead of the Week" award goes to: (drumroll, please) LSU Defensive Tackle Ricky Jean-Francois. Jean-Francois earned this award by doing one of two things, and you can decide for yourself which you think he did, by reading this article.

This brilliant young scholar from LSU either:
#1 - Said something completely out of line and inappropriate by saying that the LSU defense was going to do their best to injure Florida's Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Tim Tebow in this weekend's game

or

#2 - Stated something harmless and innocent in such so poorly that the only thing one could reasonably assume was that he had indeed did #1

Here at We are the Peanut Vendors, we don't much care which of these 2 acts the young man actually committed. Doing either of them, especially in the week before a critical conference matchup, is more than enough to merit the "Knucklehead of the Week" award. I don't know how much I believe in the power of bulletin board fodder, especially in the college game, where the rivalries week to week are so intense and almost personal, the crowds so huge and passionate, and the overall atmosphere more than enough to get an 18-22 year old kid totally jacked up for a game, but seriously, why put this out there? It certainly doesn't make Florida and Tebow LESS motivated to get after it on Saturday.

As for what I actually think, I've seen headlines like this all the time, and upon further review, I almost always wind up thinking the athlete was misquoted or misrepresented. Best recent example of this I can think of off the top of my head was last year in the NFL, when a relatively faceless member of the Pittsburgh Steeler was said to have "guaranteed" a victory against the then undefeated New England Patriots. The kid was talking about about how he thought they could win the game, and then when specifically asked if he was guaranteeing a victory, he basically said "IF we do our job on offense, defense, and special teams, then yeah, I can guarantee we'll win." Whoa, now there's some SERIOUS smack talk.

However, in this case, I'm not sure that I see that Jean-Francois left himself a lot of room to write his statements off as talk about making Tebow ineffective, as he has since tried to do. He was talking about taking Tebow out of the game in direct connection with getting a good shot at him, and then talking about how hard it was to get a clean shot on him. Even though he threw the complement to Tebow in there by referencing his size and heart, I'm struggling to give him the benefit of doubt here.

Regardless, as I said, none of that has anything to do with his clear-cut worthiness of the inaugural "Knucklehead of the Week"* award. Congrats Ricky!

* - The "Knucklehead of the Week" award is currently in need of a sponsor. All reasonable bids will be considered.

The Curse May Be Over

2008-10-04T14:00:00.000-07:00

Sorry Cubs fans, not that curse (unless something spectacular happens over the next several days - beginning tonight). I'm speaking of the Detroit Lions' "Curse of Bobby Layne."

In the 1950s the Detroit Lions were a dominant team in the NFL. They won three NFL championships and were a perennial contender. Then in 1958 they traded their Hall-of-Fame quarterback Bobby Layne to Pittsburgh. According to legend Layne declared that the Lions would not win for 50 years as he left for the Steel City.

That curse expires in two days. That's eleven days too late for former General Manager Matt Millen, and a day late for their home game against the Bears. Is it a coincidence that Matt Millen was fired less than two weeks before the end of the curse? I don't think so. I also believe that there are some other teams that may be looking at curses of their own:

1. New England Patroits: "The Curse of Eric Mangini." Sure, the Patroits won every regular season game after Eric Mangini outed them for their curious videotaping practices, but it might not be a coincidence that they lost the Super Bowl to the underdog Giants and then lost their starting quarterback the first week of the season.

2. New York Yankees: "The Curse of Joe Torre." This one seems a lot more likely. The Steinbrenners fire Joe Torre and the Yankees miss the playoffs for the first time in fifteen years. Meanwhile, Joe Torre has lead the Dodgers to their first postseason win since 1988.

3. Los Angeles Lakers: "The Curse of Shaq." I think Shaq said it himself: "Kobe can't do it without me..." Since O'Neal left the Lakers in 2004 the Lakers have appeared in exactly one NBA final, which they lost. Might Shaq's immature feud with Kobe Bryant curse the Lakers for many seasons to come? Only time will tell.

So congratulations are due to the Detroit Lions. It appears that their curse will soon be behind them and they can beginning winning again next season...or will they?

The Raiders are a Family

2008-10-01T13:55:00.000-07:00

...a really messed-up dysfunctional family that makes Alec Baldwin look like Father of the Year.

Yesterday at his press conference (and after his press conference) Al Davis went into detail on why he fired his head coach, Lane Kiffin and why he's not going to honor his contract (ala his 1989 firing of Mike Shannahan) and keep the $3.5 million due to Kiffin.

But the whole time I can't help but think, "Why did you hire him in first place?"

Lane Kiffin was co-coordinator for USC when Davis hired him. He had no head coaching experience and no experience in the NFL. Why on Earth would Davis hire somebody with so little experience?

And to make matters worse, when Kiffin tried to fire his defensive coordinator, Davis over-ruled Kiffin and gave Rob Ryan his job back. How can Davis expect Kiffin to coach effectively when you've made it clear that he doesn't have the power to make football decisions.

No doubt, Kiffin will never see his $3.5 million and Davis will get the last laugh. But it's sad. What will Davis do when Tom Cable can't get wins and you render him impotent? Who's going to want that job.

The Raiders are a team with a lot of talent, but no leadership. Or at least really messed-up power tripping leadership. Which is probably even worse. Until Davis's ego can allow his head coach to...I don't know, coach his team? The Raiders will be cellar-dwellers in the AFC.

"Arrr! I'm a Raider!"

Operation Shutdown in 3...2...1...

2008-09-22T19:01:00.000-07:00

Or is it?

Personally, I hope not. Because I took Randy Moss in the first round of my fantasy draft. And I didn't draft Randy Moss so that I could bench Randy Moss.

But with his meager stats from the past couple weeks have a lot of football honks wondering, "will Randy Moss shut it down?"

Disclaimer: I didn't see the New England - Miami game yesterday, so I can't account for his actions during that game. So this post is chock full of speculation.

Moss's past transgressions are clear. He didn't like playing in Oakland for the Raiders. So basically, he quit playing for the Raiders. He loafed on a lot of plays. He refused to go over the middle. He really wasn't going to take a big hit for his pathetic football team.

And the present status of the Patriots is clear: Randy Moss came to New England to play with Tom Brady because he wanted to win. Now the Golden Boy is hurt and Randy is catching passes (on occasion, at least) from career (and that includes college, by the way) back-up quarterback Matt Cassel.

As I mentioned before, since I didn't see the game agains Miami I can't speak from first hand experience, but I've heard talk of him not going after balls, not blocking and generally loafing when the ball wasn't headed his way. And his stats appear to back that up, in his last two games he's had six catches for 47 yards and no touchdowns.

But the New England offense has been a little pathetic lately without Brady under center (or in the shotgun). So maybe his reduced stats are reflective of the weakening of the team as a a whole.

It's also possible that Moss is taking on extra coverage now that teams have seen a years worth of film of him in a Patriot uniform.

Whatever the reason, the thing to remember is that Bill Belichick is a master motivator. He turned spygate into a perfect regular season. If anyone can get Randy Moss to catch passes from Matt Cassel it's the hoodie.

...or maybe no one can convince Randy Moss to actually try in a losing effort.

Correlation does not prove causation

2008-09-21T17:41:00.001-07:00

First of all, let me apologize for the lack of activity on this blog for the last week or so. I was not feeling well for most of the week, and got better just in time to have a pretty busy weekend. As for my co-contributor, I believe he has some lame excuse about recovering a marathon he ran, or something like that. I have, however, cleared out all the cobwebs and shooed away the crickets, so hopefully we're all ready to go.

Secondly, I'm sure you're thinking that the title of this entry contains some awfully big words for a sports blog. And you'd be right. This phrase was posted by a good friend of mine on her blog, about something totally unrelated to sports, but I like it, and I found it very relevant to one of the big sports stories of the weekend, so I've stolen it. (It's okay, I'm pretty sure she stole it from someone else first)

Let me start by translating the phrase into simpler English. Simply put, this statement means that just because 2 events occur at the same time, or one right after the other, it doesn't prove the events are connected, or that one caused the other. As a very over simplified example, I can wish for a nice sunny day all I want, but it won't make it any more likely that one occurs. So, if there's a nice sunny day after I wish for it, it's coincidental, there's not a causal relationship.

Onto my point: As you may have noticed, the Ryder Cup was this weekend, the Ryder Cup being a team golf event which matches a team from the US against a team from Europe. As you might also have heard at some point, Tiger Woods of the US, who is unquestioned as the best golf in the world, is currently recovering from knee surgery. There is a causal relationship here. Because the Ryder Cup was this weekend and Woods is still recovering from his surgery, Woods was not on the US team.

You may also have heard that the US does not have a particularly sparkling record in the Ryder Cup in the Woods era. Since Woods made his first appearance in the Ryder Cup back in '97, the US had gone 1-4 entering this year, including losing the last 3 straight, the last 2 in blowout fashion. You may also know that Woods personal Ryder Cup record is less than stellar. He is 3-1-1 in singles matches, but has lost more than he's won in the partner matches.

So, like I said, Woods was not playing this year, and because the sports media doesn't know how to cover golf without Woods as the story (I say that with my tongue only partially in my cheek), one of the popular topics of conversation, given Woods' personal poor record and the recent failures of the US team as a whole, would the US team somehow be better with their undisputed best player out. Reasons for why this might be the case included such things as Woods not being able to play well with partners, teammates being better able to deal with the matches without the media crush that follows Tiger around, among others. To be fair, I think most people I read concluded that there was no way the US team could be "better" without their best player. However, as you may also have heard, the US team did win back the Cup today, in rather strong fashion, spurred on by an uncharacteristically strong performance in the first 2 days of partnered matches. In fact, the US led going into the singles for only the 2nd time in the last 13 matches, and (uh oh) the first time since 1995, which was the last time Woods was not a member of the US team. So, I expect to see the conversation resume, with perhaps more people believers in the idea that the US was better without its star.

Let me state something clearly here - I have no clue whether the US would have won the Ryder Cup if Tiger Woods had played. Nobody does - this isn't some simulation that we get to run over and over again, changing different factors. We know they won without him, and that's all we know. That's how sports work. I personally still find it rather difficult to believe that the US was better off without a player of Woods' caliber, but I do allow for the possibility. However, this is just a reminder that, correlation does not prove causation, so the fact that the team DID play better doesn't prove the US team was better off without Woods, and here's a list of a few reasons why you can't just look at Woods' absence when evaluating the different result for the 2008 US Ryder Cup team.

#1 - The law of averages - Let's face it, the US couldn't have done a whole lot worse than they had with Woods on the team, especially the last two Cups. The simple fact is that, whether the team was "better" without Woods or not, the odds were very good that they were going to get a better result this time, even if they didn't bring back the Cup.

#2 - The teams - Woods was not the only difference between the recent US teams and this one. Not even close, in fact. By my count, only 4 of the 12 US players were on the 2006 team which was blown out at the K Club, and there were 6 Ryder Cup rookies on the US team, meaning those players had never been a part of a Ryder Cup team with Woods. A number of these rookies came up big - most notably Boo Weekly, Hunter Mahan, and JB Holmes - all of which won or tied every match they were a part of. And another rookie, Anthony Kim, contributed 2.5 points, and also set the tone for today's singles by trouncing Sergio Garcia in the first match of the day. The competition was also decidedly different, with 4 rookies on the European team and 6 players who did not compete in 2006. Given all that, the idea that you can pinpoint the impact of the presence or lack thereof of a specific player is rather preposterous.

#3 - The nature of the game itself and the match play format - Golf is such a fickle game, and the difference between winning and losing individual holes, matches, and events can be defined in inches, especially in match play. This year, the US hit the clutch putts and amazing shots when they needed them, the last few times, the Europoeans had had the majority of that success. The simple reality is that, when you get a grouping of the best players of the world together and play this format, the results could vary wildly. Want some proof? Watch the World Match Play event next spring and see how many of the top ranked players stick around for the weekend. Or, look at how players scores in tournaments vary from week to week, and even day to day within even a 4 day event at the exact same course. It's quite possible (but again, we'll never know) that had the same US and European teams that competed in 2006, 2004, etc. teed it up the following weekend, there could have been vastly different results.

Anyhow, I'm sure this will be brought and debated again for the next week, and will probably come back up in 2010 at the next Ryder Cup, assuming Woods is available. I've given my opinion, but I concede that there's just no way to know, so giving it a ton of press is ultimately a waste of time. Fortunately for the media, that's never stopped them before!

Some Random Links

2008-09-11T17:39:00.000-07:00

Baseball may actually be a British invention.

Tony Romo sounds like a genuinely good guy.

So why is he dating Jessica Simpson?

Garmin-Chipotle's Jonathan Vaughters Doesn't think that Lance Armstrong is a match for Christian VandeVelde.

Light Heavyweight Chuck Lidell is under a 60-day medical suspension from the UFC and will need to be cleared to fight by doctors before returning to the octagon.

What is the truth about Ohio State's Beanie Wells?

Will T.O.'s mouth cost him his head Monday night?

There's still (or is it again? probably "again") such a league as the ABA?