Sports writers and pundits were furious with Dirk Nowitzki. The towering power forward followed his impressive regular season run with a dismal showing in the playoffs. As the centerpiece of his team and the toast of the NBA in 2007 he was expected to be a force in the playoffs. It wasn’t so much that Dallas lost, Nowitzki was a virtual no show. Now the knock on Dirk is that he lacks the character to step up and deliver in big games like Tim Duncan. How dare he accept his MVP trophy?
It’s not fair. Sure, it would have been nice if Dirk had lived up to his billing but the blame for the Mavericks getting an early dismissal from the post season rests on the shoulders of the entire team. No matter how brilliant a player is he is going to have an off night. That player will recover from a slump faster if the rest of the team can pick up the slack. What if Dirk had been injured? Other people have to step up.
Dallas was out-coached as much as they were out played. The Warriors were just hungrier. Maybe Dallas thought they’d coast through, win the series in five games and rested up for a second round showdown with Utah. Maybe Dallas peaked too early. The fact remains that the entire team lost. Dirk isn’t the only player suiting up for the Mavs. As dominant as Dallas proved to be over the course of the regular season, one would have expected them to beat Golden State with their reserves on the floor for the entire series.
We’re inconsistent in sports. We laud a knucklehead like Kobe Bryant for being a dominant scoring machine but fail to take him to task for effectively dismantling a juggernaut with his ego. Kobe could have 8 championships by now and would have transitioned past Shaq as the undisputed leader of the team but he was impatient and wanted the Lakers all to himself. He forced Shaq out and even alienated Phil Jackson before the siren call of fame and fortune brought Jackson back to LA. That makes Phil a whore.
In baseball A-Rod is cast as a villain to Derek Jeter’s hero. It doesn’t matter that A-Rod is the kind of player who can single handedly make a team good enough to get to the playoffs, A-Rod has struggled in the post season. Jeter has made a few big plays but. statistically Jeter is the most overrated player in the game. He’s a weak defensive shortstop and a mediocre hitter. His post season stats aren’t even that spectacular but since he has been on a winning team and earned a championship ring he gets the benefit of the doubt.
Until recently Peyton Manning was regarded as a stat monkey who couldn’t win big games. This reputation cost him a Heisman trophy in college and almost cost him in the draft. Fortunately the Indianapolis Colts never bought into the hysteria. Now that Peyton has a ring nobody doubts his greatness but his performance in the Super Bowl was far from his best and it can be argued that the Bears did more to give the game away than the Colts did to win it.
Lebron James is regarded as a guy who can’t deliver in the clutch. When its mentioned that he can and does he is accused of failing to come through in big games. Of course statistics prove that theory wrong. Just this year Lebron has come up big….in the playoffs…in the fourth quarter. Lebron buried the Wizards with a big fourth quarter effort in the first round and put the screws to the Nets in game two of the second round. All it takes is one missed free throw or an errant jumper late in a game for analysts to start questioning his heart. Even Reggie Miller, who should know better, insinuated that the player to foul in the fourth quarter is James. That’s funny because Lebron’s stats improve in the fourth quarter. Reggie Miller is and always has been an idiot.
Michael Jordan had plenty of lousy last second performances. So did Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. Joe Montana and John Elway lost plenty of games and failed to rally their teams more often than they led spectacular comebacks. The reason we don’t obsess about their failures is because they managed to be part of great teams that won championships. What we forget is that all of those players had brilliant supporting casts around them.
Does Lebron James have a Scottie Pippen picking up the slack? Does he have a sniper draining threes from the perimeter ala Paxson or Kerr? Does he get a consistent performance from his front court? NO. Jordan did. Even though Zydrunas Ilgauskas is more talented than any center Jordan ever played with, Z sometimes goes into hiding. Jordan’s centers always played hard. They were consistent. Z is not. You never know when Z is going to explode for a 20/20 night or implode and score 3 points.
Montana threw passes to the greatest receiver of all time and John Elway, who was a habitual loser until the very end of his career, suddenly became great when he had a 2000 yard rusher on his team. San Francisco not only continued to win after Montana left, Steve Young was a more efficient quarterback. Denver fell off after Elway retired but his retirement coincided with the departure of several other important players.
Championships are won by great teams but we try to credit one performer. We like to put a face with the title and that causes us to give too much credit to individual players. Plenty of great players came up short. Patrick Ewing couldn’t win a title because he was surrounded by lackluster players. Charles Barkley came up short because he didn’t have enough help. Even the great duo of John Stockton and Karl Malone fell short because they simply didn’t have the rest of the pieces in place. In the case of the Jazz the deficiency might have been in coaching.
We talk in terms of intangibles and trick ourselves into believing that Joe Montana is better than Dan Marino because of some immeasurable quality that compelled him to win. The reality is that Bill Walsh was a better coach than Don Shula and that the Dolphins, aside from Marino, were a mediocre team.
Lebron has intangibles. The fact that he happily dishes to his teammates when everybody knows he could throw down 60 a night makes the Cavaliers a better team. Everybody on that roster adores Lebron because he is true leader who respects everybody on the floor. Kobe doesn’t carry the same weight with his teammates because he shows them disrespect in the way he plays. It’s all Kobe all the time. With Lebron it’s all about the rest of the team. He makes them better and they all know it.
Dirk Nowitzki is similar. He’s a dominant player because he has the skills of a guard in a center’s body. He can stretch a team’s front court out by playing from the perimeter and once he draws the defense to him he can pass the ball in or use his skills to drive the lane. Dirk could score 40 points a game but he happily shares the ball with his teammates. That’s why the Mavericks win. Unfortunately for Dirk, Avery Johnson outsmarted himself in the playoffs and the Mavs went home.
Everybody knows this stuff. Fans talk about it all the time. What separates the Spurs from the Mavs? Nowitzki and Duncan are similar players who put up similar numbers with Duncan being more of a force inside while Dirk brings more to the perimeter. The difference is that Duncan gets help from Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli. Duncan also plays for a better coach. The Mavs let one of the grittiest players in the game slip away when Steve Nash signed with the Suns. One has to believe that the Mavericks would be unstoppable if they had Nash playing the point. Before the playoffs started everybody gave the Spurs the edge in the west. Dallas won more games but the Spurs were just better equipped to win the head to head series.
So why the outrage? Dirk Nowitzki played a phenomenal regular season and led his team to the best record in the NBA but nobody really expected the Mavs to get to the finals. Nobody expected it because we know that the best teams don’t always have the best records and that the best players don’t always have the most impressive stats. Dirk deserves the MVP award because the same people complaining about his early exit voted to give him the award. It’s not his fault they suspended reason.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Monday, April 30, 2007
Browns Score Big in 2007 Draft
Since 1999 the Cleveland Browns have been plagued with the sort of inefficiency that can only be attributed to a lousy offensive line. That was an issue Phil Savage hoped to address last year when the Browns acquired LeCharles Bentley through free agency but the nasty center went down with an injury that might end the former Buckeye’s career.
Romeo Crennel improved the defense last year but the offense took a big step back thanks in large part to poor blocking but Charlie Frye’s erratic play also hurt the team. With so many weapons available it was clear that the Browns needed better play from the QB position.
The Browns couldn’t accept the terms the Raiders offered for the top spot and a crack at the gigantic JaMarcus Russell and when they looked at the possibilities from that third spot it was hard to pass on a lineman as dominant as Joe Thomas. Surely the Browns were planning to settle for a second round quarterback and hoped that he would thrive behind a solid line.
But nobody expected Brady Quinn to fall past the Dolphins. If one team needed to address its QB situation in the draft it was Miami but the Dolphins saw homerun potential in Ted Ginn Jr. and opted to pass on the highly touted Quinn to take him. Quinn watched a lot of teams skip over him to address other needs.
As soon as Miami passed on Quinn, the Browns went into a frenzy trying to coax teams out of their pick so they could snag Quinn. Finally Dallas gave up the 22nd pick which was a shock given the fact that the verdict is not in on Tony Romo. Cleveland managed to head off Baltimore and pick the player most scouts thought was the best QB in the draft. Russell might have more upside but Quinn seems ready to play and with Romeo Crennel stealing pages out of New England’s play book, Quinn might be more ready to play for the Browns than anybody knows.
Cleveland gave up a lot to get him but it’s hard to second guess the decision. Quinn is often compared to Tom Brady because of the Charlie Weis connection but Quinn is more athletic. In his first two seasons at Notre Dame, Brady Quinn was a mobile playmaker who demonstrated a lot of toughness. Under Weis he became a smooth passer with great awareness and patience. Quinn wasn’t exactly surrounded by great talent. JaMarcus Russell saw two of his receivers get drafted early, Quinn’s mates from South Bend weren’t exactly first day material. Quinn might be better than everybody thinks.
Regardless of what might happen, Cleveland demonstrated a serious commitment to winning. By being so aggressive in this years draft the Browns are not only planning on contending next year, they are building a youthful core of talented players that will help this team win in the future. A lot can happen in the coming months. Players could fold under pressure and studs could go down with injuries. The point is that the Browns are in it to win it.
Romeo Crennel improved the defense last year but the offense took a big step back thanks in large part to poor blocking but Charlie Frye’s erratic play also hurt the team. With so many weapons available it was clear that the Browns needed better play from the QB position.
The Browns couldn’t accept the terms the Raiders offered for the top spot and a crack at the gigantic JaMarcus Russell and when they looked at the possibilities from that third spot it was hard to pass on a lineman as dominant as Joe Thomas. Surely the Browns were planning to settle for a second round quarterback and hoped that he would thrive behind a solid line.
But nobody expected Brady Quinn to fall past the Dolphins. If one team needed to address its QB situation in the draft it was Miami but the Dolphins saw homerun potential in Ted Ginn Jr. and opted to pass on the highly touted Quinn to take him. Quinn watched a lot of teams skip over him to address other needs.
As soon as Miami passed on Quinn, the Browns went into a frenzy trying to coax teams out of their pick so they could snag Quinn. Finally Dallas gave up the 22nd pick which was a shock given the fact that the verdict is not in on Tony Romo. Cleveland managed to head off Baltimore and pick the player most scouts thought was the best QB in the draft. Russell might have more upside but Quinn seems ready to play and with Romeo Crennel stealing pages out of New England’s play book, Quinn might be more ready to play for the Browns than anybody knows.
Cleveland gave up a lot to get him but it’s hard to second guess the decision. Quinn is often compared to Tom Brady because of the Charlie Weis connection but Quinn is more athletic. In his first two seasons at Notre Dame, Brady Quinn was a mobile playmaker who demonstrated a lot of toughness. Under Weis he became a smooth passer with great awareness and patience. Quinn wasn’t exactly surrounded by great talent. JaMarcus Russell saw two of his receivers get drafted early, Quinn’s mates from South Bend weren’t exactly first day material. Quinn might be better than everybody thinks.
Regardless of what might happen, Cleveland demonstrated a serious commitment to winning. By being so aggressive in this years draft the Browns are not only planning on contending next year, they are building a youthful core of talented players that will help this team win in the future. A lot can happen in the coming months. Players could fold under pressure and studs could go down with injuries. The point is that the Browns are in it to win it.
Friday, April 27, 2007
For months the hype has been building and now the speculation about who will go where has become a shrill crescendo with Mel Kiper Jr. and his disturbing hair leading the masses. Before the draft everybody seems to have all the answers. Mock drafts have been completed and supposed picks have been scrutinized. If history is any indication of what to expect the pundits will be wrong. All it takes is one unexpected pick and the entire house of cards comes crashing down.
Last year the Houston Texans eschewed hometown hero Vince Young and collegiate superhero Reggie Bush in favor of defensive end Mario Williams. It wasn't exactly a bad idea given the volatile nature of so-called skill players who try to jump from college to the pros but the Texans could have traded down a few picks and landed Williams. They would have secured an extra pick or two late in the draft and saved a few million in bonus money.
This year everybody is certain that the Raiders will take rocket launcher JaMarcus Russell with the first pick in the draft. The Raiders do indeed need help at the QB position but a sterling young athlete like Russell is going to need lots of help if he's going to shine. The Raiders also need a receiver who is willing to actually play in real games and they need help on the line too. They spent their top pick last year on burly Robert Gallery but the highly touted lineman out of Iowa struggled at the left tackle spot all season long.
Al Davis is squirrelly. He loves to play psychological games even when they aren't necessary. He could draft himself with the top pick just to make headlines. That's probably not going to happen but Davis might pass on Russell just because everybody thinks they know what the Raiders will do. Some think that Davis might trade down but unless somebody pulls a Mike Ditka and gives the Raiders every pick they have, it's highly unlikely Davis will step out of the limelight. The Raiders will probably wait until their time is ready to expire before announcing their pick just to milk every minute of camera time.
The top four team in the draft are so bad drafting the high is not going to help. The Raiders could use new blood at every position. If they trade down and pick up an few extra selections in the middle rounds they could build a strong core of players who will support a winning team for years to come. The Detroit Lions are bad but they should be prohibited from making any first round selections until Matt Millen has been bound, gagged and dropped into the murky waters of the Detroit River.
The Browns and Buccaneers tied for the third pick but the Gruden lost the coin toss and ended up with the fourth selection. It doesn't really matter since the two teams think they have opposing needs. Of course both of those teams are further away from being competitive than they think. Unfortunately the value of their selections won't be evident until Detroit reveals its pick. Then the rest of the league can calculate the value of the remaining players and make an offer. Trading down might not be as attractive for these two because the offers might not be worthwhile.
The Browns are in an interesting spot. Should receiver Calvin Johnson remain available at the number three spot, the Browns will be getting calls from other teams. The Buccaneers might be forced to swap picks with the Browns just to ensure they have a chance at acquiring a big time play maker. Based on all the current evaluations, Calvin Johnson is the one player who will be able to step into the NFL and have an immediate impact. He's big, strong, fast and has the sheer athleticism to beat the best corners in the league. If he improves his game in training camp he could be the best receiver in the NFL as a rookie.
Adrian Peterson is the only other impact player available in the draft but there's no guarantee he'll be great. Unlike Johnson, he doesn't possess an obvious physical advantage. Peterson could be the next Larry Jonson or even a LaDainian Tomlinson but he could also be another Curtis Enis, KiJana Carter or William Green. So many teams have been burned by outstanding collegiate backs that it's hard to blame a team for passing on Peterson. Besides, the key to a great running game is in the front five. If a team has a great line they'll move the ball regardless of who is back there.
Like most drafts, once you get out of the top five it's a guessing game. Carolina's Steve Smith is one of the most dynamic players in the NFL but he was drafted in the third round. At 5'9" and 180 pounds, he's too small to be an elite receiver but somehow he defies conventional wisdom. Tom Brady was a sixth round draft pick who wasn't athletic enough to succeed in the modern era. Three Super Bowl victories and a pretty nifty efficiency rating has him bound for the Hall of Fame in a few years.
Joe Montana was too small; Jerry Rice was too slow; Dan Marino was too dumb; Warren Moon was too black…many great players were overlooked in the draft. It makes you wonder why so much effort is put into analyzing these players. It's hard too tell who's going to rise to the challenge of excelling at the next level. Scouts and analysts make a science out of the process but in the end everything seems to come down to hard work and good coaching. Tom Brady is successful because he works hard and he's in the right system, Tim Couch was a failure because the opposite was true.
Teams always hunt for the "sleeper" a player who isn't on anybody's radar duribng the draft but eventually goes on to break records. Too often those "sleepers" are the product of a superior environment. Experts give Mike Shanahan credit for finding great running backs in the middle of the draft but the reality is that the Broncos have a great offensive line. Notice how the running backs suddenly become less productive when the line isn't healthy?
Bad teams never seem to find the mythical sleeper. In fact bad teams are a graveyard for draft picks. Tim Couch was a "can't miss" selection. Now he's out of the NFL. His confidence was rattled in his stint in Cleveland and now he's nowhere to be found. The Bengals destroyed their fair share of QB's but Marvin Lewis resisted the temptation of throwing Carson Palmer to the Sharks. He held the top pick back until the rest of the team was playing better and put Palmer in the middle of a decent offense.
That's why the best tonic for a bad team isn't the top selection, but a number of picks later in the draft. A team with two third round picks will likely find a stout lineman to shore up that front line. Until the weaknesses are properly addressed one or two star players won't change the won/lost ratio.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Stern needs to put an end to tanking
David Stern takes a lot of abuse. Black sports columnists have accused him of trying to "whiten" the NBA in order to cater to the Caucasian audience while their white counterparts have lambasted him for allowing the negative aspects of the so-called Hip Hop culture to shape the image of the NBA. He just can't win.
Lost in the discussion is the fact that Stern has managed to save the NBA from imploding. Even though television ratings are down, David Stern has managed to keep the NBA's collective head above water. The NHL is barely breathing people aren't watching the Stanley Cup finals, let alone regular season games. Nobody wants to offer the NHL a respectable television contract and many games, including the playoffs, have been forced into the realm of basic cable.
Imagine the state of the NBA if somebody like Bud Selig was at the helm. Selig inherited a sport with tremendous global appeal and vast untapped markets. Instead of tweaking the organizational structure in baseball to foster a little good natured parity, Selig has allowed money to rule and the result is dwindling fan interest. Baseball apologists will point to the recent success of small market teams but soon the Yankees, Dodgers and Mets will pick apart the likes of the Tigers, Cardinals and even the White Sox leaving recent contenders struggling to rebuild while the big market powerhouses dominate the post season.
Stern took the NBA's helm in 1984…smack dab in the middle of the Larry Bird/Magic Johnson era. The NBA was a star driven enterprise that had struggled to find an audience until Bird and Johnson entered the league. After that, Michael Jordan elevated his game and the Bulls to lofty championship status thus solidifying the trend of building the league around players.
Stern never cared for that. First, it gave the players too much power and the demand for dominant players soon fueled a crippling salary increase that decimated small market teams. Players like Shawn Kemp and Vince Carter inked huge deals and proceeded to underachieve. Nobody noticed how bad it was until Michael Jordan left. The face of the NBA went from being that of a determined champion to that of the demanding prim Donna who talked better than he played.
It took some time, but slowly, Stern guided the NBA toward the team-oriented concepts embodied by the San Antonio Spurs and the Detroit Pistons. Stern tried to take the focus off of petulant athletes like Allen Iverson and draw attention to unselfish warriors like Jason Kidd. The push was some what successful and is the reason the NBA is still active.
Now Stern's got to face another problem. The current lottery system the league uses to prevent teams from dropping games on purpose is failing. Several team clearly tanked their seasons in hopes of securing one of the top two picks in the draft. With Greg Oden and Kevin Durant looking like future superstars and several other players promising to be more than serviceable, sacrificing the season for a low lottery pick makes sense.
Part of the problem is that the lottery has been weighted to all but guarantee the worst team in the league one of the top two picks but the serious issue is the NBA's insistence that all potential draft picks have at least a one year buffer between their high school graduation and their professional careers. This has forced players to play a season at the college level which has given NBA scouts a better look at their prospects. Now there's less risk. The Cleveland Cavaliers and the NBA held its breath while waiting to see if Lebron James was up to the challenge because the jump from high school to the NBA is huge. How would Lebron fare in a world where he wasn't a physical freak of nature?
Kevin Durant and Greg Oden would have been top picks regardless of college but their success at the collegiate level has erased any doubts about their abilities. More over, the extra year of college revealed that Mike Conley, Jr. is ready to play the point at the NBA level. Out of high school he might have drifted to the late first or early second round but after a fantastic run in big time college ball, Conley might prove to have a bigger immediate impact than his massive teammate. Oden's great but needs to hone his game. NBA scouts don't think Conley has too many weaknesses, a conclusion made possible by a year of college hoops.
Before, a lottery pick could be a bust…and an expensive one at that. Drafting players out of high school was tricky. Nobody knew what to expect and, with the exception of Lebron James, even the players who attained NBA stardom after making that leap took several years to do it. Kobe Bryant struggled early in his NBA career and Kevin Garnett needed some time to muscle up. The year of college is so significant, some experts believe that the Cleveland Cavaliers might have passed on Lebron in favor of Carmelo Anthony if Lebron had not been from the Cleveland Area. The hometown hero factor sealed that deal.
Stern can't let teams tank in order to gain an advantage through the draft. The NBA can't endure the scandal of intentional losses. It's so pervasive that columnists and fans are torn between being disgusted in the practice or applauding their team's desire to improve. Teams should never be rewarded for something so unethical.
The answer is twofold. Stern must work with the Players' Association to draft provisions that allow teams to cut over paid under-achievers. Teams should be careful about who they throw money at, but to often players get complacent when they're in the middle of a big contract and that hurts not only the team, but the league as well. It fosters the belief that NBA players are greedy, selfish and lazy. Simply giving teams such an option would discourage the behavior. The argument against it would be that teams could dump players for reasons other than effort but if a reverse arbitration system was established every cut would have to pass muster.
That allows teams to solve problems through the open market which diminishes the need for intentional losses. However a team at the bottom of the standings might still see the benefit in passing the "L" column to ensure that top pick. That's where the NBA needs to address the availability of fresh talent. Generally there are only three or four real impact players available in the draft in any given year. That's why teams want to as many lottery balls as they can. Which is why the NBA should dump the lottery: just give the worst team the first pick….After the second provision is implemented.
Lebron's popularity in Cleveland drives home the importance of home town heroes. Fans fell in love with Lebron instantly and that love would have been there regardless of Lebron's early performance. His success makes everybody else love him, but Cleveland's adoration is unconditional. So give those highly rated players the option of signing with their home town team. The player could choose between where he was born, where he played high school ball or, if he played at the college level for a minimum three years, his college town.
That would give Greg Oden, for example the right to sign with the Pacers before the draft. The benefiting team would have to sign that player to the maximum contract and sacrifice their own first round pick. They would also be limited to one hometown exemption every three years. That would coincide with the typical rookie contract and prevent players from manipulating the system to opt out of the draft. How excited would Indy be if Greg Oden came back home to play for the Pacers? Would the Wizards see their attendance numbers increase if Kevin Durant wanted to play in his hometown?
More importantly it would make teams think twice about tanking. The Boston Celtics probably wouldn't have seen much benefit in losing games down the stretch if there was a distinct possibility that Greg Oden and Kevin Durant might sign with their home town teams three days before the draft.
Lost in the discussion is the fact that Stern has managed to save the NBA from imploding. Even though television ratings are down, David Stern has managed to keep the NBA's collective head above water. The NHL is barely breathing people aren't watching the Stanley Cup finals, let alone regular season games. Nobody wants to offer the NHL a respectable television contract and many games, including the playoffs, have been forced into the realm of basic cable.
Imagine the state of the NBA if somebody like Bud Selig was at the helm. Selig inherited a sport with tremendous global appeal and vast untapped markets. Instead of tweaking the organizational structure in baseball to foster a little good natured parity, Selig has allowed money to rule and the result is dwindling fan interest. Baseball apologists will point to the recent success of small market teams but soon the Yankees, Dodgers and Mets will pick apart the likes of the Tigers, Cardinals and even the White Sox leaving recent contenders struggling to rebuild while the big market powerhouses dominate the post season.
Stern took the NBA's helm in 1984…smack dab in the middle of the Larry Bird/Magic Johnson era. The NBA was a star driven enterprise that had struggled to find an audience until Bird and Johnson entered the league. After that, Michael Jordan elevated his game and the Bulls to lofty championship status thus solidifying the trend of building the league around players.
Stern never cared for that. First, it gave the players too much power and the demand for dominant players soon fueled a crippling salary increase that decimated small market teams. Players like Shawn Kemp and Vince Carter inked huge deals and proceeded to underachieve. Nobody noticed how bad it was until Michael Jordan left. The face of the NBA went from being that of a determined champion to that of the demanding prim Donna who talked better than he played.
It took some time, but slowly, Stern guided the NBA toward the team-oriented concepts embodied by the San Antonio Spurs and the Detroit Pistons. Stern tried to take the focus off of petulant athletes like Allen Iverson and draw attention to unselfish warriors like Jason Kidd. The push was some what successful and is the reason the NBA is still active.
Now Stern's got to face another problem. The current lottery system the league uses to prevent teams from dropping games on purpose is failing. Several team clearly tanked their seasons in hopes of securing one of the top two picks in the draft. With Greg Oden and Kevin Durant looking like future superstars and several other players promising to be more than serviceable, sacrificing the season for a low lottery pick makes sense.
Part of the problem is that the lottery has been weighted to all but guarantee the worst team in the league one of the top two picks but the serious issue is the NBA's insistence that all potential draft picks have at least a one year buffer between their high school graduation and their professional careers. This has forced players to play a season at the college level which has given NBA scouts a better look at their prospects. Now there's less risk. The Cleveland Cavaliers and the NBA held its breath while waiting to see if Lebron James was up to the challenge because the jump from high school to the NBA is huge. How would Lebron fare in a world where he wasn't a physical freak of nature?
Kevin Durant and Greg Oden would have been top picks regardless of college but their success at the collegiate level has erased any doubts about their abilities. More over, the extra year of college revealed that Mike Conley, Jr. is ready to play the point at the NBA level. Out of high school he might have drifted to the late first or early second round but after a fantastic run in big time college ball, Conley might prove to have a bigger immediate impact than his massive teammate. Oden's great but needs to hone his game. NBA scouts don't think Conley has too many weaknesses, a conclusion made possible by a year of college hoops.
Before, a lottery pick could be a bust…and an expensive one at that. Drafting players out of high school was tricky. Nobody knew what to expect and, with the exception of Lebron James, even the players who attained NBA stardom after making that leap took several years to do it. Kobe Bryant struggled early in his NBA career and Kevin Garnett needed some time to muscle up. The year of college is so significant, some experts believe that the Cleveland Cavaliers might have passed on Lebron in favor of Carmelo Anthony if Lebron had not been from the Cleveland Area. The hometown hero factor sealed that deal.
Stern can't let teams tank in order to gain an advantage through the draft. The NBA can't endure the scandal of intentional losses. It's so pervasive that columnists and fans are torn between being disgusted in the practice or applauding their team's desire to improve. Teams should never be rewarded for something so unethical.
The answer is twofold. Stern must work with the Players' Association to draft provisions that allow teams to cut over paid under-achievers. Teams should be careful about who they throw money at, but to often players get complacent when they're in the middle of a big contract and that hurts not only the team, but the league as well. It fosters the belief that NBA players are greedy, selfish and lazy. Simply giving teams such an option would discourage the behavior. The argument against it would be that teams could dump players for reasons other than effort but if a reverse arbitration system was established every cut would have to pass muster.
That allows teams to solve problems through the open market which diminishes the need for intentional losses. However a team at the bottom of the standings might still see the benefit in passing the "L" column to ensure that top pick. That's where the NBA needs to address the availability of fresh talent. Generally there are only three or four real impact players available in the draft in any given year. That's why teams want to as many lottery balls as they can. Which is why the NBA should dump the lottery: just give the worst team the first pick….After the second provision is implemented.
Lebron's popularity in Cleveland drives home the importance of home town heroes. Fans fell in love with Lebron instantly and that love would have been there regardless of Lebron's early performance. His success makes everybody else love him, but Cleveland's adoration is unconditional. So give those highly rated players the option of signing with their home town team. The player could choose between where he was born, where he played high school ball or, if he played at the college level for a minimum three years, his college town.
That would give Greg Oden, for example the right to sign with the Pacers before the draft. The benefiting team would have to sign that player to the maximum contract and sacrifice their own first round pick. They would also be limited to one hometown exemption every three years. That would coincide with the typical rookie contract and prevent players from manipulating the system to opt out of the draft. How excited would Indy be if Greg Oden came back home to play for the Pacers? Would the Wizards see their attendance numbers increase if Kevin Durant wanted to play in his hometown?
More importantly it would make teams think twice about tanking. The Boston Celtics probably wouldn't have seen much benefit in losing games down the stretch if there was a distinct possibility that Greg Oden and Kevin Durant might sign with their home town teams three days before the draft.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Baseball's records trumped by scandals
Barry Bonds has passed Babe Ruth and set his sites on Hammering Hank. He might not make it this year but, barring legal issues, Bonds will pass that record. If he has to limp out to the plate for five more seasons, Bonds will keep playing until he hits 756. It's a given. Fans don't seem particularly fascinated with this inevitability.
It's fitting because Aaron's record has long been overshadowed by Ruth's even though Ruth hit 41 fewer home runs. The fans who hold Ruth in higher esteem insist that the slight is not a racial issue but rather a testament to the fact that Ruth set the record in fewer at bats. Some fans will even go so far as to argue that the talent in baseball has become increasingly diluted since the days Ruth played and that Aaron's accomplishments would have been impossible if he had played in Ruth's era.
They're correct because Aaron would have been forbidden to play. That fact alone invalidates everything Ruth did. Though it was not his fault, Ruth never faced black pitchers nor was his assault on the record books challenged by black sluggers. When you look at the influence black players have had in baseball, how can one reasonable argue that what happened before Jackie Robinson actually matters? It seems that the talent pool got deeper once black players entered the league.
Think of the best players in the game today. Think about the best players in the game over the last 50 years. Where would baseball be without black and Hispanic players? Granted Hispanic players weren't specifically excluded from baseball but teams limited the number of Latino or Chicano players they carried. Now we have Japanese and Korean players entering the league and doing quite well. Baseball is pulling the best players from all around the world, but back in the 1920's it didn't even feature the best players in the country. Some remarkable white athletes even eschewed professional sports for real jobs because professional athletics was not an admirable profession. Now the minimum annual salary is deep into six figures and multimillion dollar contracts are the norm. Back in the 1920's it was foolish to pursue a career in sports, now it is foolish not to.
Ruth changed the game by bucking tradition and going for the long ball. Before he played the game was still rooted in the conservative style of play that was introduced back in the 1860's. Players were trained to hit the ball low and advance along the bases as subsequent hitters followed suit. The game was methodical. Ruth came along and hit the ball in the air. As other players took his cue the records he set became more attainable. With Hack Wilson and Jimmie Foxx coming quite close to hitting 60 home runs in the 30's. Ruth was an impressive hitter but the disparity between Ruth and the rest of the league had more to do with the nature of the game than it did talent.
Aaron was a better all around player than Ruth. He was an effective base runner and a solid fielder. His record breaking performance suffers criticism because he played more games than Ruth and finished his career as a designated hitter but he broke Ruth's record with a National League team and did so amidst death threats, hate mail and facing the pressure of being a role model for an entire race.
Still, it's unfair to compare the two. Aaron broke Ruth's record almost 40 years after Ruth played his last game. Aaron was born one year before Ruth finished his career after playing just 28 games in the 1935 season and 13 years before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in major league baseball. They played in different eras and might as well have played on different planets.
Now we have Barry Bonds ready to inch past Aaron in the record books and again it's a different ball game. We are more than 30 years removed from Aaron's final at bat and the game has changed tremendously. Now baseball players are encouraged to lift weights. The muscles everybody once thought would slow down swings and limit flexibility are now an asset and that revelation has made the use of steroids beneficial to many players.
Bonds has resisted the designated hitter as a means to prolong his career but he has found other things. Human Growth Hormone stimulates tissue growth and increases lean muscle mass. Barry Bonds looks like a bloated cartoon image of a brawny baseball player. He claims he's legal but his name has been implicated in several scandals involving the sales, distribution and application of illegal performance enhancing substances. Back in the 1970's Aaron might have been popping pills to find a little extra energy but Bonds has gone beyond the use of uppers and found a veritable fountain of youth. You can make the argument that his career and productivity have been artificially lengthened by modern medical science. Those are advantages Aaron and Ruth didn't have.
There is the argument that Bonds doesn't have an advantage over his fellow players. Roger Clemens is well past the age a pitcher should be hurling 95 mph fastballs but he's still pushing smoke past hitters half his age. He's remarkably fit and seems even more formidable at an age where his predecessors learned more breaking pitches and took a seat in the bullpen. It wouldn't be a surprise to anybody if Clemens tested positive for steroids. Randy Johnson still throws remarkably hard and Curt Schilling is still eating up innings as a starting pitcher in spite of sustaining some pretty serious injuries late in his career.
Other hitters have been implicated in steroid scandals. Gary Matthews Jr. emerged as a great player in 2006 after floundering in mediocrity for six years at the major league level. Then in 2007 his name surfaced in a steroid scandal. Matthews insists that he's clean but it's quite a coincidence that after 11 years in professional baseball Matthews had his best season when he was connected with steroid investigation. Maybe there isn't enough evidence to support criminal charges but it certainly looks suspicious.
Does that mean that the game was pure back in the old days? Not really. The steroid scandals are the result of the modern player's commitment to performance excellence. Old school heroes like Babe Ruth were selfish booze hounds who could have been better athletes. Mickey Mantle's career was shortened by his substance abuse problems. You simply didn't see people put in the effort that today's players put in. The science of exercise physiology has taught us that everybody can become bigger, stronger and faster which will ultimately make them better. Unfortunately steroids can make those gains easier to attain and even increase the athletes potential to realize those gains.
That argument often makes people wonder what Ruth and Mantle would have been capable of if they would have had access to today's exercise technology and the steroids that go with it. It's easy: They would have been superheroes. Ruth might have stolen 60 bases to go with his 60 home runs and probably would have crested 70 home runs at least once in his career. But that's assuming he would have been the only guy putting in that kind of effort. If the pitchers in his day would have had access to the training and conditioning techniques today's pitchers enjoy, Ruth might have struggled to make contact. Of course, we can only wonder how Ruth would have fared if black players had been allowed to play against him.
And so you have it. Bonds' accomplishments won't resonate as much as Aaron's because Bonds is on steroids. Aaron's record doesn't matter as much as Ruth's because Aaron played more games. Ruth's feat should be second guessed because he didn't have to face black players.
What does this teach us? Baseball places too much emphasis on numbers. We're led to believe that the game might change but that the numbers will never lie. That's simply not true. Babe Ruth was a great player in his day but his numbers don't prove that he is better or worse than Barry Bonds. They both have their demons and we can make a valid case for either of them to be stricken from the record books but what would that accomplish? Then we'd just have a new set of numbers to question. Baseball's records simply don't matter. They don't tell the whole story. So we should look beyond the numbers and think about the context in which they were attained. In my book, that makes Aaron's record more compelling. He faced the best players in the game but did so before those players were inclinded to take steroids.
It's fitting because Aaron's record has long been overshadowed by Ruth's even though Ruth hit 41 fewer home runs. The fans who hold Ruth in higher esteem insist that the slight is not a racial issue but rather a testament to the fact that Ruth set the record in fewer at bats. Some fans will even go so far as to argue that the talent in baseball has become increasingly diluted since the days Ruth played and that Aaron's accomplishments would have been impossible if he had played in Ruth's era.
They're correct because Aaron would have been forbidden to play. That fact alone invalidates everything Ruth did. Though it was not his fault, Ruth never faced black pitchers nor was his assault on the record books challenged by black sluggers. When you look at the influence black players have had in baseball, how can one reasonable argue that what happened before Jackie Robinson actually matters? It seems that the talent pool got deeper once black players entered the league.
Think of the best players in the game today. Think about the best players in the game over the last 50 years. Where would baseball be without black and Hispanic players? Granted Hispanic players weren't specifically excluded from baseball but teams limited the number of Latino or Chicano players they carried. Now we have Japanese and Korean players entering the league and doing quite well. Baseball is pulling the best players from all around the world, but back in the 1920's it didn't even feature the best players in the country. Some remarkable white athletes even eschewed professional sports for real jobs because professional athletics was not an admirable profession. Now the minimum annual salary is deep into six figures and multimillion dollar contracts are the norm. Back in the 1920's it was foolish to pursue a career in sports, now it is foolish not to.
Ruth changed the game by bucking tradition and going for the long ball. Before he played the game was still rooted in the conservative style of play that was introduced back in the 1860's. Players were trained to hit the ball low and advance along the bases as subsequent hitters followed suit. The game was methodical. Ruth came along and hit the ball in the air. As other players took his cue the records he set became more attainable. With Hack Wilson and Jimmie Foxx coming quite close to hitting 60 home runs in the 30's. Ruth was an impressive hitter but the disparity between Ruth and the rest of the league had more to do with the nature of the game than it did talent.
Aaron was a better all around player than Ruth. He was an effective base runner and a solid fielder. His record breaking performance suffers criticism because he played more games than Ruth and finished his career as a designated hitter but he broke Ruth's record with a National League team and did so amidst death threats, hate mail and facing the pressure of being a role model for an entire race.
Still, it's unfair to compare the two. Aaron broke Ruth's record almost 40 years after Ruth played his last game. Aaron was born one year before Ruth finished his career after playing just 28 games in the 1935 season and 13 years before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in major league baseball. They played in different eras and might as well have played on different planets.
Now we have Barry Bonds ready to inch past Aaron in the record books and again it's a different ball game. We are more than 30 years removed from Aaron's final at bat and the game has changed tremendously. Now baseball players are encouraged to lift weights. The muscles everybody once thought would slow down swings and limit flexibility are now an asset and that revelation has made the use of steroids beneficial to many players.
Bonds has resisted the designated hitter as a means to prolong his career but he has found other things. Human Growth Hormone stimulates tissue growth and increases lean muscle mass. Barry Bonds looks like a bloated cartoon image of a brawny baseball player. He claims he's legal but his name has been implicated in several scandals involving the sales, distribution and application of illegal performance enhancing substances. Back in the 1970's Aaron might have been popping pills to find a little extra energy but Bonds has gone beyond the use of uppers and found a veritable fountain of youth. You can make the argument that his career and productivity have been artificially lengthened by modern medical science. Those are advantages Aaron and Ruth didn't have.
There is the argument that Bonds doesn't have an advantage over his fellow players. Roger Clemens is well past the age a pitcher should be hurling 95 mph fastballs but he's still pushing smoke past hitters half his age. He's remarkably fit and seems even more formidable at an age where his predecessors learned more breaking pitches and took a seat in the bullpen. It wouldn't be a surprise to anybody if Clemens tested positive for steroids. Randy Johnson still throws remarkably hard and Curt Schilling is still eating up innings as a starting pitcher in spite of sustaining some pretty serious injuries late in his career.
Other hitters have been implicated in steroid scandals. Gary Matthews Jr. emerged as a great player in 2006 after floundering in mediocrity for six years at the major league level. Then in 2007 his name surfaced in a steroid scandal. Matthews insists that he's clean but it's quite a coincidence that after 11 years in professional baseball Matthews had his best season when he was connected with steroid investigation. Maybe there isn't enough evidence to support criminal charges but it certainly looks suspicious.
Does that mean that the game was pure back in the old days? Not really. The steroid scandals are the result of the modern player's commitment to performance excellence. Old school heroes like Babe Ruth were selfish booze hounds who could have been better athletes. Mickey Mantle's career was shortened by his substance abuse problems. You simply didn't see people put in the effort that today's players put in. The science of exercise physiology has taught us that everybody can become bigger, stronger and faster which will ultimately make them better. Unfortunately steroids can make those gains easier to attain and even increase the athletes potential to realize those gains.
That argument often makes people wonder what Ruth and Mantle would have been capable of if they would have had access to today's exercise technology and the steroids that go with it. It's easy: They would have been superheroes. Ruth might have stolen 60 bases to go with his 60 home runs and probably would have crested 70 home runs at least once in his career. But that's assuming he would have been the only guy putting in that kind of effort. If the pitchers in his day would have had access to the training and conditioning techniques today's pitchers enjoy, Ruth might have struggled to make contact. Of course, we can only wonder how Ruth would have fared if black players had been allowed to play against him.
And so you have it. Bonds' accomplishments won't resonate as much as Aaron's because Bonds is on steroids. Aaron's record doesn't matter as much as Ruth's because Aaron played more games. Ruth's feat should be second guessed because he didn't have to face black players.
What does this teach us? Baseball places too much emphasis on numbers. We're led to believe that the game might change but that the numbers will never lie. That's simply not true. Babe Ruth was a great player in his day but his numbers don't prove that he is better or worse than Barry Bonds. They both have their demons and we can make a valid case for either of them to be stricken from the record books but what would that accomplish? Then we'd just have a new set of numbers to question. Baseball's records simply don't matter. They don't tell the whole story. So we should look beyond the numbers and think about the context in which they were attained. In my book, that makes Aaron's record more compelling. He faced the best players in the game but did so before those players were inclinded to take steroids.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Time for the NHL to stop the fight
NHL players insist that fighting is an important aspect of the professional game. The idea is that players get to enforce those mythical unwritten rules that allegedly keep the game clean and discourage the physical abuse of star players. NHL purists agree and accuse those opposed to fighting in the NHL of having no interest in hockey. If television ratings and revenue reports are any indication those opposed to fighting aren’t the only people uninterested in hockey.
There is no place for fighting in sports. Fights detract from the action and reveal an ugly side of athletics. Fights are also a horrible influence on children who look up to professional athletes whether we like it or not. Charles Barkley made a name for himself by insisting he was not a role model but regardless of his protests he was influential all the same. Being a role model is not a choice one can opt out of. Some players want to be role models and embrace the responsibility but people choose their role models, role models don’t choose their people. Sorry, Charlie.
Compared with the international game featured in the Olympics, NHL hockey is slow, methodical and largely unentertaining. Thanks to such an extended playoff season, the regular season games scheduled by the NHL are simply boring. Players admittedly save their best effort for the playoffs and the difference in action is so dramatic the playoffs are sometimes called the second season or even the real season. It makes you wonder why regular season tickets are so pricey.
So the regular season is an extended exhibition teams use to get ready for a playoff run. Interestingly fights aren’t as common during the playoffs. Teams simply can’t afford to risk losing a game by engaging in fisticuffs that eventually result in five minute penalties. One would think an activity so integral to the game would increase when the stakes are raised. It seems the playoffs prove the case against fighting. When the games matter, fights don’t.
The NHL punishes players who fight by issuing penalties but unlike other professional sports leagues the NHL doesn’t fine or suspend players for fighting unless there are extenuating circumstances. Players are punished for fighting dirty or employing cheap shots to gain an advantage but there aren’t any meaningful sanctions for the typical fight. The actions the NHL deems actionable are typically so brutal criminal charges are at least considered.
Clearly the NHL is reticent to issue a moratorium on fighting because league officials realize that a significant portion of the waning fan base is drawn to the pointless violence. It’s one of the few gimmicks the NHL can hang its hat on. If you eliminate fights you eliminate the fans who enjoy them.
Recently the NHL tried to open up the game a little bit. Rules were tweaked to give an edge to the offense, goal keepers were forced to trim some of the padding from their uniforms to make blocking shots a little more difficult. Additionally the league made an effort to discourage fighting without eliminating it altogether. The result is a lot of whining from players who think the revisions have encouraged dirty play. They claim that the lack of physical accountability for cheap shots has encouraged dirty players to be a little more liberal with their handiwork.
Hockey players have a reputation for being tough guys but they sure do a lot of whining. Furthermore there are a number of players around the league who are too fragile to fend for themselves so teams keep thugs on the roster to fight on behalf of the skilled players who simply can’t take a hit. Instead of fighting why not have the softer players wear skirts so the other team knows not to hit them too hard? It might sound humiliating but not any more so than having somebody else fight on your behalf. At least the guy in the skirt has the guts to admit he’s a pansy.
If cheap shots are a problem the league should address them with the enforcement of rules. They do have officials on the ice who are supposed to maintain order by enforcing current rules so asking those officials to keep an eye out for overly aggressive play and cheap shots wouldn’t be too much to ask. The league could also enhance the enforcement of the rules with suspensions and fines.
Somehow the NFL has managed to secure an impressive market share in spite of some pretty strict rules. In fact the NFL takes a lot of heat for being too protective of quarterbacks and some players have taken issue with paying fines for hits that would have been legal 10 years ago.. Major League Baseball still endures its fair share of fights with at least one big bench clearing brawl each year but the league moves swiftly and imposes severe penalties for fighting. The NBA is a very physical game and tempers flare every night but David Stern wastes no time when punches are thrown. As horrendous as some of those altercations have been, suspensions have been severe. Players still break the rules but they also pay the consequences.
Nobody’s got a perfect league but the NHL is foolishly embracing a concept that dates back to the days when soldiers would drink a case of Black Label and head out to the local pond with a couple of brooms and a few flat rocks. There’s nothing wrong with changing the rules to keep the game fresh and exciting...in fact, it’s necessary. The NHL’s refusal to adapt is precisely why the league can’t sign a decent broadcasting contract. Nobody’s watching. When you’re losing your audience to fake wrestling, arena football and a bunch of hicks driving cars in a circle it’s time to make some changes.
Hockey purists will say that my opinion is steeped in ignorance and that if I knew the fist thing about hockey I’d see the need for fights. They might have a point, but considering how close the NHL is to extinction I think I’m right on the money. Besides, if the NHL does go out of business those players aren’t going to be able to solve their problems by duking it out. Tim Horton’s has some strict rule about beating up the customers.
There is no place for fighting in sports. Fights detract from the action and reveal an ugly side of athletics. Fights are also a horrible influence on children who look up to professional athletes whether we like it or not. Charles Barkley made a name for himself by insisting he was not a role model but regardless of his protests he was influential all the same. Being a role model is not a choice one can opt out of. Some players want to be role models and embrace the responsibility but people choose their role models, role models don’t choose their people. Sorry, Charlie.
Compared with the international game featured in the Olympics, NHL hockey is slow, methodical and largely unentertaining. Thanks to such an extended playoff season, the regular season games scheduled by the NHL are simply boring. Players admittedly save their best effort for the playoffs and the difference in action is so dramatic the playoffs are sometimes called the second season or even the real season. It makes you wonder why regular season tickets are so pricey.
So the regular season is an extended exhibition teams use to get ready for a playoff run. Interestingly fights aren’t as common during the playoffs. Teams simply can’t afford to risk losing a game by engaging in fisticuffs that eventually result in five minute penalties. One would think an activity so integral to the game would increase when the stakes are raised. It seems the playoffs prove the case against fighting. When the games matter, fights don’t.
The NHL punishes players who fight by issuing penalties but unlike other professional sports leagues the NHL doesn’t fine or suspend players for fighting unless there are extenuating circumstances. Players are punished for fighting dirty or employing cheap shots to gain an advantage but there aren’t any meaningful sanctions for the typical fight. The actions the NHL deems actionable are typically so brutal criminal charges are at least considered.
Clearly the NHL is reticent to issue a moratorium on fighting because league officials realize that a significant portion of the waning fan base is drawn to the pointless violence. It’s one of the few gimmicks the NHL can hang its hat on. If you eliminate fights you eliminate the fans who enjoy them.
Recently the NHL tried to open up the game a little bit. Rules were tweaked to give an edge to the offense, goal keepers were forced to trim some of the padding from their uniforms to make blocking shots a little more difficult. Additionally the league made an effort to discourage fighting without eliminating it altogether. The result is a lot of whining from players who think the revisions have encouraged dirty play. They claim that the lack of physical accountability for cheap shots has encouraged dirty players to be a little more liberal with their handiwork.
Hockey players have a reputation for being tough guys but they sure do a lot of whining. Furthermore there are a number of players around the league who are too fragile to fend for themselves so teams keep thugs on the roster to fight on behalf of the skilled players who simply can’t take a hit. Instead of fighting why not have the softer players wear skirts so the other team knows not to hit them too hard? It might sound humiliating but not any more so than having somebody else fight on your behalf. At least the guy in the skirt has the guts to admit he’s a pansy.
If cheap shots are a problem the league should address them with the enforcement of rules. They do have officials on the ice who are supposed to maintain order by enforcing current rules so asking those officials to keep an eye out for overly aggressive play and cheap shots wouldn’t be too much to ask. The league could also enhance the enforcement of the rules with suspensions and fines.
Somehow the NFL has managed to secure an impressive market share in spite of some pretty strict rules. In fact the NFL takes a lot of heat for being too protective of quarterbacks and some players have taken issue with paying fines for hits that would have been legal 10 years ago.. Major League Baseball still endures its fair share of fights with at least one big bench clearing brawl each year but the league moves swiftly and imposes severe penalties for fighting. The NBA is a very physical game and tempers flare every night but David Stern wastes no time when punches are thrown. As horrendous as some of those altercations have been, suspensions have been severe. Players still break the rules but they also pay the consequences.
Nobody’s got a perfect league but the NHL is foolishly embracing a concept that dates back to the days when soldiers would drink a case of Black Label and head out to the local pond with a couple of brooms and a few flat rocks. There’s nothing wrong with changing the rules to keep the game fresh and exciting...in fact, it’s necessary. The NHL’s refusal to adapt is precisely why the league can’t sign a decent broadcasting contract. Nobody’s watching. When you’re losing your audience to fake wrestling, arena football and a bunch of hicks driving cars in a circle it’s time to make some changes.
Hockey purists will say that my opinion is steeped in ignorance and that if I knew the fist thing about hockey I’d see the need for fights. They might have a point, but considering how close the NHL is to extinction I think I’m right on the money. Besides, if the NHL does go out of business those players aren’t going to be able to solve their problems by duking it out. Tim Horton’s has some strict rule about beating up the customers.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Browns need to trade down.
Adrian Peterson could be the next LaDainian Tomlinson. With the third pick in the draft the Cleveland Browns must be salivating over the prospect of drafting such an amazing athlete. They’d be crazy not to pick him. Right?
Except when it comes to the draft there is no such thing as a no-brainer. For every Peyton Manning there’s a Ryan Leaf. For every LaDainian there’s a KiJana. When you look through the history of the draft, particularly in the early part of the first round, there’s a lot more heartbreak than happiness. Remember 1999? Tim Couch was the first player drafted by the new Browns. He was compared to Peyton Manning coming out of college but 8 years later Peyton Manning is the toast of the town and Tim Couch is just toast. He’s out of the league as is his fellow first round counterpart Akili Smith.
The Browns landed another number one pick in 2000 and selected Courtney Brown, a big, bruising athletic defensive end from Penn State. Sure, Brown has established himself as a productive member of the Denver defensive line but he was drafted because he was supposed be the next Bruce Smith. In Cleveland he struggled with injuries and never showed the tenacity of a premier pass rusher.
The Browns look back over their misfortunes and kick themselves. They could have drafted Donovan McNabb in 1999, Brian Urlacher in 2000 and in 2001, when they drafted Gerard Warren with the third pick LaDainian Tomlinson slipped all the way down to number five. DOH!
Surely the front office muckety mucks are kicking themselves over what could have been. Imagine how dominant that team would be! Of course rewriting draft history and making those choices wouldn’t address the issues the Browns have struggled with all along. The organization was run into the ground by Carmen Policy and Dwight Clark. Smart people who had ties to the old Browns were pushed away in favor of the arrogant lackeys who jumped Eddie DeBartolo’s ship when it started to take on water.
The Browns would still have a soft offensive line and key weaknesses in the defensive front. As an expansion team in 1999 they were unable to acquire quality players through the expansion draft and lacked the budget to attract big name free agents. They set their sights on that 1999 draft and pinned their hopes on the arm of a promising quarterback who struck everybody as a more athletic version of Peyton Manning.
Truth be told, Couch might have been a great quarterback if he had landed on a team with a few supporting players. Had the Browns committed themselves to easing the young quarterback into a productive offense rather than throwing him to the wolves as a rookie, Couch would have maintained a sense of confidence. And who’s to say McNabb would have fared better? With no line and an unimaginative offense McNabb would have struggled mightily in Cleveland.
LaDainian Tomlinson is a great player but he’s on a loaded team. He’s surrounded by talented players who make it impossible for teams to focus on stopping him. If a team pulls its safeties up to stop the run, Antonio Gates will be open in the seam. If they slide a cornerback over to cover gates they leave a receiver unchecked at the line. And speaking of the line, how about those blockers up front? LT might be great but he doesn’t have to work for every yard. Would LT be as dominant in Cleveland? Probably not.
Instead of trying to guess right and draft another sure thing, the Browns should see the bigger picture. If they had traded down in 1999 they would have acquired more picks. Mike Ditka was willing to trade everything in order to bring Ricky Williams to New Orleans. With multiple picks in later rounds the Browns could have loaded up on offensive linemen and built a team capable of making anybody look good.
The Browns are not an Adrian Peterson away from contending. Brady Quinn won’t improve their passing game and Joe Thomas is just one man. If the Browns want to get on the right track they need to trade the third pick in the draft and load up on promising blockers who will shore up that porous line. Even if Adrian Peterson sets the world on fire as a rookie, there’s no way he will help the Browns. Bad teams often make the mistake in thinking one star will make all the difference. In the NBA that might be true but in the NFL it takes 10 supporting players to make one guy stand out. After all these years the Browns should know that better than anybody.
Except when it comes to the draft there is no such thing as a no-brainer. For every Peyton Manning there’s a Ryan Leaf. For every LaDainian there’s a KiJana. When you look through the history of the draft, particularly in the early part of the first round, there’s a lot more heartbreak than happiness. Remember 1999? Tim Couch was the first player drafted by the new Browns. He was compared to Peyton Manning coming out of college but 8 years later Peyton Manning is the toast of the town and Tim Couch is just toast. He’s out of the league as is his fellow first round counterpart Akili Smith.
The Browns landed another number one pick in 2000 and selected Courtney Brown, a big, bruising athletic defensive end from Penn State. Sure, Brown has established himself as a productive member of the Denver defensive line but he was drafted because he was supposed be the next Bruce Smith. In Cleveland he struggled with injuries and never showed the tenacity of a premier pass rusher.
The Browns look back over their misfortunes and kick themselves. They could have drafted Donovan McNabb in 1999, Brian Urlacher in 2000 and in 2001, when they drafted Gerard Warren with the third pick LaDainian Tomlinson slipped all the way down to number five. DOH!
Surely the front office muckety mucks are kicking themselves over what could have been. Imagine how dominant that team would be! Of course rewriting draft history and making those choices wouldn’t address the issues the Browns have struggled with all along. The organization was run into the ground by Carmen Policy and Dwight Clark. Smart people who had ties to the old Browns were pushed away in favor of the arrogant lackeys who jumped Eddie DeBartolo’s ship when it started to take on water.
The Browns would still have a soft offensive line and key weaknesses in the defensive front. As an expansion team in 1999 they were unable to acquire quality players through the expansion draft and lacked the budget to attract big name free agents. They set their sights on that 1999 draft and pinned their hopes on the arm of a promising quarterback who struck everybody as a more athletic version of Peyton Manning.
Truth be told, Couch might have been a great quarterback if he had landed on a team with a few supporting players. Had the Browns committed themselves to easing the young quarterback into a productive offense rather than throwing him to the wolves as a rookie, Couch would have maintained a sense of confidence. And who’s to say McNabb would have fared better? With no line and an unimaginative offense McNabb would have struggled mightily in Cleveland.
LaDainian Tomlinson is a great player but he’s on a loaded team. He’s surrounded by talented players who make it impossible for teams to focus on stopping him. If a team pulls its safeties up to stop the run, Antonio Gates will be open in the seam. If they slide a cornerback over to cover gates they leave a receiver unchecked at the line. And speaking of the line, how about those blockers up front? LT might be great but he doesn’t have to work for every yard. Would LT be as dominant in Cleveland? Probably not.
Instead of trying to guess right and draft another sure thing, the Browns should see the bigger picture. If they had traded down in 1999 they would have acquired more picks. Mike Ditka was willing to trade everything in order to bring Ricky Williams to New Orleans. With multiple picks in later rounds the Browns could have loaded up on offensive linemen and built a team capable of making anybody look good.
The Browns are not an Adrian Peterson away from contending. Brady Quinn won’t improve their passing game and Joe Thomas is just one man. If the Browns want to get on the right track they need to trade the third pick in the draft and load up on promising blockers who will shore up that porous line. Even if Adrian Peterson sets the world on fire as a rookie, there’s no way he will help the Browns. Bad teams often make the mistake in thinking one star will make all the difference. In the NBA that might be true but in the NFL it takes 10 supporting players to make one guy stand out. After all these years the Browns should know that better than anybody.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Gay Games
Every few years the issue of homosexuality surfaces in one of the major sports. Players are asked to explain how they feel about the subject. It’s the same old thing. Until now.
You have to give it to former NBA star Tim Hardaway. He didn’t pull any punches when he explained how he feels. He admitted to being a homophobe and believes that homosexuals don’t have a place not only in the locker room but no place on the planet as well. He hates gays. His words. Granted, he later apologized for saying those things but he made no retraction. He still hates gays. His apology was for so forcefully expressing his opinion. Hardaway meant what he said.
And good for him. I don’t agree with Hardaway nor do I respect people who have such an opinion of other people but I do admire the guy for speaking his mind clearly and plainly. Everybody else dances around the subject. The mighty Lebron James tiptoed around his own homophobia and described the issue as a matter of trust. When this subject comes up athletes almost always mince words. Hardaway gave the media what they wanted: headlines. They tried to make a story out of Lebron’s incoherent mutterings but before the King could be labeled a homophobe, Tim Hardaway stepped up and delivered.
And it’s a non story. Most players don’t have a problem with homosexuality until it is sitting next to them sweaty and naked in the locker room. It’s unsettling to think that one of your teammates might be sexually fantasizing about you as you bend over to pull on your athletic supporter. Lebron’s on point when he talks about trust. If a player comes out of the closet after showering next to you for four years the dynamic of that relationship is going to change. It’s probably harder for men to cope with than women. Men tend to be more protective of their sexuality. There’s more bravado involved. On some primal level men feel violated when they become the object of another man’s desire. In fact, women find sexual attention from men to be a little frustrating if not humiliating, so it’s not unreasonable for a man to find it objectionable.
That doesn’t make homophobia appropriate. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with athletic performance. Tim Hardaway’s issues revolve around homosexuality in general. He made it clear that he wants nothing to do with gays on any level. Lebron’s issues seem to revolve around the locker room. If steps could be taken to ensure privacy, most players would readily accept gay players. It’s all about those naked moments that take place before and after games.
Sure, intelligent people will say that it’s silly. Each team probably has at least one gay player on the active roster. So players should just accept the fact that they’ve been thoroughly examined by a homosexual and probably starred in plenty of kinky fantasies. Based on what we’ve seen throughout history the player who seems most adamant about his heterosexuality is probably the one who his gay. Tim Hardaway’s comments were so forceful it’s likely he is harboring some flamboyant demons who want nothing more than to get out and dance, dance, dance. We’ve seen that before, haven’t we?
You have to give it to former NBA star Tim Hardaway. He didn’t pull any punches when he explained how he feels. He admitted to being a homophobe and believes that homosexuals don’t have a place not only in the locker room but no place on the planet as well. He hates gays. His words. Granted, he later apologized for saying those things but he made no retraction. He still hates gays. His apology was for so forcefully expressing his opinion. Hardaway meant what he said.
And good for him. I don’t agree with Hardaway nor do I respect people who have such an opinion of other people but I do admire the guy for speaking his mind clearly and plainly. Everybody else dances around the subject. The mighty Lebron James tiptoed around his own homophobia and described the issue as a matter of trust. When this subject comes up athletes almost always mince words. Hardaway gave the media what they wanted: headlines. They tried to make a story out of Lebron’s incoherent mutterings but before the King could be labeled a homophobe, Tim Hardaway stepped up and delivered.
And it’s a non story. Most players don’t have a problem with homosexuality until it is sitting next to them sweaty and naked in the locker room. It’s unsettling to think that one of your teammates might be sexually fantasizing about you as you bend over to pull on your athletic supporter. Lebron’s on point when he talks about trust. If a player comes out of the closet after showering next to you for four years the dynamic of that relationship is going to change. It’s probably harder for men to cope with than women. Men tend to be more protective of their sexuality. There’s more bravado involved. On some primal level men feel violated when they become the object of another man’s desire. In fact, women find sexual attention from men to be a little frustrating if not humiliating, so it’s not unreasonable for a man to find it objectionable.
That doesn’t make homophobia appropriate. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with athletic performance. Tim Hardaway’s issues revolve around homosexuality in general. He made it clear that he wants nothing to do with gays on any level. Lebron’s issues seem to revolve around the locker room. If steps could be taken to ensure privacy, most players would readily accept gay players. It’s all about those naked moments that take place before and after games.
Sure, intelligent people will say that it’s silly. Each team probably has at least one gay player on the active roster. So players should just accept the fact that they’ve been thoroughly examined by a homosexual and probably starred in plenty of kinky fantasies. Based on what we’ve seen throughout history the player who seems most adamant about his heterosexuality is probably the one who his gay. Tim Hardaway’s comments were so forceful it’s likely he is harboring some flamboyant demons who want nothing more than to get out and dance, dance, dance. We’ve seen that before, haven’t we?
Monday, January 15, 2007
Marty Ball
If there were any doubts that Marty Schottenheimer is a lousy coach they should have been erased Sunday as Nate Kaeding’s 54 yard field goal attempt fell about two yards short and three yards right of tying a game the Chargers should have won handily. It might seem convenient to pin the blame on Marty even though the players made more than their share of mistakes on the field. After all it was timely turnovers and penalties that gave the Patriots extra chances to keep the game within reach, but it was a Schottenheimer trademark, poor two minute defense, that made the upset possible. Tom Brady was brilliant at the end of each half when he calmly directed his offense down field to score. It was like déjà vu. John Elway’s legacy was fashioned around the creampuff coverage Schottenheimer employed when he coached the Browns and Tom Brady’s legend was bolstered yesterday.
Ultimately the biggest mistakes were made by the coach. Players often react in a manner that reflects the attitude of their coach and in spite of being heavily favored the Chargers played like underdogs. They seemed desperate even when they had a lead. Could that be because anytime Marty is in the postseason he’s an underdog?
Look at the final play: A 54 yard field goal attempt to tie the game. That’s a long distance for any kicker in that situation but for Kaeding it matched his longest. With 15 seconds left on the clock it would have been advisable to run one more quick play in hopes of picking up a few more yards. Just one yard might have been enough to give the young kicker a sense of confidence going onto the field. The difference between 53 and 54 yards is huge when 54 yards represents the longest kick you’ve ever made. Perhaps it’s only psychological but when it comes to kicking its all about the head. That’s why coaches still see fit to “ice” kickers if they have a time out to burn.
Of course that entire drive might have been different if the Chargers hadn’t burned their time outs prior to taking the field with just over a minute to play. Phillip Rivers was forced to waste one on the previous drive but the biggest waste of a time out, possibly in the history of the game, was when Schottenheimer challenged a turnover early in the quarter. Actually it was a double turnover but there was no reason to suspect that the officials had gotten the call wrong. Even at full speed it was clear Marlon McCree coughed up the ball after picking off Tom Brady. It provided the Patriots with a second chance and they capitalized by scoring, however the lost time out is what really cost the Chargers the game. The challenge reeked of desperation. Schottenheimer was hoping that there would be something on the replay he just wasn’t sure what it would be.
But even before that Schottenheimer demonstrated unnecessary levels of desperation. With plenty of game to play and an easy field goal on the table, Schottenheimer threw caution to the wind and went for it on 4th and 11. Phillip Rivers was sacked providing the Patriots with excellent field position on what should have been only a moral victory in holding the Chargers to three points…Three points that would have forced a tie. Instead the Patriots took advantage of the play and scored three points of their own. Schottenheimer looked ill at ease.
Bill Belichick, on the other hand, was cool and collected the whole time. Even as the underdog facing a ferocious defense and an unstoppable running back, Belichick stayed calm and called his plays. His team took advantage of every mistake and didn’t allow their own miscues to change the way they played. Instead of stuffing the line of scrimmage with players in hopes of stopping Tomlinson, Belichick treated the superstar they way he would treat any other back and resigned his defense to the fact that the Chargers would move the ball. They just had to keep it close. The offense played the same way, knowing that they would take a beating and need to pounce on every opportunity. They avoided costly penalties and stayed focused on the task at hand. In the end, the Patriots did what they had to do and won the game because they played smarter.
It’s too bad. By all accounts Marty Schottenheimer is a great guy. Players love him and he’s one of the more accessible coaches in the NFL. He’s polite and professional with the press and affable with fans. At times he does rub the front office the wrong way and he has been at odds with San Diego’s brain trust. This loss won’t endear him to the management team. Because of the loyalty Schottenheimer inspires in his players and the regular season success he enjoys, San Diego might have to keep him, but will they be able to do it without front office fireworks? Somebody will have to be held accountable for this loss and Schottenheimer might bristle at the prospect of being forced to hand an assistant coach out to dry. There might be no way to salvage this relationship.
And that’s how it has to be. It’s not luck. Schottenheimer is just a lousy postseason coach. The problem seems to stem from employing regular season preparation with post season strategy. Historically speaking, Schottenheimer’s teams consistently fail to match the intensity of their opponents in the playoffs. They don’t make adjustments and fail to execute on critical plays. His playoff teams also make a lot of foolish mistakes. Perhaps the biggest difference between regular season and post season Martyball is the so-called “killer instinct”. During the regular season Marty’s teams will seem dominant achieving victory early and using aggressive defense to quell the threat of a comeback. In the postseason, Martyball gets conservative and his teams seem to play not to lose. Many of his post season losses have come late in games when his opponents have been forced to play from behind.
This Chargers team might be the best Marty has ever coached. Many experts believe that Tomlinson is the best football player ever. That might be premature but he’s certainly a dominant force and unlike Barry Sanders, Tomlinson is surrounded with quality talent. Outstanding talent, in fact, which makes it hard to believe he’s in the same league as Barry Sanders, Jim Brown or Walter Payton. Nevertheless, the guy is good and he demonstrated that yesterday. For some reason, Schottenheimer seemed reticent to put the game on Tomlinson’s back which is another cause for concern. Clearly the Patriots couldn’t stop Tomlinson with their standard defense, so why not hand the MVP the ball 35 times until Belichick had no choice but to load up with a goal line set? It’s not as though you have to keep his legs fresh.
With the NFL being what it is, this might have been the best shot the Chargers and Marty would have had at a Super Bowl win. San Diego’s front office spent heavily in hopes that this team would win it all and free agency will take a toll on this team. If the Chargers clash with Schottenheimer the team will struggle next year (Marty has been self destructive after his ego’s been bruised) and if they fire him you can expect transition to be cruel. Who will replace him? Even if Tomlinson can replicate his performance in coming years, teams are going to find ways to minimize his impact and victories will be harder to come by. It also doesn’t help matters much that the Chargers will be playing a tougher schedule next season. And then you have the steroids issue haunting the defense. Can Merriman stay clean under the rigorous testing he’ll be subjected to over the coming months? Lights out indeed.
A lot of people will have high hopes for the Chargers next year. Analysts and fans alike will believe that this is the beginning of something special but it seems more like the beginning of the end. The Chargers had their chance and fell short. They can thank Marty Schottenheimer for that.
Ultimately the biggest mistakes were made by the coach. Players often react in a manner that reflects the attitude of their coach and in spite of being heavily favored the Chargers played like underdogs. They seemed desperate even when they had a lead. Could that be because anytime Marty is in the postseason he’s an underdog?
Look at the final play: A 54 yard field goal attempt to tie the game. That’s a long distance for any kicker in that situation but for Kaeding it matched his longest. With 15 seconds left on the clock it would have been advisable to run one more quick play in hopes of picking up a few more yards. Just one yard might have been enough to give the young kicker a sense of confidence going onto the field. The difference between 53 and 54 yards is huge when 54 yards represents the longest kick you’ve ever made. Perhaps it’s only psychological but when it comes to kicking its all about the head. That’s why coaches still see fit to “ice” kickers if they have a time out to burn.
Of course that entire drive might have been different if the Chargers hadn’t burned their time outs prior to taking the field with just over a minute to play. Phillip Rivers was forced to waste one on the previous drive but the biggest waste of a time out, possibly in the history of the game, was when Schottenheimer challenged a turnover early in the quarter. Actually it was a double turnover but there was no reason to suspect that the officials had gotten the call wrong. Even at full speed it was clear Marlon McCree coughed up the ball after picking off Tom Brady. It provided the Patriots with a second chance and they capitalized by scoring, however the lost time out is what really cost the Chargers the game. The challenge reeked of desperation. Schottenheimer was hoping that there would be something on the replay he just wasn’t sure what it would be.
But even before that Schottenheimer demonstrated unnecessary levels of desperation. With plenty of game to play and an easy field goal on the table, Schottenheimer threw caution to the wind and went for it on 4th and 11. Phillip Rivers was sacked providing the Patriots with excellent field position on what should have been only a moral victory in holding the Chargers to three points…Three points that would have forced a tie. Instead the Patriots took advantage of the play and scored three points of their own. Schottenheimer looked ill at ease.
Bill Belichick, on the other hand, was cool and collected the whole time. Even as the underdog facing a ferocious defense and an unstoppable running back, Belichick stayed calm and called his plays. His team took advantage of every mistake and didn’t allow their own miscues to change the way they played. Instead of stuffing the line of scrimmage with players in hopes of stopping Tomlinson, Belichick treated the superstar they way he would treat any other back and resigned his defense to the fact that the Chargers would move the ball. They just had to keep it close. The offense played the same way, knowing that they would take a beating and need to pounce on every opportunity. They avoided costly penalties and stayed focused on the task at hand. In the end, the Patriots did what they had to do and won the game because they played smarter.
It’s too bad. By all accounts Marty Schottenheimer is a great guy. Players love him and he’s one of the more accessible coaches in the NFL. He’s polite and professional with the press and affable with fans. At times he does rub the front office the wrong way and he has been at odds with San Diego’s brain trust. This loss won’t endear him to the management team. Because of the loyalty Schottenheimer inspires in his players and the regular season success he enjoys, San Diego might have to keep him, but will they be able to do it without front office fireworks? Somebody will have to be held accountable for this loss and Schottenheimer might bristle at the prospect of being forced to hand an assistant coach out to dry. There might be no way to salvage this relationship.
And that’s how it has to be. It’s not luck. Schottenheimer is just a lousy postseason coach. The problem seems to stem from employing regular season preparation with post season strategy. Historically speaking, Schottenheimer’s teams consistently fail to match the intensity of their opponents in the playoffs. They don’t make adjustments and fail to execute on critical plays. His playoff teams also make a lot of foolish mistakes. Perhaps the biggest difference between regular season and post season Martyball is the so-called “killer instinct”. During the regular season Marty’s teams will seem dominant achieving victory early and using aggressive defense to quell the threat of a comeback. In the postseason, Martyball gets conservative and his teams seem to play not to lose. Many of his post season losses have come late in games when his opponents have been forced to play from behind.
This Chargers team might be the best Marty has ever coached. Many experts believe that Tomlinson is the best football player ever. That might be premature but he’s certainly a dominant force and unlike Barry Sanders, Tomlinson is surrounded with quality talent. Outstanding talent, in fact, which makes it hard to believe he’s in the same league as Barry Sanders, Jim Brown or Walter Payton. Nevertheless, the guy is good and he demonstrated that yesterday. For some reason, Schottenheimer seemed reticent to put the game on Tomlinson’s back which is another cause for concern. Clearly the Patriots couldn’t stop Tomlinson with their standard defense, so why not hand the MVP the ball 35 times until Belichick had no choice but to load up with a goal line set? It’s not as though you have to keep his legs fresh.
With the NFL being what it is, this might have been the best shot the Chargers and Marty would have had at a Super Bowl win. San Diego’s front office spent heavily in hopes that this team would win it all and free agency will take a toll on this team. If the Chargers clash with Schottenheimer the team will struggle next year (Marty has been self destructive after his ego’s been bruised) and if they fire him you can expect transition to be cruel. Who will replace him? Even if Tomlinson can replicate his performance in coming years, teams are going to find ways to minimize his impact and victories will be harder to come by. It also doesn’t help matters much that the Chargers will be playing a tougher schedule next season. And then you have the steroids issue haunting the defense. Can Merriman stay clean under the rigorous testing he’ll be subjected to over the coming months? Lights out indeed.
A lot of people will have high hopes for the Chargers next year. Analysts and fans alike will believe that this is the beginning of something special but it seems more like the beginning of the end. The Chargers had their chance and fell short. They can thank Marty Schottenheimer for that.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Mark McGwire belongs in H.O.F.
There's a heated debate in baseball's inner circle. The writers who vote on whether or not a player should get into the Hall of Fame are fussing over Mark McGwire. Some think he should get in. They argue that he was the most formidable slugger of his era and his record breaking 70 home runs in 1998 revived American interest in the sport. Few will offer a counterpoint to McGwire's statistical largess. He was a one-dimensional player but when he was healthy, as was the case in 1998, the man could regularly whack the stitches off the ball. When it came to that single dimension there are few players in history who were more proficient and none in his era.
Of course the argument against McGwire is the question of steroids. Of the voters who intend to deny Mac's induction, the vast majority believe that the specter of steroids have tainted everything the reclusive slugger has accomplished. Because of his ties to Jose Canseco, McGwire's connection to the illegal substances dates back to the late 1980's and the massive physique Mighty Mac was known for was undoubtedly enhanced with illicit chemicals. Nobody disputes this, not even McGwire.
Perhaps the most damning evidence against McGwire was his testimony before congress where he nervously refused to discuss the past or focus on the negative. Clearly Mac wasn't as comfortable with lying as his counterpart, Raffy Palmiero, but Mac was definitely not interested in being truthful either. It's a sad state of affairs when the most honest and respectable man in the room is Jose Canseco, but considering those present were lawyers, politicians and professional baseball players, that was the case.
There are some writers who won't vote for MacGwire on the first ballot, as if there is some special wing in the hall of fame for first ballot inductees. Those who are in this category are actually MacGwire supporters because they believe he belongs in the hall of fame but that his connection to steroids is something he should be shamed over. Apparently waiting six years instead of five is humiliating for a player.
Those who support Mac, regardless of which ballot on which they offer that support, believe he should be in the Hall of Fame in spite of using steroids because Major League Baseball did not have a formal steroid policy in its rule book at the time. Major League baseball did not revise its drug policy to specifically ban performance enhancing drugs until 2002. So technically speaking, McGwire didn't cheat.
The same people will take the argument a step further and challenge anybody to scientifically quantify the advantage steroids provide a slugger like McGwire. They will tell you that it is impossible to determine how many home runs steroids added to Mac's totals each season and some will even try to argue that the extra muscle mass associated with steroid use is actually a detriment to a baseball player. They will trot out the old adages about bigger muscles being slower muscles and bulky physiques being inflexible. There was a time not all that long ago when weight training was taboo for so-called "skill" athletes. Jose Canseco smashed that myth for baseball when he posted his legendary 40-40 season.
The final, and most compelling, defense from those in Mac's corner is perhaps the most logical because it's true. How can you punish MacGwire when we have no idea how many other players were also taking steroids back then? Surely the substance abuse wasn't limited to the Bash Brothers. Recent drug tests have revealed that pitchers seem to realize a benefit from taking steroids and there are people who suspect that Roger Clemens might owe his impressive longevity to some chemical assistance. Scouts have noticed that there are pitchers who entered the league projected as middle relievers who would rely on location and timing to keep hitters off balance only to discover a 98 mph fastball in their arsenal after a few seasons in the minor leagues. Eric Gagne was a mediocre pitcher until he came back from surgery with an extra 10 miles per hour on his fastball.
It's a great point. We have singled out Mark McGwire because he was caught with a legal supplement that is classified as a steroid precursor. Even though Andro was banned from other sports at the time and has since been banned by baseball, Mac had done nothing wrong and even had the bottle of Andro out in the open in his locker. Some suspect the MacGwire was alternating steroid and Andro cycles in order to maintain a much higher level of testosterone in his system, other believe that the Andro might have been a red herring kept on hand to throw investigators off the trail.
You see, steroids are illegal. Even though baseball didn't have a ban on them until 2002, the federal government has had steroids on the list of controlled substances since 1990. So it is true that Mark McGwire wasn't violating any of Major League Baseball's rules, but he was breaking the law. Perhaps Mac made the Andro available after a case of paranoia. Throw off the feds.
It's a tough subject and most of the baseball writers who vote on Hall of Fame selections don't like being caught in the pickle. In spite of the fact that sports writers will call themselves journalists, the reason they choose to cover sports is because they don't much care for the responsibility of covering real news. They like things light and fun. Steroids are heavy and distressing. Steroids require critical thinking, research and journalistic integrity.
Few sports writers are willing to do real work. In sports the facts are logged into the official record of every game and the debates are harmless. Arguing over who the best hitter in the game is easy because it's all about interpreting stats and there really are no right or wrong answers. Sports writing can be a bit like philosophy. Steroids are a serious topic with deadly consequences and your average sports writer isn't ready for it.
So they defer. They hide behind the game and try to focus on statistics. They try to make the argument about what happened on the field. They know that nobody can offer scientific evidence that will effectively quantify the impact of steroids and even if somebody can measure that impact to the inch, those writers know there will be equally compelling evidence to the contrary. So they never have to face steroids.
But that's a cop out. The fact of the matter is that a Hall of Fame induction isn't about science, it is about opinion. There is no rule that mandates certain statistical accomplishments. Players don't have to play for a minimum number years to qualify. The only rule is that players are not to be made eligible for induction until five years have passed since they ended their careers. The logic is that five years gives everybody time to put that player's accomplishments into perspective. Writers like to talk about fixed criteria because it makes their jobs easier, but ultimately induction is completely arbitrary. Sports writers are just too gutless to admit it.
In McGwire's case it is obvious that he took steroids throughout his career. He was a mountain of improbable muscle. The physical transformation occurred quickly and the change was dramatic. He started his career looking a bit like a red-headed bean pole and he finished his career looking like the Incredible Hulk's orange cousin. We don't have any positive tests that prove he took steroids but there is convincing evidence nonetheless. And frankly we don't need proof. Enshrinement is not a right and denying McGwire induction is not a legal matter. It's all about opinion. We can't throw Big Mac in prison based on our proof, but we can certainly sentence him to exclusion from the Hall of Fame.
Steroids are really easy to quantify if you care to be honest about them. They make athletes better. Period. Steroids made Mark McGwire bigger, stronger and faster than he would have been otherwise and his use of the illegal substance extended his career. The increased levels of testosterone help older athletes perform at a level similar to much younger players. Steroids might put athletes at risk for chronic joint and muscle problems but before critical massis achieved they are a veritable fountain of youth. That's why Barry Bonds has better bat speed and hand-eye coordination in his forties than he did in his twenties. His knees are shot, but he can still swing a bat.
Because he took steroids, Mark McGwire played much longer than he would have otherwise. Because he took steroids, Mark McGwire was stronger and faster than he would have been otherwise. You can't separate the two. Mac and 'roids are one. Everything Mark McGwire did was enhanced by his dependency on steroids.
How many of the 70 home runs can we attribute to steroids? All of them. There's a distinct possibility Mark McGwire wouldn't have been able to play major league baseball without steroids and because he started taking them so early in his career nobody can dispute that. Mac might have been a bench coach in Akron in 1998 had he not taken steroids. We don't know for sure. All we know about steroids is that they make people better athletes. Ben Johnson showed us that in 1988.
So the question we face isn't about Mark McGwire at all, it's about steroids. Do we honor what steroids have accomplished in baseball?
Ultimately that answer is yes. Even before the andro was spotted on the shelf in Mac's locker, most people were pretty sure he was juiced but when the subject was broached, sports writers and fans bristled at the slanderous insinuation and defended Big Mac. Why, they lamented, is every muscular athlete dogged with questions of steroids? Why do we want to tear down our heroes?
The same question surfaced around Sammy Sosa who also emerged as an impressive slugger who increased his home run total by 30 in 1998 and enjoyed a similar physical transformation to MacGwire's. Sosa began his career as a wiry outfielder with a quick swing and quicker feet. Over the years he went from being a tightly muscled 30-30 guy to becoming a human fire plug who smashed over sixty home runs in back to back seasons. But how dare anybody besmirch the integrity of the game with questions of steroids?
Back in 1998 everybody wanted to celebrate. The issue of steroids was there but it was ignored so we could watch too chemically enhanced cartoon characters bury one of the most melancholy records in all of sports. Roger Maris played the game in an era where players didn't take steroids. It's not that steroids weren't there but back then steroids were widely misunderstood and so were muscles. Baseball players were discouraged from using weights and body-building techniques because the exercise physiologists of the era believed big muscles were stiff and slow. A popular term of the era was muscle-bound. Back then the only athletes who regularly used weight training were football players and that was limited to linemen who required brute strength to finish blocks and tackles.
Maris didn't take steroids but his accomplishment was dismissed, ridiculed and eventually clarified with an asterisk because he played more games than Babe Ruth. Roger Maris was essentially a pariah because he broke one of baseball's most impressive and enduring records by playing every game with honor, class and integrity. But yet we see fit to defend players who voluntarily injected themselves with illegal performance enhancing substances.
The benefits of weight trained weren't fully appreciated until the mid-1980's. As our understanding of physiology grew and people became aware of the factors that influence muscle growth and development, athletes from all sports began to use training methods that included prolific use of weights. With proper nutrition and a combination strength, speed and flexibility exercises bigger muscles meant both strength and speed. Hank Aaron should be miffed that his record is about to be passed by Barry Bonds. Who knows how many home runs Hammering Hank might have hit if he had been encouraged to lift weights, let alone take steroids?
The evidence is readily available in archived footage. Compare athletes from the early 1980's to their counterparts in the early 1990's. What happened? Now you see muscles everywhere. Even golfers are finding that a little added muscle mass is helpful. Brute strength alone won't win tournaments but a little extra muscle certainly separates the top performers from the middle of the pack. Tiger Woods spends a lot of time in the gym hitting the weights. It's no coincidence that he's the best golfer in the world.
So muscles matter and it seems as though everybody came to that conclusion around the same time. How long do you suppose it took for somebody to reach for a bottle of steroids? Steroids make growing muscle much easier.
Jose Canseco used to laugh about how easy it was for him to achieve tremendous gains in the gym with minimal effort. That's why steroids in baseball center around him. His teammates saw how effective steroids were in building muscle, connected the muscle to Canseco's performance and immediately demanded that Canseco share his supply with them. Canseco and McGwire led the A's to three consecutive world series appearances with an impressive 4-0 sweep over the Giants in 1989. Even back then, as people watched the bulging Bash Brothers send hundreds of balls over the fences, the fingerprint of steroids was obvious.
So why not induct McGwire into the Hall of Fame? As a society we have watched steroids become a fixture in every sport and readily ignored the obvious signs. Instead we demand that the various leagues assure us they are testing for steroids and offer up the occasional sacrificial lamb. Even with the testing, which is laughable when compared to international standards, steroids are still rampant because the risk/reward ratio is still favorable. League officials do just enough to satisfy the conscience of the fans who in turn readily accept players back after the minimal punishments are imposed.
Inducting Mark McGwire into the hall of Fame is tantamount to giving steroids a stamp of approval but it seems we have already not only accepted steroids but embraced them. If we don't want to hold players accountable for using steroids while they are playing, why bother pretending it matters five years later. The Hall of Fame is a sham anyway, let MacGwire in and make the circle complete.
Of course the argument against McGwire is the question of steroids. Of the voters who intend to deny Mac's induction, the vast majority believe that the specter of steroids have tainted everything the reclusive slugger has accomplished. Because of his ties to Jose Canseco, McGwire's connection to the illegal substances dates back to the late 1980's and the massive physique Mighty Mac was known for was undoubtedly enhanced with illicit chemicals. Nobody disputes this, not even McGwire.
Perhaps the most damning evidence against McGwire was his testimony before congress where he nervously refused to discuss the past or focus on the negative. Clearly Mac wasn't as comfortable with lying as his counterpart, Raffy Palmiero, but Mac was definitely not interested in being truthful either. It's a sad state of affairs when the most honest and respectable man in the room is Jose Canseco, but considering those present were lawyers, politicians and professional baseball players, that was the case.
There are some writers who won't vote for MacGwire on the first ballot, as if there is some special wing in the hall of fame for first ballot inductees. Those who are in this category are actually MacGwire supporters because they believe he belongs in the hall of fame but that his connection to steroids is something he should be shamed over. Apparently waiting six years instead of five is humiliating for a player.
Those who support Mac, regardless of which ballot on which they offer that support, believe he should be in the Hall of Fame in spite of using steroids because Major League Baseball did not have a formal steroid policy in its rule book at the time. Major League baseball did not revise its drug policy to specifically ban performance enhancing drugs until 2002. So technically speaking, McGwire didn't cheat.
The same people will take the argument a step further and challenge anybody to scientifically quantify the advantage steroids provide a slugger like McGwire. They will tell you that it is impossible to determine how many home runs steroids added to Mac's totals each season and some will even try to argue that the extra muscle mass associated with steroid use is actually a detriment to a baseball player. They will trot out the old adages about bigger muscles being slower muscles and bulky physiques being inflexible. There was a time not all that long ago when weight training was taboo for so-called "skill" athletes. Jose Canseco smashed that myth for baseball when he posted his legendary 40-40 season.
The final, and most compelling, defense from those in Mac's corner is perhaps the most logical because it's true. How can you punish MacGwire when we have no idea how many other players were also taking steroids back then? Surely the substance abuse wasn't limited to the Bash Brothers. Recent drug tests have revealed that pitchers seem to realize a benefit from taking steroids and there are people who suspect that Roger Clemens might owe his impressive longevity to some chemical assistance. Scouts have noticed that there are pitchers who entered the league projected as middle relievers who would rely on location and timing to keep hitters off balance only to discover a 98 mph fastball in their arsenal after a few seasons in the minor leagues. Eric Gagne was a mediocre pitcher until he came back from surgery with an extra 10 miles per hour on his fastball.
It's a great point. We have singled out Mark McGwire because he was caught with a legal supplement that is classified as a steroid precursor. Even though Andro was banned from other sports at the time and has since been banned by baseball, Mac had done nothing wrong and even had the bottle of Andro out in the open in his locker. Some suspect the MacGwire was alternating steroid and Andro cycles in order to maintain a much higher level of testosterone in his system, other believe that the Andro might have been a red herring kept on hand to throw investigators off the trail.
You see, steroids are illegal. Even though baseball didn't have a ban on them until 2002, the federal government has had steroids on the list of controlled substances since 1990. So it is true that Mark McGwire wasn't violating any of Major League Baseball's rules, but he was breaking the law. Perhaps Mac made the Andro available after a case of paranoia. Throw off the feds.
It's a tough subject and most of the baseball writers who vote on Hall of Fame selections don't like being caught in the pickle. In spite of the fact that sports writers will call themselves journalists, the reason they choose to cover sports is because they don't much care for the responsibility of covering real news. They like things light and fun. Steroids are heavy and distressing. Steroids require critical thinking, research and journalistic integrity.
Few sports writers are willing to do real work. In sports the facts are logged into the official record of every game and the debates are harmless. Arguing over who the best hitter in the game is easy because it's all about interpreting stats and there really are no right or wrong answers. Sports writing can be a bit like philosophy. Steroids are a serious topic with deadly consequences and your average sports writer isn't ready for it.
So they defer. They hide behind the game and try to focus on statistics. They try to make the argument about what happened on the field. They know that nobody can offer scientific evidence that will effectively quantify the impact of steroids and even if somebody can measure that impact to the inch, those writers know there will be equally compelling evidence to the contrary. So they never have to face steroids.
But that's a cop out. The fact of the matter is that a Hall of Fame induction isn't about science, it is about opinion. There is no rule that mandates certain statistical accomplishments. Players don't have to play for a minimum number years to qualify. The only rule is that players are not to be made eligible for induction until five years have passed since they ended their careers. The logic is that five years gives everybody time to put that player's accomplishments into perspective. Writers like to talk about fixed criteria because it makes their jobs easier, but ultimately induction is completely arbitrary. Sports writers are just too gutless to admit it.
In McGwire's case it is obvious that he took steroids throughout his career. He was a mountain of improbable muscle. The physical transformation occurred quickly and the change was dramatic. He started his career looking a bit like a red-headed bean pole and he finished his career looking like the Incredible Hulk's orange cousin. We don't have any positive tests that prove he took steroids but there is convincing evidence nonetheless. And frankly we don't need proof. Enshrinement is not a right and denying McGwire induction is not a legal matter. It's all about opinion. We can't throw Big Mac in prison based on our proof, but we can certainly sentence him to exclusion from the Hall of Fame.
Steroids are really easy to quantify if you care to be honest about them. They make athletes better. Period. Steroids made Mark McGwire bigger, stronger and faster than he would have been otherwise and his use of the illegal substance extended his career. The increased levels of testosterone help older athletes perform at a level similar to much younger players. Steroids might put athletes at risk for chronic joint and muscle problems but before critical massis achieved they are a veritable fountain of youth. That's why Barry Bonds has better bat speed and hand-eye coordination in his forties than he did in his twenties. His knees are shot, but he can still swing a bat.
Because he took steroids, Mark McGwire played much longer than he would have otherwise. Because he took steroids, Mark McGwire was stronger and faster than he would have been otherwise. You can't separate the two. Mac and 'roids are one. Everything Mark McGwire did was enhanced by his dependency on steroids.
How many of the 70 home runs can we attribute to steroids? All of them. There's a distinct possibility Mark McGwire wouldn't have been able to play major league baseball without steroids and because he started taking them so early in his career nobody can dispute that. Mac might have been a bench coach in Akron in 1998 had he not taken steroids. We don't know for sure. All we know about steroids is that they make people better athletes. Ben Johnson showed us that in 1988.
So the question we face isn't about Mark McGwire at all, it's about steroids. Do we honor what steroids have accomplished in baseball?
Ultimately that answer is yes. Even before the andro was spotted on the shelf in Mac's locker, most people were pretty sure he was juiced but when the subject was broached, sports writers and fans bristled at the slanderous insinuation and defended Big Mac. Why, they lamented, is every muscular athlete dogged with questions of steroids? Why do we want to tear down our heroes?
The same question surfaced around Sammy Sosa who also emerged as an impressive slugger who increased his home run total by 30 in 1998 and enjoyed a similar physical transformation to MacGwire's. Sosa began his career as a wiry outfielder with a quick swing and quicker feet. Over the years he went from being a tightly muscled 30-30 guy to becoming a human fire plug who smashed over sixty home runs in back to back seasons. But how dare anybody besmirch the integrity of the game with questions of steroids?
Back in 1998 everybody wanted to celebrate. The issue of steroids was there but it was ignored so we could watch too chemically enhanced cartoon characters bury one of the most melancholy records in all of sports. Roger Maris played the game in an era where players didn't take steroids. It's not that steroids weren't there but back then steroids were widely misunderstood and so were muscles. Baseball players were discouraged from using weights and body-building techniques because the exercise physiologists of the era believed big muscles were stiff and slow. A popular term of the era was muscle-bound. Back then the only athletes who regularly used weight training were football players and that was limited to linemen who required brute strength to finish blocks and tackles.
Maris didn't take steroids but his accomplishment was dismissed, ridiculed and eventually clarified with an asterisk because he played more games than Babe Ruth. Roger Maris was essentially a pariah because he broke one of baseball's most impressive and enduring records by playing every game with honor, class and integrity. But yet we see fit to defend players who voluntarily injected themselves with illegal performance enhancing substances.
The benefits of weight trained weren't fully appreciated until the mid-1980's. As our understanding of physiology grew and people became aware of the factors that influence muscle growth and development, athletes from all sports began to use training methods that included prolific use of weights. With proper nutrition and a combination strength, speed and flexibility exercises bigger muscles meant both strength and speed. Hank Aaron should be miffed that his record is about to be passed by Barry Bonds. Who knows how many home runs Hammering Hank might have hit if he had been encouraged to lift weights, let alone take steroids?
The evidence is readily available in archived footage. Compare athletes from the early 1980's to their counterparts in the early 1990's. What happened? Now you see muscles everywhere. Even golfers are finding that a little added muscle mass is helpful. Brute strength alone won't win tournaments but a little extra muscle certainly separates the top performers from the middle of the pack. Tiger Woods spends a lot of time in the gym hitting the weights. It's no coincidence that he's the best golfer in the world.
So muscles matter and it seems as though everybody came to that conclusion around the same time. How long do you suppose it took for somebody to reach for a bottle of steroids? Steroids make growing muscle much easier.
Jose Canseco used to laugh about how easy it was for him to achieve tremendous gains in the gym with minimal effort. That's why steroids in baseball center around him. His teammates saw how effective steroids were in building muscle, connected the muscle to Canseco's performance and immediately demanded that Canseco share his supply with them. Canseco and McGwire led the A's to three consecutive world series appearances with an impressive 4-0 sweep over the Giants in 1989. Even back then, as people watched the bulging Bash Brothers send hundreds of balls over the fences, the fingerprint of steroids was obvious.
So why not induct McGwire into the Hall of Fame? As a society we have watched steroids become a fixture in every sport and readily ignored the obvious signs. Instead we demand that the various leagues assure us they are testing for steroids and offer up the occasional sacrificial lamb. Even with the testing, which is laughable when compared to international standards, steroids are still rampant because the risk/reward ratio is still favorable. League officials do just enough to satisfy the conscience of the fans who in turn readily accept players back after the minimal punishments are imposed.
Inducting Mark McGwire into the hall of Fame is tantamount to giving steroids a stamp of approval but it seems we have already not only accepted steroids but embraced them. If we don't want to hold players accountable for using steroids while they are playing, why bother pretending it matters five years later. The Hall of Fame is a sham anyway, let MacGwire in and make the circle complete.
Friday, December 29, 2006
BCS lacking this year.
Ok, let’s get real. Even though we can extract a certain degree of satisfaction from the ponderous selection of bowl games, the only games that matter begin this weekend. Even though the BCS has been foisted upon us as something of consequence one of the most compelling match ups of the year has to be Arkansas and Wisconsin. The SEC has been heralded as the toughest conference in country and Wisconsin has been dismissed as lucky to dodge a Buckeye bullet on its way to a top 10 ranking.
We could compare and contrast schedules and talk about quality of competition but the Capital One Bowl is the best put up or shut up game on the menu. If Wisconsin wins the Big 10 carves out a chunk of national respect. The so-called experts who have dismissed the Badgers as a fluke will have to eat a little crow and the SEC will lose a touch of its luster. Don’t count Wisconsin out. The Big 10 might not look great on paper but paper doesn’t tell the whole story. This is a conference that got deeper as the season progressed.
Penn State could score a few points for the Big 10 if they beat Tennessee but this game just doesn’t seem to match up because Penn State has struggled with an erratic quarterback. The defense is solid and they have playmakers on offense but there just isn’t enough consistency there to make Penn State look formidable this year, which really puts the pressure on the Volunteers. They can’t make mistakes or the Lions defense will find a way to win the game. This is a team that shut down Ohio State for three and a half quarters and you have to figure that Tennessee’s defense will give that Penn State offense a little room. Tennessee should win, but they’d better come ready to play.
The biggest disappointment of the weekend might be squandering the impressive assortment of weapons Michigan has brandished all year on a USC team that just doesn’t have the magic of its predecessors. It could be a good game but based on what we’ve seem UCS’s only hope is that Michigan will be so disappointed in missing a second crack at Ohio State that they don’t deliver on the field. Sure, USC’s a good team with some great players but they couldn’t beat UCLA to seal the deal at the end of the year. They either lack discipline or talent. Or both.
Even though the teams are highly overrated, Louisville and Wake Forest make for an interesting pairing. Seeing Wake Forest rise to the top of its conference, albeit a very weak and confused conference, is a nice story and Louisville can move the football a bit. Neither one of these teams has any business being mentioned in the same sentence as the rest of the BCS field but the fact that their glaring weaknesses match up so well means this game could be fun. Sloppy perhaps, but fast paced and fun. Too bad the clout of the BCS is wasted on what amounts to a backyard scrimmage between two conferences full of bad teams.
Boise State can’t claim much of a conference but the fact that this team has been making noise for years makes the Fiesta Bowl a good game. Oklahoma might overpower the potato peelers with a whole lot of Adrian Peterson but we have to see it happen. If Boise State wins, the whole BCS selection process goes out the window. If Oklahoma racks of 500 yards rushing on the way to a 53-17 thrashing, Boise State and the rest of the WAC won’t be allowed to think about a BCS bowl.Ever again. It’s actually a lot of pressure for Boise State. Every non-BCS conference team is hoping Boise State can look respectable. Winning would be miraculous, but they have to keep the margin under three scores.
The most fitting bowl for the LSU Tigers is the Sugar Bowl. The Fighting Irish must look so sweet and tasty. We’re talking about an independent team with three victories posted over historically outclassed service academies and no victories against top ten opponents. As potent as the Brady Quinn led offense looks on the stat sheet, against tough defenses the future first round draft choice has looked more like a future ESPN commentator. Going back to last year’s unwarranted BCS nod against Ohio State, Charlie Weis and Brady Quinn just can’t figure out how to get the best of a good defense. This is an overrated match up because Notre Dame might be the least deserving of all the BCS teams. Charlie Weis must really be a genius because he’s got everybody fooled.
No matter how you slice it, Florida just doesn’t look like a championship contender. Even if they pull off the big upset and dethrone the anointed Buckeyes, the Gators still won’t have anybody convinced that they could get past Michigan. But it’s virtually impossible to see the upset coming. Comparisons have been made between this Florida club and the 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes who eventually upset Miami in a pretty intense Fiesta Bowl for the so-called national title. This Florida team isn’t that good.
The 2002 Buckeyes had a great defense that crushed everybody. They made every play. They were almost perfect. They had to be because Jim Tressel’s offense in 2002 was centered around the punt. If he went up by three in the second quarter he’d shut down the offense and start running out the clock. When you consider how awful that attack was (106th overall) it’s a miracle the defense overcame it’s own offense let alone the guys on the other team.
We could compare and contrast schedules and talk about quality of competition but the Capital One Bowl is the best put up or shut up game on the menu. If Wisconsin wins the Big 10 carves out a chunk of national respect. The so-called experts who have dismissed the Badgers as a fluke will have to eat a little crow and the SEC will lose a touch of its luster. Don’t count Wisconsin out. The Big 10 might not look great on paper but paper doesn’t tell the whole story. This is a conference that got deeper as the season progressed.
Penn State could score a few points for the Big 10 if they beat Tennessee but this game just doesn’t seem to match up because Penn State has struggled with an erratic quarterback. The defense is solid and they have playmakers on offense but there just isn’t enough consistency there to make Penn State look formidable this year, which really puts the pressure on the Volunteers. They can’t make mistakes or the Lions defense will find a way to win the game. This is a team that shut down Ohio State for three and a half quarters and you have to figure that Tennessee’s defense will give that Penn State offense a little room. Tennessee should win, but they’d better come ready to play.
The biggest disappointment of the weekend might be squandering the impressive assortment of weapons Michigan has brandished all year on a USC team that just doesn’t have the magic of its predecessors. It could be a good game but based on what we’ve seem UCS’s only hope is that Michigan will be so disappointed in missing a second crack at Ohio State that they don’t deliver on the field. Sure, USC’s a good team with some great players but they couldn’t beat UCLA to seal the deal at the end of the year. They either lack discipline or talent. Or both.
Even though the teams are highly overrated, Louisville and Wake Forest make for an interesting pairing. Seeing Wake Forest rise to the top of its conference, albeit a very weak and confused conference, is a nice story and Louisville can move the football a bit. Neither one of these teams has any business being mentioned in the same sentence as the rest of the BCS field but the fact that their glaring weaknesses match up so well means this game could be fun. Sloppy perhaps, but fast paced and fun. Too bad the clout of the BCS is wasted on what amounts to a backyard scrimmage between two conferences full of bad teams.
Boise State can’t claim much of a conference but the fact that this team has been making noise for years makes the Fiesta Bowl a good game. Oklahoma might overpower the potato peelers with a whole lot of Adrian Peterson but we have to see it happen. If Boise State wins, the whole BCS selection process goes out the window. If Oklahoma racks of 500 yards rushing on the way to a 53-17 thrashing, Boise State and the rest of the WAC won’t be allowed to think about a BCS bowl.Ever again. It’s actually a lot of pressure for Boise State. Every non-BCS conference team is hoping Boise State can look respectable. Winning would be miraculous, but they have to keep the margin under three scores.
The most fitting bowl for the LSU Tigers is the Sugar Bowl. The Fighting Irish must look so sweet and tasty. We’re talking about an independent team with three victories posted over historically outclassed service academies and no victories against top ten opponents. As potent as the Brady Quinn led offense looks on the stat sheet, against tough defenses the future first round draft choice has looked more like a future ESPN commentator. Going back to last year’s unwarranted BCS nod against Ohio State, Charlie Weis and Brady Quinn just can’t figure out how to get the best of a good defense. This is an overrated match up because Notre Dame might be the least deserving of all the BCS teams. Charlie Weis must really be a genius because he’s got everybody fooled.
No matter how you slice it, Florida just doesn’t look like a championship contender. Even if they pull off the big upset and dethrone the anointed Buckeyes, the Gators still won’t have anybody convinced that they could get past Michigan. But it’s virtually impossible to see the upset coming. Comparisons have been made between this Florida club and the 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes who eventually upset Miami in a pretty intense Fiesta Bowl for the so-called national title. This Florida team isn’t that good.
The 2002 Buckeyes had a great defense that crushed everybody. They made every play. They were almost perfect. They had to be because Jim Tressel’s offense in 2002 was centered around the punt. If he went up by three in the second quarter he’d shut down the offense and start running out the clock. When you consider how awful that attack was (106th overall) it’s a miracle the defense overcame it’s own offense let alone the guys on the other team.
Monday, December 04, 2006
The BCS Trainwreck
Throughout the season Ohio State and Michigan distanced themselves from the rest of the field and positioned themselves as the top two teams in the country. Unfortunately the rest of the contenders all lost games along the way leaving a mess behind, especially if Michigan lost a close game to its rival. We all saw the game of the century unfold as a wild shoot out with number two Michigan falling just short as time expired. It was an instant classic.
That's when the BCS hype machine went into overdrive. A clear number two team had to be picked from the pile of one loss hopefuls and the anointed program was USC. Even though Michigan retained its ranking after the close loss, USC had could convince the voters and the computers it was worthy of a title shot if the Trojans could beat Notre Dame handily. Since Notre Dame was more than a little overrated USC prevailed and secured the second place spot. The BCS title game was a virtual lock with only the lowly UCLA Bruins holding a slim chance in tripping things up.
You see, USC was the only team besides Michigan that has shown enough firepower to challenge Ohio State. The Trojans gave one game away when they looked past Oregon State and struggled with a few games while key players nursed injuries but when the team was healthy they looked unstoppable. Until they faced UCLA. In that final Pac 10 game USC looked very average. UCLA didn't exactly look like a team for the ages, but the underdog did what it needed to do and USC was knocked from that coveted number two spot.
That opened up the debate over who should get a title shot. Michigan's loss was to an Ohio State team that seemed unbeatable all season long and the Wolverines proved to be up to the task. Florida won an allegedly tough conference and suffered only one loss to a team that was supposed to be pretty formidable at the time. In the end it was subjective criteria that won out. Florida got the nod because they hadn't played Ohio State.
After all the games had been played the talking began and the people esteemed to have their opinions factored into the BCS formula fabricated a national title game that made sense on paper. One conference champ against another. That's the way it has to be. Essentially Michigan and Florida were tied for second place so a handful of people who allegedly know what they're doing have broken the tie for us. Thanks. Of course those same people thought USC would beat UCLA and long before that thought Notre Dame would dominate Michigan.
From a marketing perspective it makes sense. Why would anybody pay to see Michigan and Ohio State play round two? Why would the BCS want to offend the other conferences? More importantly, could the Big 10 generate enough revenue on its own to make the BCS title game profitable?
And don't discount the fact that people were thinking about how much more money could be made if the collective fan base of Ohio State and Michigan were spread out over two BCS games instead of just one. We are talking about two universities that have been very large for a very long time and both have a long history of athletic success. That means money. Both have proven themselves capable of carrying a bowl entirely on their own. Ohio State pulls in 80,000 people for its spring intra squad scrimmage! Split the ticket and double the money, right?
Sadly, it's all about money and politics. The fans are subjected to an arbitrary process where talking heads and stuffed shirts dictate the post season. In every other level of college football the champion is determined through a tournament where teams aren't punished for one or two regular season setbacks. It's not a 12 game playoff, it's a six month crap shoot where teams hope that they can avoid injuries, bad calls and unlucky bounces long enough to secure that number one ranking. Is the BCS champion really that good, or just lucky?
Thanks to the BCS we're splitting hairs over Jim Tressel passing on voting in the final coach's poll. Instead of looking forward to seeing if Ohio State can live up to the hype by facing challengers who built momentum throughout the year, we have crowned Ohio State as the champion and allowed one lucky suitor the chance to prove us wrong. Sadly it's Boise State, unbeaten and untied, who will suffer the most. Even if they emerge from the post season the only unbeaten team, they'll still fall short of the national championship. Their fate has been decided on paper.
UCLA proved how faulty that logic is. Nobody gave them a chance. USC fans were booking trips to Glendale and Fox Sports had their BCS Championship graphics package edited and ready to air. On paper the Bruins didn't have a chance, not if USC showed up. The best sports stories are always about the monumental upsets nobody saw coming. It's so pervasive UCLA winning shouldn't surprise us and so important that we shouldn't be eager to settle things on paper.
Until we rectify the problem, we'll never have a real champion at the highest level of college football. Real champions win games not polls.
That's when the BCS hype machine went into overdrive. A clear number two team had to be picked from the pile of one loss hopefuls and the anointed program was USC. Even though Michigan retained its ranking after the close loss, USC had could convince the voters and the computers it was worthy of a title shot if the Trojans could beat Notre Dame handily. Since Notre Dame was more than a little overrated USC prevailed and secured the second place spot. The BCS title game was a virtual lock with only the lowly UCLA Bruins holding a slim chance in tripping things up.
You see, USC was the only team besides Michigan that has shown enough firepower to challenge Ohio State. The Trojans gave one game away when they looked past Oregon State and struggled with a few games while key players nursed injuries but when the team was healthy they looked unstoppable. Until they faced UCLA. In that final Pac 10 game USC looked very average. UCLA didn't exactly look like a team for the ages, but the underdog did what it needed to do and USC was knocked from that coveted number two spot.
That opened up the debate over who should get a title shot. Michigan's loss was to an Ohio State team that seemed unbeatable all season long and the Wolverines proved to be up to the task. Florida won an allegedly tough conference and suffered only one loss to a team that was supposed to be pretty formidable at the time. In the end it was subjective criteria that won out. Florida got the nod because they hadn't played Ohio State.
After all the games had been played the talking began and the people esteemed to have their opinions factored into the BCS formula fabricated a national title game that made sense on paper. One conference champ against another. That's the way it has to be. Essentially Michigan and Florida were tied for second place so a handful of people who allegedly know what they're doing have broken the tie for us. Thanks. Of course those same people thought USC would beat UCLA and long before that thought Notre Dame would dominate Michigan.
From a marketing perspective it makes sense. Why would anybody pay to see Michigan and Ohio State play round two? Why would the BCS want to offend the other conferences? More importantly, could the Big 10 generate enough revenue on its own to make the BCS title game profitable?
And don't discount the fact that people were thinking about how much more money could be made if the collective fan base of Ohio State and Michigan were spread out over two BCS games instead of just one. We are talking about two universities that have been very large for a very long time and both have a long history of athletic success. That means money. Both have proven themselves capable of carrying a bowl entirely on their own. Ohio State pulls in 80,000 people for its spring intra squad scrimmage! Split the ticket and double the money, right?
Sadly, it's all about money and politics. The fans are subjected to an arbitrary process where talking heads and stuffed shirts dictate the post season. In every other level of college football the champion is determined through a tournament where teams aren't punished for one or two regular season setbacks. It's not a 12 game playoff, it's a six month crap shoot where teams hope that they can avoid injuries, bad calls and unlucky bounces long enough to secure that number one ranking. Is the BCS champion really that good, or just lucky?
Thanks to the BCS we're splitting hairs over Jim Tressel passing on voting in the final coach's poll. Instead of looking forward to seeing if Ohio State can live up to the hype by facing challengers who built momentum throughout the year, we have crowned Ohio State as the champion and allowed one lucky suitor the chance to prove us wrong. Sadly it's Boise State, unbeaten and untied, who will suffer the most. Even if they emerge from the post season the only unbeaten team, they'll still fall short of the national championship. Their fate has been decided on paper.
UCLA proved how faulty that logic is. Nobody gave them a chance. USC fans were booking trips to Glendale and Fox Sports had their BCS Championship graphics package edited and ready to air. On paper the Bruins didn't have a chance, not if USC showed up. The best sports stories are always about the monumental upsets nobody saw coming. It's so pervasive UCLA winning shouldn't surprise us and so important that we shouldn't be eager to settle things on paper.
Until we rectify the problem, we'll never have a real champion at the highest level of college football. Real champions win games not polls.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Michael Vick destined for mediocrity
The Michael Vick experiment is over and the results are in: the NFL has no room for running quarterbacks. Don't get me wrong, Vick can be fun to watch but when he faces a strong defense with enough depth to keep him contained Vick makes mistakes. Big mistakes that result in key losses.
With Vick under center the Falcons have proven themselves to be a classic study in mediocrity and when you look at the big picture of Vick's career he falls far short of the performance standards set by great quarterbacks.
Vick apologists will claim that he plays a different game and that the key is designing the game to his strengths but that's what the Falcons have done and the result is .500 football. Vick can hurt a defense with his feet but his arm tends to let the team down in big games. He's got play makers down field and a solid ground game. The Falcons aren't perfect but a lot of that is thanks to Vick's inconsistent passing and bad attitude. They just don't have the leadership on the field in tight games.
Michael Vick is a remarkable athlete with a powerful arm and his struggles are similar to those experienced by John Elway who became an consistent field general later in his career when his body needed more help from his head. Vick's problem is that he has always been able to make things happen, but he gets stopped when he runs into a good team with smart coaches. Like Elway, Vick seems capable of pulling his team out of deep holes but unlike Elway, Vick's arm isn't as reliable down the stretch. That takes away an aspect of the game that is important in managing the clock. Both quarterbacks share a similar distinction in putting their teams in tough spots. Elway's accuracy and awareness made him a little better at overcoming his mistakes. Even so, Elway didn't win the big games until the very end of his career.
At this juncture, Mike Vick has more in common with Randall Cunningham than John Elway. Like Cunningham, Vick has remarkable athletic ability a knack for making spectacular plays. Both share the distinction of being characterized in enduring highlights that capture the essence of their ability. The fact that both of these players are immortalized for making brilliant plays in virtually meaningless games is telling. You have to make things happen when they matter most and so far Vick seems to come unglued when the pressure is on.
It's not about middle fingers. Vick was frustrated and upset and he vented frustration at people who were heckling him. He may not be a complete quarterback but he's a competitive athlete who hates to lose. He knows he let his team down and it makes him sick. He just has to figure out how to best apply his tremendous skill set. Those who are upset or offended at Vick flipping off the home crowd need to find better things to worry about.
The trick is for Vick to realize that his job isn't to take over the game with his athleticism. It's nice if he can use that ability to buy some time or convert the occasional first down, but a quarterback has to defer to the team. Vick needs to become a secondary play maker and use his ability to showcase the rest of the team. Running for a first down is great but scrambling in the pocket in the hopes of finding an open set of hands 25 yards down field is better. He also needs to develop more consistent touch on his passes and hit those receivers in stride so they can use their ability to make plays after the catch rather then exhaust that ability trying to bring the ball in.
Good coaches know how to frustrate Vick. They take away his options and dare him to take the game over on his own. If the defense is balanced the strategy keeps Vick and the Falcons out of the end zone. Vick will gain yards on the ground but the Falcons sputter in thered zone because they can't stretch the defense deep anymore. That's when the defensive backs can sit on routes and wait for Vick to throw a bad ball. Even though Vick has shown flashes of brilliance, the really good teams know how to rattle him.
The problem goes back to college. Virginia Tech is one of those programs that has to recruit creatively and Vick was attracted to Frank Beamer's team because he knew he would get a chance to start as a freshman and be permitted to make plays. Vick wanted to be a star and Beamer was willing to let him shine. Traditional football powers thought of using Vick as a running back or even grooming him to be a staring QB as a junior or senior. Beamer thought he could ride Michael Vick into championship contention but Vick has struggled with the concept of conforming to the NFL game. College often rewards raw talent; in the NFL quarterbacks make plays with their heads. By the way, Beamer hasn't exactly changed the way college football is played. Virginia Tech hasn't won many big games either. Hardly a coincidence.
The Atlanta Falcons are not in the Big East or ACC and the level of talent Vick is facing is much deeper than he ever witnessed in college. Defensive backs in the NFL are smart enough to know when the QB is still behind the line and athletic enough to bring the elusive Vick down when he does take to the open field. He still makes plays because he is a special athlete, but the pond he's swimming in is bigger, deeper and full of much larger fish. The proof is in the standings. When Vick finally realizes that he isn't bigger than the NFL the Falcons will be dangerous. Until then, fans should get comfortable with 8-8.
With Vick under center the Falcons have proven themselves to be a classic study in mediocrity and when you look at the big picture of Vick's career he falls far short of the performance standards set by great quarterbacks.
Vick apologists will claim that he plays a different game and that the key is designing the game to his strengths but that's what the Falcons have done and the result is .500 football. Vick can hurt a defense with his feet but his arm tends to let the team down in big games. He's got play makers down field and a solid ground game. The Falcons aren't perfect but a lot of that is thanks to Vick's inconsistent passing and bad attitude. They just don't have the leadership on the field in tight games.
Michael Vick is a remarkable athlete with a powerful arm and his struggles are similar to those experienced by John Elway who became an consistent field general later in his career when his body needed more help from his head. Vick's problem is that he has always been able to make things happen, but he gets stopped when he runs into a good team with smart coaches. Like Elway, Vick seems capable of pulling his team out of deep holes but unlike Elway, Vick's arm isn't as reliable down the stretch. That takes away an aspect of the game that is important in managing the clock. Both quarterbacks share a similar distinction in putting their teams in tough spots. Elway's accuracy and awareness made him a little better at overcoming his mistakes. Even so, Elway didn't win the big games until the very end of his career.
At this juncture, Mike Vick has more in common with Randall Cunningham than John Elway. Like Cunningham, Vick has remarkable athletic ability a knack for making spectacular plays. Both share the distinction of being characterized in enduring highlights that capture the essence of their ability. The fact that both of these players are immortalized for making brilliant plays in virtually meaningless games is telling. You have to make things happen when they matter most and so far Vick seems to come unglued when the pressure is on.
It's not about middle fingers. Vick was frustrated and upset and he vented frustration at people who were heckling him. He may not be a complete quarterback but he's a competitive athlete who hates to lose. He knows he let his team down and it makes him sick. He just has to figure out how to best apply his tremendous skill set. Those who are upset or offended at Vick flipping off the home crowd need to find better things to worry about.
The trick is for Vick to realize that his job isn't to take over the game with his athleticism. It's nice if he can use that ability to buy some time or convert the occasional first down, but a quarterback has to defer to the team. Vick needs to become a secondary play maker and use his ability to showcase the rest of the team. Running for a first down is great but scrambling in the pocket in the hopes of finding an open set of hands 25 yards down field is better. He also needs to develop more consistent touch on his passes and hit those receivers in stride so they can use their ability to make plays after the catch rather then exhaust that ability trying to bring the ball in.
Good coaches know how to frustrate Vick. They take away his options and dare him to take the game over on his own. If the defense is balanced the strategy keeps Vick and the Falcons out of the end zone. Vick will gain yards on the ground but the Falcons sputter in thered zone because they can't stretch the defense deep anymore. That's when the defensive backs can sit on routes and wait for Vick to throw a bad ball. Even though Vick has shown flashes of brilliance, the really good teams know how to rattle him.
The problem goes back to college. Virginia Tech is one of those programs that has to recruit creatively and Vick was attracted to Frank Beamer's team because he knew he would get a chance to start as a freshman and be permitted to make plays. Vick wanted to be a star and Beamer was willing to let him shine. Traditional football powers thought of using Vick as a running back or even grooming him to be a staring QB as a junior or senior. Beamer thought he could ride Michael Vick into championship contention but Vick has struggled with the concept of conforming to the NFL game. College often rewards raw talent; in the NFL quarterbacks make plays with their heads. By the way, Beamer hasn't exactly changed the way college football is played. Virginia Tech hasn't won many big games either. Hardly a coincidence.
The Atlanta Falcons are not in the Big East or ACC and the level of talent Vick is facing is much deeper than he ever witnessed in college. Defensive backs in the NFL are smart enough to know when the QB is still behind the line and athletic enough to bring the elusive Vick down when he does take to the open field. He still makes plays because he is a special athlete, but the pond he's swimming in is bigger, deeper and full of much larger fish. The proof is in the standings. When Vick finally realizes that he isn't bigger than the NFL the Falcons will be dangerous. Until then, fans should get comfortable with 8-8.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
B_S Championship
Let me start off by stating for the record that I am a lifelong Ohio State Buckeye fan. My Pee Wee football team was named the Rome Buckeyes, my high school fight song was the Buckeye Battle Cry. I won't claim that I bleed scarlet and gray but I do believe that year in and year out there is no finer college football than what you'll find in the Big 10.
That being said, I can turn in a scathing criticism of the program. I think Ohio State willfully arranges for its players to get paid by boosters. I have seen compelling evidence in the form of expensive clothes, nice cars and fists full of cold hard cash at campus bars. Some of the players might have well-to-do parents, but most come from modest means. I believe Jim Tressel facilitated Maurice Clarett's corruption and quickly feigned ignorance when the NCAA caught wind of it. I won't go saw far as to say Ohio State is dirty, but like every major athletic program in the country, Ohio State bends the rules.
I also think the 2002 National Championship was a fluke. The title game against Miami was the real deal and idiots like Dan Lebatard can whine about bad calls all day but the fact of the matter is that Ohio State won fair and square. If they got a phantom call in the end zone it made up for the pass interference Miami got away with on the previous Buckeye possession. The game was fine and dandy...The fluke was in the regular season. The offense Jim Tressel employed was an abomination and had no business wearing the Buckeye colors. It didn't get much better in the following year and we only saw glimpses of the potential this season's team had at the end of 2005. But when you have a complex method for determining a champion flukes will sometimes prevail. Human polls where traditional powers get credit for historical success are bad enough but the computers can't factor in the intangibles.
This year the computers had Rutgers ranked ahead of Ohio State. Whatever formula the programs run to determine the national champion had Rutgers at #2 behind Michigan and ahead of Ohio State. Granted, the big finale between the two arch rivals corrected the obvious error and Rutgers was takento school by Cincinnati but what if Ohio State and Michigan were in different conferences and never played. The computers aren't supposed to factor in margin of victory because the NCAA doesn't want to see teams running up the score for the sake of tricking the computers, but clearly the reason Rutgers crept past Ohio State is because of the compared margin of victory each team had against a common opponent. Early in the season Rutgers clobbered Illinois 33-0 but late in the season Ohio State struggled with the Illini and only scored 17 in what could only be described as a defensive struggle.
Everybody knows that Ohio State got caught looking ahead to and Illinois played it's best game in 10 years in the hopes of making history by upsetting the mighty Buckeyes. Humans understand the psychology of the game and know that the reason we play every game has a lot more to do with what happens inside the head than what goes on down on the gridiron. Computers don't have a program that factors that in. So as far as the computers were concerned Rutgers was better because they beat Illinois by a larger margin. Simple math. 2+2= Huh? A few of those computers might have gone offline when they tried to figure out how Rutgers could get hammered by a team Ohio State easily defeated. Hearts and heads are a part ofthe game you can't quantify. That's why statistical leaders should never be confused with winners. Right, Peyton Manning?
BCS advocates loved 2005 because Texas and USC ran up perfect records to get to the title game. They claim that Texas was the undisputed champ because they beat USC head to head and played a daunting schedule that included a tough Buckeye team in Columbus. That's a fine point except that even the most skeptical experts believed that Ohio State was playing better football than anybody else at the end of the year and that USC and Texas were fortunate to not have to play them. A great case could also be made for Penn State, whose hard-nosed defense could stonewall any offense and give the athletic play makers on offense a chance to win. Even though there were two unbeaten teams at the top of the polls, very little separated the teams on the field.
This year Ohio State is heralded as the best team in the land. Ohio State started the season at number one and never looked back. The offense clicked in all but two games and the defense was stout in every contest except the final showdown with second ranked Michigan. Even though Michigan lost, they played Ohio State so well and the rest of the field looks so mediocre that the BCS still has Michigan ranked number two. The humans who vote on the polls relegated Michigan to third place, but that can be attributed to faulty human logic that demands that all losers be punished. The computers aren't the only flies in the ointment.
Still, when you look at the contenders everybody except Boise State has at least one loss. So whoever gets the nod to play for the title will be less than perfect. USC is the likely beneficiary of this generosity if they can stay on track against Notre Dame and UCLA. Experts don't see them losing but those same experts though Oregon State was a pushover. The Beavers jumped out to a nice lead early and held on for the big upset. Even in their wins USC has looked a little suspect and would be a long shot to give Ohio State much trouble in the BCS title game.
Then you have Florida. People seem to think that the mighty SEC is the strongest conference in the NCAA and therefore feel that Florida deserves a title shot if they win out. The problem is when you really look closely at the SEC it's not that much stronger than the Big 10. Much of the talk about the SEC's depth has more to do with history than it does actual on field prowess in recent years. Alabama used to be a mighty foe, Tennessee was a warhorse fueled by an explosive offense and Steve Spurrier had Florida in the top 5 every year. In the past few years LSU has been a serious contender and Auburn enjoys periodic spurts of greatness but when you compare apples to apples the SEC isn't all its cracked up to be. Wisconsin and Penn State would do just fine in the SEC. It's a tough conference but not nearly as dominant as people hold it up to be.
This year the SEC doesn't look so hot. The teams don't seem to be beating each other up so much as they are shooting themselves in the foot. Florida is inconsistent and has backed into their victories. Arkansas is having a banner year but that might be thanks to the rest of the SEC being a little less than everybody expected. Neither of the SEC's contenders look ready for prime time.
The Big East is a joke. West Virginia is built around two players and Pat White owes a lot of his success to the fact that Steve Slaton draws so much attention. West Virginia was a sprained ankle away from a 2-10 record. Louisville actually managed to stay in the hunt after sustaining injuries to key players but their biggest win of the season revealed a lot of flaws. The battle for the Big East showed the entire country that West Virginia and Louisville were exactly what people thought they were: big fish in a very small pond. The game was sloppy and made it clear that the Big East wasn't going to fare well if one of its teams ran the table. Rutgers enjoyed its best run in almost 100 years but forgot that the season was 12 games long. They fell flat in Cincy and will probably lose big to the Mountaineers.
The other one loss option, provided they pull off the upset at USC, is Notre Dame. Considering the one loss they have was a firm spanking at the hands of Michigan, it would seem ridiculous to send the Fighting Irish to Glendale to battle Ohio State for a rematch of last year's Fiesta Bowl. Interestingly, Ohio State dominated Notre Dame gaining over 600 yards of offense in one of those lopsided contests where the score didn't tell you how humilating it was for Notre Dame. Ohio State is better this year while the Irish might be a little worse.
That leaves Michigan. The Wolverines already had their shot at Ohio State but at the end of the day when you try to select the team most worthy of a shot at the title you have to give them the nod. Their one loss was by 3 points to the top ranked team in the country. Michigan scored 39 points on nearly 500 yards of total offense. When they needed a touchdown in the closing minutes of the second half they marched down field with methodical precision and topped it off with a critical two point conversion. Give them a lucky bounce on the onside kick and the game might have gone into a marathon overtime shootout.
On so many levels it would be wrong to give Michigan another shot at Ohio State. It would be unfair to Ohio State, it would belittle the rest of the NCAA and it could bore fans who got their fill of The Game on November 18th. A rematch might prove to be anticlimactic. But so would a fabricated championship game with the also rans.
The only answer is a playoff system. If the top ranked teams entered into a playoff to determine the nation champion nobody could complain about the match up. People would complain, but they would have no basis. With more than 100 teams in Divsion 1-a, you would still have to use a ranking system to determine your seeding, so keeping the current BCS system in place would be necessary. At the end of the year after all the games are played you take the top 12 teams and pair them up.
Forget about conference champions or bowl preferences. Keep the program simple and give the top 12 teams a shot at advancing. Conference title or not, if you can't make the top 12 you just aren't that good. Teams get shafted a position or two every year but taking the top 12 gives the poll a margin of error. Maybe the #13 team would cry foul but the if that team really had a shot they would have cracked the top 10. The NCAA could impose a rule that suspended any whiners from play for five years.
Most playoff supporters call for a simple eight team bracket, but I think that expanding it is important because we get to honor everybody in the top ten plus two more. The real playoffs start with he top four teams in the BCS who would obviously get a first round bye. That essentially means that the other eight teams would be participating in what amounts to be a play in game. The winner moves on to the second round where they would face one of the top four teams.
Furthermore I propose only seeding the top four. Spread them out so the one and two would face each other in the title game. The rest of the teams could be paired according to regional interest and would be played at the home field of the team who had the better record or by poll position if the records are identical. This would cut travel costs down and give the hosting team an opportunity to generate some extra revenue. In fact, the second round could be played on the home fields of the teams who made the top four with the semifinal and championship games played at nuetral bowl-oriented sites.
The various nefarious bowl committees would be livid. That's because they make a ton of money with the status quo. There's a distinct possibility that the convoluted system also keeps some of the college football analysts employed because the general public thinks they need an expert to decipher the rankings. However, one only need look at the NFL playoffs to realize the potential a post season would bring.
That leaves the argument that these are students who can't afford to miss that much class, which is a crock because most of these so-called students don't take demanding course loads. Furthermore we are only talking about adding an extra couple of games. If the NCAA opted to embrace the playoff system the regular season could be trimmed to 11 games by eliminating one of the cream puffs and the duration of the season could be reduced by dropping the bye week some teams schedule. When Ohio State made its title run in 2002 they finished the season 14-0. Texas had to play an extra game in the form of a conference championship game in 2005. Teams are already playing extra games, so why not dispense with the pretense and welcome a new era in Division 1-a football where the national champion actually earns the title on the football field?
That being said, I can turn in a scathing criticism of the program. I think Ohio State willfully arranges for its players to get paid by boosters. I have seen compelling evidence in the form of expensive clothes, nice cars and fists full of cold hard cash at campus bars. Some of the players might have well-to-do parents, but most come from modest means. I believe Jim Tressel facilitated Maurice Clarett's corruption and quickly feigned ignorance when the NCAA caught wind of it. I won't go saw far as to say Ohio State is dirty, but like every major athletic program in the country, Ohio State bends the rules.
I also think the 2002 National Championship was a fluke. The title game against Miami was the real deal and idiots like Dan Lebatard can whine about bad calls all day but the fact of the matter is that Ohio State won fair and square. If they got a phantom call in the end zone it made up for the pass interference Miami got away with on the previous Buckeye possession. The game was fine and dandy...The fluke was in the regular season. The offense Jim Tressel employed was an abomination and had no business wearing the Buckeye colors. It didn't get much better in the following year and we only saw glimpses of the potential this season's team had at the end of 2005. But when you have a complex method for determining a champion flukes will sometimes prevail. Human polls where traditional powers get credit for historical success are bad enough but the computers can't factor in the intangibles.
This year the computers had Rutgers ranked ahead of Ohio State. Whatever formula the programs run to determine the national champion had Rutgers at #2 behind Michigan and ahead of Ohio State. Granted, the big finale between the two arch rivals corrected the obvious error and Rutgers was takento school by Cincinnati but what if Ohio State and Michigan were in different conferences and never played. The computers aren't supposed to factor in margin of victory because the NCAA doesn't want to see teams running up the score for the sake of tricking the computers, but clearly the reason Rutgers crept past Ohio State is because of the compared margin of victory each team had against a common opponent. Early in the season Rutgers clobbered Illinois 33-0 but late in the season Ohio State struggled with the Illini and only scored 17 in what could only be described as a defensive struggle.
Everybody knows that Ohio State got caught looking ahead to and Illinois played it's best game in 10 years in the hopes of making history by upsetting the mighty Buckeyes. Humans understand the psychology of the game and know that the reason we play every game has a lot more to do with what happens inside the head than what goes on down on the gridiron. Computers don't have a program that factors that in. So as far as the computers were concerned Rutgers was better because they beat Illinois by a larger margin. Simple math. 2+2= Huh? A few of those computers might have gone offline when they tried to figure out how Rutgers could get hammered by a team Ohio State easily defeated. Hearts and heads are a part ofthe game you can't quantify. That's why statistical leaders should never be confused with winners. Right, Peyton Manning?
BCS advocates loved 2005 because Texas and USC ran up perfect records to get to the title game. They claim that Texas was the undisputed champ because they beat USC head to head and played a daunting schedule that included a tough Buckeye team in Columbus. That's a fine point except that even the most skeptical experts believed that Ohio State was playing better football than anybody else at the end of the year and that USC and Texas were fortunate to not have to play them. A great case could also be made for Penn State, whose hard-nosed defense could stonewall any offense and give the athletic play makers on offense a chance to win. Even though there were two unbeaten teams at the top of the polls, very little separated the teams on the field.
This year Ohio State is heralded as the best team in the land. Ohio State started the season at number one and never looked back. The offense clicked in all but two games and the defense was stout in every contest except the final showdown with second ranked Michigan. Even though Michigan lost, they played Ohio State so well and the rest of the field looks so mediocre that the BCS still has Michigan ranked number two. The humans who vote on the polls relegated Michigan to third place, but that can be attributed to faulty human logic that demands that all losers be punished. The computers aren't the only flies in the ointment.
Still, when you look at the contenders everybody except Boise State has at least one loss. So whoever gets the nod to play for the title will be less than perfect. USC is the likely beneficiary of this generosity if they can stay on track against Notre Dame and UCLA. Experts don't see them losing but those same experts though Oregon State was a pushover. The Beavers jumped out to a nice lead early and held on for the big upset. Even in their wins USC has looked a little suspect and would be a long shot to give Ohio State much trouble in the BCS title game.
Then you have Florida. People seem to think that the mighty SEC is the strongest conference in the NCAA and therefore feel that Florida deserves a title shot if they win out. The problem is when you really look closely at the SEC it's not that much stronger than the Big 10. Much of the talk about the SEC's depth has more to do with history than it does actual on field prowess in recent years. Alabama used to be a mighty foe, Tennessee was a warhorse fueled by an explosive offense and Steve Spurrier had Florida in the top 5 every year. In the past few years LSU has been a serious contender and Auburn enjoys periodic spurts of greatness but when you compare apples to apples the SEC isn't all its cracked up to be. Wisconsin and Penn State would do just fine in the SEC. It's a tough conference but not nearly as dominant as people hold it up to be.
This year the SEC doesn't look so hot. The teams don't seem to be beating each other up so much as they are shooting themselves in the foot. Florida is inconsistent and has backed into their victories. Arkansas is having a banner year but that might be thanks to the rest of the SEC being a little less than everybody expected. Neither of the SEC's contenders look ready for prime time.
The Big East is a joke. West Virginia is built around two players and Pat White owes a lot of his success to the fact that Steve Slaton draws so much attention. West Virginia was a sprained ankle away from a 2-10 record. Louisville actually managed to stay in the hunt after sustaining injuries to key players but their biggest win of the season revealed a lot of flaws. The battle for the Big East showed the entire country that West Virginia and Louisville were exactly what people thought they were: big fish in a very small pond. The game was sloppy and made it clear that the Big East wasn't going to fare well if one of its teams ran the table. Rutgers enjoyed its best run in almost 100 years but forgot that the season was 12 games long. They fell flat in Cincy and will probably lose big to the Mountaineers.
The other one loss option, provided they pull off the upset at USC, is Notre Dame. Considering the one loss they have was a firm spanking at the hands of Michigan, it would seem ridiculous to send the Fighting Irish to Glendale to battle Ohio State for a rematch of last year's Fiesta Bowl. Interestingly, Ohio State dominated Notre Dame gaining over 600 yards of offense in one of those lopsided contests where the score didn't tell you how humilating it was for Notre Dame. Ohio State is better this year while the Irish might be a little worse.
That leaves Michigan. The Wolverines already had their shot at Ohio State but at the end of the day when you try to select the team most worthy of a shot at the title you have to give them the nod. Their one loss was by 3 points to the top ranked team in the country. Michigan scored 39 points on nearly 500 yards of total offense. When they needed a touchdown in the closing minutes of the second half they marched down field with methodical precision and topped it off with a critical two point conversion. Give them a lucky bounce on the onside kick and the game might have gone into a marathon overtime shootout.
On so many levels it would be wrong to give Michigan another shot at Ohio State. It would be unfair to Ohio State, it would belittle the rest of the NCAA and it could bore fans who got their fill of The Game on November 18th. A rematch might prove to be anticlimactic. But so would a fabricated championship game with the also rans.
The only answer is a playoff system. If the top ranked teams entered into a playoff to determine the nation champion nobody could complain about the match up. People would complain, but they would have no basis. With more than 100 teams in Divsion 1-a, you would still have to use a ranking system to determine your seeding, so keeping the current BCS system in place would be necessary. At the end of the year after all the games are played you take the top 12 teams and pair them up.
Forget about conference champions or bowl preferences. Keep the program simple and give the top 12 teams a shot at advancing. Conference title or not, if you can't make the top 12 you just aren't that good. Teams get shafted a position or two every year but taking the top 12 gives the poll a margin of error. Maybe the #13 team would cry foul but the if that team really had a shot they would have cracked the top 10. The NCAA could impose a rule that suspended any whiners from play for five years.
Most playoff supporters call for a simple eight team bracket, but I think that expanding it is important because we get to honor everybody in the top ten plus two more. The real playoffs start with he top four teams in the BCS who would obviously get a first round bye. That essentially means that the other eight teams would be participating in what amounts to be a play in game. The winner moves on to the second round where they would face one of the top four teams.
Furthermore I propose only seeding the top four. Spread them out so the one and two would face each other in the title game. The rest of the teams could be paired according to regional interest and would be played at the home field of the team who had the better record or by poll position if the records are identical. This would cut travel costs down and give the hosting team an opportunity to generate some extra revenue. In fact, the second round could be played on the home fields of the teams who made the top four with the semifinal and championship games played at nuetral bowl-oriented sites.
The various nefarious bowl committees would be livid. That's because they make a ton of money with the status quo. There's a distinct possibility that the convoluted system also keeps some of the college football analysts employed because the general public thinks they need an expert to decipher the rankings. However, one only need look at the NFL playoffs to realize the potential a post season would bring.
That leaves the argument that these are students who can't afford to miss that much class, which is a crock because most of these so-called students don't take demanding course loads. Furthermore we are only talking about adding an extra couple of games. If the NCAA opted to embrace the playoff system the regular season could be trimmed to 11 games by eliminating one of the cream puffs and the duration of the season could be reduced by dropping the bye week some teams schedule. When Ohio State made its title run in 2002 they finished the season 14-0. Texas had to play an extra game in the form of a conference championship game in 2005. Teams are already playing extra games, so why not dispense with the pretense and welcome a new era in Division 1-a football where the national champion actually earns the title on the football field?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
