Kirk Herbstreit: Keeping your Taxes Low

I'm currently reading The Big Con, Jonathan Chait's broadside against the Republican Party's embrace of a totally discredited economic theory. Chapter Five in the book, entitled "Media: the Dog that Didn't Watch," contains a paragraph that I think applies very well not just to the political press, but also to the sports media:

The establishmentarian instincts of the media are reinforced by a general lack of interest in policy. You might imagine Washington reporters or pundits as policy mavens, spending their days poring over obscure budget tables and their nights in long, earnest discussions of tax reform over drinks. The truth is that the political press corps closely follows political maneuverings and mostly ignores policies. Having spent a great deal of time in the company of newspaper reporters, I can attest that they consider policy especially mind-numbing minutiae beyond their purview.

This criticism applies to just about all mainstream media discussion of college football. I'm particularly thinking of Kirk Herbstreit here, who is generally seen as a level-headed analyst and one of the sharper talking heads. In fact, I cited Herbstreit's support of Michigan over Florida for the spot opposite Ohio State last year as evidence in Michigan's favor, opining that Herbstreit and Chris Fowler are "the two ESPN studio analysts with a shred of intellectual ability." (That post was also the one other occasion on which I cited Chait. Small world.)

I've begun to swing away from this positive thinking regarding Herbstreit, in large part from reading LD's repeated observations in his Gameday recaps that Herbstreit never analyzes or picks games based on the most obvious factors, like talent, scheme, and match-ups. Instead, he makes picks based on intangible factors, such as which team has "more to prove" or is "seeking redemption" or is "devastated from their last game." Herbstreit encapsulated this thinking perfectly on the Buck and Kincaide Show on Monday, when he explained (and I'm paraphrasing here) that "we all get caught up in x's and o's, but so many games are decided by intangible factors that we can't know beforehand, such as which team has an emotional edge." He then said that the Tennessee-Georgia game can be explained in that way.

Bluntly stated, Herbstreit's mode of analysis is a cop out. His job should be to watch games and then explain what happened in such a way that someone who didn't see the game can understand why it played out the way it did and someone who did watch the game will learn something that they might have missed. Instead, Herbstreit takes the easy way out. He doesn't have to watch or analyze the game to say that Tennessee played with more passion than Georgia on Saturday. He doesn't have to do the mental heavy-lifting of noting that Tennessee ran a terrific series of plays on its first several possessions that exposed the Georgia defense time and again and were evidence that Tennessee used its bye week well. He doesn't have to explain why Georgia was unable to run the ball on Tennessee after the Vols' first four opponents all had success on the ground. Any mediocrity with a degree from an average state school can say that "Tennessee played with more passion."

In addition to being a cop out, Herbstreit's analysis is useless because amateur psychological explanations can go in any direction. Because they are not based on any actual evidence and are intangible (defined by Webster's as "incapable of being apprehended by the mind or senses"), the psychological explanations can be used to justify opposite predictions with equal merit. Herbstreit picked Florida to beat LSU because of redemption, but that makes just as much sense as picking LSU because Florida would be down after losing to Auburn. Brian from MGoBlog nailed this phenomenon over the summer:

Pre-hindpsychology. Michigan and Ohio State's defenses both ended the year in the same fashion: giving up gobs of points and yards.

Kirk Herbstreit on one:

I really want to see where their defense is psychologically after the [final two games].

Kirk Herbstreit on the other:

I think the defense was embarrassed by [the bowl game] and will have a chip on their shoulder.

You're reading a Michigan blog and Herbstreit is an Ohio State alumnus, so I probably don't need to tell you that the former describes Michigan and the latter Ohio State. Ah, television analysts. I don't mean to jump unduly on Herbstreit here since everyone who's ever been paid to say anything about college football on ESPN breaks out similar rationales constantly, but just... yeesh. That's a perfect exemplar of the nothing fluff that passes for useful words constantly: defense A is shattered psychologically! Defense B has a chip on its shoulder!

No mention of the fact that Ohio State returned nine starters on defense while Michigan returned four. No mention of the fact that Ohio State has been consistently better on defense since Jim Tressel became the head coach. No, Ohio State is good on defense because they're mad about being humiliated by Florida, but Michigan is bad on defense because they're shattered in a Made for Lifetime sorta way after Ohio State and USC put up 74 points on them.

Herbstreit's analysis perfectly exemplifies the problem with the sports press, as well as the political press: they resist making the effort to analyze observable facts and then base their opinions on those facts. Instead, political talking heads focus on the personality aspects of the candidates - Hillary is shrill! Fred Thompson is lazy! - and sports talking heads focus on the personality aspects of the teams - Michigan is shattered! Florida wants redemption! - in place of explaining the merits of Hillary's policy ideas or Michigan's uber-predictable running game. The question that interests me (and I don't really know enough about the media to answer it) is whether talking heads are so vacuous because: (1) it's the easy way out; (2) they're not capable of anything more than superficial analysis; or (3) their editors/producers want them to dumb down their opinions so someone with an IQ of 80 can process them.

Charles Rogers Tried to Warn You

My review of the Weekend Smorgasbord commences...now.

Georgia-Tennessee

Georgia operated under the same misconception that Tony Barnhart was propagating last week: Tennessee is weak against the run, so Georgia should run the ball a lot. What Georgia ended up doing was that they made themselves predictable by running between the tackles on obvious running downs until the game was out of hand. What Mark Richt and Mike Bobo did is they allowed Tennessee to defend them easier. They overrated the value of Tennessee not being able to stop Florida's spread option, which is irrelevant to how the Vols would defend the Dawgs, and Cal's attack, which is also different. Cal and Florida also started by passing the Vols silly and then went to the ground game once they had a lead. Georgia got things backwards and were thus shut out in the first half. Georgia ran on their first six first and tens. By the time they determined that maybe they should throw the ball outside of obvious passing downs, they were down 28-0. I kept scribbling notes to myself like "Mike Debord would LOVE this gameplan" and "Barnhart is muttering to himself yet again that this worked in 1982."

That said, Georgia was going to lose this game regardless of whether they deployed a better offensive gameplan. Georgia is weak on the offensive and defensive lines and Tennessee exploited that ruthlessly. This Georgia team simply isn't especially good. With the upset win over Alabama being devalued in the past two weeks, Georgia looks like a team that is going to have to play well to get to 8-4. And because I'm not very high on Georgia, I'm also not buying the "Phil Fulmer saved his job" line, either. Throughout Tennessee's decline, Fulmer's saving grace has always been his ability to beat Alabama, Tennessee's arch-rival. If the Vols lose in two weeks to the Tide, then Tennessee's decision-makers will be confronted with the fact that the Vols' major rival now has a better coach and in order to compete, Tennessee is going to have to upgrade in that department. If Spurrier then beats Tennessee again, the writing will be on the wall that Tennessee has been surpassed by a program with significantly less talent. That's the nightmare scenario for Fulmer.

LSU-Florida

I don't know why I let sports radio nitwits get me worked up (especially since they are trained for that exact purpose), but I could not believe Doug Conkle (sp?) proclaiming on Sunday morning that Les Miles' decision to go for 4th and 1 from the six was the "most stupid call that ended up working." Brian from MGoBlog gets this exactly right

The final call is the least debatable. Kicking a field goal is not automatic (LSU's kicker had already missed a 36-yarder) and gives Florida the ball back with about 2:30 on the clock to drive for the win. Going, on the other hand, either leads to Florida with the ball on their own six, needing a first down to kill the game, or what actually happened: first and goal, eventual touchdown, harried Florida drive that needs to go the length of the field to win the game. Anyone with a passing familiarity of the probabilities involved here should understand that going for it is the far superior choice, but how many coaches would pass up the temptation of a chip-shot field goal there? Certainly not our current set, and probably very few across the country.

To chime in my two cents, if LSU kicks the field goal, then their chances are significantly less than 50%. First of all, they would be underdogs in overtime because Florida had a better kicker. Second, just getting to overtime would be an accomplishment because Florida would have had 2:30 to drive roughly 40-50 yards to get a field goal attempt. Given that Florida had driven into LSU territory on five of its eight possessions up to that point, UF would have had a better than 50-50 chance of getting into field goal range. Conversely, with Jacob Hester and two quarterbacks who can run, LSU's chances of converting a 4th and 1 were probably 80%, at which point they would either score a touchdown (80-90% chance of winning, depending on how long it took them to hit paydirt) or kick a field goal with very little time remaining.

What I'm really liking about this LSU team is that it looks like the first instance in which Les Miles has brought his reputation as a great coach of the running game to bear. (The fact that he had to bring in a pass-first offensive coordinator like Gary Crowton to do so is interesting.) Bo Schembechler would have been proud of the execution of that last drive. Miles has also taken to heart a lesson from Schembechler that the current Michigan coaching staff has completely forgotten, which is the importance of being multiple in the running game. Bo's offenses ran the ball so well despite the fact that their opponents knew that the run was coming because they didn't know the direction or type of run. Bo's offenses typically featured a mobile quarterback who could threaten the defense with the option, a fullback who could do damage between the tackles, and multiple tailbacks who could run all over the place. Miles' offense has all of these ingredients. (LSU's undoing might be the same as the undoing of all of those Michigan teams under Bo: a spotty passing game.) Michigan's current offense has one tailback. Michigan doesn't utilize their depth at the position, they have no running threat from the quarterback (despite the fact that Chad Henne was reasonably mobile coming out of high school), and they haven't handed to the fullback since the opening drive of the January 1, 2002 Citrus Bowl against Tennessee.

Duel of the Jews

No week would be complete without a little fact-checking of our old friend MANDEL!!! Here's where Stewart plays Soviet historian with USC:

In one unthinkable evening, the very tenets that fostered the aura of invincibility that's surrounded Carroll's program these past five years -- that no individual is irreplaceable, that no problem that comes up can't be fixed, that the Trojans' recruiting machine just keeps humming and that freshmen can step in and shine right away -- were shattered.

Apparently, Mandel missed USC losing to a good, but not outstanding Oregon State team and an exceedingly mediocre UCLA team last year. He must have also missed the Trojans doing their best to lose to Washington (at home) and Washington State. In reality, USC's loss on Saturday night was certainly surprising because the Trojans hadn't lost a home game in over six years and they lost to the worst team in the conference. However, it was not unforeseeable because they had problems with inferior opponents throughout 2006 and because their quarterback simply isn't very good. This is why the media was so foolish in anointing the Trojans as the unanimous #1 team in the land before the season.

Here is where Mandel forgets that Ohio State was leading the nation in scoring defense going into the Michigan game last year:

A year ago, the season-long No. 1 Buckeyes tried to win a national title -- and came within one game of doing it -- while contradicting the accepted adage that defense wins championships.

Yes, Ohio State's defense turned out to be something of a mirage when they faced quality offenses later in the year, but they were excellent for the first 11 games. Additionally, why would we assume that this year is different? Because the Bucks shut down Purdue, the same Purdue team that rolled up huge numbers on bad opponents in 2006 and couldn't move the ball on teams with defenses?

Here's the part where I agree with Mandel, although he doesn't get the reasoning right:

Because the Big Ten lacks a true litmus test, it's hard to say what would happen if OSU actually reached its second straight title game, but generally a great defense (the Bucks are currently No. 1 nationally in scoring defense, No. 2 in total defense) gives a team a chance against just about anybody. There's only one team in the country right now that would be a prohibitive favorite against them on a neutral field.

Leaving aside the fact that stopping Purdue doesn't give any indication that Ohio State could stop Cal, Mandel is right that LSU would be a prohibitive favorite over Ohio State. In so concluding, he might choose to mention the fact that the Bucks have never beaten an SEC opponent in a bowl game (0-1 vs. Georgia, 0-1 vs. Florida, 0-2 vs. Alabama, 0-1 vs. Auburn, 0-2 vs. South Carolina, 0-1 vs. Tennessee) and that LSU would have homefield advantage over Ohio State in the Louisiana Superdome if they met for the national title.

Here's where Mandel thinks that LSU is copying Florida's use of Tim Tebow and ignores the fact that Gary Crowton used a similar quarterback rotation last year at Oregon with Brady Leaf and Dennis Dixon:

Football coaches are notorious copy-cats, so it was almost inevitable that Florida's unique use of Tim Tebow off the bench last season en route to the national title would spawn its share of imitators. What's remarkable, however, is not only how quickly it spread to this year's new national title favorite, but just how much LSU has advanced the concept with the way it uses Matt Flynn and Ryan Perriloux.

Note the misspelling of Ryan Perrilloux's name, as well.

Here is where Mandel forgets that LSU might have to rematch Florida at a neutral site:

But the fact is, LSU just played the one team on its schedule that matches up with it athletically. Florida had a near-perfect game plan, played about as well as humanly possible, and might have won if not for the second-half turnovers. If the Tigers do lose sometime in their next six games, it will almost certainly require a "letdown" performance on their part (the type which they proved capable of against Tulane), because no other SEC team has both enough weapons on offense to score points against Glenn Dorsey and Co., and a defense that can handle all the various elements of LSU's offense.

After all, the result may be quite different in the Georgia Dome because more of those classy Florida fans will be in attendance.

I H8 the Mouse

It is bad enough that ABC/ESPN demonstrates tremendous commitment to showing every Big Ten game in their grubby little hands to the entire country while games like Cal-Oregon and Texas-Oklahoma are regionalized. It's worse that ABC blue-balled its audience in the Southeast by cutting to the Red River [Insert term connoting a battle that will pass muster with anti-violence 527s] when the Florida State-N.C. State borefest was stopped by lightning and then promptly switched back with two minutes to go and Texas about to embark on a potentially game-tying drive. I would think that ABC should cut away to a dramatic conclusion of a rivalry game even absent a weather delay. The fact that they chose to pull viewers out of that exciting game right as it was reaching its denouement is borderline criminal.

Here's What I Learned on Sports Talk Radio this Morning

Lebron James should be traded from the Cavaliers because he rooted for the Yankees last night. He clearly wants to be in New York because he is friends with Jay-Z, which explains the three-year extension that he signed with the Cavs that keeps him in Cleveland through the 2010 season. Nick Celini loses the right to ever complain about Cleveland teams losing if he's in favor of trading the best Cleveland athlete since Jim Brown because he didn't want to put Chief Wahoo on his noggin.

Marion Jones is a CHEATER!!! A "bold-faced liar!!!" LOUD NOISES!!!

Tony Joiner is a felon and should be banned from ever playing football again. Seriously, John Kincaide was pontificating about how terrible it is that Joiner sprung his girlfriend's car from a tow lot when I was driving home yesterday and, lo and behold, he was forming an angry middle-aged conservative white guy chorus with Perry Laurentino this morning on the exact same subject. And here I was thinking that sports talk radio should be about sports as opposed to Judge Judy lectures about propriety. It's like there's a void after Vickkampf that has to be filled with moral pronouncements and any athlete in trouble will do.

Prediction? Pain. Or Maybe Not?

This could be a first: an analyst is picking the Hawks to finish over .500 and make the playoffs. And the analyst in question isn't Terrence Moore. Rather, John Hollinger, who makes his arguments on the basis of actual numbers and evidence as opposed to "Frank Robinson was traded once from Cincinnati and I'm from Cincinnati, so therefore, the Braves shouldn't trade Andruw Jones," has gone on record as predicting the Hawks to go 42-40($) and sneak into the playoffs as a #7 seed. His reasoning is three-fold: (1) the Hawks had a lot of injuries last year and it's unreasonable to think that this bad luck will continue; (2) the Hawks gave significant minutes to Speedy Claxton and Lorenzen Wright last year, both of whom were dreadful, so simply giving their minutes to replacement level players will lead to improvement; and (3) the Hawks are young and their players can be expected to improve. I sincerely hope that Hollinger is right.

In discussing last season, Hollinger spends a fairly significant amount of space addressing the Hawks' deficiencies in terms of three-point shooting, both offensively and defensively. He makes a fairly strong case that the Hawks might have simply been unlucky in that their opponents hit a lot of threes. Personally, I think the Hawks' defensive problems all start with their inability to stop penetration (especially from the point guard spot) and the rotations that result from penetration create open threes. I'm not high on Acie Law, nor is Hollinger, but if he can keep opposing guards out of the paint without being an offensive liability (see: Ivey, Royal), then he'll be a major improvement. Hollinger also notes that the Hawks didn't shoot the ball well from outside last year and this, I think, is a more significant problem. Like John Thompson's 1988 Olympic team that had a host of athletes and no shooters, Billy Knight has put together a team of 6'9 runners, but Joe Johnson is the only one among them who can hit from outside (although Josh Childress is decent from behind the arc). The Hawks desperately need someone to hit open shots to penalize opponents for doubling Johnson. Again, if Law is that guy, then Hollinger and I will both be wrong and the Hawks will be a better team. Another person to pay attention to is Marvin Williams, who got better last year at scoring, but needs to show some outside shooting to help the team more.

The long-term solution to the Hawks' three-point woes could be Al Horford, not because Al has any ability to hit an NBA three, but rather because Al might be the Hawks' first legitimate post threat since Dikembe. If Horford proves to be a good inside scorer, then he'll force doubles and then Joe Johnson could be the guy receiving the ball on the perimeter as opposed to handling the ball and drawing a double. My greatest anticipation for the opener against Dallas is to see Horford play. (Speaking of the opener, the Hawks' first five games are home dates against Dallas and Phoenix and road games against Detroit, New Jersey, and Boston. Oy vey.)

The note of pessimism that Hollinger strikes is a significant one, namely that the ownership squabble could prevent the Hawks from locking up Josh Childress and Josh Smith long-term. I can't put into words what a major problem this could be. Rebuilding takes such a long time in the NBA because the system is weighted in such a way that teams have an advantage in retaining their players. Thus, when the Hawks were bad, there were very few quality players available around whom they could rebuild. The Hawks have gone through years of suffering to accumulate a good young nucleus of players. The genius of the NBA system is that the Hawks can now retain them, as opposed to having to let some of them go for cap reasons (the NFL method) or watch as the biggest market teams outbid them for those players (the MLB approach). The nightmare scenario for the franchise is that the Hawks piss away their accumulation of young talent because Steve Belkin won't agree to any long-term commitments, either because he's cheap or because he views the entire roster as tainted because it was assembled by Billy Knight. It's one thing for Belkin to stop the Hawks from trading for an expensive player like Amare Stoudemire; it's quite another for him to prevent the team from keeping its existing players.

My Top 25 is Offensive

Rank	Team	Delta
1	LSU	--
2	Southern Cal	--
3	California	4
4	Ohio State	--
5	Oregon	4
6	South Florida	10
7	Boston College	1
8	West Virginia	3
9	Florida	3
10	Oklahoma	7
11	Kentucky	2
12	South Carolina	2
13	Cincinnati	5
14	Georgia	1
15	Miami (Florida)	4
16	Rutgers	6
17	Florida State	9
18	Wisconsin	2
19	Kansas State	7
20	UCLA	6
21	Missouri	3
22	Arizona State	1
23	Texas	12
24	Clemson	12
25	Colorado	1

Dropped Out: Alabama (#17), Penn State (#21), Virginia Tech (#22), Kansas (#25).

I feel queasy putting Kentucky so high when their defense is so bad. Are they really that different than the Louisville team that everyone has banished to the nether-regions of the rankings? I feel queasy putting South Florida so high after West Virginia put the game on a platter for them with an epic avalanche of turnovers. I feel queasy for giving Oregon a bump after a home loss, although I think the game confirmed that Cal and Oregon are almost even and if they are both very good, then they both deserve to be in the upper reaches of the poll. I feel queasy having South Carolina so high with Jasper Brinkley out of the season.

The two teams that almost made appearances in the poll were Illinois, for the obvious reason that they beat Penn State, and UConn, for the reason that they have bombed the nobodies they've played (with the exception of Temple). The winner of the UConn-Virginia game in two weeks ought to be ranked, assuming that UVA doesn't lose this weekend in their roadtrip (roadtrip?) to Middle Tennessee State.

And just to continue my stuck record on Wisconsin, they are not a top ten team, let alone a team that should be #5 in the country. They have yet to put together a quality 60 minutes of football, but because they're unbeaten and in the Big Ten, the AP and coaches polls love them and mindlessly keep them moving on the conveyor belt as teams above them play competent opponents and lose. And speaking of the Big Ten, try this scenario on for size: USC, Ohio State, and Florida all run the table. The Gators have one loss, but two wins over LSU. Do they jump the Bucks into the national title game? Put another way, after last year, is there any way that Ohio State does not get jumped, even though voting is only supposed to be about this year?

I Can't Believe you Get Paid for this, Terrence

In one of the least surprising developments in Atlanta sports history, Terrence Moore thinks the Braves should keep Andruw Jones. Does he examine Jones's record to give us hope that his disastrous 2007 was a fluke? Does he attempt to justify making a long-term commitment to a guy who doesn't pay so much attention to staying in shape? Does he make the argument that Jones is worth the $15-18M per year that it will apparently take to sign him? No. He's Terrence Moore and he wants a unicorn to come down and pay for Andruw Jones with hugs, smiles, and Monopoly money. Let the fisking commence:

Bad move.

Terrible move.

OK, we've established that you think that two words can constitute an effective paragraph. What else are you going to do to embarrass yourself?

Actually, this is an atrocious move for the Braves, because manager Bobby Cox had it right for eternity when he said of Andruw Jones, who ranks 1a, 1b or 1c among baseball’s center fielders for the ages, “He has RBIs in his glove.”

Yes, Andruw saves runs with his glove. So does Reggie Abercrombie. Does his defensive ability justify a .238 OBP? Are there teams lining up to give him $100M over five years?

It didn’t matter that Jones often looked ridiculous for long stretches after swinging and missing at pitches in search of reaching the farthest dark hole. Who cared that his batting average spent two seasons going south instead of north? No, he wasn’t much in the clutch this year, and yes, his agent is Scott Boras, the bogeyman for teams wishing to sign one of Boras’ clients below the amount of the national debt.

Let's rephrase this to be about a sports columnist instead of a centerfielder to illustrate the fact that an outfielder's inability to hit is somewhat important:

It didn't matter that Moore couldn't tell the difference between first person and third person voice. It didn't matter that Moore demonstrated such a lack of understanding of baseball that he determined that Juan Pierre was the solution to the Braves' hole in left field. It didn't matter that Moore couldn't construct a logical argument that would pass muster in eighth grade civics, let alone a major newspaper. It didn't matter than Moore demanded to be paid $11M per year to write columns that only served to anger his readership.

And, yes, the Braves can ease some of the post-Jones trauma with the signing of free agent Torii Hunter, the former center fielder and slugger for the Minnesota Twins. He also has a magic glove, and even though he can’t slug with Jones, he is more consistent at the plate with his ability to sustain hitting streaks.

Demonstrating the adage that a stopped clock is right twice a day, Moore actually makes a decent point here. Hunter is a good player and, unlike Andruw, his OPS+ has gone up in each of the last four seasons. Not coincidentally, he takes care of himself physically and has therefore not shown the aging effects that a centerfielder carrying around 15 extra pounds in the belly might.

That said, with the new folks at Liberty Media claiming they are willing to increase the payroll, the Braves’ Designated Geniuses should have discovered ways to acquire much-needed starting pitching while keeping Jones.

It's all so simple! The Braves should re-sign Andruw for an outrageous sum AND improve the pitching. Presumably, we'll trade Corky Miller for Jake Peavy and Chris Woodward for Brandon Webb. We'll then win five straight World Series titles and it was all because the profoundly moving Terrence Moore suggested to Liberty Media that it bump the payroll up to $150M and give Kevin Towers and Josh Byrnes lobotomies!

In fact, Jones was part of the solution regarding that starting pitching. He is the hidden reason the Braves produced Cy Glavine, Cy Smoltz and Cy Maddux, along with all of those consecutive years of team ERAs that ranked first or second in baseball. He caught everything. He threw out everybody. He made the spectacular routine. He did so through an 11th year with the Braves that will produce a 10th Gold Glove, but management will shove Jones out the door by allowing him to become a free agent while yawning.

Here are the Braves' ranks in NL ERA in the seven years before Andruw Jones became a regular centerfielder in 1998:

1991 - 3rd
1992 - 1st
1993 - 1st
1994 - 2nd
1995 - 1st
1996 - 2nd
1997 - 1st

Gee, how did the Braves' pitchers ever get anyone out when Otis Nixon, Deion Sanders, Roberto Kelly, Marquis Grissom, and Kenny Lofton were in centerfield?

Moore's citation to the gold glove award, one of the most useless awards on the face of the planet, just shows the bankruptcy of his argument. Riddle me this, Terrence: if Andruw can no longer steal bases, that would imply that he's not especially fast anymore, right? And if he's not especially fast anymore, then how does he catch everything? As for throwing everyone out, would it have killed Moore to actually look at Andruw's outfield assists - seven in the past two years - before making yet another argument that would have been true several years ago, but isn't now?

Well, mostly yawning. As a lifetime Braves player who contributed heavily to the franchise’s record 14 consecutive division titles, Braves officials will continue to say nice things about Jones as they wave good-bye. Still, the bottom line remains: He’s gone, and he’s only 30, and history comes to mind. Not in a good way, especially if the baseball gods wish to spank the Braves for their short-sightedness.

This oughta be good. Terrence is going to teach us a little history. Will he blame the Braves decline on the departure of Brian Jordan or David Justice? I'm tingling with anticipation.

Consider 1966. That was the first year Frank Robinson played for the Baltimore Orioles, and it was the first year of David Justice’s life.

And there's our answer.

Let’s start with Robinson, the undisputed star of the Cincinnati Reds for nearly a decade. He was traded to the Orioles for nothing worth mentioning before that 1966 season, because Reds owner Bill DeWitt said Robinson was “an old 30.” All that a creaky Robinson did in his first season with the Orioles was take the American League’s Triple Crown Award, lead them to their first world championship and grab World Series MVP honors. He eventually pushed the Orioles to three more pennants and another world championship (over the Reds), and then trotted to Cooperstown from there.

Cincinnati traded Frank Robinson following a year in which Robinson had a .926 OPS. He showed absolutely no signs of decline. Andruw is coming off of his worst season in a Braves uniform. Additionally, the Reds made the voluntary decision to trade Robinson. Do you not see a wee distinction between trading someone already under contract and not pursuing an expensive free agent when you have finite payroll and a pitching staff in desperate need of reinforcement?

As for Justice, the batting hero of the Atlanta Braves’ only world championship in 1995, he suffered a shoulder injury early during that next season, and then he was dealt to the Cleveland Indians before the following year for nothing worth mentioning.

Nothing worth mentioning = three-time all-star Kenny Lofton, who was coming off a season in which he had a .372 OBP, stole 75 bases, and finished 11th in the MVP voting. Oh, and Lofton was heading into his age-30 season and promptly had a poor year for the Braves. That kinda defeats the argument that letting someone go around their 30th birthday is always a terrible idea, doesn't it?

He was …

That’s right, 30.

Do you get paid by the paragraph, Terrence?

Justice immediately slugged the Indians to their second World Series in three years.

Justice had an outstanding year in 1997, possibly because he was angry about getting traded and decided to show the world that he could still play, but that's neither here nor there. In terms of getting the Indians to the World Series, Justice hit a whopping .253 with one homer in 67 post-season at-bats in 1997. He must be the reason why the Indians made the World Series.

He later joined the New York Yankees, where he became the MVP of the AL championship series before helping to lead the pinstripe bunch to another world championship.

You're right. Justice was the key to the Yankees winning in 2000. Where else could they have found a DH to hit .206 in a post-season?

When he ended his career with a playoff trip with the Oakland A’s, he had reached the playoffs six times after his trade from the Braves. He also retired as the all-time postseason leader in games played, at bats, extra-base hits, runs, hits, total bases, walks and RBIs.

Congrats, Terrence. You've conclusively established that David Justice played on a lot of good baseball teams. He played for the Braves in the midst of a run of 14-straight divisional titles, the Indians in the midst of five straight divisional titles, the Yankees in the midst of a run of 13 straight playoff appearances that shows no signs of abating, and the A's in the midst of a run of four straight playoff appearances. How is this relevant to Andruw Jones? Oh yeah, you were making the point that it is dangerous to off-load a player at age 30 by showing that the Braves made a mistake when they traded one star outfielder around age 30 for another. The lesson most sane people would take from the Lofton/Justice trade is that it is bad to acquire a malcontent with a bad hamstring. The lesson for Terrence is that baseball teams should never trade 30-year olds.

By the way, Moore cites to Justice's aggregate post-season stats, but neglects to note that Justice is a career .224 hitter in the playoffs with a .717 OPS. He accumulated lots of numbers because he played for good teams and the playoffs are much longer now than they were for most of baseball's history. There's that pesky concept of context biting Terrence in the rear again. (For the record, I always liked David Justice. I just feel the need to slag him off because Terrence Moore is using him to illustrate a point.)

This isn’t to say Jones will become Robinson or even Justice during his post-Braves career.

This is to say why even take the chance?

This reasoning could be used to prevent the Braves from ever letting any player go. Why let Chris Woodward go when he could turn into Cal Ripken? Why let Buddy Carlyle go when he could be the next Greg Maddux? Moore's argument is also putrid because he acts as if the only risk is in letting Andruw go. There can't possibly be any risk involved in giving an expensive long-term contract to a pudgy centerfielder who is plainly not as fast as he used to be and is coming off of his worst season in the majors. A useful analyst would compare the risks and make a recommendation. Terrence Moore is not useful. Or, as Terrence would write it...

Terrence Moore.

Is not.

Useful.

In the End, One of us will be Drunk

Frequent commenter and former legal colleague Klinsi is either very brave or very foolish, as he has taken a bet with on the aggregate outcome of the two Barca-Stuttgart matches in the Champions League. Barca has won four in a row by an aggregate score of 13-3 while Stuttgart has lost three of their last four, including a 2-1 loss over the weekend to newly-promoted Hansa Rostock. The bet, as all good bets do, involves hard-to-find beers. If hell freezes over and Stuttgart wins, I have to buy Klinsi a case of something called Stuttgarter Hofbrau, about which Klinsi surely has a story that starts with a lot of drinking at a long wooden table in 1988 and ends in the arms of a Belgian temptress names Anaïs behind a dumpster:



If Barca win, then Klinsi is on the hook for a case of the beer than has inspired countless stumbles and pratfalls by inebriated tourists on Las Ramblas (as well as my wife accidentally putting her hand in dog poo): Estrella Damm:



I'm probably tempting the fates by posting this, especially in light of the fact that the invaluable Yaya Toure is out for a month with a torn muscle in his leg, but, uh, I'm pretty confident. I have DVRed and watched Barca's last four games and the team is absolutely living up to expectations. Interestingly, they have gotten better since Ronaldinho's calf injury/secret suspension for being isufficiently committed to getting to bed at a reasonable hour. Playing Iniesta, a midfielder, at the left forward position instead of Ronnie has improved the offense because the ball circulates better. Toure has made the team significantly stronger defensively by preventing opponents from mounting any attacks through the middle. He can also pass the ball properly, which is a new thing for a Barca defensive mid. Eric Abidal has shored up Barca's perpetual weakness on their defensive left, although a new leak might have been sprung on the right now that Zambrotta is out and Oleguer is the new right back. Leo Messi has been playing at an unconscionably high level, Thierry Henry is finally starting to finish the bevy of chances that the side create, and Deco has been outstanding. The team of the past two weeks would walk all over Stuttgart; the question is whether a team with Oleguer at right back, Marquez in defensive midfield, a still-recovering Puyol in central defense, and Ronnie at left forward can do the same.

The Glavine Panacea

As is often the case, Mark Bradley has caused me to change my mind. In this instance, he makes a fairly strong argument that Tom Glavine isn't the solution for the Braves' pitching problems. Bradley spends too much of his time focusing on Glavine's dreadful start on Sunday that finished off the Mets' epic collapse. As much as I like Glavine, Sunday's result made me smile because it will excessively depress his value in the off-season market (the magic of recency) and because it gave me the delicious feeling of schadenfreude. (One note on the Mets' collapse: just looking at the size of the lead they blew in the final three weeks does not do justice to the collapse. The Mets closed their season with six home games against two of the worst teams in baseball and managed to lose five of those games. They didn't just collapse; they collapsed against the easiest part of their schedule. Given the national media's tendency to overplay any baseball occurrence that involves the teams from the Northeast [or the Cubs], we'll never hear the end of the '07 Mets. Yay!)

When he's not overrating the importance of Sunday's debacle, Bradley does make some solid points:

1. Glavine is old and the Braves already have plenty of old pitchers. This point loses a little mustard because the biggest problem with older pitchers is their lack of durability and Glavine showed no signs of becoming brittle this year. That said, the other problem with older pitchers is that you never know when they are going to go off the cliff. At some point, Glavine is going to lose the ability to get major league hitters out and the Braves cannot afford to have him do so on their watch, especially when they're already paying for Mike Hampton to hit the nautilus machine in his umpteenth rehab from elbow surgery.

2. Glavine isn't much of an upgrade over Chuck James. My initial thought was that Glavine doesn't need to be an upgrade over James, who gave the Braves league-average performance over the course of the year. He would need to be an upgrade over the tripe that the Braves trotted out in the #4 and #5 spots in the rotation. However, if the Braves are going to pay Glavine somewhere in the neighborhood of $10M, then he ought to be expected to be better than a #4 starter. As with all talent acquisition decisions in baseball, the price is everything. If Glavine gives a hometown discount and signs for something in the area of $6M, then he'd be a perfectly adequate signing. If he's being paid to be a #3 starter, then the Braves are spending too much.

3. Glavine's stats declined this year. The Chuck James comparison also works on another level: both pitchers have major weaknesses in one of the three true outcomes. For James, it's home runs allowed, as he allowed a depressing 32 in 161 innings. For Glavine, it's his strikeout rate, which plummeted this year. Bradley doesn't miss this factor and it's cause for concern that Glavine is very shortly going to be Wile E. Coyote, desperately running his feet as he realizes that he's gone off a ledge and is about to fall.

Bradley's solution is to bring in a young power arm or two, which is a "no shit, Sherlock" statement on one level, but juxtaposed against spending $10M on Tom Glavine, it isn't a bad idea. The Braves would almost certainly have to pay through the nose to find one in free agency, so the solution might have to be trading one of the team's middle infielders (Yunel?) to get a quality pitcher. The Braves' farm system churns out excellent position prospects, but it can't seem to produce a pitcher to save its figurative life. The best solution for the off-season would be to illustrate the Econ 101 example of imaginary countries trading bananas and TVs by converting one of those position prospects into a good pitcher or two.

You Get What You Pay For

Kudos to Charles Babb at Bucknuts.com for putting his finger on the source of the current disparity between the Big Ten and the SEC: coaching. Seeing Ron Zook lead his team to Big Ten contender status really drove this point home this weekend. At Florida, Zook was mediocre despite being in one of the great jobs in college football in terms of fan support, talent, and facilities. He goes to the Big Ten and promptly has a contender within three years at Illinois, a program that isn't close to Florida in any one of those categories. It's much easier to succeed when you need to get a big win and the guy on the other sideline is Joe Paterno as opposed to Nick Saban.

There is a certain degree of convenience for an Ohio State supporter to argue that coaching explains the disparity as opposed to talent. Ohio State is the one program in the Big Ten that has a legitimate, elite-level coach, so pointing the finger at coaching is self-serving from a Buckeye, although that certainly does not make the emphasis wrong. A gap in talent would be more difficult to correct and would have more negative implications for Ohio State and the rest of the conference. Focusing on coaching allows Babb to ignore the fact that the South produces more quality football prospects than any other region in the country. Ohio produces plenty of good players, so with no in-state competition for those players, Ohio State can compete with SEC powers in terms of talent (although you'd never know it from the Bucks' sterling record against the SEC). However, the potential for the non-elite programs in the Big Ten is not on the same level as that of the non-elite teams in the SEC because the talent pool is shallower in the Midwest and the disparity will only get more pronounced as population continues to shift south. Or maybe the better way to put this is that there are three elite (or potentially elite) programs in the Big Ten - Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State - and six in the SEC - Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU, and Tennessee.


My other minor criticism of the article is that the following paragraph is a little rich for me:

SEC schools gladly pay outrageous sums of money and devote incredible resources to winning in football because of the cultural values placed on wins and losses. This is the way it has been and likely always will be in a region where the
center of the universe rotates around what happens from September to January. Losing to a hated rival is something not to be tolerated; snide jokes and needling from business associates, neighbors, and even relatives must be endured until the following year, and to avoid this embarrassment, money is not an object when it comes to hiring a new coach. In the eyes of the alumni and fans, if the man is right for the job, they will find the money even if they have to take it out of their children’s college fund. Criticism is ignored and runs off their back like water off of a duck, and if pushed they will even ask, ‘Yeah, well, I bet you would gladly trade your coach for ours now even at twice the price.’ Even the coach of a program becomes part of the ‘mine is bigger than yours’ discussion and a source of bragging rights. This passion is so over the top ministers have been known to include references to football in marital vows, and while it may draw a laugh it frequently isn’t meant in jest.

Am I truly reading an Ohio State fan criticizing other fan bases for taking college football too seriously? I could be paranoid in my reading of that paragraph, but that's the gist of it for me.


Something tells me that Dewey Richard would have no problem including in his wedding vows a promise to be true like Rex Kern.

Substantively speaking, the point that Babb leaves out is that the SEC programs have ignited an arms race in terms of paying their coaches. It's hard to identify the starting point for the race, but we're currently at a stage where each SEC fan base looks at its coach and says "is this the guy to compete with Nick Saban and Urban Meyer." If Tennessee off-loads Phil Fulmer this fall, the coaching arms race will be a reason why. Conversely, in the Big Ten, there is no arms race because the coaching pool is filled with mediocrities and unproven figures. There's no great urgency to pay $1.8M for a new coach when all he has to do is compete with Joe Tiller and Ron Zook. The one place in which the arms race dynamic might come into play is Michigan because the Wolverines' arch-rival have the one great coach in the league and Michigan fans, detached and ironic as we may be, can only tolerate playing second fiddle to Ohio State for so long. The arms race should also be in effect at Penn State, which is a shadow of its former self, but the Lions are in a bind because they have a legendary coach whom they cannot fire, regardless of how mediocre his results.

The other problems with Babb's point is that the Big East has turned into one of the premier conferences, certainly surpassing the Big Ten over the past year or two, and those programs pay their coaches a relative pittance. Long-term, Rutgers, West Virginia, and South Florida are going to have to ante up for their head men or suffer Louisville's fate they will, but right now, the Big East is getting a bigger bang for its buck than any other league.

Vickkampf: the Voice of Reason is...Terrence Moore?

I'll give credit where credit is due: Terrence Moore has an outstanding column this morning regarding the Vick supporters that ESPN crammed into the Georgia World Congress Center to create as much drama and division as possible. Here's the highlight:

So, after several hundred folks on Tuesday night represented many among the “they” by embarrassing themselves and an entire city on national television with senseless booing and hissing during what was supposed to be a civil debate, they couldn’t care less.

This is beyond disgusting, and it needs to stop. Those nationally and locally who keep suggesting that Michael Vick has become a martyr around Atlanta because of the city’s legendary ties to the civil-rights movement are spitting on the graves of Martin, Malcolm, Sojourner, Rosa, W.E.B., Booker T and Frederick.

I only caught about 20 minutes of the Town Hall Meeting when I got home from work the other day, but my prevailing reaction was that the people in the audience have formed a cult of personality around Michael Vick and are completely blind to any form of rational thought on the issue. I'd like to think that the story should not be viewed through a prism of race and that it's just about one guy with remarkably poor judgment pissing away a promising career, but that's a hard position to take when he is backed by the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP. The people in the audience hooted at anyone who said anything remotely critical of Vick, including Terrence Moore (black), Terrence Mathis (black), and Chuck Smith (black). I won't even begin to discuss their outrage at the notion - advanced by Chuck Smith, John Kincaid, Neal Boortz, and just about anyone else with an ounce of clear thinking - that Vick should play again, but that he won't do so in Atlanta. OK, I'll say one thing about that. One of the first statements out of Vick's mouth after he pled guilty was to apologize to Arthur Blank and the Falcons for lying to them and letting them down. How in the world could Vick possibly come back to a team that he screwed, as himself acknowledges?

Overall, I'm happy that ESPN wasn't able to find our white racists to create a Geraldo atmosphere, although I'm sure that it's not for lack of trying. I'm happy that the panel of speakers was multi-racial and demonstrated agreement as to the seriousness of Vick's predicament and the future for him and the Falcons. And in a weird way, I'm happy that the extreme wing of der Vickgruppen were exposed as being totally irrational. All that said, I'm sad that the NAACP (or at least the Atlanta chapter) has stooped to this level, I'm sad that ESPN thought that this show would be a good idea, and I'm sad that I watched 20 minutes and then spent 15 minutes writing about it.

We're Not Biased...Except When We're Biased

One of my first thoughts when I saw Mike Gundy's diatribe at Jenni Carlson (right after thinking "Coach Knight would be proud of you, Mike") was that Gundy has made a cardinal mistake: he's taking on the media. Unless you have the backing of an entire apparatus of TV, radio, and print minions to back you up in this endeavor (and I'm not making any sort of political point here [heavy sarcasm]), it is never a good idea to declare war on the media. Why? Because they're the media. They always get the last word. They have the ability to shape perception. It was not at all surprising to see a number of college football writers close rank by defending Carlson and arguing that Gundy should be fired/suspended/censured/drawn and quartered.

One such writer is our old friend Stewart Mandel. However, Stewart being Stewart, he defends Carlson in such a ham-handed way that he ends up contradicting himself and confirming the distaste that many college football fans have for the media. Here is his discussion of writers and their biases from this week's Mailbag:

Regarding Mike Gundy's postgame rant, it seems that sportswriters have almost all condemned Gundy's overly emotional defense of his player and fail to grasp the distinction Gundy was trying to make between fair criticism of on-field performance and petty personal attacks. Your response was admittedly measured, but other national writers have gone as far as to suggest that Gundy be fined or fired. Meanwhile, almost all fans, players, and coaches support Gundy. Could it be that the actual bias in sports media is actually in favor of ... other sportswriters?
--Russ, Manhattan

Ding, ding, ding. I've tried futilely over the years to diffuse the wide-spread notion that mainstream journalists hold "biases" toward certain teams in the same way fans "hate" their rivals. I gave up on that lost cause long ago, other than to occasionally point out that if you truly believe a professional journalist would let his "inner-fan" hold more sway than the most basic tenant of his profession -- objectivity -- than you might as well assume your doctor is sharing your confidential medical information over drinks with his colleagues, and that your bank teller is secretly "borrowing" half that deposit you just made.

That said, writers are humans, and we like to be treated with the same level of dignity as any other humans. So yes, when Gundy steps out in front of a podium in a room full of people, points his finger at a specific writer and screams at her for several minutes with the kind of maniacal look on his face that suggests he's so angry he could hit somebody, is it any surprise to see fellow writers rallying behind the attacked journalist? Maybe that's how he dresses down his players in the locker room or on the sideline, but what person in any other walk of life voices their professional displeasure toward someone in that manner? Gundy's certainly entitled to disagree with her, and he's certainly entitled to defend his player, but I don't believe anyone -- from writer to football coach to stock trader to busboy -- deserves to be treated with such lack of basic human decency.

From the moment I first saw the Gundy clip, I knew immediately that such extreme-reaction columns as the ones you mentioned would soon be spewing forth across the country, regardless of whether or not Gundy had a valid point. It's the same "defense mechanism" that causes many writers to hold "grudges" against schools whose coaches or sports information staff have treated them like crap. It's human nature. And it's a much more likely cause of "bias" among writers than any team allegiance.

When I read that first paragraph, I was trying to decide whether I should take the time to write a post explaining why Mandel's analogy was so inept. He compares sportswriters letting their biases affect their writing with instances of outright illegal conduct by bank tellers and doctors that involve intentional malfeasance. Stew, I'm interested to know how you made it into Northwestern in spite of what must have been an 0-fer on the section of the SAT that tests analogies. I'm also interested in how sportswriters have "tenant[s]" that govern their professional conduct, but the rest of us have "tenets."

By the time I got to the third paragraph, I was wondering whether SI.com has editors, whether those editors read Mandel's work, and finally whether they have any sort of requirement that arguments be logically consistent. Mandel first argues that writers do not let their biases infect their work and compares that to employees stealing, violating federal law, or acting in violation of the basic ethics of their profession. He then says that writers do indeed carry biases against coaches or SIDs who don't treat them well. That's comforting. The next time that Mandel writes something unfairly negative about Michigan, I'll be much happier knowing that he's doing so because Lloyd Carr or Michigan's SID didn't give him cookies and punch as opposed to the fact that Mandel went to Northwestern and therefore doesn't like the Wolverines. (I don't think that Mandel has it out for Michigan; I'm speaking hypothetically here.)

It's hard for me to get my head around the notion that Mandel actually advanced this argument with a straight face. He inadvertently explained exactly why I don't like a lot of college football writers: they get paid to do work that most college football fans would do for free and yet they do a piss poor job of it. Why can't I get paid by America's pre-eminent sports publication to argue that college football writers aren't biased, except when they feel disrespected by a school's SID, in which case they are and I'm supposed to be fine with that.

Don't Do This to me

The Braves are ever-so-slightly getting my hopes up that they can stage some sort of miraculous rally into the Wild Card. They've won nine of 11 to creep to within three games, although the fact that they trail three teams makes a recovery a virtual impossibility. With a three-game set against the Phillies and the Padres collapsing, a last-gasp run would be possible, but the Rockies presence in the mix two games ahead of the Braves makes the playoffs a pipe dream. Incidentally, the Braves are tied with the Rockies right now for the best Pythagorean record in the NL. If both sides miss the playoffs, would that be a further argument for the weakness of the NL that its two best teams are not in the mix?

Even if the Braves don't make the playoffs, their run at the end of the year is gratifying on a couple levels. First, if they take care of business the next two nights (and with Smoltz and Hudson throwing, it's quite possible that they will), then they'll likely keep the Phillies out of the playoffs. While I was not especially geeked this weekend that the net effect of the Braves winning three of four would be to send the Cubs to the playoffs (I'm still bitter about '03), it would be especially satisfying to deny the worst fans in American sports October baseball for the umpteenth year (and I'm still bitter about '93). Second, finishing with 87 or 88 wins is better than finishing 82-80 because the Braves can say to themselves that they had a good season. The complaint that the team got screwed by its Interleague draw will have validity if the Braves miss the playoffs by a game or two, although there really is no counter to "forget the Red Sox; you went 1-6 against the Reds." Third, Liberty Media is more inclined to open the checkbooks this off-season if they perceive that the Braves are on the cusp of being a contender in the National League again. While I would be fine with the team letting Andruw walk, one of the messages of this season is that it's very hard to get quality pitching on the cheap, so the team will hopefully suck it up and pay some of the outrageous sums that pitching commands on the open market in the winter. Average pitchers cost an arm and a leg, but the alternatives are Mark Redman and Kyle Davies.

My Top 25 Violates One of my Pre-season Rules

Rank	Team	Delta
1	LSU	--
2	Southern Cal	--
3	Oklahoma	--
4	Ohio State	1
5	West Virginia	2
6	Florida	2
7	California	1
8	Boston College	2
9	Oregon	--
10	Rutgers	2
11	Texas	--
12	Clemson	11
13	Kentucky	1
14	South Carolina	4
15	Georgia	6
16	South Florida	1
17	Alabama	4
18	Cincinnati	6
19	Miami (Florida)	7
20	Wisconsin	--
21	Penn State	9
22	Virginia Tech	3
23	Arizona State	3
24	Missouri	2
25	Kansas	1

Dropped Out: Louisville (#16), Arkansas (#17), Washington (#19), Georgia Tech (#22).

I told myself before the season not to rank any teams from the Big XII North until they gave me a good reason to do so. I was skeptical on Nebraska and that proved to be correct. For some unknown reason, I lumped Texas A&M in with the North on the assumption that Dennis Franchione belongs back in Kansas and I was right on that as well. This week, when I was getting to the end of my ballot, I was scratching my head trying to find two teams to put into the poll and I unfortunately went with Kansas and Missouri. Kansas belongs because, unlike some teams in the AP and ESPN top tens (read: Wisconsin), they have dominated their cupcakes. I oughta penalize Kansas for playing such an amazingly easy non-conference schedule, but after a while, I'm a sucker for repeated 55-3 scores. With K-State, Baylor, Texas A&M, and Colorado coming up, 8-0 is a possibility for the Jayhawks. As for Missouri, they have no defense whatsoever as evidenced by the 34 points and 435 yards they surrendered to an Illinois team playing its back-up quarterback, but they can score and their win over Ole Miss in Oxford went up in value this weekend when Florida struggled there.

The team people are sleeping on right now is Ohio State. They ought to be very close to the discussion of LSU, USC, and Oklahoma as the three best teams in the country. Unlike the other contenders to that trio, they can play defense (although West Virginia is showing a sneaky ability to stop some teams). The offense that everyone thought would sputter without Troy Smith and the rest of the skill position players has been excellent after a sputtering start. (More evidence for Mandel's point on the importance of experience and quality on the offensive line.) What's really keeping Ohio State from entering the conversation is the weakness of the Big Ten and the Bucks' wretched performance in Glendale last year. Just as voters didn't want to see a Michigan-Ohio State rematch last year, they don't want to see Ohio State on that stage again, especially because of the mostly correct perception that the Bucks would not face nearly the same challenges in getting to New Orleans as compared to USC, LSU, or (to a lesser extent) Oklahoma. The Bucks needed Washington to play well, so they were hurt last week by the Huskies' egg in Pasadena.

I was tempted to put Oregon ahead of Cal in advance of what I think will be a win for the Ducks this weekend, but I decided to hold off and let events run their course. Interestingly, one of the headlines on ESPN.com's college football page is "Saturday's Oregon-Cal game will be one for the ages, no matter where you live." So naturally, it will only be broadcast to the West Coast while most of the country will get Clemson/Georgia Tech and Michigan State/Wisconsin on ABC and ESPN. I'm sure that the decision to show USC/Washington nationally instead of Cal/Oregon is a ratings-driven decision and Disney is, after all, in the business of making money, but boo to Mickey Mouse for televising the best match-up of the weekend to a small sliver of the country.

Clemson was the big mover in my poll. It might not make much sense at first glance to provide such a reward for beating a bad N.C. State team (although the Pack beat Wofford who beat Appalachian State who, as you may have heard, beat Michigan, so I might be careful with what I say), but the N.C. State game was the kind of game that Clemson could never win under Tommy Bowden. The fact that they not only won, but wiped the floor with the Pack is impressive. Speaking of Clemson, Tommy Bowden was on Mayhem this morning. The first two questions were Steak asking/stating "you must be pretty happy with the season so far" and Bell asking "are you happy with your talent level." Then, to further illustrate the difference between a good interviewer and a bad one, Chris Dimino asked about Clemson needing to identify gaps in the Tech defense to get their running game going and Bowden responded with a thoroughly useful answer about how Tech can give up big plays because they typically rush five and have three shallow and three deep in zone behind the initial line. Bowden explained that Tech's zone behind the front has a lot of gaps that runners can exploit and that Clemson will have to use motion and shifts to cause Tech to leave gaps uncovered. It was a great answer that was only made possible by a host who actually asks questions that don't have only one possible answer.

Another Classy Hokie

It was probably fitting that in the Falcons' first home game after the Summer of Vick, the dominant story is his Virginia Tech buddy DeAngelo Hall acting like a total jackass and single-handedly swinging momentum in a game that the Falcons were leading. Here's the drive chart from Carolina's tying drive:

1st and 10 at CAR 20
(9:09) J.Delhomme pass incomplete deep left to
S.Smith.

PENALTY on ATL-D.Hall, Defensive Pass Interference, 37
yards, enforced at CAR 20 - No Play.

1st and 10 at ATL 43
(9:02)
D.Williams right end to ATL 37 for 6 yards (C.Houston).

PENALTY on
ATL-D.Hall, Personal Foul, 15 yards, enforced at ATL 37.

1st and 10
at ATL 22
(8:29) D.Williams right tackle to ATL 20 for 2 yards
(J.Anderson).

2nd and 8 at ATL 20
(7:52) J.Delhomme pass
incomplete short middle to J.King.

3rd and 8 at ATL 20
(7:47)
J.Delhomme sacked at ATL 29 for -9 yards (J.Abraham).

Penalty on
CAR-T.Wharton, Offensive Holding, declined.

PENALTY on ATL-D.Hall,
Unsportsmanlike Conduct, 15 yards, enforced at ATL 29. Unsportsmanlike conduct
called after the play.

1st and 10 at ATL 14
(7:26) D.Foster
right end pushed ob at ATL 5 for 9 yards (C.Crocker).

2nd and 1 at
ATL 5
(7:19) J.Delhomme pass short left to J.King for 5 yards,
TOUCHDOWN.

J.Kasay extra point is GOOD, Holder-J.Baker.

It's really an accomplishment for a player to accumulate 67 penalty yards on a 80-yard drive, but the Falcons' "star" corner managed that feat yesterday. Part of me feels like the refs overreacted to Hall. The 15-yard blow to the face penalty was marginal, at best, and I've never seen a player get flagged for talking shit to another player, especially when that second player is talking back. In general, the refs gave the impression that they had money on the Panthers in the game, as they carried out a campaign against Hall on the one hand and on the other, let the Panthers take cheap shots on John Abraham (Fox's cameras caught this on Carolina's go-ahead touchdown) and make late hits on Joey Harrington. And I cannot fathom how they flagged Hall for talking too much when Steve Smith couldn't shut his mouth for the entire game. Moral of the story: I hate the Panthers.

All that said, DeAngelo put the refs in the position to screw him by totally losing his cool. It is the nature of the corner position that Hall is going to get beat every now and again. The fact that he completely lost his cool after Steve Smith beat him deep and then allowed his tantrum to affect the rest of the drive is unforgivable. Hall is no longer a rookie. This is his fourth year in the league, but he still acts like a child. He's a pretty good corner (although his technique is poor, as Rod Woodson explained on the radio last week), but he's a lousy teammate right now.

While Hall is a good player who can't control his id, Keith Brooking, another player who commands a good chunk of the Falcons' cap space, is simply not a very good player. If NFL Network re-runs the game, watch Brooking on DeShaun Foster's big runs. He's either blocked out of the plays or he over-runs them. Arthur Blank gets flak for getting too budd-buddy with Michael Vick, but Blank befriending and then overpaying Brooking might be a bigger sin.

All that said, there were a lot of positives for the Falcons yesterday, starting with Joey Harrington turning in a vintage Chris Miller-esque performance under center. Is this really the guy who was so bad in Detroit and Miami? He was accurate all day, he moved well in the pocket, and he didn't make mistakes. The slant pass that Roddy White turned into a long touchdown was something absent from the Falcons' arsenal when Mike Vick was the quarterback; he never hit receivers perfectly in stride like Harrington did on that play. Oh, and Harrington's 361 passing yards are 24 more than Vick's career high. Vick went over 300 yards passing exactly twice in four seasons as a starter. It took Harrington three games to do so. It's interesting that Harrington played so well in a week in which the Falcons brought in Byron Leftwich to push him for the position. G-d forbid, maybe competition at the quarterback position doesn't send football teams into emotional tailspins.

The rest of the offense played well around Harrington. Todd Weiner did a fine job on Julius Peppers and the rest of the offensive line blocked nicely for Harrington. The receivers made some plays, especially Roddy White, who has emerged as the go-to guy. The running game was fairly good in limited carries. Best of all, Bobby Petrino showed the ability to morph an offensive approach to an opponent; his pass-heavy game plan was very productive and would have produced a good number of points without a couple fumbles and a botched field goal.

And while his groin is still functional, how about a few nice words for John Abraham, who has been outstanding this year. He completely owned Travelle Wharton from start to finish. His performances have been excellent so far this season, although that doesn't really tell us anything we didn't know before. The rap on Abraham is that he plays this well and then gets hurt.

Overall, the Falcons are better than their record. They've been competitive in all three games. They're gaining almost as much yardage as they're giving up, so if you believe that yardage is a better indication of a team's merit than record, they look more like a 7-9 team than a 5-11 team. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they beat the Texans this week.

Forgive Lloyd. Pardon Lloyd. Grant Lloyd Atonement for Never Running the Clock Out.

For those of you who have not had the intense pleasure of watching 12-13 Michigan games every fall for the entirety of Lloyd Carr's tenure, you may not quite understand the basic tenets of Lloydball. For the uninitated who haven't seen all 153 of Lloyd's games as coach in Ann Arbor, here's a basic primer:

1. Running the football is the preferred way to progress down the field. Passing is fun when behind, in long yardage, and/or to loosen up defenses, but the default call on offense should be a run between the tackles.

2. Anything that can be used as an excuse to keep the ball on the ground will do so. Inexperienced quarterback? Slight protection problems? A gentle breeze?

3. When Michigan has the lead, the function of the offense is to bleed the clock, churn out a couple first downs, and then punt the ball so the opponent has to drive the length of the field to get a winning score.

4. Execution is more important than unpredictability. It should not matter that personnel, formations, and motion give away the nature and direction of a play; the players should still execute it.

5. Preventing big plays is the primary goal of a defense. The converse is not true. Avoiding turnovers and possessing the ball are the primary goals of the offense. The converse is not true.

As you might be able to tell, Lloyd's basic tenets often frustrate me. Such was the case on Saturday afternoon. I left for the concluding Yom Kippur service at 6 p.m. with Michigan nursing a 7-6 lead heading into the fourth quarter. I then spent the next two hours praying and seeking forgiveness for various things, such as losing my temper too easily and saying negative things about other people. I was confronted with an interesting philosophical question: can I repent for a sin that I was sure was going to take place when I got home? Can one repent for sins that are mere hours from taking place?

Fortunately, this remained a mere hypothetical because Michigan was opposed on Saturday by the one major power coaching staff with even more old-fashioned values. (There are probably Tennessee fans jumping up and down right now, screaming "Remember us!?!") Occasionally, Lloydball does work. It works when Michigan has a dominant defense (1997 and 2006) and it works when an opponent's style hews perfectly to the way college football was played in the 70s. Penn State does absolutely nothing unconventional on offense, which means that Michigan's defense is perfectly situated to stop it. Penn State is rock-solid on defense, but they do not disguise coverages or generate tremendous pressure to force turnovers. Thus, Michigan got away with running almost exclusively on downs other than second and third and long. (Excluding its drive that started with 90 seconds to go in the first half and its kneel-down at the end of the game, Michigan had 34 first and tens in the game and threw on exactly eight of them. How Carr and Debord think it's a good idea to "protect" a true freshman quarterback by forcing him to throw mostly on obvious passing downs is beyond me.) Michigan also got away with forgoing the chance to kill the game off on its final offensive possession, mainly because Anthony Morelli is not a good quarterback and Penn State's offense is fairly easily defended.

In this salvo of negativity, I should probably say a few nice things about Michigan saving its season, beating a top ten team, and emerging as a contender in the emasculated Big Ten. First, Mike Hart is an absolute titan for grinding out 153 yards against a defense that knew what was coming time and again. Second, Ryan Mallett already has more ability to move in and out of the pocket and make improvisational plays than Chad Henne does. With a predictable offense, that ability to buy time for receivers to get open is critical. Mallett's scramble and throw to covert a 3rd and 11 on Michigan's last drive was a great play and covered up for some truly wretched play-calling that asked for Penn State to get a good chance to come back and win the game. Third, the defense isn't better solely because it isn't seeing the run-based spread anymore. With Brandon Graham healthy and living up to his tag as the next Lamarr Woodley, Donovan Warren doing a good job at corner as a true freshman in place of the dearly departed Johnny Sears, and Brandent Englemon providing a significant upgrade over the not-ready-for-primetime Stevie Brown at safety, Michigan is better at three spots than the unit that was torched by Armanti Edwards in the first half of the opener. It isn't a foregone conclusion that Michigan will soil itself when it sees the spread again from Illinois.

Other College Football Thought-dreams

1. I wish I had something exciting or innovative to say about the Georgia game, but I really don't. It was a great win for the Dawgs because it keeps the Dawgs in the race in the conference. Matthew Stafford still relies on his arm too much to the detriment of proper footwork and his long passes therefore sail on him. His great throw in overtime should not obscure that fact. The offensive line performed above expectations, giving Stafford time to throw and opening holes for Georgia's backs. Knowshon Moreno is outstanding. The defense played very well, with the exception of Alabama's last drive in regulation when they promptly forgot everything they have been doing well all season. If John Parker Wilson was a better quarterback, then that would have been a two-play drive because Keith Brown was pretty open deep. I was mildly perplexed that Terry Grant only got 11 carries, as he looks like the real deal much as Moreno does. I was also perplexed by the sudden appearance of Roy Upchurch late in the game, but that was a really bright maneuver by Nick Saban and Major Applewhite.

Two other random notes:

a. Gotta love the class of Alabama's students for pelting Georgia's players with cups after Mikey Henderson's winning touchdown catch. THIS IS ALABAMA FOOTBALL!!!

b. Isn't it amazing that Mark Richt is 23-3 in SEC road games even though he doesn't go all Woody Hayes on his players?

2. MANDEL!!! Hopefully, our friend Stewart was light-headed after fasting for penning an entry about how every team in the SEC other than LSU has at least one major flaw. Gee, you think the same can't be said about every other conference? You want to discuss Oregon's and Cal's defenses? (I probably shouldn't be saying anything about Oregon after September 8 other than that Mike Bellotti was sexier than Magnum P.I. when he had a mustache, but 31 points conceded to Stanford? In one half? Really?) Or West Virginia's, for that matter? Or Rutgers's schedule? Or South Florida's offensive line? Or the entire Big Ten save for Ohio State? Or Texas's pass protection problems? Mandel is seeking to hold the SEC to a standard than no other conference can match. He also ignores the fact that the last two weeks have demonstrated that there isn't an easy out in the SEC, which is a testament to the depth of the league. Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Vandy are all frisky, which makes life tougher for the powers in the conference because they will get no breathers this year. This could be a tough year for the embattled coaches in the league (read: Fulmer and Nutt) because they won't be able to get the free, record-padding wins that the conference's peasantry sometimes provides. Just as Jim Donnan lost his job for losing to Georgia Tech rather than Tennessee and Florida, Nutt and Fulmer might lose their jobs for losing to Vandy or Mississippi State instead of Florida or LSU.

For the record, I don't necessarily disagree with Mandel's assertion that the conference has LSU first, Florida second, and then a mish-mash of good, but not great teams thereafter. I just don't like that being a criticism of the league, especially in a year in which it looks so balanced.

It also bears mentioning that Mandel was right on the money when he noted last week that Texas and Oklahoma illustrate the importance of offensive lines. There's a good argument to be made that the start of this season is illustrating that returning quarterbacks are overrated in pre-season predictions. LSU, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Florida all look outstanding on offense with new starters. Michigan (pre-Henne injury) and Tennessee look pedestrian with four-year starters under center. Penn State has a senior under center and they can't pass their way out of a paper bag.

3. Maybe there's a reason why Taylor Bennett sat behind Reggie Ball for all that time. Maybe my prediction of a good season for Virginia won't turn out to be complete idiocy after all. Wouldn't it be something to see Michigan win the Big Ten after losing its opener to Appalachian State and Virginia win the ACC Coastal after getting blown out in its opener by mighty Wyoming. Who the hell am I kidding with that last sentence?



4. Blake Mitchell did about as well in Baton Rouge as we all thought he might. Let the Smelley era commence! Seriously, it's hard to take a team seriously when it's led by this guy:

I'll admit that I didn't see too much of the South Carolina-LSU game between the Michigan game, Barca-Sevilla (the Blaugrana's defense was impenetrable; this team looks great, even with Thierry Henry a shell of his former self), and religious observance. LSU dominated statistically and the 28-16 score doesn't really do justice to how good LSU looked (again).

5. If you want an undervalued team right now, take Arkansas. They've lost two games, both of which they led in the fourth quarter. Their dreadful passing game is going to take a step forward when Marcus Monk returns. The only qualifications to my optimism are the possibility of an implosion as the summer of Nuttkampf takes its toll and the defense, which misses Chris Houston and Jammal Anderson badly.

6. Am I the only one who is amused that the Mississippi State-Gardner-Webb game pitted the Bulldogs against the Runnin' Bulldogs?

7. The bell tolls for thee: Mike Stoops, Dennis Franchione, and Dave Wannstedt. The bell would toll for Charlie Weis if not for the cost of buying him out. I'm perfectly happy with Charlie getting the full five years in South Bend.

8. Signs that the media and coaches polls suck, take 23: Wisconsin remains in the top ten, despite all evidence that the Badgers are a mediocre team. The latest evidence: a four-point win over a stumbly-wumbly Iowa team that featured two open receivers behind the secondary on Iowa's last drive, both of whom were missed by Jake Christiensen. At some point, shouldn't a team have to either beat a good team or look good against a bad team to justify a top ten ranking? Wisconsin is in the top ten, while Michigan is out of the polls (and deservedly so), but does anyone think that Michigan wouldn't be, at worst, a very slight underdog to the Badgers on a neutral field?

Vickkampf: Let's Have Kurt Waldheim and Yuri Andropov Debate the Implications

I've got that Cracker song What the World Needs Now song stuck in my hear right now. You know, the one that says that the world needs a variety of things "like I need a hole in my head."? The cause of my humming is ESPN's decision to convene a town hall meeting to discuss the racial impact of Vickkampf. And to ensure that Atlanta is portrayed to be a short step away from Sarajevo after the collapse of the Iron Curtain, the panel will include Terrence Moore and Neal Boortz. Does anyone doubt that Bob Ley (whom I normally like and respect) and company sat around trying to decide who the biggest bombthrowers would be on the racial issue and came up with Moore and Boortz? And oh how they'll giggle when Moore asserts that Atlanta is too racist to host a Super Bowl or Boortz whips out the "ghetto trash" line that he used to describe Cynthia McKinney (the only instance in which I felt sympathetic to Ms. McKinney). Gee, I wonder why ESPN invited Terrence Moore as opposed to Mark Bradley (assuming that they didn't invite Bradley).

I typically have serious reservations about employing anything close to the "the races get along down here, but the Yankee media is stirring up trouble," since that was typically the line used by just about every white racist in the South in the 50s and 60s. In fact, I heard that line from a white resident of Jena, Louisiana on the radio this week, so apparently, it's still on the first page of the "don't pay attention to the fact that our town prosecutes blacks and not whites" playbook. That said, I am definitely not pleased by ESPN's approach. I don't recall them convening a racial town hall to discuss Barry Bonds (another issue on which opinion split on racial lines). Why? Because the narrative concerning Atlanta and the South involves race, but the same narrative doesn't apply to national issues like Bonds. G-d forbid anyone suggest that San Franciscans or New Yorkers might also feel differently about Bonds on the basis of racial experience. Similarly, there hasn't been a racial town hall in Philadelphia regarding Donovan McNabb's perception that he's treated more negatively than white quarterbacks.

Like Jeff Schultz's inept "let's use pop psychology to explain why Georgia can't score in the red zone" explanation, ESPN's approach also highlights a real failing of the modern media: the tendency to find the most diametrically opposed points of view and air them in the interest of "balance." This comes up all the time in the political context. The Supreme Court will issue a decision on, say, gun rights and CNN will go to the split screen with Wayne Lapierre in one box saying crazy things, someone from a pro-gun control group saying something less crazy, and then the anchor in the third box egging the two of them on. As a result, the viewer gets two extreme views as opposed to a measured, intelligent take. I can guarantee you that Moore and Boortz will do the same on the Vick issue. One caveat: Moore didn't really write anything incendiary about the Vick case and he smartly didn't turn Vick's travails into a referendum on race relations. Maybe ESPN won't get the Racial Dresden that they're clearly pining for.

If my First Son is Samuel, Should my Second be Yaya?

Thanks to the Mediapro-Sogecable dispute in Spain that has prevented GolTV from showing Barca and Real Madrid matches this year, last night's replay of the Barca-Lyon Champions League match was the first time that I got to see the Blaugrana this year (other than an unexpected half against Athletic Bilbao). Barca came into the match on the heels of drawing its first two road games in the Primera 0-0. The opening to the game featured a translation of an ESPN Deportes reporter saying that Frank Rijkaard went on a six-minute monologue in the pre-game presser about how the team have had trouble integrating their new players and that some of the lapses in concentration from last year had returned. Rijkaard was almost certainly talking about Thierry Henry, since the other three signings - Yaya Toure, Eric Abidal, and Gaby Milito - have all performed well on the field and Barca fans have quickly taken to Toure and Abidal. Anyway, Barca's fine performance changed the story from this:

to this:

Leo Messi gets the cover and he deserves it for an outstanding performance. While Thierry Henry looks either rusty, washed up, or still injured and Ronaldinho is still off of his top form (although he still made several nice passes last night, none of which went to Henry because Ronnie and Henry don't [yet] know how to play with one another), Messi has picked right up where he left off at the end of last season. His control and pace make him almost unstoppable. The only criticism of his play is that he isn't a very good passer, as evidenced by one break last night when he should have released Henry and instead chose to dribble into no-man's land himself.

Collectively, the team looked excellent last night. With all of the pre-season concern on how Henry would mesh with Messi, Ronnie, and Eto'o, combined with a pair of 0-0 draws in Barca's first three Primera matches, the focus of criticism was on the offensive approach. However, Barca was let down by their defense as much as their offense last year. The team allowed two goals to Liverpool in the critical first leg, five to Real Madrid in two matches, and three apiece to Valencia, Sevilla, and Chelsea in two matches with each. The only clean sheet that Barca keps against any of those foes was in the second leg at Anfield when the Scousers were protecting a lead.

This year, the defense is outstanding. Barca have conceded one goal in four competitive matches and that was down to a Victor Valdes error. (With Gio gone and Marquez back in form, Valdes becomes the defensive question.) They shut out both Bayern and Inter in pre-season friendlies. Last night, Barca not only kepy a clean sheet, but they didn't allow Lyon a shot on goal. Lyon's chances were essentially limited to a header from the penalty spot and a tight-angle shot from a corner that was blocked. Barca's signings have resolved the team's weak spots from last year. Yaya Toure is an absolute revelation in the center of the midfield, as he combines defensive ability with solid passing and a surprisingly good shot. Gaby Milito is solid at the back and gives the team depth to cover for injuries so they don't have to rely on Lilian Thuram. Finally, words can't describe how much better Eric Abidal is at left back as opposed to Gio von Bronckhorst. Abidal was Barca's danger man for a significant period in the first half and he can actually play defense. Opponents can no longer attack Barca's left with impunity.

One other good note from last night was a real team goal:

The test for Barca's new defense will be this weekend when they face an angry Sevilla side that laid an egg at the Emirates. Shutting out Lyon (14 scored in seven Ligue 1 matches) was impressive, but doing the same to Sevilla would officially show that Barca are back from their 06-07 malaise.