This Chicken Salad Sure Smells Funny

Let's get this out of the way right off the bat: Michigan's offense was terrible against Utah. The offense scored three touchdowns off of short fields created by the defense and the special teams, but it only managed one possession where it created anything approximating a drive and that ended with Brandon Minor fumbling the ball away. The Michigan offense is a perfect storm of bad factors. It is:

Inexperienced: only three returning starters. The starting backfield was a sophomore walk-on and two freshman running backs.

Ill-fitting: Michigan does not have a quarterback who presents a running threat, nor does it have any dangerous slot receivers.

Learning a New Scheme: Rich Rodriguez is presented with the dual challenge of developing the basic technique of a pile of young players, along with teaching them a new scheme. The playbook is already limited by the fact that the talent isn't a good fit for the system; it is further limited by the fact that Rodriguez has to spoon-feed the offense in small doses.

Possibly Bad: It's not just that the quarterbacks are bad fits for this offense; they might simply be bad fits for any offense. Nick Sheridan does not have the arm to threaten a defense down the field except with moonballs down the sideline. Stephen Threet might turn into a good player, but he takes an awfully long time to read a defense. There's a reason why Michigan was so leery of throwing the ball down the middle of the field yesterday. That reason is most likely the fact that the quarterbacks showed themselves to be bad decision-makers and likely to throw interceptions when they did so in Fall practice.

(The only throw down the middle that I recall was a streak route by Brandon Minor that was wide open in the second quarter and Sheridan overthrew it. That was a great call by Rodriguez and Calvin Magee.)

All that said, yesterday illustrated that the transition to the spread is a good one for Michigan. Utah runs the spread and created all sorts of issues for a good Michigan defense for a half. Oregon, Missouri, Illinois, and Florida all scored 40+ points running variants of this offense. It is clearly the way to go. Michigan has one of the inventors of the offense running the show. One bad game or even one bad season does not change the fact that Michigan made the right decision going in this direction.

Yesterday also illustrated that struggles for first-year coaches are to be expected. Bobby Petrino was down by ten points at home to Western Illinois before Arkansas saved themselves. Mike Sherman lost his opener to Arkansas State. Washington State got blown out in Seattle by Oklahoma State. The only new coaches for BCS conference teams who got wins were playing I-AA opponents (Duke and Georgia Tech) or walked into a perfect situation (Ole Miss). If Jim Tressel and Pete Carroll combined for 11 losses in their first seasons at Ohio State and USC, then it's probably fair to assume that a good coach won't create magic overnight.

So what are the positives to be taken from the game yesterday?

1. The Barwis effect is real. The defensive linemen didn't become man-eating centaurs liked I'd hoped, but the team did show a major conditioning advantage. The defense was dominant in the second half. Speaking of which...

2. Michigan has a defensive coordinator who can make halftime adjustments. Michigan's defense was disappointing in the first half, but they came out in the second half playing a 3-35 and shut down a quality offense. Speaking of that quality offense...

3. Utah is a good team. If Utah were in the Big Ten, they would be smack dab in the Wisconsin-Penn State-Illinois jumble below Ohio State. Hell, they'd probably be towards the top of that clump. The Utes' indiscipline aside, Utah runs a well-designed offense with a terrific quarterback at the controls. Brian Johnson is probably the best quarterback that Michigan will face all year. He made some terrific throws in the first half when he had time and only clammed up in the second half when the coverage improved and he was being hit consistently. Utah has the requisite number of kick-ass Polynesians and a ludicrous cyborg kicker who put every field goal dead-center between the uprights with room to spear. If they win fewer than ten games, it can only be because of an injury to Johnson or Kyle Whittingham getting too conservative with a lead.

4. Michigan's special teams were quite good. The Wolverines blocked a PAT and a punt, they forced a fumble on a punt return, the kickoff returns looked dangerous, and they got a 50-yard field goal.

All in all, I was thinking at halftime that this would be a repeat of Oregon 2007 and ended the game thinking that it was Virginia 1995. Given that my expectations for the season were for seven wins and my expectations at halftime were for total humiliation, 25-23 isn't so bad. If only Michigan were in the ACC...

The Fourth Annual Installment of "FIVE OUTLANDISH PREDICTIONS!!!"

LOUD NOISES!!! My friend Ben and I have an annual tradition of making five off-kilter predictions before the start of the season. In the interests of preserving a historical record, here are our efforts from 2007, 2006, and 2005. There have been some gems - Ben picking Arizona State's ascent last year, me picking Notre Dame to be good in 2005 - and some duds - Ben picking Tommy Bowden to win a conference title, me picking Notre Dame to be good last year. With that in mind, read on with caution:

Ben's HOT SPORTS OPINIONS!!!

1. The SEC retains 11 of their coaches after the season. All are safe, but lo and behold, the Ol' Ball Coach steps aside. He has a good year by SC standards, but still finishes fourth in the East. He is fed up with the inability to win there and steps down at year's end coming off an 8-win season.

[Ed. - This seems plausible. I don't see Spurrier having the frustration tolerance to be the South Carolina head coach. I'd bet that deep down, in places he doesn't talk about at parties, Spurrier was shaken by the impact of the injuries to Jasper Brinkley and Captain Munnerlyn last season. This didn't happen at Florida.]

2. West Virginia loses 6 games this year and Bill Stewart gets replaced as coach by...the man who should have got the job in the first place: Butch Jones from Central Michigan.

[Ed. - I'm not so high on West Virginia, but six losses seems strong. The effect of losing an alpha male head coach isn't usually that severe in year one, although there are a number of Louisville fans who are anxious to chime in with their disagreement.]

3. Colorado is back as a player on the Big XII scene. They win 8 games and finish second in the Big XII North as they miss Oklahoma and get Texas at home. They begin to contend for the Big XII and BCS bid starting in 2009.

[Ed. - This is an annual prediction for Ben, most likely because Colorado was good when we started watching college football. You know what they say about always loving the music you were listening to when you first got laid... I'm excited to see what Dan Hawkins can do with Darrell Scott and I also gave some thought to Colorado over Texas as my upset of the year.]

4. Clemson rolls through the ACC and regular season undefeated only to lose in the ACC Championship game. Because "Tommy can't win the big one." Mind you, the other 12 were all big.

[Ed. - This won't look so good, come Saturday night at 11:30.]

5. This is not so outlandish, as I think others are saying this, but the biggest game in the country on November 22, 2008 will be undefeated BYU at one loss Utah. BYU has two Pac-10 teams on the schedule, and they should be able to handle both. If they win, they crash the BCS, and not just as an after thought. There will be folks who scream that they should be in BCS NC game because I don't think two other teams get through unscathed. Gameday will go there, and Utah will beat them because that is what happens in rivalry games when one team, here BYU, looks past the rival and onto the big stage.

[Ed. - I doubt that BYU is going to look past Utah any time soon. I don't doubt that we could have a 1984 redux, although there is such confidence in the consensus top five this year that it will be hard for BYU to convince voters that they are on the level of Florida, Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and USC. BYU is going to give up too many points for that to happen.]

Michael's EDGY COLLEGE FOOTBALL COMMENTARY!!!

1. Ole Miss wins eight games and finishes third in the West.

2. North Carolina wins the ACC...whatever their division is called. (I know the other five teams in the division, but I can't keep the names straight.) Sean Glennon surrounded by suspect skill position players is not a recipe for success and the rest of the division is not good. Great coaches tend to break out in year two at a school. Butch Davis might not be a great coach, but he's close and he has a ton of players coming back. The ACC is generally the place to make crazy picks because the elite of the conference is so non-elite.

3. Cal has a resurgence and finishes second in the Pac Ten. They will be 7-1 or 8-0 when they play USC. A pro-Tedford pick is also an annual occurrence.

4. Upset of the year: East Carolina over West Virginia. I was tempted by the idea of Arkansas over Florida because of Petrino's passing game against that secondary, but the game is in early October. If Arkansas is going to pull a big upset, then it will be later in the year.

5. The major coaching casualty this year: Ralph Friedgen. It pains me to say this because I really like Friedgen, but he made the mistake of winning too much too soon and Maryland fans are not accepting of 6-6 anymore. Ferentz would be my guy for this spot if not for a massive buyout that will scare frugal Iowans. I'm tired of picking Phil Fulmer for this spot every year, only to be let down when he saves his job with convenient false starts from his offensive linemen and opponent's field goals bouncing off the iron.

First you Get the Money, then you Get the Power, then you Get Erin Andrews 14 Saturdays per Year

Say hello to a new TV deal for the SEC. Say hello to $15M per school annually. Say hello to ESPNU on Comcast. Say goodbye to the Daves and watching college football on MyATL 36. Say goodbye to SEC fans ever being able to portray our teams as victims of the media ever again. (I reserve the right to revoke that statement the first time that Herbstreit says something dumb about Georgia's intangibles.)

Some thoughts:

1. The SEC and the Big Ten are leaving the rest of college football (minus Notre Dame) behind in terms of revenue generation from TV contracts. $15M per school is a huge chunk of change. Pair that revenue with the fact that the Big Ten and the SEC are always #1 and #2 in average attendance and are making a killing in gameday revenue in an era of luxury boxes and PSLs and you have those two conferences developing a significant financial advantage. Whether that advantage translates on the field is another matter entirely. Texas and USC will still get to dominate recruiting in two of the three best states for talent. Florida, on the other hand...

2. Think about the position that Miami and FSU are in. They are already up against one of the top coaches in college football, coaching at the most popular school in the state. Now, add in the fact that Florida will be widening its financial advantage significantly because the SEC's TV deal is so much better than that of the ACC. On the other hand, Da U's recruiting appeal has never been based on nice facilities.

3. In a certain respect, college football is going the same direction as other sports. TV has caused a general explosion in sports revenue, only that revenue is never distributed evenly (except in the NFL). Just as the gap between the top revenue MLB or EPL teams has widened, so has the gap between the top college football conferences and the rest. As noted above, there is less of a correlation between revenue and talent accumulation in college football than there is in baseball or English footie, but there should be some effect. The SEC and Big Ten teams (especially the ones with massive ticket revenue) will be able to build all sorts of palatial facilities for their programs and that can have an impact on recruiting.

4. I know that correlation does not equal causation, but does anyone else think that there's a link between two off-seasons in which SEC schools launched themselves into a full-blown arms race for coaching talent and this massive TV deals. A league containing schools that are willing to break the bank for the Petrinos and Sabans of the market has to be attractive to networks. ESPN had to tell itself "if Arkansas is willing to spend crazy money for Bobby Petrino and Arkansas is in the lower half of the SEC in terms of potential, then this league is crazier about football than we previously thought. Where's the checkbook?"

5. The SEC's deal is also a result of the Sunbelt getting bigger and richer. We're going to have to stop thinking about ourselves as a marginalized region at this rate. Let the Sports Reporters keep acting as if college football doesn't exist; the network that airs that dreadful show just forked over a ten-figure commitment to show regular season college football games. Speaking of which...

6. These are massive TV deals for regular season telecasts. You think the revenue would be the same with a 16-team playoff? By resisting the urge to turn the sport into just another sport, college football (or at least the conference that represents college football in its highest [or most drunken] form) has cashed in.

The Annual "Brazil aren't what they Used to be" Post

I'll admit that I've enjoyed the Olympics more than I expected. Going in, I assumed that NBC would ruin the Olympics by hausfrau-izing them. I was also thinking that the Olympics are second-rate as compared to the World Cup, the Euros, and other international footie competitions because countries actually care who wins and loses those tournaments. There were no celebrations in the streets when Michael Phelps won his eighth gold medal. The Olympics, like the NFL, represent forced excitement without a soul.

I still think that, but I have enjoyed my individually packaged, plastic wrapped excitement. The swimming caught my attention, as did the totally phenomenal Usain Bolt. (If anyone deserves to be cocky, it's the fastest man in history.) The USA Hoops team has been fun to watch, certainly more so than the pouty, selfish team of four years ago. More than anything else, I've been enjoying the soccer and that enjoyment was leading to a crescendo last night with the Brazil-Argentina match. Brazil have never won an Olympic gold medal in football. This is the only empty spot in their trophy case. Additionally, football at the Olympics is a bigger deal for South American countries because the powers of the continent announced their supremacy in world football by winning Olympic gold in 1924 and 1928. The fact that Brazil and Argentina produce so much young talent probably doesn't hurt their interest in a U-23 tournament, either. You add that context to the fact that Brazil and Argentina are bitter rivals and yesterday's game was shaping up to be a highlight of the Olympics...

Or at least it would have been a highlight if Brazil played like Brazil instead of a second-rate Ireland. To paraphrase Fat Bastard, Brazil were crap. They barely created a good chance in the entire match. True to their recent traditions, the only offense came from the wing backs, specifically Rafinha on the right flank. They don't bother to create any offense in the middle of the park. It's one thing for Brazil not to have a player like Riquelme who can spray perfect passes around; it's another thing for Brazil to not have a player like Fernando Gago, a decent, but not inspirational central midfielder.

We covered this topic last summer when Brazil were looking pedestrian at the Copa America. Oddly, Brazil ended up winning the tournament despite the fact that they never looked very good. At the time, I discussed an outstanding article by Tim Vickery regarding Brazil and Argentina's response to Total Football. The post-script to the article should have been that Brazil bringing home the Copa America title against the run of play was a bad development for Brazil long-term because it delayed the country's reckoning of its own shortcomings. It pushed back the point at which Brazil will look at itself and decide to play like Brazil are supposed to play. Hopefully, a 3-0 hammering by Argentina at the Olympics, combined with a precarious position in World Cup qualifying, will push Brazil to that point. They can start by giving Dunga a pink slip.

And while we're on the subject of Brazil in decline, a word about Ronaldinho. Unfit. Ronnie still has the passing ability and the tricks with the ball, but it's kinda hard to be a top-level footballer when you don't run. He was absent from the game because he never moved. If Ronnie's poor performance at the 2006 World Cup is what started his decline (the Vickery theory), then this showing certainly won't help.

The disparity between Barcelona's present (Messi) and its past (Ronnie) was striking. Ronnie never moved, never linked up with Brazil's left back, and never chased the ball. Messi was chasing the ball from start to finish. His run created the space for the opener, his work in the box set up the second, and then his pass put Aguero in position to draw a penalty for the third. It was an outstanding performance, even though Messi didn't have a goal or an assist. Barcelona fought tooth and nail to prevent Messi from going to the Olympics, but the club is now one game away from a perfect result: Messi returning in form with a gold medal (to go with Xavi's, Iniesta's, and Puyol's medals from the Euros) while the club is virtually qualified for the group stage of the Champions League and perfect in its preseason record.

My First Top 25 Whistles Dixie

Rank	Team	Delta
1	Southern Cal	25
2	Georgia	24
3	Oklahoma	23
4	Florida	22
5	Ohio State	21
6	LSU	20
7	Missouri	19
8	South Florida	18
9	Texas Tech	17
10	Auburn	16
11	Texas	15
12	Kansas	14
13	Arizona State	13
14	Clemson	12
15	West Virginia	11
16	California	10
17	Wisconsin	9
18	Virginia Tech	8
19	South Carolina	7
20	Brigham Young	6
21	Tennessee	5
22	Utah	4
23	Oregon	3
24	Mississippi	2
25	Penn State	1

Dropped Out:

As an initial note, these are the teams that I believe to be the 25 best in the country. I have not taken schedule into account at all. Leaving matchup issues aside (such as the presumption that Ohio State would lose to Vandy or Mississippi State because of their hoo doo against the OMG!SEC), I imagined that the hierarchy of these rankings is based on how the teams would do against one another on a neutral field.

My Rationale for USC at Number One - Because one can never go wrong picking a team with a two-deep composed almost exclusively of top recruits. Because Pete Carroll paired with just about the entire defense returning is a frightening thought for the rest of the Pac Ten. Because USC has three five-star bullets in the chamber to find a quality quarterback. Because this team will be better without John David Booty. Because the offensive line is the only major question on the team and all of the four new starters have started games before. Because they're due.

My Biggest Disappointment with my Poll (There's a line that looks much better in print than it would sound if transmitted orally.) - I went with the same top five that everyone and their mother has used. I wanted to go with someone, anyone else in the top five spots, but I couldn't. I came close with South Florida, which has a ton of starters returning and now the best coach in the conference with Petrino and Rodriguez elsewhere. (I guess Schiano and Kelly would have something to say about that.) In the end, their offense reminds me a little too much of Florida's in the sense that it is a tailback away from being very good. I also came close with LSU, but the quarterback situation, paired with a hangover from winning the national title and a step down at defensive coordinator, keeps them out of the top five. Missouri was the third team that I considered, but I can't get past lingering concerns about Gary Pinkel. Plus, I'm inherently suspicious of offense-heavy upstart teams.

What do we make of Kansas? They were a consensus top five team at the end of last year, they return 15 starters, and now they are on the fringes of the top 15? I'm as guilty as anyone since I have them #12, but isn't this an admission that we were all too impressed with their record last year and didn't account for a gaudy schedule? Or are they being punished by pollsters for playing a tougher schedule this year, which seems a wee bit unfair.

If you can't tell, I don't think much of the ACC or the Big Ten. The lesson? If a conference confers a degree on yours truly, then it must not be able to produce quality football teams. I wavered a lot on Illinois. Along with Alabama, North Carolina, and Wake Forest, they were the team that I struggled with excluding. At the end of the day, I think that Juice Williams' passing deficiencies will be more pronounced without Rashard Mendenhall in the backfield. Also, Ron Zook. Res ipse loquitur. I'd rather go with Penn State, a team that I know can run the ball and play defense, over a team with a good spread running game and little else. I didn't really consider putting Michigan in the poll. If you were hearing the things that Michigan fans are hearing about the quarterback situation, you'd understand. I don't expect a total nightmare, but 7-5 or 8-4 seems plausible.

About West Virginia, I smell the scent of Bobby Williams. Think Louisville without Petrino, only Bill Stewart doesn't have Steve Kragthorpe's resume. I'm not expecting a collapse to 6-6, but don't underestimate the impact of a powerful coach leaving and the aw-shucks assistant taking over.

Ole Miss? Really? What fun is a poll without a little risk-taking? Hear me out on this one. They have 16 starters coming back. Ole Miss was better than 3-9 last year, as they came close against a number of quality opponents. The Orgeron recruited well, but couldn't coach, especially in close games. Conversely, Houston Nutt is a coach who could always get a little more out of his talent than expected. He's innovative and adaptable. His first Arkansas team was a horrific Clint Stoerner fumble in Knoxville from being 9-0. Finally, Ole Miss's weakness even since Eli left has been the quarterback position and now they have a VHT to man the helm. This season sets up very well for them.

My Obligatory Dig at Unranked Notre Dame - Behold, the Irish play exactly one team in my preseason top 25. Very challenging.

Tommy Bowden, Football Historian

What does a coach do when his program hasn't won a thing in 17 years and his conference hasn't won a BCS bowl in eight seasons? Naturally, you talk s*** about the achievements of other programs in the league:

"Not long ago, it was Florida State and Miami dominating college football. Where was the SEC then?" said Clemson coach Tommy Bowden. "These things go in cycles. The SEC has had a nice run. I'm sure that the ACC or another conference will take its place."

Yes, where was the SEC back when Miami and Florida State were so good in the 90s?







Honestly, will writers reprint absolutely anything a coach says without comment?

SEC Coaches as Bond Villains

Yes, the whole "compare people or programs to pop culture figures" has been done a thousand times before, but I always wanted to combine two of my great loves - SEC football and Bond movies - into a tasty mix. SEC football, like Bond movies, is fun because of its villains. So why don't we dispense with the notion that our guy is good and the other 11 coaches are all evildoers in volcano lairs threatening to blow up the world? Let's just imagine all 12 SEC coaches in Nehru jackets, surrounded by pirhana and incompetent henchmen.

Steve Spurrier as Dr. No in Dr. No



The original villain. Dr. No was driven by a desire for vengeance for perceived slights. Dr. No was an evil genius whose skills were refused by the East and West, so he moved to SPECTRE to get revenge on both. Spurrier, an offensive genius, was similarly motivated by a desire to punish his enemies: Georgia for the '66 game and Vince Dooley's decision not to hire him; Bill Curry for his desire not to hire him at Georgia Tech, Tennessee for...who knows what reason? Also, Dr. No meets his end in the book by being buried in bird dung, which is a fitting metaphor for a coaching legend ending his career at South Carolina.

Nick Saban as Auric Goldfinger in Goldfinger



Likes to cheat in Miami. Famous for bombs in Kentucky. Wants all the money. Not noted for being especially nice to his henchman. You have to know that Saban would off an enemy by painting him/her gold if he could.

Urban Meyer as Vargas in Thunderball



"Vargas does not drink... does not smoke... does not make love. What do you do, Vargas?" More than any other character in the Bond movies, Vargas is obsessed with his job. He wants to kill people and that's it. If only he referred to himself in the third person.

Sylvester Croom as Dr. Kananga in Live and Let Die



A trailblazer. The first of his kind. Possessor of a great voice. There are definite parallels between being the head of a remote backwater island and being the head coach in Starkville, Mississippi. Croom's performance last year in gutting Mississippi State to eight wins entitles him to a comparison to a Bond villain with a genuinely original idea: giving away free heroin to create addicts.

(And yes, I know that I like to have a run at analysts who uniformly compare white players to white players and black players to black players, but now I've compared the one black coach in the SEC to the one black arch-villain from a Bond movie. I never said I was consistent.)

Phil Fulmer as Hai Fat in The Man with the Golden Gun



This one just writes itself. If you want more than a cute pun from the "desperately trying to be funny" era of Bond movies, try this on for size: Hai Fat's downfall was getting involved in an activity that didn't suit him. If he would have stuck with being a wealthy industrialist instead of dabbling in hiring hit men and running after the Solex Agitator, he wouldn't have ended up on his mausoleum prematurely. Does this remind anyone of Detective Fulmer's turn as Deep Throat? Also, Hai Fat's devotion to old school killing - sending Bond to "school" as opposed to letting Nick Nack fillet him - fits with Fulmer's devotion to the old ways of moving the football.

Bobby Johnson as Francisco Scaramanga from The Man with the Golden Gun



If there's a better metaphor for being the coach of Vanderbilt than a villain who goes into a battle with James Bond with one shot to Bond's six and a sole ally in the form of a French midget, I'd like to hear it.

Rich Brooks as Karl Stromberg in The Spy who Loved me



A grumpy old dude who spends his time in the water.

Tommy Tuberville as Drax in Moonraker



Let's review Drax's career as a Bond villain. He is betrayed by his assistant Corinne Dufour and is forced to punish her by having her eaten by dogs. He is betrayed by Dr. Holly Goodhead, so he attempts to cook her with a space shuttle. He is betrayed by Jaws when Jaws refused to "EXPEL THEM!!!" Does that sound like someone whose defensive coordinators keep going to Texas and who was famously betrayed by Bobby Petrino at an airfield in Louisville. And who better to represent a guy with ears that make him look like he could take off and orbit the earth than a villain who shot himself into space and wanted to live there forever?

Bobby Petrino as Aristotle Kristatos in For your Eyes Only



Kristatos worked for the English in World War II, then switched sides to help the Russians after the War. Arthur Blank is nodding furiously at this parallel. Kristatos treated Bibi, the athlete under his wing, like total crap. Warrick Dunn and the rest of the 2007 Atlanta Falcons are nodding furiously, as well. In the end, Kristatos was just a mercenary looking to get paid. Arkansas fans will one day be nodding their heads furiously.

Mark Richt as Kamal Khan from Octopussy



Maybe I'm saying this because I've seen Octopussy 457 times and gave my youngest brother a written exam on it after his first (forced) viewing, but Kamal Khan is the most likeable of all the Bond villains. He's totally smooth with the ladies, which makes him different from most Bond villains who seem like they want to blow up the world in retaliation for never getting dates in high school. He dresses well, reads the classics, is well liked by the locals, and wears proper dinner attire. He isn't obsessed with his day job, but rather balances smuggling a nuclear weapon onto a U.S. Air Force base in West Germany with generally being a pimp in the Monsoon Palace. This is how I imagine Mark Richt to be. Charming, well-liked (even by his enemies), and not obsessed by football like a Meyer or a Saban. That said, Richt has a subtle evil streak. Kamal keeps his enemies hanging on meat hooks in the cellar; Richt instructs his players to show up Florida after scoring a touchdown.

Les Miles as General Orlov from Octopussy



The total opposite of Kamal Khan. Orlov is temperamental and impulsive. While his colleagues want to achieve world socialism peaceably, Orlov wants to nuke an American Air Force base, then sweep through Western Europe with his tanks. Les Miles is the one coach in the SEC who could deliver Orlov's tirade at the Politburo against disarmament. If only Orlov would have finished with "have a great day!" With his love for ballsy attacks on the ground, Orlov is the one Bond villain would appreciate Miles's performance in the Florida game last year. Also, both love big hats.

Houston Nutt as Elliot Carver from Tomorrow Never Dies



This comparison works beautifully in my head, but I have a hard time explaining it. Maybe it's the penchant for grandiose speeches? The high-pitched voice? Even though I think he's a good coach, Nutt gives off the vibe that he's not above doing something bat-shit crazy, which puts him right in league with a media mogul who thinks that a worldwide nuclear war is a solid investment. Also, if Nutt is Carver, then Reggie Herring is Herr Stamper and that really appeals to me.

Ryan Doesn't Suck!

Since I spent the better part of the spring wailing about some sort of Yankee conspiracy to build Matt Ryan into a franchise quarterback despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary, I ought to come clean and say that Ryan looked good in his first preseason action on Saturday night. Mike Smith made a point of playing Ryan against the Jacksonville first team defense. Ryan looked very shaky on his first possession, but once he calmed down, he was good on the second possession. He made intelligent reads. Ryan was also somewhat inaccurate, but got bailed out by Roddy White, who caught everything that came close. It's possible that Jacksonville was simply playing vanilla coverages and Ryan will struggle once NFL defenses get funky when the bullets start flying for real. That said, Der Wife and I watched on Saturday night expecting to have a good chuckle at the local professional football collective, but we came away pleasantly surprised.

The other player who stood out was Brent Grimes. Grimes is a corner of whom I'd never heard before Saturday night, but he was all over the Jags' (admittedly underwhelming) receivers. He seems plenty athletic and had pretty good technique, other than an instance where he accidentally kicked the ball out of his own hands in the end zone.

The Falcons' corners are going to need to be good because the defensive line looks dreadful. The best example I can point to is David Garrard's sneak for the opening touchdown of the game. I don't think I'd ever seen a quarterback end up six yards into the end zone on a sneak before Saturday night. The line got no pressure and Jacksonville had ample space on running plays. This is going to be an issue all year.

Excuse Making for Bowden the Elder

Tony Barnhart has an theory as to why Florida State has declined so precipitously this decade: difficulty recruiting in Georgia and Louisiana. Barnhart's theory is interesting, but to me, it ignores the 800-pound gorilla in the room: like the Soviet Union when the Party was propping up ailing leaders like Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko, Florida State has a doddering figurehead as its leader. Let's think about all of the reasons why this theory fails:

1. Mark Richt's predecessor at Georgia was Jim Donnan. Do any Dawg fans want to take the position that Donnan was a poor recruiter or that he let too many players get out of state? Didn't think so. (OK, I'll grant you the decision to go after Jasper Sanks instead of Jamal Lewis. Other than that...)

2. Which major out-of-state program is most dependent on recruiting in Georgia? Give yourself a gold star if you said "Auburn." How have the Tigers done since Richt was hired? 66-23, good for 9th nationally. Apparently, Mark Richt's hiring wasn't a death knell for every program that depends on talent from Georgia, just the programs with incompetent sons of the head coach installed as the offensive coordinator.

3. Barnhart overstates the significance of out-of-state recruiting to Florida State. Sure, the 'Noles got the occasional player from Georgia or Louisiana, but those players were typically gravy. The program's emergence was the result of Florida becoming a hotbed for high school football talent, on par with Texas and California. I'd submit for your consideration that Florida State's recruiting problems were not so much the result of Saban and Richt being hired as they were Steve Spurrier, a somewhat ambivalent recruiter (especially towards the end of his tenure), being replaced by Ron Zook and then Urban Meyer, two aggressive, outstanding recruiters.

In Barnhart's defense, he's at least trying to come up with an interesting, non-conventional explanation for FSU's slide. His theory isn't totally off, as it has some significant applications for Tennessee, another program that depends on recruiting in Georgia and has seen its fortunes fall off since Richt was hired. (I don't quite know what to make of Clemson, the fourth program that depends on talent from Georgia. Would we say that Clemson has had a good stretch in this decade? They've played marginally above their historical winning percentage in a more competitive ACC. On the other hand, Tommy Bowden has constantly flirted with termination, so it hasn't exactly been a banner stretch for the other Tigers.)

Generally speaking, Barnhart's dispatches from fall practices have been outstanding. His piece on the spread with Auburn's Tony Franklin was especially good. If the rumors are true that Barnhart has taken a buyout from the AJC, it will be a sad day for the paper that covers the South like dew.

RIP Skip

I clearly shouldn't ever start a post by saying that a team has reached rock bottom. I wrote that about the Braves last Tuesday. Since then, Teixeira has been traded, Hudson confirmed that he is going to undergo Tommy John surgery, the team lost four of six, and, worst of all, Skip Caray died yesterday. For fans who grew up in the state in the past 30 years, Skip and Larry Munson were the two icons of the local media. Both were unabashed homers. Both had a wonderful, gruff persona. Larry's comes out in the form of constant pessimism, while Skip's came out in a biting, critical voice that is sadly absent from most announcers these days.

(Note: I struggled whether to use past or present tense in that last paragraph. While Caray is gone, Larry is still thankfully with us. Do any grammarians out there want to weigh in on how one writes about to people, one living and one dead?)

I'll miss Caray announcing that that last foul ball was caught by a fan from Huntsville or Albany. I'll miss him mocking the wave. I'll miss him going off on umpires and their strike zones. I'll miss "there's a drive..." I'll miss his totally dismissive responses to callers who wanted him to explain why batters get three strikes and not four. Hell, I'll even miss him opining that baseball isn't too slow, a position that I couldn't get behind. For me, Caray was one of those stars in the constellation from childhood. I grew up listening to him call games (lots and lots of losses), so I couldn't be critical of him, even when he said something that I thought was wrong.

And speaking of memories, my favorite Skip Caray memory is no doubt a favorite for a lot of Braves fans. On October 14, 1992, I was the only one in a family of five who stayed up to the bitter end of Game Seven against the Pirates. I had an AP Calculus test the next day, so I'd been in my room, studying and listening to the game. OK, I was probably listening to the game more than studying. To paraphrase Francisco Scaramanga, math never was my strong suit. The Braves had been owned by Doug Drabek for eight innings. By the ninth inning, I was sitting in my room in the dark, listening on headphones. I remember Caray's excitement when Jose Lind's error put the tying run on. I remember him getting very excited when Ron Gant flew out to the warning track with the bases loaded. I remember him prefacing Cabrera's winning single by saying "lots of room in the gap in left center. If he hits it there, we can dance in the streets." Most of all, I remember "line drive left field, base hit!" like it was yesterday, Caray's voice rising with the crowd. I had this feeling of incredible anticipation. I couldn't wait to hear the next words from him. And then, that great pause before he yelled "SAFE! BRAVES WIN! BRAVES WIN! BRAVES WIN!"

(To the extent that Caray's death gets national coverage [let's hope that ESPN can come up with a Yankees or Red Sox angle], I feel bad for Pirates fans because their worst memory is about to come rushing back. Then again, Pittsburghers have two good pro teams and we have none, so I don't feel that bad.)

Skip was lucky enough to call one of the great games in baseball history and he absolutely nailed the call of the winning hit. Beyond the personality and the honesty, he was just great at his job. The past several seasons have been a constant change for the Braves as everything that made them great for a decade and a half has slowly bled away. Losing Skip Caray is part of that change.

Rock Bottom

If I had to say one nice thing about the Braves this morning, I would probably stammer for a while and then mention the fact that Bobby Cox has won a lot of games as a manager. Otherwise, it would be damn near impossible. The past three games have been the unofficial "stick a fork in 'em" games for the team. The Braves have allowed 34 runs in the three games and have allowed 10+ in three straight games for the first time since 1986. (Incidentally, the starters for those three games? Rick Mahler, Craig McMurtry, and Zane Smith. The three losses came in a July 4-6 series against Montreal. Oddly enough, the Braves had won seven of eight coming into that series and were only 1.5 games out of first. The sweep by the Expos triggered a vintage stretch for the '84-'90 Braves in which they lost 11 of 12, including a three-game series against the Mets in which the Braves were outscored 26-2. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.)

The lineup last night could have doubled as Bobby Cox's concession speech. Mark Kotsay was signed to be the #8 hitter, but he was hitting clean-up last night. The starting lineup included Gregor Blanco, Omar Infante, and Clint Sammons. And that's before we get to Jeff Francoeur, who is still a favorite among the parts of the crowd who aren't bothered by a .287 OBP. Charlie Morton was the starting pitcher. Morton and Jo-Jo Reyes are doing their best to disabuse Braves fans of the optimism that we had weeks ago when it looked like we had the makings of a good, young pitching staff. After the team's experience this year with older starters (punctuated by Tim Hudson's elbow injury that will likely keep him out for the rest of the year), a collection of young hurlers seemed like a good idea. Not so much when the youngsters are doing things like allowing seven earned in three and two-thirds innings.

Opposing teams can look forward to facing a Braves team that has been gutted of its starters. They can also look forward to coming to the Ted and being greeted by a bevy of their own fans. The crowd last night was at least one-third Cardinals fans. Braves fans have a tendency to not support a bad team (the horror!) and instead focus on college football when the calendar turns to August and the Braves aren't good. Don't say I didn't warn you when the Cubs come in later this month and then the Mets arrive in September. Hell, I'm a pretty committed Braves fan and I'm ready to start thinking about Georgia's fullback situation instead of the local baseball collective. I'm no masochist.

The Florida-Georgia Debate

One of the most interesting topics in the college football world this summer has been the question of where to put Florida and Georgia in preseason rankings. Both teams return a ton of starters. Florida has the most pronounced strength - a virtually unstoppable offense - and the most obvious weakness - a defensive backfield that can't cover and a defensive line that struggled to get a pass rush, even with the now-departed Derrick Harvey. Georgia is more balanced than Florida, but isn't a threat to average 45 points per game, either. Georgia also has, as you may have heard, a very challenging schedule, as they play the entire top half of the SEC West and most of their big games are away from Athens. Finally, Georgia had a total transformation in 2007, going from a decent, but unspectacular team to a dynamo with the dividing line between the two being the celebration in Jacksonville. (Cue Kirk Herbstreit for a reasoned discussion of mojo here.)

We've tackled this question a little, mainly with an agnostic, "it's reasonable to pick Florida ahead of Georgia and here's how you would get to that conclusion" argument. Now, the SEC media has weighed in by picking Florida and Tony Barnhart weighs in with explanations. The comparison between the national media and the SEC media is interesting. The national media fell in love with Georgia when they pummeled Hawaii, whereas the SEC media remembers Georgia getting pantsed by Tennessee and then eking past Vandy. The national media probably isn't thinking about the effects that a four-game stretch of LSU in Baton Rouge, Florida in Jacksonville, Kentucky in Lexington, and Auburn on the Plains can have on a team, mainly because there wouldn't be anything like that in another conference. The SEC media understands the value of easier road games, so the fact that two of Florida's three road games are against Arkansas and Vandy is a big deal.

Normally, I would write off the media's love affair with Florida as "ooh, shiny offense!" In this case, I have an assumption that the SEC media is less likely to fall into this trap than the national media, so I tend to give the SEC media the benefit of the doubt that they aren't forgetting that defense occasionally matters, too. Then again, maybe I shouldn't. Someone else might remember the details better, but my recollection is that there was a streak running for about a decade in which the preseason SEC favorite did not win the league. That streak would have been broken by LSU last year, but I seem to recall that the streak dated back to the mid-90s.

Anyway, if you asked me right now, I'd say that Georgia has the better team, but that Florida is more likely to win the East because of their schedule. I would rank Georgia ahead of Florida in a preseason top 25 because those rankings are meant to rank the best teams and not necessarily the teams that are likely to finish the season on top. I would pick the SEC East in the following order: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, Vandy. (Boring, I know.) So, to answer Barnhart's question, the simplest explanation for the disparity between the national media picking their top 25s and the SEC media predicting the order of finish in the SEC East is that those two medias have different missions in late July.

Are you F***ing Kidding me?

Olympiakos? Really?

This is a massive repudiation of everything that Atlanta Spirit has done to run the Hawks since buying the team. It's one thing to lose Josh Childress to a better NBA team that outbid them. That would be one thing. To lose him to a Greek team is simply unforgivable. The fact that Childress would rather play with this collection of players (hey, it's Lynn Greer! From Temple!) instead of an NBA team is a searing indictment.

What makes the deal even worse from my perspective as a Hawks fan is that Childress didn't really get a huge deal. The Hawks were offering $5.5M per year and he signed for $6.6M per year. (One major caveat: there may be perks that amplify the Olympiakos offer. Lower taxes would be one possibility. If you've ever been to Greece and know how that economy operates, you can probably figure out some other possibilities. One little nugget I learned about Greece while reading The Ball is Round: A Global History of Football: by one estimate, 5% of Greece's GDP is devoted to betting on football.) This isn't a Samuel Eto'o situation where Childress was offered a massive raise to join an inferior league. Rather, Childress apparently: (1) took stock on where the Hawks are and where they're going; (2) figured out that the Hawks were likely to match any offers made by other teams; and (3) decided that he would rather play in Greece than play for the Hawks. In the NBA.

[Update: a helpful commenter pointed out that Childress's $20M is post-tax income, so his contract represents a major increase over what the Hawks offered. My caveat turned out to be right, and that's before we get to the "sketchy Greek economy" factor.]

And here's the real kicker: Childress is a smart guy. If some dolt with more hops than sense decided that he didn't like the direction of the team, then that would be one thing. This, in contrast, is a Stanford-educated athlete taking in a situation for four years and making the judgment that he wants no part of the Hawks. That said, Childress also seems like the kind of guy who would enjoy living in another country, which makes him unique. If I could smear with a broad brush for a moment, most American professional athletes lack the cosmopolitan sense to move to another country (if they have domestic options), especially another country where English is not the primary language. Childress is not that sort of guy, which is to his credit.

I feel like a total fool for having defended Atlanta Spirit to any extent. Their approach to Childress could not have been any more penny wise and pound foolish. I'm all for playing hardball, but when they got wind that Childress was considering this move, they should have stepped in and done what it took to keep him. Now, they have damaged the team's reputation and its ability to sell tickets, presumably because they wouldn't up the ante by a million or so per year. The alternative explanation is that they tried to up the offer and Childress said no, which is an even bigger indictment. I also wonder whether their cheap-ass decision to keep Mike Woodson played a role. Josh Smith and Zaza Pachulia were the most out-spoken in their feelings about Woodson, but Childress very well may have been harboring similar feelings, only Childress was professional enough to keep those opinions to himself.

If you can't tell from the direction of this post, I always liked Childress as a player and I like him a little more this morning. He's a good defender, he moves well without the ball, he finishes at the basket, and his ugly shot is fairly effective. The Hawks were a better team with him on the floor because he did all the little things to win games. If he were white, he would have gotten all of the David Eckstein adjectives. This morning, I can add two more compliments. I like a player who has the guts to call his poorly run employer's bluff. I like an American who is willing to take the chance to live somewhere else.

In sum, this blog has been heading in the direction of being solely focused on college football and European footie. Childress's move and the underlying dysfunctions that it highlights in the ownership group running two of the four local pro sports collectives demonstrates exactly why my attention has gone in the direction that it has.

Three Years Ago...

So I was thinking this weekend as the Braves were getting pummeled twice at home by the hapless Nationals that the Hawks are officially the best pro team in the city. The Falcons and Thrashers are one of the two worst teams in their respective leagues, while the Braves are meandering under .500 and have put together one of the worst outfields in recent memory. Meanwhile, the Hawks are coming off of a season in which they made the playoffs and pushed the eventual champions to a seventh game. Yes, the Hawks did so after finishing eight games under .500 and they didn't come close to winning a game in Boston, but work with me here.

Anyway, it was only three years ago that the roles were completely reversed. At this time three years ago, the Braves were en route to their 14th straight divisional title. They were in the process of reinventing the team with a corps of players from the minors, led by local products Jeff Francoeur and Brian McCann. The Falcons were coming off of a season in which they made the NFC Championship Game. They had Michael Vick, one of the biggest stars in the NFL. The Thrashers had not yet made the playoffs, but they had assembled a nucleus of Ilya Kovalchuk, Dany Heatley (one month from being dealt to Ottawa), and Kari Lehtonen. The future of all three teams looked bright. Only the Hawks were in the toilet, as they were coming off a season in which they won a whopping 13 games and finished with the worst record in the NBA.

What are the lessons here? I can think of a few possibilities:

1. As bad as things appear for our local sports collectives, fortunes can change in a relatively short amount of time. With progressive drafts and salary caps (in three of four sports), three years is an eternity in American professional sports. That said...

2. This is Atlanta and bad things will happen.

3. The Braves, Falcons, and Thrashers were all stocked with young players, but bad decisions from management of those three teams (the Thrashers and Falcons far more so than the Braves) caused the teams to founder. This is a clear lesson for the Hawks. Assembling good young talent is only the first step. That young talent needs a supporting cast. The players also need hobbies that don't violate federal law.

I Come not to Bury Atlanta Spirit, but to Praise them

My greatest fear for the Hawks' off-season was the following: Atlanta Spirit is too cheap to pay for a coaching upgrade over Mike Woodson, so they keep Woodson and that decision is the last straw that causes Josh Smith to bolt. Part one of the scenario came true, but it's looking like management's decision not to break the bank for Smith is going to pay off. Rather than lavishing Smith with a massive contract, they instead left him to his own devices, knowing that the Hawks would have a chance to match any offer. They let the market set Smith's value and right now, that value doesn't appear to be too high. It's not that the rest of the NBA sees Smith as being an overrated player. Rather, Atlanta Spirit's decision has paid off because there are few teams with cap space to make a serious play for Smith and those teams preferred to go after unrestricted free agents as opposed to having their cap space in limbo for a week after signing Smith, a restricted free agent, to an offer sheet. There is some risk to the "f*** you" pair of moves (retaining Woodson and then not signing Smith) in that Josh might pull a Cristiano Ronaldo a demand a move, but right now, the hardball approach appears to have worked.

Atlanta Spirit's approach could not be any different than that of Arthur Blank's. While Atlanta Spirit is letting the market dictate Josh Smith's salary, Blank fell all over himself to lavish Matt Ryan with a contract so outlandish that it made Ryan the poster child for overpaid NFL rookies. This analogy isn't perfect because Ryan couldn't go to any other teams, whereas Josh Smith theoretically can, but the approach taken by the two different owners is illustrative. For my money, the only reason why Blank is seen as a better owner than Atlanta Spirit is because he's much better at public relations. OK, there's also the fact that he spends more money than Atlanta Spirit, but that spendthrift trait is a negative in a sport with a hard salary cap.

Speaking of Blank, the chapter on the Falcons in the 2008 Pro Football Prospectus takes a number of shots at Blank for mismanaging the team. The opening two paragraphs are an outstanding summary of the perfect storm that hit the team last year. The piece then goes into Blank's love affair with Vick, his willingness to go after Pete Carroll after another college coach just bombed, and his generally overbearing approach in a field in which he lacks expertise. The piece concludes by guessing that Blank will make Ryan the centerpiece of the team's marketing efforts (after all, he's the FACE OF THE FRANCHISE) and thus, the Falcons will rush Ryan onto the field before he's ready and before they've assembled a decent supporting cast for him.

As I was reading the chapter on the Falcons, I was wondering how much money I'd pay to hear Steak Shapiro read it on the air. Could he make it through three pages ripping on Arthur Blank?

I'm Having a William Safire Moment

I am tired of the term "spread offense." It's become the term du jour in college football, but I'm not sure that anyone can really define it in a useful way. Most generally, it describes teams that use the shotgun and three-, four-, or five-wide sets on a regular basis. Thus, the term covers every offense from Texas Tech, which averaged 470 yards passing and 59 yards rushing per game, to West Virginia, which averaged 297 yards rushing and 159 yards passing last year. Any term that purports to lump those two offenses together, like the name Anakin Skywalker, no longer has any meaning for me. If you tell me that there's a feline in my backyard, I'd prefer to know if it's Garfield or a Siberian Tiger. So, I'm going to make a small suggestion for the college football blogosphere going forward. Let's all be precise when describing offenses. I don't profess to be an expert in x's and o's. I'm just a fan who likes to watch a lot of college football and, like a stopped clock, make the occasional clever observation. So, these are more suggestions than firm statements. Here are the categories that I'd propose:

1. The Run 'n' Shoot

As the term "spread" is used these days, the Run 'n' Shoot isn't really a spread offense because the quarterback doesn't present a running threat. Take this solid article from Bob Davie. Even though he defines the spread as including Texas Tech and Kentucky, the way he describes the offense is by illustrating the fundamental principle of the "spread" offense as it is currently employed: use the quarterback (especially with the zone read play) as a runner to outnumber the defense. I'm proposing that the term "spread" no longer be employed to describe teams that don't use this principle that Davie illustrates. Instead, Run 'n' Shoot can describe offenses like those found at Texas Tech, SMU, and Purdue. If you prefer, pass-based spread can also be an acceptable term.

2. The Fast Break

There's an off-shoot of offense that requires its own category: superpower programs that throw from the shotgun, four-wide look a lot to take advantage of a talented quarterback, a deep receiving corps, and a capable pass-blocking offensive line that doesn't require help from tight ends and fullbacks to protect the passer. Florida State's offense under Mark Richt with Charlie Ward and Chris Weinke under center comes to mind as the most obvious example. That offense got the name "Fast Break" because the Noles went without a huddle, so the term might be of limited value when applied to other teams. Other examples in this category would be Ohio State 2005-6, Michigan in the Citrus Bowl against Florida, Oklahoma in 2000, and Auburn with Dameyune Craig. (I'm probably violating a cardinal Southern blogger rule by saying something nice about Tater Tot, but Terry Bowden did run this offense very well without having a talent advantage over Auburn's major competitors.) The New England Patriots' offense from last year comes to mind. Alabama arguably tried this approach last year and figured out that they don't have a talent advantage over their opponents, especially with John Parker Wilson under center. Again, while its technically true that these teams all spread their opponents out with multiple receiver sets, none of them used the concepts that have now come to define the "spread" offense.

3. The Pure Run-based Spread

This is the category of offense that most closely resembles the option-heavy offenses that dominated college football in the 70s (at least in the SEC, Big Ten, and Big Eight). As Davie illustrated, this offense is based off of the zone read play and also uses option plays from the shotgun. Instead of using multiple running backs like the wishbone or the Nebraska I-formation, this offense works the slot receivers into the running game. Unlike the first two categories of offenses, this offense requires a running quarterback, but it can compensate for an average-throwing player under center. West Virginia with Pat White is the best example of this offense. Illinois with Juice Williams under center is another good example. Texas with Vince Young would be a third example, although Vince turned out to be a better thrower than either Juice Williams or Pat White. Maybe South Florida is a fourth example?

One incidental note on Rich Rodriguez: I would not put either his Tulane offense or his Clemson offense into this category. Rather, the pure run-based spread appears to have evolved in the past several years. Rodriguez started out with a balanced offense and slowly mutated into the modern-day version of the wishbone, capable of putting up 400 yards rushing on any given day.

4. The New Hampshire Offense / the Urban Meyer Special

I'm thinking of two particular offenses here: the Urban Meyer offense and the Chip Kelly offense that Oregon ran last year with Dennis Dixon. This is arguably the hardest offense to staff because it requires a quarterback who can throw better than Juice Williams and run better than Chris Leak. On the other hand, the offense tends to produce easy reads for the quarterback and wide open receivers, so the passer doesn't have to be that proficient. The Meyer/Kelly offense seems to be more balanced than the Rodriguez West Virginia offense, although I'm willing to consider whether that's simply a function of the talent available at quarterback for those coaches. The Randy Walker Northwestern offense deserves a shout here, as it always balanced the run and pass nicely out of the shotgun, but didn't use too much option, if I recall correctly. The John L. Smith Michigan State offense also falls into this category.

Some follow-up questions for the world:

1. Where does Missouri fall? Category four? And Kansas? Category one?

2. There is a follow-up post percolating in my head right now. Warren Buffett has a saying that with every trend, there are three categories of people: innovators, imitators, and idiots. Divide the minds behind various incarnations of the "spread" into those categories. Right now, that post would simply be a chance for me to mock Charlie Weis's 30-minute attempt to run the run-based spread all over again.

3. I'm very open to additional categories and subdivisions. In other words, someone with a better grasp of x's and o's (as opposed to my "that quarterback can't throw; put the offense in category three" level of analysis) might want to take this ball and run with it.

One Time in London I'd Gone out for a Walk

My apologies for the dearth of posting recently. Things have been hectic at work, sandwiched around a three-day trip to London for the Fourth of July weekend. Since I know you're all on pins and needles for my thoughts on the trip, here's a brief photo diary:



This has to be the most inexplicable advertisement I've ever seen. I took this shot in an elevator at the Covent Gardens tube stop. I still can't decide whether this is some sort of joke and English gays know that South Carolina isn't noted as a haven of tolerance for...just about anyone or if it's just the worst idea ever. Come to think of it, you could do a pretty good movie in which gay Londoners go to Myrtle Beach, only it would be a little derivative of this:



Needless to say, I know what picture is going up on the blog on the Friday before the Georgia-South Carolina game.



This is a shell from the largest gun that the Wehrmacht produced during WWII. The gun required a crew of 1,400 to operate, it took six weeks to assemble, and the Germans fired about 45 shells from it for the entire war. If you ever wanted a perfect example of German over-engineering, this is it.

The shell, incidentally, can be found at the Imperial War Museum, which currently has a bitchin' James Bond exhibit on the occasion of Ian Fleming's 100th birthday. Sadly, because photos were verboeten in the exhibit, I don't have pictures of the nuclear bomb from Octopussy or Ian Fleming's desk or the note that Stalin sent to Fleming denying a request for an interview. I didn't know much about Fleming before going to the exhibit, so I was interested to learn that his passions were golf, gambling, drinking, smoking, and women. Sound like any fictional secret agents we know? I also found it interesting that Fleming's father died in WWI when Fleming was eight and Fleming then found a father figure in Rear Admiral John Godfrey, Fleming's boss in WWII when Fleming worked in naval intelligence. Accordingly, M is supposed to be Bond's father figure in the books, which makes Dame Judi Dench's casting in the role a little interesting. Speaking of the Dame, here's the trailer for Quantum of Solace:



Other than the fact that there are some parallels to License to Kill, one of the weaker Bond movies, it looks good.



Yes, that is in fact a man playing a guitar in a trash can. I took this shot in Cambridge.



This is pretty much the only sports-related picture that I snapped in London. Behold, the outside of the Emirates from a train speeding by! I was pretty far removed from the world of sports while I was across the pond, with the exception of watching the extended highlights of the Federer-Nadal match. I'm not going out on a limb when I say it was one of the best tennis matches I've ever seen. It's rare to see a game/match in which the two teams/players are both at the top of their game. The closest college football parallel I could think of was the Texas-USC Rose Bowl. I was a tennis fan as a kid, but had lost the fever as an adult. Now, I'm certainly looking forward to the U.S. Open.



This is proof that I am, in fact, a 14-year old. I am quite confident that the term means something different in England than it does to the Beavis and Butthead generation in America.

Duel of the Jews Strikes Back!

Duel of the Jews took a nice, long spring break, prolonged by, gasp, reasonably cogent answers from Mssr. Mandel in his Mailbag. But fear not, loyal few B&B readers, because Stewart isn't thinking clearly again. I give you last week's Mailbag. Stella, I'm feeling something approaching a groove...

It appears that a few preseason magazines have the Florida Gators at No. 1 for the upcoming season. What do you think?
-- Ryan, Orlando

As I've said in the past, different people have different interpretations of what a preseason poll should be. I'm one of those who treat them as a "starting point," based on how a team finished the year before and who it has coming back. Most people, however, treat them as a prediction of what the final poll will be next January -- and obviously preview magazines fall into that category.

To that end, predicting Florida to win this year's national championship is as reasonable a prediction as any. The Gators return 16 starters, including a Heisman-winning quarterback (Tim Tebow), an otherworldly playmaker (Percy Harvin), a solid offensive line and nearly every key defensive player. And if you're one of those that likes to "play out" the schedule, you have to like the fact Florida plays just one road game against a team likely to be ranked in the preseason (Tennessee).

But let's not forget, the Gators lost four games last season and finished last in the SEC in pass defense. Anyone who's projecting Urban Meyer's team as national champion is making three pretty bold assumptions:

1) That Florida's defense will improve considerably. The Gators were extremely young on that side of the ball last year, starting as many as 10 freshmen and sophomores, and it showed. With a year's experience under their belt, it's not unreasonable to expect former all-everything recruits like linemen Carlos Dunlap, Justin Trattou and Torrey Davis or safety Major Wright to explode, but will it be enough for the unit to leap from mediocre to dominant?

2) That Tebow will hold up physically for another entire year. Which goes hand in hand with No. 3.

3) That a legitimate tailback will finally emerge. This is not just important in terms of taking some of the rushing load off Tebow but also because Florida's offense, for all its purported weapons, was very predictable at times last season. In the Capital One Bowl loss to Michigan, Tebow and Harvin accounted for 29 of 32 rushing attempts. The Gators need Chris Rainey or Emmanuel Moody to become a threat for Meyer's spread offense to be consistently dangerous.

I'll give Mandel point one, but to me, that's where the Florida analysis starts and ends. LSU survived an injury to its starting quarterback last year. Florida has two blue chippers sitting behind Tebow, both of whom have a year in Florida's system. If Urban Meyer could turn Alex Smith into the worst first draft pick in NFL history, then I think he can survive a game or two with Cameron Newton or John Brantley. Obviously, if Tebow is out for an extended period of time, then the Gators are in big trouble, but that's true for just about every major contender, save for Ohio State and their annoying, quarterback-optional approach to winning.

As for the third point, Florida averaged 457 yards and 42.5 points per game last year and gained a healthy 5.3 yards per carry against a very difficult schedule. If the Gators managed all of that without a functioning tailback, why exactly it is a necessity for Florida to find a tailback this year? Sure, it would be nice, but a top tailback in Florida's offense means fewer carries for Tebow and Harvin. Is that really a good thing? It's surely not a requirement that Florida hand the ball off 20 times.

But wait, it gets better...

Preseason magazines are mostly for fun (and for trying to decode Steele's elaborate color scheme), so there's no point getting too worked up over these rankings. If you're a Georgia fan, however, I'd imagine you're going to be pretty steamed if the AP and coaches polls follow suit. The Dawgs finished ahead of the Gators in the SEC standings last season, beat them on the field and return more starters (17).

Right, because that one extra starter that Georgia is returning really matters. There are perfectly convincing arguments to be made that Florida can be ranked ahead of Georgia. Georgia was a fumble by Vandy away from spiralling last year. The Gators' expected improvement on defense is greater than Georgia's expected improvement in any area. Florida has owned Georgia over the years, so one win shouldn't rationally convince Georgia fans that they have an advantage over Florida in Jacksonville.

We all know that preseason starting position can have a direct impact on the final results. For instance, while I thought LSU was plenty deserving of both its preseason and end-of-regular-season No. 2 rankings, there's no doubt in my mind that had the roles been reversed and Oklahoma had started the year No. 2 instead of No. 8, and LSU vice versa, the 11-2 Sooners would have played in the BCS title game instead of the 11-2 Tigers.

WTF? LSU had the same record as Oklahoma and played a demonstrably more difficult schedule. That would have been true regardless of where the two teams started the year. Mandel really might consider reading his own archives, because he's argued in the past that voters are improving and are really analyzing teams based on their merits instead of taking the conveyor belt approach when it comes to deciding who players for the national title. This, after all, was his reasoning for supporting Florida's jump over Michigan in 2006 when the Wolverines were higher ranked going into the final weekend. If voters can flip teams based in one week, how does Mandel argue with a straight face that they'll remember who they ranked in August and defer to that judgment?

Fast forward to this year. Let's say, hypothetically, the preseason AP poll replicates Steele's, which has Florida No. 1 and Georgia No. 9. And let's say, hypothetically, that it's another year like last season where a cluster of teams all finish with one or two losses. If Florida winds up one of those teams, it will have a much better chance of finishing in the top two than Georgia would if placed in the same scenario, and that's an advantage the Gators have not yet earned.

Or, the voters might just vote for the team that won the neutral site game between Florida and Georgia. Seriously, Mandel, of all the teams to use when you make this argument, you pick two teams who play each other in a split stadium every year. With the exception of Texas and Oklahoma, you picked the two worst teams to illustrate your point. If Florida and Georgia finish with the same record, 99 times out of 100, the team that wins the game will finish higher if the voters are paying attention.

I was somewhat astonished and dismayed at NBC's renewal of its TV contract with Notre Dame. This is not because I don't want to watch Notre Dame, but rather that it seems to be a slap in the face of the parity that the NCAA seems to be trying for. The reasoning being that all else being equal between two schools, isn't the fact that a recruit would be guaranteed to be on national TV for every home game an artificially introduced advantage toward Notre Dame? How is this fundamentally any different than if Notre Dame was able to pay recruits?
-- Darren Beyer, Orlando, Fla.

The difference is, the NCAA has rules against paying recruits, and can penalize its institutions accordingly. It does not have the authority, however, to tell NBC what it can or cannot put on its airwaves. In fact, it would be breaking the law if it did.

Notre Dame's right to sign a contract with NBC -- just like the Big Ten's right to sign with ABC, the SEC's right to sign with CBS, etc. -- was established by the United States Supreme Court in 1984. Prior to that, the NCAA strictly regulated how many times a school could appear on TV and how much it could be compensated for those appearances. Georgia and Oklahoma sued the NCAA on the grounds that those policies violated anti-trust law, and ultimately, the highest court in the land agreed. As a result, technically, all schools are free to negotiate their own network TV deals; it's just that all but Notre Dame, Army and Navy choose to do so within the confines of a conference.

So while the Irish's perceived recruiting advantage may in fact exist, it would be incorrect to describe it as "artificially induced." It actually came about through the most natural means possible: Capitalism.

First of all, this is an idiotic question. Mandel managed to print a question from possibly the only person who is surprised that teams like Notre Dame can turn their popularity into exposure. Second, I have to imagine that the Milton Friedman disciples among us cringed at that answer. Notre Dame has the right to strike its own TV deal because of antitrust law (and the Supreme Court's interpretation thereof). The Sherman Act is not "capitalism." To liberals/moderates like me, it is a reasonable regulation on the free market. To true libertarians, it is an unreasonable encroachment on the free market. But it's not the free market itself!

That felt good.

Boots of Spanish Leather

After every pundit reminded us that form in the group stages doesn't matter, that getting outplayed by shorthanded Turkey for long stretches doesn't matter, that Germany win these sorts of tournaments and Spain do not, and that German size the strength would prevail over the smaller Spaniards, Spain won the European title with a 1-0 win that flattered their opponents. In the end, talent won. The ability to control, dribble, and pass won. The better team won.

In my heart of hearts, I thought before the game that Spain had the better team, but that Germany would play their best and sneak out a win. I bought into the "Spain never win anything" line of thinking (thanks, Dad and Klinsi), forgetting that the last two Super Bowls were won by Manning brothers and two of the last four World Series were won by the Red Sox. It dawned on me during the national anthems that the Germans were the side full of second-place specialists. The Germans had Jens Lehmann in net, the same Mad Jens who got red carded minutes into his only Champions League Final. The Germans had Miroslav Klose up front, a striker most noted for pouring in the goals against Saudi Arabia and then fading at crunch time. The Germans had Michael Ballack, a famous "almost" player (although that reputation is not entirely his fault). The last time that Ballack and Iker Casillas were on the same pitch for a major final, Casillas played out of his mind in the later stages to preserve a Champions League title for Real Madrid against Bayer Leverkusen. Spain's defense was marshaled by Carles Puyol, who captained a Champions League winner himself. Their attack was led by Fernando Torres, who scored big goal after big goal for Liverpool in the Champions League this year. The reputations coming into the game were Spain as bottlers and Germany as clutch, but the individual players were the reverse.


No, I will not let you borrow my Champions League medal.

And so it played out. After Puyol covered for Sergio Ramos's only goof of the match in the fourth minute and Hitzlsperger hit the ball right at Casillas in the ninth minute, Spain dominated the rest of the way. They had just about every good chance. The back line handled Germany's forwards easily (Sergio Ramos deserves special credit for his work negating Lukas Podolski), Marco Senna won everything in the midfield, Xavi was a perfect fulcrum, and the front men consistently made intelligent runs. Iniesta was a constant danger man despite playing out of position (his ball across the box for David Silva that Silva then skied over was particularly sublime) and Torres, well, he was Torres.

Torres's goal demonstrated the best about his game, as well as Xavi's. Xavi is the master of control and accurate passing. He popped up in the middle, took the ball, and immediately put it into Torres's path. Torres then used his speed and strength to overpower Phillip Lahm for the ball in the box (naturally, the bigger Germans gave up the goal because of their one diminutive player) and push a perfect shot over Lehmann and into the net. Lehmann was always a worry for the Germans and it must be said that he didn't need to come charging out of his net on this occasion. He's now lost a Champions League Final and a Euro final by being too aggressive. As for Torres, his goal was the second occasion when he had been more physical than the German defenders, with the first being his awesome effort to head the ball onto the base of the post when Mertesacker was right on him.

As for the Germans, their physical prowess didn't pay dividends for two main reasons. First, they wasted a number of opportunities with poor deliveries from free kicks. Bastian Schweinsteiger's evil twin had a poor game. Second, Iker Casillas controlled his area perfectly.

Random thoughts:

1. How amusing that Spain finally win the big one after they banish Raul. I'm lovin' that.

2. I was really disappointed by Michael Ballack. He had a few good moment, but for a guy who I've always liked and viewed as a big game player, he had a poor match. He made a number of late tackles as Andy Gray astutely noted and he didn't have the sort of impact on the game that we thought. He seemed to be frustrated and pressing. Senna and Xavi won their battle with Ballack decisively, which goes a long way to explaining why Spain dominated the proceedings. Then again, if not for a deflection from Sergio Ramos or a shot into the side netting, we might be writing much nicer things about Ballack. The difference between "he's clutch" and "he choked" is ludicrously small.

2a. I don't know if it's quite fair to blame Ballack. After all, he was a little better than Cesc Fabregas, his equivalent on the Spanish side. To me, the match was decided by the Spanish getting more from Xavi and Senna than the Germans did from Hitzlsperger and Frings. Spain won in the midfield and then Iniesta and Torres had more success against the weaker German back line than Klose, Podolski, and Schweini did against a superior Spanish back line. The Spanish attackers got more of the ball because of their midfield and they were more likely to turn possession into chances.

3. It's odd that Spain broke their international hoodoo after a year in which just about every Spanish analyst proclaimed La Liga to be a disappointment.

4. I'm sure they will have noticed in Spain that the last challenge of the match was won by Barcelona's captain and then the last kick of the match was made by Real Madrid's captain.

5. It's hard to put into words what a breath of fresh air Euro '08 was. Euro '04 was won by the Greeks boring a series of superior opponents into submission and winning matches 1-0 when they converted their only chance of each game. The 2006 World Cup came down to a final between France and Italy, a ringing endorsement for conservative football. Euro '08, in contrast, was won by a team of real skill and class. For the most part, Spain came up against opponents who came to play proper football themselves, thus allowing the Spanish the space to show off their merits. The one exception, predictably, was Italy. The few anti-football sides at this tournament were shown the door early, which led to some really good knock-out games. The one effective way to deal with the Spanish short-passing style (when played by quality players) is the "park the bus" approach that Sir Alex Ferguson took at the Nou Camp. Thankfully, only Italy took this approach this year. The tournament was thus won by the best team.

La Furia!

Thoughts on the Bad Result:

1. To me, the Netherlands-Russia game was decided by the the Russians' domination in the midfield. I wish I could point to whatever tactical stratagem Guus Hiddink used to make this happen, but I can't. Everyone knew going into the tournament that the Dutch defense was weak, but they could succeed if they were properly screened by Nigel de Jong and Orlando Engelaar and if the Dutch maintained possession. Neither happened yesterday.

2. Andrei Arshavin reminds me a little of Messi in terms of his skills with the ball. He's not quite as fast, but I think his final pass is a little better. Messi has shown some terrific touches and shots before, but I don't remember him hitting anything quite so subtle as Arshavin's cross for the winning goal. Keep in mind that Arshavin is 27 and therefore in his prime, so whichever club pays through the nose for him is paying for his prime and then for the decline phase of his career. That club also won't know know how someone is going to respond when they've cashed in. All that said, the club that signs him is getting the best player in the tournament. The early signs indicate that Arshavin wants to play out the Messi comparison as a teammate.

Without revealing names, Arshavin claims to know of offers from England, but insists his dream is to play in La Liga. "I know that I have offers from England and Germany, but what I would really like is to play in the Spanish League, in the Primera Division," he told the Spanish newspaper AS. "It's the championship I've always followed, I like the football they play there. But, at the moment, I don't have any offers from Spain."

Those offers may soon arrive with Arshavin having been heavily linked to Barcelona following his starring role in Russia's 3-1 beating of Holland in Saturday's quarter-final. Those reports were sparked by comments from the Russian Football Federation president Vitaly Butko, who on Sunday claimed that the player has his heart set on a move to Camp Nou.

I must admit that the idea of Messi on the right and Arshavin on the left of a 4-3-3 is quite appealing. On a related note, I breathe oxygen.

3. In retrospect, Russia's success shouldn't be a surprise. The backbone of this team comes from the Zenit side that destroyed a good Bayern Munich side en route to winning the UEFA Cup. Zenit were the only side in the tournament that could break down Rangers' defensive wall. Russia has excellent players coached by the best international team coach around. Sorry old England ought to feel a smidge better knowing that it was knocked out in qualifying by two teams that are better than their names.

4. I'm not sure why, but my frustration with the Dutch focused on Robin van Persie yesterday. He was totally useless, culminating in knocking a free kick miles over from 20 yards when everyone assumed that Wesley Sneijder, a superior player, was going to shoot. Ernst Bouwes had exactly the same thoughts that I did watching the second half:

One scene in the quarter-final last Saturday night is enough to illustrate the difference between the start and the end of the tournament for the Dutch. In the 72nd minute Kolodin gives away a free-kick just outside his own box. Several cameras depict the concentration on the face of Wesley Sneijder as he waits for the referee to negotiate the Russian wall to the required distance.

The eyes of the world are on him, while commentators reminisce in their commentary box how the Real Madrid-ace has scored from a similar position in the qualifier against Bulgaria and so many times for his clubs. Curling the ball over the wall in the lower left corner of the goal is his trademark. The Russian keeper Akinfeev has already moved to the other side, which increases his chances. Like a high jumper Sneijder knows exactly from experience how many steps he has to take and at which speed to find the perfect mix between the tempo of the ball and the curve.

The referee blows his whistle. Sneijder's brain is sending commands to the muscles in his legs to start moving. In that fraction of a second the eyes of the former Ajax-player notice something strange. His team-mate Robin van Persie hacks the ball unceremoniously into the stand and returns to his position, somewhere undefined on the right flank, where he has created his own Bermuda Triangle for Dutch possession of the ball.

Sneijder is rooted on his spot, just outside the box, fuming, considering whether he can still catch the night train into Germany from the Basel Hauptbahnhof if he leaves the stadium immediately. It takes him more than a handful of seconds to regain his calm and amble into the already crowded midfield.

It is the preliminary episode of a frustrating night for the man who was about to become the star of the tournament, but would end the campaign shouting abuse to everyone around him, seemingly the last one of his team who cared. His team-mates had mostly faded away and resigned themselves to an early exit.

4a. Has there ever been an Arsenal player under Wenger who has lived up to his club reputation for his national team? I'm not sold on this theory, but it's kicking around in my head right now. I'm wondering if players don't look much better than they actually are when playing for Wenger because of his coaching acumen. By the same token, I ought to be wary about Barca signing Arshavin for big money after Hiddink made him look good, but the fact that Arshavin was so good for Zenit is comforting.

5. Tommy Smyth drove me crazy during the match. I seriously think he has poor eyesight. I've never seen someone look at so many replays and simply get them wrong. Andy Gray has exposed all of Smyth's shortcomings. You can see why the two of them don't get along when they're in the studio together.

6. It's sad to me that Edwin van der Sar went out with a ball being deflected between his legs. He played an outstanding game and will be missed by the Dutch. He covered for a lot of defensive shortcomings. Conversely, Igor Akinfeev is a liability for the Russians. Rafael van der Vaart repeatedly sent free kicks right into Russia's six-yard box and Akinfeev was just letting them pass through. The Dutch could have scored several goals from set pieces if their unmarked attackers could have gotten touches on the ball. If the Russians play Germany in the final, the Germans will kill the Russians with set pieces. Ballack and Klose will have a field day. And speaking of our friends in Deutchland...

6a. Isn't it typical that the Germans draw a battered and weakened Turkey side in the semifinal? Germany had an easy qualifying group, the easiest of the four groups then the 16-team draw was made, and now they play a side that won't have enough warm bodies to make its full three subs. Oh, and the Germans are playing right across their border in a pair of German-speaking countries. (Yes, I know that the Swiss speak a number of languages.) At the rate the tournament is going, Russia will beat Spain in the semis and then their team bus will fall in a ravine, leaving the Germans to be opposed in the final by the 1988 USSR side that lost the European Championship Final in Munich.

7. Even in defeat, it's a credit to Dutch football that they were beaten by one Dutch coach and a bunch of players who play at Zenit for a second Dutch coach.

Thoughts on the Good Result:

1. Anyone who thought that Spain were going to win in penalties, raise your hands. Spain haven't made a major semifinal in 24 years. The Spanish have a record in penalties that rivals that of England and Holland. They has been eliminated three times in penalties on June 22. (Incidentally, couldn't UEFA have finagled a way for Germany and Russia to meet in a quarterfinal on June 22? You should be warned that I will be out of control with the Eastern Front jokes if those two teams meet in the final. I was all ready to make a reference to Spain's blown opportunities on Sunday being not unlike the Armada failing to attack the English fleet as it was leaving Plymouth in 1588...and the Eastern Front is in my wheelhouse in a way that 16th century naval engagements never will be.) The Spanish hate the Italians for playing boring, defensive soccer and still getting results, so losing after a 0-0 draw in penalties would have been perfect for Spain. The Spanish also hate the Italians for being lucky, so losing after a shot squirted away from Gigi Buffon and nestled against the post would be poetic.

With all of that context going against them, Spain performed beautifully in penalties. It helps have Saint Iker in goal. I can't get myself to dislike this icon of Real Madrid. He's not annoying in any way and as a former (inept) keeper, I really appreciate the way that Casillas goes about his business. Andy Gray made an astute comparison between Casillas confidently claiming a cross in his area as opposed to the way that Akinfeev let balls ping around his box. Leave it to Gray to make a better observation about a game that Smyth actually called. Speaking of Gray...

2. I loved his attacks on Herbert Fandel. Once in a blue moon, Sir Alex Ferguson is right about something and his feelings about Fandel are spot on. He consistently missed fouls on the Spanish in or near the Italian penalty area. (You get the sense that Italy decided after a marginal penalty call went against them in the match against Romania that no ref would call anything against them in the box.) He also rewarded the Italians' play-acting whenever the Spanish broke for an attack.

3. I often defend Italian football as being unfairly criticized for being defensive and cynical, but the match on Sunday confirmed the stereotype. In contrast to Euro '04, this tournament has been karmically terrific in that all of the dour sides (Italy, France, Romania, and Greece) have been punished for their lack of imagination. Then again, how great can a tournament be if the Germans are going to win it?

4. Spain's attempts to beat down the Italians' wall reminded me of Barca's similarly unsuccessful attempts to beat down the wall that Manchester United put up in the two Champions League semifinals. Spain and Barca are similar in the respect that they play wonderful football based around short passes, but they don't have a Plan B when the opponent puts eight quality defenders between the ball and the goal. Spain needed to either present a credible threat of shooting from distance (and none of the Spanish players are really noted for that skill) or they needed to attack down the wings (and none of the Spanish players are noted as being great headers of the ball). None of the remaining sides in the tournament will set out the stall quite like the Italians did, so Spain should be able to do their thing going forward.

5. I demand that you acknowledge that Puyol played very well on Sunday!

6. Phil Ball's piece on the game is, as always, a must read. My favorite section:

The great thing about Sunday night's game is that the Spanish played it faithful to their own instincts about football, as did Italy to theirs. In the end, for a change, the gods of fortune got it right. When Senna's shot squirmed under Bufffon (just like Arconada's gaffe in 1984) the ball hit the post and nestled back into the keeper's arms. Luck, once again, seemed to be on the side of the pragmatists.

The referee was also doing his best to don a white shirt and officially proclaim himself Italy's 12th man. And as expected, Spain took possession of the game and tried to win it, whereas Italy made a few vague patterns in the centre of the field and tried to hoof the ball up to the awful Luca Toni, who looks even more awful when the service is poor.

Spain have now beaten the reigning European champions and the world champions in successive games, and looked miles better than either of them. At least they tried to play football. As the excellent football writer Santiago Segurola noted on Monday morning, Italy don't' even use the word 'football'. For them it's Calcio - 'something else' In a country so dedicated to the aesthetic as Italy is, football is something else for them - a war, a battle. As such, it doesn't matter how you do it. The beauty for them resides in the negativity, in the locking of the door.

But the Spanish are romantics, and prefer to indulge in beauty (or something approaching it) on the football pitch, given the relative messiness of their urban aesthetic. They would probably have imposed this philosophy before the penalty shoot-out if the appalling referee, Herbert Fandel, had possessed even the slightest notion of what constitutes a foul.

Seemingly obsessed by the notion that the Spanish are cheats, Fandel's assumption that the blatant fouls on Villa and Silva in the first half were anything but made no sense, particularly since if he really thought as much surely he should have booked both of them.

Spain were trying to win. It was Italy who were cheating - constantly interrupting the Spanish flow; whenever a player went down, he looked up carefully to see if an attack was forming, then rolled back over again to force the Spaniards to kick the ball out of play.

Surely, FIFA has the power and gumption to act on this sort of stuff? If a player recovers remarkably within 30 seconds of having required the play to stop, then surely he should be booked? It's not rocket science. The rule of kicking the ball out of play was only instituted in the 1990's to ensure that a player seriously injured could be attended to. Now it's just daft, and sides like Italy will always try to take advantage of the loophole.