I knew what I was going to write about this week for quite a while. I wasn't sure how to write it or how to articulate my feelings until this morning. The problem is that you can't touch on this subject without someone getting defensive, offended or just flat pissed off.
So, what the hell? I'll take a stab at making enemies!
Last night at dinner, I ran this thought by an opinionated, strong-minded female friend. I was surprised to see that my thoughts weren't exactly contrary to hers, but they needed some fine tuning. She brought up good points and I was able to mold my opinion a bit thanks to hers.
This morning, Geno Auriema was on The Dan Patrick Show. He gave me my final touch on this subject. Dan Patrick essentially asked him whether it cheapened the accomplishment to compare it to UCLA. Geno said Patrick was 100% correct. It's exactly what I've been thinking.
Let's be honest, the depth of quality men's basketball teams today is so much more than women's basketball that you can't compare the two sports. Boys grow up wanting to throw balls around, be rough and tumble, etc. I don't want to get into the ins and outs of that, because there are all kinds of theories we could throw around as to why, but the fact of the matter is, from the time he could, my son was throwing balls around our living room. My daughter didn't have any interest until we started playing catch in the front yard when she was two. This is the norm everywhere. So, when you have more males interested in playing sports than females, you have more opportunities for elite athletes to be driven to basketball in men's sports. That's just basic statistics.
That all being said, the UCLA basketball team under John Wooden dominated teams in its era the same way UConn is dominating teams today. So, can we possibly think that the lack of depth of college athletics in the '60's was beneficial to UCLA the same way it has been to UConn this decade? Who knows? And that's the problem.
I don't think we should compare the two accomplishments. What UConn has done is amazing. In fact, I don't think there's ever been anything like it in sports. Auriema has built a machine that we haven't witnessed. Tiger hasn't dominated like this. Federer isn't this dominant. We've never seen this, even from UCLA. UConn gets ANY athlete it wants. It is extremely rare for Auriema to lose a recruit he covets. Therefore, they have eight McDonald's All-Americans on the team. They're beating ranked teams by 30 points. The vast majority of their wins are by double-digits. It's ridiculous.
Auriema could coach anywhere. He doesn't need to prove anything. He's incredible and will go down as one of the best coaches in any sport in history. He's that good. So, when I heard him going off on the media in the press conference this weekend, I was baffled. Why? There's no reason to call out the media. The fact that they're in the room is good for your sport and your team. Why the anger? He explained it as poking fun at the men's basketball beat writers who had to be there to cover his team. My experience tells me there's a little truth in his rant. He truly feels disrespected and probably uses that every day to motivate himself.
There's no reason to compare men's and women's basketball. It does us no good. It's comparing apples and oranges. There's absolutely no reason to argue about whether the women can play and compete with the men. They don't play against each other. We don't argue about baseball teams against football teams.
So, let's leave it at this: UConn women's basketball just broke the record for wins in a row in college basketball. They didn't break a men's record, like the media is trying to cram down our throats. They broke a basketball record, and it's an amazing feat. The accomplishment can stand on its own. Let's not cheapen it with worthless discussion and bickering.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Are the "Big Money" Bowl Games Costing You Money?
You've probably read the articles, given that you're obviously interested in sports if you're reading this. Team after team is having trouble selling tickets to the bowl games this year. What you probably haven't read about, or even thought about, is how this might be affecting you.
Yesterday, the Sioux City (IA) Journal published a story that outlined the University of Iowa's ticket situation for the Insight Bowl. (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/sports/football/college/article_cf0d84ea-ce20-5362-8e0f-b23ceedf98c9.html) The Hawkeyes have sold just over half of their allotment to the bowl game. Iowa has already committed to all of those tickets. So, after all of the bowl money has been distributed by the Big 10, the Insight Bowl will get paid for the unused tickets. Not only that, but there are hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of travel expenses for the university and a lot of money goes into events and entertainment.
When it was all said and done at the 2009 Outback Bowl, the Hawkeyes lost $150,000.00 in unsold tickets. They also spent over $300,000.00 to get their band to the game. This year, the cost of the remaining tickets (averaging at a minimum of $65.00 per ticket) would be about $325,000.00 if they didn't sell any more tickets. Given the situation at Iowa right now, I wouldn't anticipate a huge surge in ticket sales, and thus, you can estimate that Iowa will take a bath of a minimum of $200,000.00 in unused tickets.
Luckily for Iowa, it seems that the Big 10 revenue sharing takes all of this into account. They will take home a little over $2 million when all is said and done. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-12-06-bowl-payouts_x.htm) Using last year's expenses (http://thegazette.com/2010/05/05/iowa-cuts-bowl-ticket-losses-by-nearly-114000/) and this year's expected ticket losses, Iowa would make a little over $500,000.00 for its bowl game this year. What a windfall of revenue, right?
The story for Virginia Tech is not as good. In the 2009 Orange Bowl, the Hokies suffered a loss of over $1 million in unused ticket sales. The result? They lost money going to a BCS bowl. Let me repeat that just in case you didn't hear or believe me. Virginia Tech LOST money going to the 2009 Orange Bowl. This year, they're in danger of repeating that loss. So, it seems that the system is set up to make the bowls money, but it really doesn't take the schools' best interests into account, right?
The Orange Bowl would argue. The bowl likes to use past success as its measuring stick for schools making money in these ventures. (http://hamptonroads.com/2010/12/tech-may-lose-money-again-orange-bowl) Unfortunately, things have changed, which is one of the main reasons it is time for a change. In the past, there were half the number of bowls. The bowls matched-up traditional powers who travel well and teams who weren't necessarily used to going to bowl games who obviously could sell tickets to success-starved fans. Now, with 70 teams going to a bowl every year, there is major travel fatigue.
This year, for example, Virginia Tech is matched up with Stanford in the Orange Bowl. They're going to the bowl for the second time in three years and not playing a traditional power, which would elevate sales. Another example of this comes from the Fiesta Bowl, where Oklahoma is having trouble selling its ticket allotment and Connecticut has only sold a little over 4,000 of its 17,500 tickets to the game. Connecticut is almost guaranteed to take a loss on the game.
Then there's Washington. The Huskies expect to break even on their bowl game. Therefore, they will make the same amount of money playing in the Holiday Bowl as they did the last few years not playing in a bowl at all. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskies/2013689596_uwfb16.html)
So, what does this all mean? It means a couple of things. First of all, some of these programs are self funded, so in theory, this wouldn't effect the overall school budgets. Of course, Cal Berkley's athletic program is supposed to be self funded, and that's not the case there. (http://alumni.berkeley.edu/news/california-magazine/spring-2010-searchlight-gray-areas/price-excellence) Let's assume, though, that the self funded universities don't take from the overall budget. What they do take from is student athletic fees, which have been rising quickly all across the country. So, in part, the students are subsidizing the rising costs of athletics. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-09-21-student-fees-boost-college-sports_N.htm)
In the other cases, when the schools are funding or partially funding the athletic departments, the tax payers and current students can be on the hook for the costs. The rising athletic budgets and costs are paid for with higher fees, higher educational costs and bigger state budget deficits. So, since these schools are publicly funded, it should be required that they do what is most fiscally responsible in order to save tax payers money, right?
In "Death to the BCS", it is estimated that a playoff system would generate $600 million more in revenue than the current bowl system. That money would go directly into the schools, athletic departments and cities that those schools are in. Tax revenue would grow. Athletic budgets would be helped and even if conferences split the ticket and television revenue evenly, schools would be talking in the tens of millions of dollars in take home revenue.
Yet, we're supposed to believe that the current system is the best, most responsible system. The bowls are making money. The cities that the bowls are in get extra revenue. The conference commissioners, athletic directors and coaches are getting bonuses. They are all making money.
Is it at your expense?
Yesterday, the Sioux City (IA) Journal published a story that outlined the University of Iowa's ticket situation for the Insight Bowl. (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/sports/football/college/article_cf0d84ea-ce20-5362-8e0f-b23ceedf98c9.html) The Hawkeyes have sold just over half of their allotment to the bowl game. Iowa has already committed to all of those tickets. So, after all of the bowl money has been distributed by the Big 10, the Insight Bowl will get paid for the unused tickets. Not only that, but there are hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of travel expenses for the university and a lot of money goes into events and entertainment.
When it was all said and done at the 2009 Outback Bowl, the Hawkeyes lost $150,000.00 in unsold tickets. They also spent over $300,000.00 to get their band to the game. This year, the cost of the remaining tickets (averaging at a minimum of $65.00 per ticket) would be about $325,000.00 if they didn't sell any more tickets. Given the situation at Iowa right now, I wouldn't anticipate a huge surge in ticket sales, and thus, you can estimate that Iowa will take a bath of a minimum of $200,000.00 in unused tickets.
Luckily for Iowa, it seems that the Big 10 revenue sharing takes all of this into account. They will take home a little over $2 million when all is said and done. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-12-06-bowl-payouts_x.htm) Using last year's expenses (http://thegazette.com/2010/05/05/iowa-cuts-bowl-ticket-losses-by-nearly-114000/) and this year's expected ticket losses, Iowa would make a little over $500,000.00 for its bowl game this year. What a windfall of revenue, right?
The story for Virginia Tech is not as good. In the 2009 Orange Bowl, the Hokies suffered a loss of over $1 million in unused ticket sales. The result? They lost money going to a BCS bowl. Let me repeat that just in case you didn't hear or believe me. Virginia Tech LOST money going to the 2009 Orange Bowl. This year, they're in danger of repeating that loss. So, it seems that the system is set up to make the bowls money, but it really doesn't take the schools' best interests into account, right?
The Orange Bowl would argue. The bowl likes to use past success as its measuring stick for schools making money in these ventures. (http://hamptonroads.com/2010/12/tech-may-lose-money-again-orange-bowl) Unfortunately, things have changed, which is one of the main reasons it is time for a change. In the past, there were half the number of bowls. The bowls matched-up traditional powers who travel well and teams who weren't necessarily used to going to bowl games who obviously could sell tickets to success-starved fans. Now, with 70 teams going to a bowl every year, there is major travel fatigue.
This year, for example, Virginia Tech is matched up with Stanford in the Orange Bowl. They're going to the bowl for the second time in three years and not playing a traditional power, which would elevate sales. Another example of this comes from the Fiesta Bowl, where Oklahoma is having trouble selling its ticket allotment and Connecticut has only sold a little over 4,000 of its 17,500 tickets to the game. Connecticut is almost guaranteed to take a loss on the game.
Then there's Washington. The Huskies expect to break even on their bowl game. Therefore, they will make the same amount of money playing in the Holiday Bowl as they did the last few years not playing in a bowl at all. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskies/2013689596_uwfb16.html)
So, what does this all mean? It means a couple of things. First of all, some of these programs are self funded, so in theory, this wouldn't effect the overall school budgets. Of course, Cal Berkley's athletic program is supposed to be self funded, and that's not the case there. (http://alumni.berkeley.edu/news/california-magazine/spring-2010-searchlight-gray-areas/price-excellence) Let's assume, though, that the self funded universities don't take from the overall budget. What they do take from is student athletic fees, which have been rising quickly all across the country. So, in part, the students are subsidizing the rising costs of athletics. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-09-21-student-fees-boost-college-sports_N.htm)
In the other cases, when the schools are funding or partially funding the athletic departments, the tax payers and current students can be on the hook for the costs. The rising athletic budgets and costs are paid for with higher fees, higher educational costs and bigger state budget deficits. So, since these schools are publicly funded, it should be required that they do what is most fiscally responsible in order to save tax payers money, right?
In "Death to the BCS", it is estimated that a playoff system would generate $600 million more in revenue than the current bowl system. That money would go directly into the schools, athletic departments and cities that those schools are in. Tax revenue would grow. Athletic budgets would be helped and even if conferences split the ticket and television revenue evenly, schools would be talking in the tens of millions of dollars in take home revenue.
Yet, we're supposed to believe that the current system is the best, most responsible system. The bowls are making money. The cities that the bowls are in get extra revenue. The conference commissioners, athletic directors and coaches are getting bonuses. They are all making money.
Is it at your expense?
Friday, December 10, 2010
The Beginning of the End for the BCS
If you were paying attention yesterday, you were listening to the beginning of the end of the BCS. Actually, that started right before Thanksgiving, and I'll explain. Greed ruins everything, and thankfully, it's about to ruin the BCS.
In the days leading up to Thanksgiving, Gordon Gee, president at The Ohio State University, explained to anyone who would listen why Boise State shouldn't have a chance at a national championship. They don't play the schedule that Ohio State does (Ohio State's non conference: Marshall, Miami (FL), Ohio and Eastern Michigan, one of which ended with a winning record). They don't have to endure the rigors of a Big 10 or SEC schedule (You'll notice that the Big 10, with Nebraska, is joining hands with the SEC in this fight). Teams like Boise State could schedule big-time programs if they wanted to, but don't (nevermind them playing Virginia Tech and Oregon State this season).
It's the company line for the BCS Conference commissioners. They're starting to feel the pressure of the majority. You see, any poll of fans will show you that the people who pay the bills prefer a playoff to decide a national champion. Up until now, though, the conference commissioners, the NCAA and the BCS all had control of the media. They had their company line and that is the only argument that was given any credence.
This year, though, Yahoo's Dan Wetzel released a book that shook the BCS world. In "Death to the BCS", Wetzel thoroughly outlines the lies that the BCS "cartel" is perpetrating and also gives a well researched, viable solution to an NCAA playoff system. Wetzel's book has gotten a ton of press, and if you're a college football fan, you need to read it. The bottom line is that the wrong people get paid in the current system. The schools don't make good money. A playoff would generate 500% more revenue than the bowl system. It's time for a change.
The BCS Conference commissioners know this. They know it's time for a change. They know their backs are against the wall. They are starting to fight. The reason? The majority of their job is to protect their conferences' football programs and the revenue and prestige of those programs. A playoff system will allow the Boise State's and TCU's of the world to infiltrate that prestige. If that prestige goes away, so does their cushy job with the inflated paycheck. They're fighting. I would too.
Yesterday, reports came out with quotes from a press conference at a conference commissioners' meeting. They were telling and they were harsh. They were also a sign that the end is near. The conference commissioners are starting to fight, and with that fight comes contradictions to everything they've been saying about equality. The truth is they don't want equality. They want what they have.
Jim Delany of the Big 10 was the harshest. "The problem is your big stage takes away opportunities for my teams, to play on the stage they created in 1902."
What? Seriously? This has officially become AT&T vs. the world. AT&T created the stage and became a monopoly. They didn't want to give any more, and thus, the government had to step in and break AT&T up.
Then you have this gem that Beebe gave to FanHouse.com. "Don't push it past this because if you push it past this, the Big 12's position is we'll just go back to the old (bowl) system. You're getting the ability to get to places you've never gotten before. We've Jerry-rigged the free market system to the benefit of those institutions and a lot are institutions that don't even fill their stadiums."
He actually referred to the bowl system and the BCS as a "free market system". Maybe Mr. Beebe should be more involved in keeping his conference relevant instead of pumping up a system that may or may not include him in 5-10 years at the current rate.
It's quite simple, really. A playoff system makes sense. Every other sport uses one. Every other division of college football uses one. Every single BCS argument has been debunked. The teams in the smaller conferences have become more competitive every year with scholarship limitations and more exposure for the sport. The time has come. It's time for a playoff.
Mike Leach, former Texas Tech head coach, said it best on his radio show a couple of weeks ago. "Division-IAA hates their playoff so much that they expanded from 16 to 20 teams this year."
Keep it up conference commissioners, university presidents and BCS and bowl cohorts. Playoff supporters everywhere appreciate you continually sticking your collective feet in your mouths and increasing the chances that we will see a playoff soon!
In the days leading up to Thanksgiving, Gordon Gee, president at The Ohio State University, explained to anyone who would listen why Boise State shouldn't have a chance at a national championship. They don't play the schedule that Ohio State does (Ohio State's non conference: Marshall, Miami (FL), Ohio and Eastern Michigan, one of which ended with a winning record). They don't have to endure the rigors of a Big 10 or SEC schedule (You'll notice that the Big 10, with Nebraska, is joining hands with the SEC in this fight). Teams like Boise State could schedule big-time programs if they wanted to, but don't (nevermind them playing Virginia Tech and Oregon State this season).
It's the company line for the BCS Conference commissioners. They're starting to feel the pressure of the majority. You see, any poll of fans will show you that the people who pay the bills prefer a playoff to decide a national champion. Up until now, though, the conference commissioners, the NCAA and the BCS all had control of the media. They had their company line and that is the only argument that was given any credence.
This year, though, Yahoo's Dan Wetzel released a book that shook the BCS world. In "Death to the BCS", Wetzel thoroughly outlines the lies that the BCS "cartel" is perpetrating and also gives a well researched, viable solution to an NCAA playoff system. Wetzel's book has gotten a ton of press, and if you're a college football fan, you need to read it. The bottom line is that the wrong people get paid in the current system. The schools don't make good money. A playoff would generate 500% more revenue than the bowl system. It's time for a change.
The BCS Conference commissioners know this. They know it's time for a change. They know their backs are against the wall. They are starting to fight. The reason? The majority of their job is to protect their conferences' football programs and the revenue and prestige of those programs. A playoff system will allow the Boise State's and TCU's of the world to infiltrate that prestige. If that prestige goes away, so does their cushy job with the inflated paycheck. They're fighting. I would too.
Yesterday, reports came out with quotes from a press conference at a conference commissioners' meeting. They were telling and they were harsh. They were also a sign that the end is near. The conference commissioners are starting to fight, and with that fight comes contradictions to everything they've been saying about equality. The truth is they don't want equality. They want what they have.
Jim Delany of the Big 10 was the harshest. "The problem is your big stage takes away opportunities for my teams, to play on the stage they created in 1902."
What? Seriously? This has officially become AT&T vs. the world. AT&T created the stage and became a monopoly. They didn't want to give any more, and thus, the government had to step in and break AT&T up.
Then you have this gem that Beebe gave to FanHouse.com. "Don't push it past this because if you push it past this, the Big 12's position is we'll just go back to the old (bowl) system. You're getting the ability to get to places you've never gotten before. We've Jerry-rigged the free market system to the benefit of those institutions and a lot are institutions that don't even fill their stadiums."
He actually referred to the bowl system and the BCS as a "free market system". Maybe Mr. Beebe should be more involved in keeping his conference relevant instead of pumping up a system that may or may not include him in 5-10 years at the current rate.
It's quite simple, really. A playoff system makes sense. Every other sport uses one. Every other division of college football uses one. Every single BCS argument has been debunked. The teams in the smaller conferences have become more competitive every year with scholarship limitations and more exposure for the sport. The time has come. It's time for a playoff.
Mike Leach, former Texas Tech head coach, said it best on his radio show a couple of weeks ago. "Division-IAA hates their playoff so much that they expanded from 16 to 20 teams this year."
Keep it up conference commissioners, university presidents and BCS and bowl cohorts. Playoff supporters everywhere appreciate you continually sticking your collective feet in your mouths and increasing the chances that we will see a playoff soon!
Friday, December 3, 2010
Oklahoma vs. Nebraska--Case in Point of What is Wrong With College Football Today
Tomorrow is the official end of the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. As an Oklahoma alum, there's a bit of nostalgia to the ending. The truth is, though, this rivalry ended years ago.
In 1994, the Big 12 was born. It was a marriage between the old Big 8 and the old Southwest Conference. Like any marriage, though, it certainly had its challenges. Unfortunately, like a lot of marriages these days, it was doomed from the start.
The Big 8 teams had the majority going in. The conference was to be headquartered in Kansas City, the championships would be held in Kansas City and St. Louis and the Big 8 records would be intact. It was essentially the Big 8+4. That would quickly change, though.
Before the conference even commenced competition, the Big 12 offices had moved to Texas. The Texas schools and AD's began flexing their muscles and Big 8 traditions were the victim. The most visible tradition to go by the wayside was the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. Tom Osborne was against it from the start. He knew the end game and it wasn't good for Nebraska. He was right.
So, in 1996, the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry died. The two powerhouses no longer played everyday. Oklahoma was down at the time, so the impact was large on a national scale. If you weren't an Oklahoma or Nebraska fan at the time, it didn't mean that much. The impact it had on the conference, though, was huge.
I blame the original setup of the divisions for the demise of the Big 12. You can't separate Oklahoma and Nebraska and expect everyone to be happy with it. Nebraska wasn't. Eventually, the money started flowing south. Nebraska, from the start, felt like an afterthought in the Big 12, and rightfully so. They were. It was all about the money, and the money was in Texas. Texas, and most of all The University of Texas, was in control. It still is.
As an Oklahoma alum, I understand some of the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. I am enough of a student of the history of college football to understand the impact the rivalry had on the rise of college football in this country. I'm not old enough to truly remember the great matchups of the 70's and early 80's, but I hear about those legendary games on a regular basis. It is a
As Oklahoma and Nebraska meet for one final time (noting that they are working on a home and home series in 2021 and 2022), it's important for other conferences to keep the Big 12 in mind as inevitable expansion takes place. If you want a functional, happy conference, don't let a few dollars get in the way. Figure out a way to make everyone happy. One or two teams can't get fat while others starve. It will fall apart in the long run.
If you're not 40 years old, you don't have a great memory of the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. After 1988, in was on its way downhill. Tomorrow night will be a great night for the networks to reminisce. One last game to end the regular season for a conference championship. The only thing that would make it better would be a trip to a national championship in the Orange Bowl at stake. Since it's not, though, take it in and enjoy the end of a classic rivalry and the beginning of the end of college football as we know it.
In 1994, the Big 12 was born. It was a marriage between the old Big 8 and the old Southwest Conference. Like any marriage, though, it certainly had its challenges. Unfortunately, like a lot of marriages these days, it was doomed from the start.
The Big 8 teams had the majority going in. The conference was to be headquartered in Kansas City, the championships would be held in Kansas City and St. Louis and the Big 8 records would be intact. It was essentially the Big 8+4. That would quickly change, though.
Before the conference even commenced competition, the Big 12 offices had moved to Texas. The Texas schools and AD's began flexing their muscles and Big 8 traditions were the victim. The most visible tradition to go by the wayside was the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. Tom Osborne was against it from the start. He knew the end game and it wasn't good for Nebraska. He was right.
So, in 1996, the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry died. The two powerhouses no longer played everyday. Oklahoma was down at the time, so the impact was large on a national scale. If you weren't an Oklahoma or Nebraska fan at the time, it didn't mean that much. The impact it had on the conference, though, was huge.
I blame the original setup of the divisions for the demise of the Big 12. You can't separate Oklahoma and Nebraska and expect everyone to be happy with it. Nebraska wasn't. Eventually, the money started flowing south. Nebraska, from the start, felt like an afterthought in the Big 12, and rightfully so. They were. It was all about the money, and the money was in Texas. Texas, and most of all The University of Texas, was in control. It still is.
As an Oklahoma alum, I understand some of the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. I am enough of a student of the history of college football to understand the impact the rivalry had on the rise of college football in this country. I'm not old enough to truly remember the great matchups of the 70's and early 80's, but I hear about those legendary games on a regular basis. It is a
As Oklahoma and Nebraska meet for one final time (noting that they are working on a home and home series in 2021 and 2022), it's important for other conferences to keep the Big 12 in mind as inevitable expansion takes place. If you want a functional, happy conference, don't let a few dollars get in the way. Figure out a way to make everyone happy. One or two teams can't get fat while others starve. It will fall apart in the long run.
If you're not 40 years old, you don't have a great memory of the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. After 1988, in was on its way downhill. Tomorrow night will be a great night for the networks to reminisce. One last game to end the regular season for a conference championship. The only thing that would make it better would be a trip to a national championship in the Orange Bowl at stake. Since it's not, though, take it in and enjoy the end of a classic rivalry and the beginning of the end of college football as we know it.
The Greatest Cubs Fan of Them All
I turned on the radio this morning to learn that Ron Santo died. It was like someone kicked me in the gut. Don't get me wrong, I've never met Ron Santo. I don't know him and he doesn't know me. That being said, as a die-hard Cubs fan (officially, since 1980 according to my official "Die Hard Cubs Fan Club" card), Ron Santo felt like a friend.
Santo will be remembered for his passionate, and sometimes (okay most of the time) over-the-top, emotion during the Cubs radio broadcasts. Pat Hughes and Santo produced great broadcasts for Cubs fans, though those not affiliated probably found them unbearable at times. Santo wasn't going to win any awards, but as a Cubs fan, it was nice to know you weren't the only one going through the emotional roller coaster that is the life of a Cubs fan.
Santo was passionate about many things in life. You could tell, based on the documentaries, etc., that he was very passionate about his family. He was extremely active in raising money for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, a disease he fought himself. As a Cubs fan, though, he was focused on two things. He wanted a World Series on the north side of Chicago. He lived for that. I'm very sad that he never got to see that. He also waited patiently (or impatiently) by the phone every year when the veterans' committee was announcing their Hall of Fame inductees. He never got that call.
I don't know if Santo will ever go into the Hall of Fame. If you look at it objectively, he's borderline. He was never on a winner (in fact, he was an integral part of the '69 Cubs who did anything BUT win) and his stats are certainly on par with some that are in, but not as good as some that aren't. So, we'll have to wait and see, but it certainly won't mean as much without his reaction and emotion.
As for the Cubs, they gave him a couple of runs this past decade. 2003 was memorable. Unfortunately, it will be remembered for the wrong thing, but that was a magical season. After that, it was as if the organization figured out that it could win, and started to spend tons of money. That increased expectations, so it wasn't as easy to enjoy the next two playoff runs, and subsequent disasters. It's sad, though, that the 2010 season was his last. Maybe it was fitting. It was certainly a typical Cubs disaster.
Santo knew how to relate to Cubs fans because, when it came down to it, he was a Cubs fan himself. He didn't try to be a broadcaster, he just added to the broadcast. He was a former Cubs player who, probably more than anyone else in the history of the game, lived and died with his former team. It was refreshing and genuine, and for that, I will always have a spot in my heart for Ron Santo.
In the end, I picture Ron Santo, Harry Caray and Jack Brickhouse sitting together in the afterlife. Harry is complaining about the upcoming season, Ronnie is sky high about the youngsters that are about to bring a championship to the north side and Jack is sitting back enjoying it all.
Rest in Peace, Ron Santo. The radio airwaves will not be the same without you.
Santo will be remembered for his passionate, and sometimes (okay most of the time) over-the-top, emotion during the Cubs radio broadcasts. Pat Hughes and Santo produced great broadcasts for Cubs fans, though those not affiliated probably found them unbearable at times. Santo wasn't going to win any awards, but as a Cubs fan, it was nice to know you weren't the only one going through the emotional roller coaster that is the life of a Cubs fan.
Santo was passionate about many things in life. You could tell, based on the documentaries, etc., that he was very passionate about his family. He was extremely active in raising money for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, a disease he fought himself. As a Cubs fan, though, he was focused on two things. He wanted a World Series on the north side of Chicago. He lived for that. I'm very sad that he never got to see that. He also waited patiently (or impatiently) by the phone every year when the veterans' committee was announcing their Hall of Fame inductees. He never got that call.
I don't know if Santo will ever go into the Hall of Fame. If you look at it objectively, he's borderline. He was never on a winner (in fact, he was an integral part of the '69 Cubs who did anything BUT win) and his stats are certainly on par with some that are in, but not as good as some that aren't. So, we'll have to wait and see, but it certainly won't mean as much without his reaction and emotion.
As for the Cubs, they gave him a couple of runs this past decade. 2003 was memorable. Unfortunately, it will be remembered for the wrong thing, but that was a magical season. After that, it was as if the organization figured out that it could win, and started to spend tons of money. That increased expectations, so it wasn't as easy to enjoy the next two playoff runs, and subsequent disasters. It's sad, though, that the 2010 season was his last. Maybe it was fitting. It was certainly a typical Cubs disaster.
Santo knew how to relate to Cubs fans because, when it came down to it, he was a Cubs fan himself. He didn't try to be a broadcaster, he just added to the broadcast. He was a former Cubs player who, probably more than anyone else in the history of the game, lived and died with his former team. It was refreshing and genuine, and for that, I will always have a spot in my heart for Ron Santo.
In the end, I picture Ron Santo, Harry Caray and Jack Brickhouse sitting together in the afterlife. Harry is complaining about the upcoming season, Ronnie is sky high about the youngsters that are about to bring a championship to the north side and Jack is sitting back enjoying it all.
Rest in Peace, Ron Santo. The radio airwaves will not be the same without you.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Is It Time to Abolish the NCAA?
Most of you have probably never heard of Mike Balogun. Balogun is a linebacker who attended the University of Oklahoma in 2008 and 2009 after transferring from a junior college. He played sparingly in 2008, but after the announcers at the BCS Championship Game mentioned that he had played semi-pro football, he came under investigation. The minor rule he broke, you ask? He supposedly played in a semi-pro football game, without earning any money, after the age of 21.
Now, by all accounts, the only evidence the NCAA ever brought to the table was a box score on a website not affiliated with the team and some affidavits, which were never released to the public, that were pieced together to assume that he played at the age of 22. Balogun maintains to this day that he never played in that game. The NCAA ruled, however, that he could not play his senior year in college.
Most of you probably do know who Dez Bryant is. Bryant was a wide receiver at Oklahoma State and is now with the Dallas Cowboys. Bryant had dinner with Deion Sanders last summer and, when questioned by the NCAA about that dinner, Bryant got intimidated and told them it didn't happen. The NCAA ruled that he was ineligible for the 2009 season because he lied to them. He didn't take money. He didn't receive anything other than a dinner at Sanders' house. He lied to the NCAA, so he got punished.
The stories go on and on. Jeremy Bloom of Colorado was in limbo for most of a year waiting on a ruling on his eligibility based on being an Olympic athlete. They ruled against him. The Reggie Bush debacle went on for five years before the NCAA ruled him ineligible for receiving extra benefits.
Fast forward to this week. Tuesday, without any press or outside knowledge, Auburn ruled Cameron Newton ineligible because his father solicited money from Mississippi State during his recruitment. This is an NCAA violation in and of itself. Auburn immediately appealed to the NCAA for Newton's reinstatement, again without releasing any of this information to the press. No one knew about any of this.
Yesterday, with much pomp and circumstance, the NCAA ruled that Newton was eligible to play. In the ruling, they stated that since they couldn't prove that Newton had knowledge of his father's dealings, he was clear of any charges. Personally, I did a triple-take. What? Are you kidding me?
The more time there is to think about this, the more questions it raises. First of all, it took the NCAA two days to rule on this? The three situations I mentioned above all took months, even years. They didn't involve hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, only the Bush and Bloom situations involved money at all. Two days? It's all about the kids, right NCAA? It's all about the student athletes. It's all about amateurism. Unless that "amateur" student athlete is the best player on the #1 team in the country preparing to play for his conference championship on his way to the BCS Championship Game. In the immortal words of Mark Mangino, "That's right, BCS. Dollar signs."
Then you get to the really sticky part of this, which is that if the athlete can't be tied to the dealings, the athlete is not culpable. So, as long as my son doesn't know that I'm selling his services to the highest bidder, I can make some cash. I think I'll start today! My one year old son is available to the school who will pay me the most. This is a horrible precedent. We will now have middle men involved in every dealing instead of about 75 percent of them.
And while we're at it, what say should the NCAA have in college football, anyway? It doesn't recognize a champion. It doesn't run any of the bowl games. It's not involved in the conferences or the conference television contracts. The only thing it is involved in is police work. I don't think the organization that won't sponsor a championship should have any say over who is involved in such a championship.
The bottom line about this entire situation is that the NCAA is out of control. They rule with an iron fist, when it won't cost them money. They are hell bent on maintaining amateurism while raking in millions and millions of dollars. It is a complete debacle. It is costing athletes money. It's costing athletes the invaluable experience that they like to sell. It's costing schools millions of dollars for compliance departments that constantly chase their tails.
The NCAA needs to either spend money on a comprehensive plan including more investigators, better and clearer rules and quicker rulings or it needs to get out of the way. But, of course, the NCAA would tell us they don't have the money. It's all about the money.
Now, by all accounts, the only evidence the NCAA ever brought to the table was a box score on a website not affiliated with the team and some affidavits, which were never released to the public, that were pieced together to assume that he played at the age of 22. Balogun maintains to this day that he never played in that game. The NCAA ruled, however, that he could not play his senior year in college.
Most of you probably do know who Dez Bryant is. Bryant was a wide receiver at Oklahoma State and is now with the Dallas Cowboys. Bryant had dinner with Deion Sanders last summer and, when questioned by the NCAA about that dinner, Bryant got intimidated and told them it didn't happen. The NCAA ruled that he was ineligible for the 2009 season because he lied to them. He didn't take money. He didn't receive anything other than a dinner at Sanders' house. He lied to the NCAA, so he got punished.
The stories go on and on. Jeremy Bloom of Colorado was in limbo for most of a year waiting on a ruling on his eligibility based on being an Olympic athlete. They ruled against him. The Reggie Bush debacle went on for five years before the NCAA ruled him ineligible for receiving extra benefits.
Fast forward to this week. Tuesday, without any press or outside knowledge, Auburn ruled Cameron Newton ineligible because his father solicited money from Mississippi State during his recruitment. This is an NCAA violation in and of itself. Auburn immediately appealed to the NCAA for Newton's reinstatement, again without releasing any of this information to the press. No one knew about any of this.
Yesterday, with much pomp and circumstance, the NCAA ruled that Newton was eligible to play. In the ruling, they stated that since they couldn't prove that Newton had knowledge of his father's dealings, he was clear of any charges. Personally, I did a triple-take. What? Are you kidding me?
The more time there is to think about this, the more questions it raises. First of all, it took the NCAA two days to rule on this? The three situations I mentioned above all took months, even years. They didn't involve hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, only the Bush and Bloom situations involved money at all. Two days? It's all about the kids, right NCAA? It's all about the student athletes. It's all about amateurism. Unless that "amateur" student athlete is the best player on the #1 team in the country preparing to play for his conference championship on his way to the BCS Championship Game. In the immortal words of Mark Mangino, "That's right, BCS. Dollar signs."
Then you get to the really sticky part of this, which is that if the athlete can't be tied to the dealings, the athlete is not culpable. So, as long as my son doesn't know that I'm selling his services to the highest bidder, I can make some cash. I think I'll start today! My one year old son is available to the school who will pay me the most. This is a horrible precedent. We will now have middle men involved in every dealing instead of about 75 percent of them.
And while we're at it, what say should the NCAA have in college football, anyway? It doesn't recognize a champion. It doesn't run any of the bowl games. It's not involved in the conferences or the conference television contracts. The only thing it is involved in is police work. I don't think the organization that won't sponsor a championship should have any say over who is involved in such a championship.
The bottom line about this entire situation is that the NCAA is out of control. They rule with an iron fist, when it won't cost them money. They are hell bent on maintaining amateurism while raking in millions and millions of dollars. It is a complete debacle. It is costing athletes money. It's costing athletes the invaluable experience that they like to sell. It's costing schools millions of dollars for compliance departments that constantly chase their tails.
The NCAA needs to either spend money on a comprehensive plan including more investigators, better and clearer rules and quicker rulings or it needs to get out of the way. But, of course, the NCAA would tell us they don't have the money. It's all about the money.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Manning vs. Brady--The Truth
We were treated this past weekend with another classic Colts/Patriots game. These two franchises have set the bar of excellence in the past 12 years, and we can look forward every season, and sometimes postseason, and they never disappoint.
This season, just like last season, the Patriots had a 17-point lead going into the 4th quarter. This year, however, Bill Belichick decided to punt the ball when up by three points instead of going for it in his own territory. We didn't hear much about that, but that was clearly an admission that he made a mistake last year leading to the Colts' eventual comeback.
Manning drove the Colts down the field on Sunday, into field goal range with a chance to tie the game and send it to overtime. Instead of going for the tie, however, Manning kept the foot on the pedal going for the win on the road. Most of the time, as a Colts fan, we see this end up in our favor. Every once in a while, however, and mostly against the Patriots, it ends badly. This week, it ended badly for Manning and the Colts.
That play, though, where Manning went for it and threw the interception, begins the argument for him as the best quarterback of our generation. No other quarterback, including Brady, has the combination of skill and drive that Manning has. Favre had the drive (though I'd argue it isn't there this year). No one has the skill. Brady would have knelt on the ball and gone for the tie. And thus, begins the argument, because every time Brady beats Manning, we hear again how Tom Brady is the best quarterback in the NFL. I plan on outlining the truth.
If you go entirely on Super Bowl wins, Tom Brady is the best quarterback of our generation. Of course, if you go on Super Bowl wins, Doug Williams was better than Dan Marino. Let's make Super Bowl wins a part of the equation, not the entire deal. Brady has three, Manning has one. Point in Brady's favor.
That's where it ends, though. When all is said and done, Peyton Manning will have most of the important records in NFL history. He has started every game he has been a part of in the NFL. Thus, he is more durable than Tom Brady. Manning, until 2006, never had a defense to support him. He had always been responsible for leading the offense to victory. Brady, on the other hand, played on a team built around defense. All Brady had to do was not make mistakes. In fact, when you look at 2008 and 2009, when the Patriots' defense was not as good, Brady couldn't get it done. Even with Randy Moss to throw to, he couldn't get it done.
Statistically, it's not even close. Again, as long as Manning has the drive to keep going, he will hold all of the records in the book eventually. Brady, on the other hand, didn't start putting up great numbers until he had the most explosive receiver of our generation at his disposal. Notice this year, with all of the injuries the Colts are dealing with, Peyton Manning is still putting up the numbers. He doesn't have his #3 or #4 receiver, he doesn't have his #1 running back and he doesn't have the best tight end in the league. Yet, the numbers keep coming.
So where did the myth of "Brady the Great" get started, you ask? The answer lies with Ben Rothlisberger. Both quarterbacks started their careers with Super Bowl victories. Neither had to be the star on their respective teams in order to get a ring. They both just needed not to screw it up. So, since they were champions right out of the gate, they were proclaimed as the best quarterbacks in the league. Rothlisberger doesn't even come close to passsing the eye test, yet the media wanted to proclaim his as a "great" quarterback because his team won a Super Bowl champion early in his career. Peyton Manning, on the other hand, started his career on a team that went 1-15 the year before he came into the league. His first season, he had nothing to work with. He got hit hard and often. He took the hard road to success. He had to earn the titles and recognition. And he has.
So, in the end, Tom Brady is a very good quarterback. He doesn't make a lot of mistakes. He is a very good field general. All he does is win. But be honest with yourself. If you don't listen to what the media says (based mostly on the east coast, I might add) and you watch these two quarterbacks operate for a 16-team season, who would you choose to start your franchise with? Do you want the quarterback who can win when he's surrounded by the best talent in the league, or do you want the team that can take a team of no names on his back and literally carry them to victory?
I know who I choose. Of course, I bought his jersey when he was drafted, so I may be a little biased. Who would you choose?
This season, just like last season, the Patriots had a 17-point lead going into the 4th quarter. This year, however, Bill Belichick decided to punt the ball when up by three points instead of going for it in his own territory. We didn't hear much about that, but that was clearly an admission that he made a mistake last year leading to the Colts' eventual comeback.
Manning drove the Colts down the field on Sunday, into field goal range with a chance to tie the game and send it to overtime. Instead of going for the tie, however, Manning kept the foot on the pedal going for the win on the road. Most of the time, as a Colts fan, we see this end up in our favor. Every once in a while, however, and mostly against the Patriots, it ends badly. This week, it ended badly for Manning and the Colts.
That play, though, where Manning went for it and threw the interception, begins the argument for him as the best quarterback of our generation. No other quarterback, including Brady, has the combination of skill and drive that Manning has. Favre had the drive (though I'd argue it isn't there this year). No one has the skill. Brady would have knelt on the ball and gone for the tie. And thus, begins the argument, because every time Brady beats Manning, we hear again how Tom Brady is the best quarterback in the NFL. I plan on outlining the truth.
If you go entirely on Super Bowl wins, Tom Brady is the best quarterback of our generation. Of course, if you go on Super Bowl wins, Doug Williams was better than Dan Marino. Let's make Super Bowl wins a part of the equation, not the entire deal. Brady has three, Manning has one. Point in Brady's favor.
That's where it ends, though. When all is said and done, Peyton Manning will have most of the important records in NFL history. He has started every game he has been a part of in the NFL. Thus, he is more durable than Tom Brady. Manning, until 2006, never had a defense to support him. He had always been responsible for leading the offense to victory. Brady, on the other hand, played on a team built around defense. All Brady had to do was not make mistakes. In fact, when you look at 2008 and 2009, when the Patriots' defense was not as good, Brady couldn't get it done. Even with Randy Moss to throw to, he couldn't get it done.
Statistically, it's not even close. Again, as long as Manning has the drive to keep going, he will hold all of the records in the book eventually. Brady, on the other hand, didn't start putting up great numbers until he had the most explosive receiver of our generation at his disposal. Notice this year, with all of the injuries the Colts are dealing with, Peyton Manning is still putting up the numbers. He doesn't have his #3 or #4 receiver, he doesn't have his #1 running back and he doesn't have the best tight end in the league. Yet, the numbers keep coming.
So where did the myth of "Brady the Great" get started, you ask? The answer lies with Ben Rothlisberger. Both quarterbacks started their careers with Super Bowl victories. Neither had to be the star on their respective teams in order to get a ring. They both just needed not to screw it up. So, since they were champions right out of the gate, they were proclaimed as the best quarterbacks in the league. Rothlisberger doesn't even come close to passsing the eye test, yet the media wanted to proclaim his as a "great" quarterback because his team won a Super Bowl champion early in his career. Peyton Manning, on the other hand, started his career on a team that went 1-15 the year before he came into the league. His first season, he had nothing to work with. He got hit hard and often. He took the hard road to success. He had to earn the titles and recognition. And he has.
So, in the end, Tom Brady is a very good quarterback. He doesn't make a lot of mistakes. He is a very good field general. All he does is win. But be honest with yourself. If you don't listen to what the media says (based mostly on the east coast, I might add) and you watch these two quarterbacks operate for a 16-team season, who would you choose to start your franchise with? Do you want the quarterback who can win when he's surrounded by the best talent in the league, or do you want the team that can take a team of no names on his back and literally carry them to victory?
I know who I choose. Of course, I bought his jersey when he was drafted, so I may be a little biased. Who would you choose?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Cam Newton and the College Underground
You cannot read, watch or listen to anything sports related right now without hearing about Cam Newton. In case you're living under a sports rock, though, I'll tell you the "story" that is out right now.
Newton is the quarterback at the University of Auburn. He is up for he Heisman Trophy and his team is in place to play for a "national championship" (notice the quotes--I will not call it a TRUE championship until it's played out in a legitimate playoff). Within the past few weeks, though, a former football player at Mississippi State has come forward saying that Newton's father told him that it would cost Mississippi State up to $180,000.00 for Newton's services. This, of course, would be illegal according to NCAA bylaws.
So, the media, being who they are, cannot stop talking about the story. There's tons of fake outrage and surprise and plenty of speculation. I, on the other hand, want to tell you the truth.
No one is surprised.
Okay, so maybe people are surprised. If they are, they were never around big-time college athletes at big-time programs. It's impossible to be around these entities without seeing or hearing about these types of situations. When I was in school, there was always a different very nice vehicle in the driveway of a certain star athlete. No one could "prove" that the said athlete was in possession of said vehicle, but it was certainly the buzz. At another institution, I lived next door to a prominent athlete who always seemed to have an ample supply of beer, a nice car and pretty nice clothes, which was odd, since he came from the projects of New Orleans.
Let's face it, this type of thing goes on EVERYWHERE at EVERY institution. If you're thinking, "well, my favorite school is clean", stop now. It's not. Something is going on that will/could get your team in trouble with the NCAA. Someone is asking for handouts. There IS a booster who is trying to be buddies with the athletes and is giving them special treatment. It is happening everywhere.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think all of the schools and athletes are exchanging hundreds of thousands of dollars. I also will be VERY surprised if it comes out that Auburn actually paid Newton such a sum of money. I'm almost 100% positive, without seeing any facts, though, that Newton got something that could be construed as an NCAA violation. There's way too much smoke for there not to be at least a small flame.
So, as we all root for Auburn to get the axe, thus helping us get closer to a Boise/TCU "national championship" (and blowing up our current, corrupt system) , remember not to throw too many stones. Your school is one rogue athlete/booster away from a major NCAA violation. And minor violations are happening right now, your school is just not getting caught.
Newton is the quarterback at the University of Auburn. He is up for he Heisman Trophy and his team is in place to play for a "national championship" (notice the quotes--I will not call it a TRUE championship until it's played out in a legitimate playoff). Within the past few weeks, though, a former football player at Mississippi State has come forward saying that Newton's father told him that it would cost Mississippi State up to $180,000.00 for Newton's services. This, of course, would be illegal according to NCAA bylaws.
So, the media, being who they are, cannot stop talking about the story. There's tons of fake outrage and surprise and plenty of speculation. I, on the other hand, want to tell you the truth.
No one is surprised.
Okay, so maybe people are surprised. If they are, they were never around big-time college athletes at big-time programs. It's impossible to be around these entities without seeing or hearing about these types of situations. When I was in school, there was always a different very nice vehicle in the driveway of a certain star athlete. No one could "prove" that the said athlete was in possession of said vehicle, but it was certainly the buzz. At another institution, I lived next door to a prominent athlete who always seemed to have an ample supply of beer, a nice car and pretty nice clothes, which was odd, since he came from the projects of New Orleans.
Let's face it, this type of thing goes on EVERYWHERE at EVERY institution. If you're thinking, "well, my favorite school is clean", stop now. It's not. Something is going on that will/could get your team in trouble with the NCAA. Someone is asking for handouts. There IS a booster who is trying to be buddies with the athletes and is giving them special treatment. It is happening everywhere.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think all of the schools and athletes are exchanging hundreds of thousands of dollars. I also will be VERY surprised if it comes out that Auburn actually paid Newton such a sum of money. I'm almost 100% positive, without seeing any facts, though, that Newton got something that could be construed as an NCAA violation. There's way too much smoke for there not to be at least a small flame.
So, as we all root for Auburn to get the axe, thus helping us get closer to a Boise/TCU "national championship" (and blowing up our current, corrupt system) , remember not to throw too many stones. Your school is one rogue athlete/booster away from a major NCAA violation. And minor violations are happening right now, your school is just not getting caught.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Why College Football is Losing Its Luster
I spent a lot of time this weekend thinking about how to express my feelings on the loss that my alma mater, Oklahoma, sustained on Saturday. I'm pretty sure I've been through the entire grieving process, and this blog post is my opportunity to complete the process. It goes a lot further than just Oklahoma for me, though. It is the entire state of college football.
This weekend, #7 BCS ranked Oklahoma went to College Station and suffered a season ending loss to the Texas A&M Aggies. No, the season isn't technically over, but for Oklahoma fans, as well as Alabama, Ohio State and others, the season may as well be over. You see, our bars are set extremely high. We recruit the best athletes, pay the best coaches and have the best facilities. This is done for one reason: Championships.
That probably sounds arrogant. In fact, it is arrogant. We are spoiled fans. We expect the world from these 18-22 year old kids. We expect the coaches to be perfect. Why? Because they have before and we know they can again. So, I put my $1000+ toward a donation and season tickets and for that, I expect championships, dammit!
Now, this is where my post goes away from my alma mater. You see, this is the inherent problem with college football today. In a perfect system, two losses wouldn't knock you out of a chance at winning a championship. In a perfect system, my alma mater would be fighting for a place as the 12-16th seed in a playoff. How cool would it be if Alabama, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Stanford, etc., were all still alive for a championship? You're telling me that wouldn't be a compelling regular season?
You see, that's the argument we hear against a playoff from the media. Why ruin the "best regular season in sports"? What? How is this end of the regular season compelling? Oregon has NO ONE left on their schedule that should challenge them. Auburn has a challenge at Alabama. That's it. Beyond that, TCU and Boise are waiting to replace Auburn. No one else is alive. That's compelling? Wake me up in January!
I started reading Dan Wetzel's book "Death to the BCS" last night. I recommend anyone who is interested in college football and hasn't come around to the idea of a playoff to read it. It's amazing what the media has done to form our opinions. It's more amazing WHY they are doing this. The money that exchanges hands is amazing, and, despite what the media will have you believe, VERY little of it is going to the schools involved. A playoff system, as proposed by the book, would generate $500 million more than the BCS, would allow for extra home games for the highest seeds and would make the regular season MORE important. It's a great read so far.
So, forgive me if I go to sleep for the end of the college football season. I'm bored to death. Bowl season will be upon us before you know it, and I'll watch bits and pieces of a few of those bowl games. The more compelling matchups might get my full attention. I can tell you this much, though, if it were a playoff, I'd watch EVERY game.
Remind me again why college football has it right?
This weekend, #7 BCS ranked Oklahoma went to College Station and suffered a season ending loss to the Texas A&M Aggies. No, the season isn't technically over, but for Oklahoma fans, as well as Alabama, Ohio State and others, the season may as well be over. You see, our bars are set extremely high. We recruit the best athletes, pay the best coaches and have the best facilities. This is done for one reason: Championships.
That probably sounds arrogant. In fact, it is arrogant. We are spoiled fans. We expect the world from these 18-22 year old kids. We expect the coaches to be perfect. Why? Because they have before and we know they can again. So, I put my $1000+ toward a donation and season tickets and for that, I expect championships, dammit!
Now, this is where my post goes away from my alma mater. You see, this is the inherent problem with college football today. In a perfect system, two losses wouldn't knock you out of a chance at winning a championship. In a perfect system, my alma mater would be fighting for a place as the 12-16th seed in a playoff. How cool would it be if Alabama, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Stanford, etc., were all still alive for a championship? You're telling me that wouldn't be a compelling regular season?
You see, that's the argument we hear against a playoff from the media. Why ruin the "best regular season in sports"? What? How is this end of the regular season compelling? Oregon has NO ONE left on their schedule that should challenge them. Auburn has a challenge at Alabama. That's it. Beyond that, TCU and Boise are waiting to replace Auburn. No one else is alive. That's compelling? Wake me up in January!
I started reading Dan Wetzel's book "Death to the BCS" last night. I recommend anyone who is interested in college football and hasn't come around to the idea of a playoff to read it. It's amazing what the media has done to form our opinions. It's more amazing WHY they are doing this. The money that exchanges hands is amazing, and, despite what the media will have you believe, VERY little of it is going to the schools involved. A playoff system, as proposed by the book, would generate $500 million more than the BCS, would allow for extra home games for the highest seeds and would make the regular season MORE important. It's a great read so far.
So, forgive me if I go to sleep for the end of the college football season. I'm bored to death. Bowl season will be upon us before you know it, and I'll watch bits and pieces of a few of those bowl games. The more compelling matchups might get my full attention. I can tell you this much, though, if it were a playoff, I'd watch EVERY game.
Remind me again why college football has it right?
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Good Pitching Beats Good Hitting--Yet No One Watched
Ah, yes. The World Series that no one saw or heard about (as predicted last week) ended in five games last night. For a blowout series, it was a very good one. We saw very good pitching matchups, solid baseball (minus a couple of boneheaded managerial decisions) and a long starved fanbase getting its first championship in two generations.
What I like the most about this is that the Giants are a great example of how an organization should be run. Unlike my Cubs, who seem to do things entirely wrong almost all of the time, the Giants have built from within with solid pitching and great defense up the middle. They supplemented that with second-tier, or worse, free agents that fit their style of play. From that, they build great chemistry and a team that is ready to compete when it counts.
The young Giants pitching shut down the explosive Texas lineup. Mitch Moreland, not exactly the expected leader, was the only Rangers hitter who seemed to have a clue, and the youngsters with spunk closed the series out quickly because of that.
The sad part is that this series got very little press. ESPN had very little about the series on Sports Center. Instead, they concentrated on football, which they have a current financial stake in. So, in the interest of a quick dollar, ESPN fails to promote a sport that they have a long term stake in. This was their opportunity to promote a young, likable team in the Giants against a young, likable team in the Rangers. These are two organizations who have done a great job with what they have, yet ESPN chose to act like baseball ended when the Yankees and Phillies were eliminated. This wouldn't even be an issue if they weren't the "worldwide leader" in sports. They put themselves in that spot, and they now have control over what the public perceives as the truth in sports. People look to ESPN for their sports knowledge, water cooler information and live sporting events.
Here's the truth: Baseball is not as easily manipulated for television as football and basketball. Baseball has no time limits. Baseball has no TV timeouts. The beauty of baseball is that the winning run could be scored on the first pitch or the last pitch. ESPN, and television in general, doesn't like anything that doesn't build to a climax. It doesn't make for "good TV".
NFL games run three hours on the dot. How does this happen, you ask? Hmmmmm. How do you think? Ask Jeff Fisher about that. ESPN wants control over the timing of the games. What's next? Outcomes? You don't think they already try? Baseball isn't so easy to manipulate. Ask the Black Sox how easy it is to fix games and get away with it.
Another question to be asked is whether ESPN is trying to drive the price of baseball down. When the FOX contract is up, you can guarantee that ESPN will want a stake in postseason baseball. Are they not talking about it on purpose in order to buy the rights for less money? That seems entirely plausible, because I cannot remember a World Series with less hype in my lifetime.
If you ask me, ESPN's got it all wrong. They need to be promoting baseball. One reason would be that they own the rights for most of the six-month baseball season, so it seems as if that would be a financially sound thing to do. Also, baseball can be riveting from the first pitch. Especially in games that mean something. Football and basketball, on the other hand, are generally decided in the last quarter of the game. So, if I'm not a fan of the team, what encourages me to tune in for the entire game? Unfortunately, in today's microwave society, people don't want to stay tuned in. They want highlights--dunks, big hits, etc. It's why the home run plays so well on Sports Center. Pitching doesn't sell today. Unless you understand the game.
So, with that, I say goodbye to baseball for a few months. It's always a bittersweet end for me. I miss the game when it's gone, but it means the Cubs are back in first place, at least until April 1st!
What I like the most about this is that the Giants are a great example of how an organization should be run. Unlike my Cubs, who seem to do things entirely wrong almost all of the time, the Giants have built from within with solid pitching and great defense up the middle. They supplemented that with second-tier, or worse, free agents that fit their style of play. From that, they build great chemistry and a team that is ready to compete when it counts.
The young Giants pitching shut down the explosive Texas lineup. Mitch Moreland, not exactly the expected leader, was the only Rangers hitter who seemed to have a clue, and the youngsters with spunk closed the series out quickly because of that.
The sad part is that this series got very little press. ESPN had very little about the series on Sports Center. Instead, they concentrated on football, which they have a current financial stake in. So, in the interest of a quick dollar, ESPN fails to promote a sport that they have a long term stake in. This was their opportunity to promote a young, likable team in the Giants against a young, likable team in the Rangers. These are two organizations who have done a great job with what they have, yet ESPN chose to act like baseball ended when the Yankees and Phillies were eliminated. This wouldn't even be an issue if they weren't the "worldwide leader" in sports. They put themselves in that spot, and they now have control over what the public perceives as the truth in sports. People look to ESPN for their sports knowledge, water cooler information and live sporting events.
Here's the truth: Baseball is not as easily manipulated for television as football and basketball. Baseball has no time limits. Baseball has no TV timeouts. The beauty of baseball is that the winning run could be scored on the first pitch or the last pitch. ESPN, and television in general, doesn't like anything that doesn't build to a climax. It doesn't make for "good TV".
NFL games run three hours on the dot. How does this happen, you ask? Hmmmmm. How do you think? Ask Jeff Fisher about that. ESPN wants control over the timing of the games. What's next? Outcomes? You don't think they already try? Baseball isn't so easy to manipulate. Ask the Black Sox how easy it is to fix games and get away with it.
Another question to be asked is whether ESPN is trying to drive the price of baseball down. When the FOX contract is up, you can guarantee that ESPN will want a stake in postseason baseball. Are they not talking about it on purpose in order to buy the rights for less money? That seems entirely plausible, because I cannot remember a World Series with less hype in my lifetime.
If you ask me, ESPN's got it all wrong. They need to be promoting baseball. One reason would be that they own the rights for most of the six-month baseball season, so it seems as if that would be a financially sound thing to do. Also, baseball can be riveting from the first pitch. Especially in games that mean something. Football and basketball, on the other hand, are generally decided in the last quarter of the game. So, if I'm not a fan of the team, what encourages me to tune in for the entire game? Unfortunately, in today's microwave society, people don't want to stay tuned in. They want highlights--dunks, big hits, etc. It's why the home run plays so well on Sports Center. Pitching doesn't sell today. Unless you understand the game.
So, with that, I say goodbye to baseball for a few months. It's always a bittersweet end for me. I miss the game when it's gone, but it means the Cubs are back in first place, at least until April 1st!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
A Fall Classic Without The Yankees: Count Me In!
So, if you're a Yankees fan, go ahead and stop reading now. You won't like what I'm about to write, nor will it be new to you. It is something for me to rant about today, though, so the pinstripes are going to take a beating today.
Rangers at Giants. What a boring interleague series, huh? What? You say this is the World Series? Sweet!
Seriously, if this was an interleague series, I wouldn't do anything more than look at the box scores to see how my fantasy team did. Aubrey Huff went long? Great! (Yes, I did have Aubrey Huff on my team this year, which should garner me some credit!) Beyond that, who cares?
Yet, somehow since this is the World Series, I'm excited. More excited for a World Series than I've been in years! These are two franchises that have struggled for my entire life. Sure, the Giants have been in a handful of playoff series, and have even gotten to the World Series twice in my lifetime (who can forget the earthquake?) but they've never won it. Not since my uncle Howard, the only Giants fan I ever knew until he brainwashed his children, was "in diapers". The Rangers hadn't won a playoff series before this year. That's over 40 years of losing in Arlington.
America loves the underdog.....in everything except sports. In sports, America loves to watch the Lakers, Cowboys, Duke basketball, and yes, the dreaded Yankees. Well, I can't stand any of those teams. I love an underdog, which makes this series extremely fun for me. The Giants' pitching versus the Rangers' lineup. Classic series between two anything but classic teams. Perfect in my mind.
Yet, instead of the massive hype machine we've grown accustomed to, we're hearing very little about this series. Hell, had I not known it was starting tonight, no one would have told me! There's very little on ESPN. Our local stations, despite being a Rangers AAA affiliate for almost two decades, are saying nothing. The silence is deafening.
Can you imagine this silence if the Yankees or Red Sox were in the series? Nah, we'd be hearing all about how the *insert AL East team here* are the best team in history and there's no way that *insert team outside of the east coast* can win. The Yankees have the best lineup we've ever seen. The Red Sox pitching cannot be stopped. Then, the team headquartered west of the original 13 colonies pulls off some sort of a miracle win and the world comes to an end. Right? That's what we're supposed to think, right?
My guess is that this series will be billed as "bad for baseball". The ratings will be down (imagine that....no hype = lower ratings) and there will be a perceived lack of general interest. For baseball fans like myself, though, this is great! These two franchises have built from within. They haven't been tainted as most have with too many high priced free agents. They grow their players, then supplement with free agency to fill holes. This is the way it's supposed to work.
So forgive me if I laughed a bit when the Rangers clinched the series against the Yankees, and again when the Giants finished off the Phillies. I don't want to watch teams that are bought by the highest bidder. It's not good for the sport that Cliff Lee is "destined" for pinstripes because they can pay him the most. It's good for the league to have new winners. This year's series is good for the league.
So, instead of being hampered by excess hype and overblown expectations, sit back, relax and watch some really good baseball by organizations who are doing things the right way! Go Rangers! Go Giants! Whatever. Mostly, Go Baseball!
Rangers at Giants. What a boring interleague series, huh? What? You say this is the World Series? Sweet!
Seriously, if this was an interleague series, I wouldn't do anything more than look at the box scores to see how my fantasy team did. Aubrey Huff went long? Great! (Yes, I did have Aubrey Huff on my team this year, which should garner me some credit!) Beyond that, who cares?
Yet, somehow since this is the World Series, I'm excited. More excited for a World Series than I've been in years! These are two franchises that have struggled for my entire life. Sure, the Giants have been in a handful of playoff series, and have even gotten to the World Series twice in my lifetime (who can forget the earthquake?) but they've never won it. Not since my uncle Howard, the only Giants fan I ever knew until he brainwashed his children, was "in diapers". The Rangers hadn't won a playoff series before this year. That's over 40 years of losing in Arlington.
America loves the underdog.....in everything except sports. In sports, America loves to watch the Lakers, Cowboys, Duke basketball, and yes, the dreaded Yankees. Well, I can't stand any of those teams. I love an underdog, which makes this series extremely fun for me. The Giants' pitching versus the Rangers' lineup. Classic series between two anything but classic teams. Perfect in my mind.
Yet, instead of the massive hype machine we've grown accustomed to, we're hearing very little about this series. Hell, had I not known it was starting tonight, no one would have told me! There's very little on ESPN. Our local stations, despite being a Rangers AAA affiliate for almost two decades, are saying nothing. The silence is deafening.
Can you imagine this silence if the Yankees or Red Sox were in the series? Nah, we'd be hearing all about how the *insert AL East team here* are the best team in history and there's no way that *insert team outside of the east coast* can win. The Yankees have the best lineup we've ever seen. The Red Sox pitching cannot be stopped. Then, the team headquartered west of the original 13 colonies pulls off some sort of a miracle win and the world comes to an end. Right? That's what we're supposed to think, right?
My guess is that this series will be billed as "bad for baseball". The ratings will be down (imagine that....no hype = lower ratings) and there will be a perceived lack of general interest. For baseball fans like myself, though, this is great! These two franchises have built from within. They haven't been tainted as most have with too many high priced free agents. They grow their players, then supplement with free agency to fill holes. This is the way it's supposed to work.
So forgive me if I laughed a bit when the Rangers clinched the series against the Yankees, and again when the Giants finished off the Phillies. I don't want to watch teams that are bought by the highest bidder. It's not good for the sport that Cliff Lee is "destined" for pinstripes because they can pay him the most. It's good for the league to have new winners. This year's series is good for the league.
So, instead of being hampered by excess hype and overblown expectations, sit back, relax and watch some really good baseball by organizations who are doing things the right way! Go Rangers! Go Giants! Whatever. Mostly, Go Baseball!
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Initial BCS Standings and the Fake Media Outrage
I thought long and hard about what to write this week. I had a few options. A certain anniversary that every Cubs fan wants to forget forever. A game I attended in Norman, Oklahoma, that started to have a certain feel that Sooner fans are familiar with. I'll save those for some other time, though, because I got what I wanted last night when the BCS rankings were released---something I can rant about!
I found myself watching the BCS show last night. I suppose it's because I had heard that my Sooners were going to be #1 in the standings, and I wanted to get angry with ESPN. I could have told you what was going to be said, and with the exception of Kirk Herbstreit, I would have been correct.
You see, my alma mater, rightfully so, has become a media whipping boy. Losses in three straight BCS Championship games and five straight BCS games will do that to you. So, when the standings were released, the shock and dismay was thick on the air. Even today, there are all kinds of tweets, articles and rants about what a sham it is that Oklahoma is ahead of Boise State and Oregon and how the system is somehow "wrong". One of my favorites was a tweet by Pat Forde saying that he couldn't believe that Oklahoma got so much respect for blowing out Iowa State. Newsflash, Pat, the respect has nothing to do with the Iowa State win and EVERYTHING to do with the Texas and Florida State wins, two teams Oklahoma beat. That's the way the system works.
Here's the underlying problem: The formula itself is not broken. It works the way it's supposed to work. That's not to say that I like the system. I don't. In fact, I'd scrap it tomorrow if I could. But, because the media doesn't have complete control of the system, they whine every time it works. They've changed it twice due to the fact that the computers overruled the people. Isn't that what the computers are there for? They're supposed to even out some of the media bias, right? So, when they do, they change it to where the computers hardly even matter anymore. That makes a lot of sense.
Which brings me to the point of my rant. Oklahoma has been #1 in the BCS more often than anyone since the system was implemented. They've been in the top 5 more than anyone since this system was implemented. And, despite what E(SEC)PN might want you to believe, it's not because Oklahoma plays in an inferior conference. It's because they have the system figured out. It's not hard to figure out, but the other schools (ahem...Auburn) would rather whine than do what it takes to put themselves in a position to win it all.
Oklahoma has a strict scheduling policy for non-conference games. They play one major conference "power". That team might not be on top when they play them, but it's a name school. This year it's Florida State. In the future, it's Notre Dame, Tennessee & Ohio State. Oklahoma doesn't duck road games against powerhouses. Next year, Oklahoma goes to Tallahassee. Again, this is all by design. They supplement that game with two mid-major conference games. This year, those were Air Force and Cincinatti. In the past, this game has bitten the Sooners (see BYU last year and TCU a few years back). These games are typically at home. The fourth game (which will go away with the new Big "12") is a weak opponent. This game has hurt OU in the past, but typically can be offset by the other three.
This scheduling system has put Oklahoma in the title game over USC in 2003, Auburn in 2004, and Texas in 2008. It's the schedule that puts Oklahoma, at the angst of the media, ahead of their darlings. In 2003, no one could believe that an SEC team could be left out of the BCS Championship Game without a loss. USC had the biggest beef. Their schedule was respectable. Auburn's non-conference schedule: Louisiana Monroe, The Citadel and Louisiana Tech. Texas in 2008: Florida Atlantic, UTEP, Rice & a bad Arkansas team.
So, for all of those media members who refuse to support a college football playoff, please allow the system to work the way it is built to work. Everything will work itself out in the end, or it won't. Either way, it's the system we have. They act like they don't know it is. I don't buy it. They should be more studied up on the system than anyone.
I'm all for a playoff. Every other sport has one. Every other division in college football has one. There's no reason that the FBS cannot have a playoff, other than peoples' pockets getting lined.....which reminds me, I can't wait to read Dan Wetzel's new book. I was going to save my BCS rant until after I read it, but I'll probably have more to rant about at that point.
In the meantime, enjoy the ride that is the college football regular season!
I found myself watching the BCS show last night. I suppose it's because I had heard that my Sooners were going to be #1 in the standings, and I wanted to get angry with ESPN. I could have told you what was going to be said, and with the exception of Kirk Herbstreit, I would have been correct.
You see, my alma mater, rightfully so, has become a media whipping boy. Losses in three straight BCS Championship games and five straight BCS games will do that to you. So, when the standings were released, the shock and dismay was thick on the air. Even today, there are all kinds of tweets, articles and rants about what a sham it is that Oklahoma is ahead of Boise State and Oregon and how the system is somehow "wrong". One of my favorites was a tweet by Pat Forde saying that he couldn't believe that Oklahoma got so much respect for blowing out Iowa State. Newsflash, Pat, the respect has nothing to do with the Iowa State win and EVERYTHING to do with the Texas and Florida State wins, two teams Oklahoma beat. That's the way the system works.
Here's the underlying problem: The formula itself is not broken. It works the way it's supposed to work. That's not to say that I like the system. I don't. In fact, I'd scrap it tomorrow if I could. But, because the media doesn't have complete control of the system, they whine every time it works. They've changed it twice due to the fact that the computers overruled the people. Isn't that what the computers are there for? They're supposed to even out some of the media bias, right? So, when they do, they change it to where the computers hardly even matter anymore. That makes a lot of sense.
Which brings me to the point of my rant. Oklahoma has been #1 in the BCS more often than anyone since the system was implemented. They've been in the top 5 more than anyone since this system was implemented. And, despite what E(SEC)PN might want you to believe, it's not because Oklahoma plays in an inferior conference. It's because they have the system figured out. It's not hard to figure out, but the other schools (ahem...Auburn) would rather whine than do what it takes to put themselves in a position to win it all.
Oklahoma has a strict scheduling policy for non-conference games. They play one major conference "power". That team might not be on top when they play them, but it's a name school. This year it's Florida State. In the future, it's Notre Dame, Tennessee & Ohio State. Oklahoma doesn't duck road games against powerhouses. Next year, Oklahoma goes to Tallahassee. Again, this is all by design. They supplement that game with two mid-major conference games. This year, those were Air Force and Cincinatti. In the past, this game has bitten the Sooners (see BYU last year and TCU a few years back). These games are typically at home. The fourth game (which will go away with the new Big "12") is a weak opponent. This game has hurt OU in the past, but typically can be offset by the other three.
This scheduling system has put Oklahoma in the title game over USC in 2003, Auburn in 2004, and Texas in 2008. It's the schedule that puts Oklahoma, at the angst of the media, ahead of their darlings. In 2003, no one could believe that an SEC team could be left out of the BCS Championship Game without a loss. USC had the biggest beef. Their schedule was respectable. Auburn's non-conference schedule: Louisiana Monroe, The Citadel and Louisiana Tech. Texas in 2008: Florida Atlantic, UTEP, Rice & a bad Arkansas team.
So, for all of those media members who refuse to support a college football playoff, please allow the system to work the way it is built to work. Everything will work itself out in the end, or it won't. Either way, it's the system we have. They act like they don't know it is. I don't buy it. They should be more studied up on the system than anyone.
I'm all for a playoff. Every other sport has one. Every other division in college football has one. There's no reason that the FBS cannot have a playoff, other than peoples' pockets getting lined.....which reminds me, I can't wait to read Dan Wetzel's new book. I was going to save my BCS rant until after I read it, but I'll probably have more to rant about at that point.
In the meantime, enjoy the ride that is the college football regular season!
Monday, October 11, 2010
ESPN--The Case for Too Much of Anything Can Be Bad......
It is not very often that I get a Saturday to just sit around and do nothing but watch college football. This week, I had that opportunity, and man was it fun! It was so much fun that I woke up Sunday morning wanting more, so I went online and started looking for any college football information that I could find. I looked for articles, commentaries and computer polls. Then it hit me. ESPN is about to ruin college football for me.
ESPN and I have a love/hate relationship already. I can't live without the "four letter" network, but I don't like how they are the spokesperson for anything that makes them money, either. When Duke is playing North Carolina, for example, you'd think there's nothing else going on in the world. According to them, there's no rivalry in baseball that compares to Yankees vs. Red Sox. (Ask a Red Sox or Yankees fan about that rivalry before the hype....not as big as ESPN has made it out to be)
So, this morning, I was looking for the time the BCS standings would be released. For some reason, I had it in my mind that it was this week instead of next week. When FOX had control of the BCS, the new rankings always came out during the NFL coverage. We knew who was there by 5:00 or so my time every week. Now, ESPN is making a "show" out of the release every week. A prime time show. So, instead of seeing the new poll and moving on, they're trying to force football fans to spend half an hour listening to their drivel in order to see the results. They're also making us wait over 2 more hours to see it.
And here's where my dislike for everything Bristol, CT, comes in. We already know what they're going to say! They're going to have their teams that they want in the BCS Championship game, and that's who will get the air time. This year, count on that being Boise State, TCU & Alabama, even after Bama's loss this week (you could already hear that from Musberger and Herbstreit last night). It's all about the little guy this year, so Boise and TCU will get lots of air time. Then, when you take into account the new multi-million dollar contract between ESPN and the SEC, prepare to be bombarded with pro-SEC propaganda from the boys in Bristol.
I guess where my problem comes in is when an entity advertises itself as a neutral observer and source of "news", yet pays millions of dollars to televise individual conferences in order to make millions of dollars for those contracts. Since ESPN is the sole provider of sports news for millions of sports fans, the are extremely influential on the voting process in the polls, too, which makes ESPN owning the rights to the SEC and the BCS a dangerous situation. Since the polls REALLY control the fate of the BCS Championship Game (http://bcsguru.blogspot.com/2010/09/do-computers-really-even-matter.html), ESPN truly has the potential to not only broadcast the game, but set it up so they can have their ideal matchup in the game. That's a dangerous proposition for sure.
So, just like they've done to the pre-season college basketball tournaments, some of the best sports rivalries and the World Series of Poker, ESPN is in the process of ruining everything college football. Just give them time. Of course, if the "powers-that-be" would wise up and institute a playoff system, this wouldn't be an issue......but that's another topic for another week. For now, tell me how much you love/hate ESPN!
ESPN and I have a love/hate relationship already. I can't live without the "four letter" network, but I don't like how they are the spokesperson for anything that makes them money, either. When Duke is playing North Carolina, for example, you'd think there's nothing else going on in the world. According to them, there's no rivalry in baseball that compares to Yankees vs. Red Sox. (Ask a Red Sox or Yankees fan about that rivalry before the hype....not as big as ESPN has made it out to be)
So, this morning, I was looking for the time the BCS standings would be released. For some reason, I had it in my mind that it was this week instead of next week. When FOX had control of the BCS, the new rankings always came out during the NFL coverage. We knew who was there by 5:00 or so my time every week. Now, ESPN is making a "show" out of the release every week. A prime time show. So, instead of seeing the new poll and moving on, they're trying to force football fans to spend half an hour listening to their drivel in order to see the results. They're also making us wait over 2 more hours to see it.
And here's where my dislike for everything Bristol, CT, comes in. We already know what they're going to say! They're going to have their teams that they want in the BCS Championship game, and that's who will get the air time. This year, count on that being Boise State, TCU & Alabama, even after Bama's loss this week (you could already hear that from Musberger and Herbstreit last night). It's all about the little guy this year, so Boise and TCU will get lots of air time. Then, when you take into account the new multi-million dollar contract between ESPN and the SEC, prepare to be bombarded with pro-SEC propaganda from the boys in Bristol.
I guess where my problem comes in is when an entity advertises itself as a neutral observer and source of "news", yet pays millions of dollars to televise individual conferences in order to make millions of dollars for those contracts. Since ESPN is the sole provider of sports news for millions of sports fans, the are extremely influential on the voting process in the polls, too, which makes ESPN owning the rights to the SEC and the BCS a dangerous situation. Since the polls REALLY control the fate of the BCS Championship Game (http://bcsguru.blogspot.com/2010/09/do-computers-really-even-matter.html), ESPN truly has the potential to not only broadcast the game, but set it up so they can have their ideal matchup in the game. That's a dangerous proposition for sure.
So, just like they've done to the pre-season college basketball tournaments, some of the best sports rivalries and the World Series of Poker, ESPN is in the process of ruining everything college football. Just give them time. Of course, if the "powers-that-be" would wise up and institute a playoff system, this wouldn't be an issue......but that's another topic for another week. For now, tell me how much you love/hate ESPN!
Friday, October 8, 2010
The beginning.....and a baseball replay rant that may surprise you.
So, I went to a Jerry Saltz (http://nymag.com/nymag/jerry-saltz) lecture tonight at the Oklahoma City Museum of Art. I went to support my wife, as I'd never heard of Mr. Saltz before watching a couple of episodes of the reality show he was on this summer. I didn't have any expectations, but came away inspired. So, from that lecture on art and art critique comes a blog about--of course--sports!
How did an art critic inspire me to write about sports? Hell, I don't know. I supposed there are many layers to the thoughts and feelings that I walked away with, but the bottom line is, I came away knowing that I needed a forum to rant and rave about sports, and therefore, will start a blog.
This blog has been an idea for many months. I had trouble defining what I truly wanted to discuss. I wanted a niche topic, something I could become an expert on. Mr. Saltz's lecture, however, made me realize I don't need to be an expert, I just need to have a thought. I don't need a narrow subject, I just need to have something to post about. And so, this blog is born....A Blade of Plastic Grass.
So, how did I name this blog? Hell, it was easy. It was the first thing that came to mind. My wife cringed at the name. I think that means I did well. It is, after all, my place to rant and rave about everything sports. Personally, I hate artificial turf. Therefore, it's a controversial name to me, which is what I hope to bring to this blog. I find that I'm often on the opposite side of an argument with most of my friends. Therefore, I'm probably on the opposite side of the majority of the world. Perfect!
I envision, eventually, allowing this to become a forum of debate. I will bring up a topic and the reader/viewer (I see video in my future) can tell me how right/wrong I am. There will be rules. Only debate with me. No debate amongst readers, because unlike today's sports radio and message board crowds, I don't want to stifle good discussion and debate. This is another Jerry Saltz idea that I am stealing.........Thanks Mr. Saltz!
This blog is my opinion. Therefore, there will be a lean toward my teams, and I will not make that a secret. I am a graduate of the University of Oklahoma. I am a Sooner. I have been a Cubs fan since I was about 4 years old and have been a die-hard Colts fan since they moved to Indianapolis. And, though I'm not a big NBA fan, Kevin Durant & Co. have stolen my heart since their arrival in OKC, and I "Thunder Up" every chance I get during the winter. If you're looking for objective writing when discussing those teams, don't read here. You won't find it. I will, however, stick to general sports topics and conversations when possible as to not make this a team specific blog. That's not my vision, nor do I think it's original.
So, without further introduction, my first rant:
Yesterday in Tampa....controversy! A check swing heard around the world. Chants of "replay" heard from the fans at "The Trop". Yes, there were actually "fans" there today. And so, as I'm listening to the talking heads talk about the need for replay, I start to ask myself, "Why"?
Why does baseball need to satisfy the need for non-baseball fans to see the correct calls all of the time? Baseball is a game of human error. The umpires should not be expected to be perfect. The game is imperfect. The game is open for interpretation. The game itself is art.
My wife and I were discussing this earlier. I think the thing that has me hooked on the game of baseball, and has pretty much since birth, is the fact that at any point during the game, the game can be decided. In a big football game, I'll sit on pins and needles for about a quarter. In a big basketball game, the final two minutes are crucial. In baseball, however, it starts from the first pitch. Any of the 27 outs can be the deciding outs and any of the 300 or so pitches can be the crucial pitch. In an important baseball game, you're on the edge of your seat from start to finish.
Don't get me wrong, if that were the Cubs, I'd be emotional and ranting the other way. Baseball will break your heart. As a Cubs fan, I know about broken hearts. Walk off home runs, errors, fan interference and yes, blown calls. Anything can be the deciding factor. They're all human error. To take any of the human error out of baseball is to suck the life out of the game. It is not a perfect game. It's not designed to be perfect. It's designed to be human.
So, while I can sympathize with what the twenty-three true Rays fans are feeling, (Lord knows I've been there) it does not change my opinion on instant replay in baseball. There's no place for it. The game does not need to be fixed. It's not supposed to be a perfect game. It's just supposed to be baseball.
..........And there you have it, my first blog post. Please feel free to add your commentary. Tell me what you like. Tell me what you don't like. Tell me my opinion sucks. Whatever. Just be prepared to back up your arguments because I'll be prepared to defend mine!
How did an art critic inspire me to write about sports? Hell, I don't know. I supposed there are many layers to the thoughts and feelings that I walked away with, but the bottom line is, I came away knowing that I needed a forum to rant and rave about sports, and therefore, will start a blog.
This blog has been an idea for many months. I had trouble defining what I truly wanted to discuss. I wanted a niche topic, something I could become an expert on. Mr. Saltz's lecture, however, made me realize I don't need to be an expert, I just need to have a thought. I don't need a narrow subject, I just need to have something to post about. And so, this blog is born....A Blade of Plastic Grass.
So, how did I name this blog? Hell, it was easy. It was the first thing that came to mind. My wife cringed at the name. I think that means I did well. It is, after all, my place to rant and rave about everything sports. Personally, I hate artificial turf. Therefore, it's a controversial name to me, which is what I hope to bring to this blog. I find that I'm often on the opposite side of an argument with most of my friends. Therefore, I'm probably on the opposite side of the majority of the world. Perfect!
I envision, eventually, allowing this to become a forum of debate. I will bring up a topic and the reader/viewer (I see video in my future) can tell me how right/wrong I am. There will be rules. Only debate with me. No debate amongst readers, because unlike today's sports radio and message board crowds, I don't want to stifle good discussion and debate. This is another Jerry Saltz idea that I am stealing.........Thanks Mr. Saltz!
This blog is my opinion. Therefore, there will be a lean toward my teams, and I will not make that a secret. I am a graduate of the University of Oklahoma. I am a Sooner. I have been a Cubs fan since I was about 4 years old and have been a die-hard Colts fan since they moved to Indianapolis. And, though I'm not a big NBA fan, Kevin Durant & Co. have stolen my heart since their arrival in OKC, and I "Thunder Up" every chance I get during the winter. If you're looking for objective writing when discussing those teams, don't read here. You won't find it. I will, however, stick to general sports topics and conversations when possible as to not make this a team specific blog. That's not my vision, nor do I think it's original.
So, without further introduction, my first rant:
Yesterday in Tampa....controversy! A check swing heard around the world. Chants of "replay" heard from the fans at "The Trop". Yes, there were actually "fans" there today. And so, as I'm listening to the talking heads talk about the need for replay, I start to ask myself, "Why"?
Why does baseball need to satisfy the need for non-baseball fans to see the correct calls all of the time? Baseball is a game of human error. The umpires should not be expected to be perfect. The game is imperfect. The game is open for interpretation. The game itself is art.
My wife and I were discussing this earlier. I think the thing that has me hooked on the game of baseball, and has pretty much since birth, is the fact that at any point during the game, the game can be decided. In a big football game, I'll sit on pins and needles for about a quarter. In a big basketball game, the final two minutes are crucial. In baseball, however, it starts from the first pitch. Any of the 27 outs can be the deciding outs and any of the 300 or so pitches can be the crucial pitch. In an important baseball game, you're on the edge of your seat from start to finish.
Don't get me wrong, if that were the Cubs, I'd be emotional and ranting the other way. Baseball will break your heart. As a Cubs fan, I know about broken hearts. Walk off home runs, errors, fan interference and yes, blown calls. Anything can be the deciding factor. They're all human error. To take any of the human error out of baseball is to suck the life out of the game. It is not a perfect game. It's not designed to be perfect. It's designed to be human.
So, while I can sympathize with what the twenty-three true Rays fans are feeling, (Lord knows I've been there) it does not change my opinion on instant replay in baseball. There's no place for it. The game does not need to be fixed. It's not supposed to be a perfect game. It's just supposed to be baseball.
..........And there you have it, my first blog post. Please feel free to add your commentary. Tell me what you like. Tell me what you don't like. Tell me my opinion sucks. Whatever. Just be prepared to back up your arguments because I'll be prepared to defend mine!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)