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?
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)