1. Texas
2. Southern Cal
3. Alabama
4. Miami (Florida)
5. Penn State
6. Oregon
7. Virginia Tech
8. Louisiana State
9. Georgia
10. Ohio State
11. Notre Dame
12. Florida
13. Colorado
14. UCLA
15. Wisconsin
16. West Virginia
17. Texas Tech
18. Michigan
19. TCU
20. Florida State
21. Fresno State
22. Georgia Tech
23. Auburn
24. Northwestern
25. Minnesota
I have Texas #1 because they have both an offense and a defense, unlike their esteemed rivals in South Central, who have one, but not the other (although the Wazzu game was a step in the right direction for the SC D.) This is not to say that I would take Texas on a neutral field, especially if Pete Carroll has a month to prepare for Texas' spread option. Alabama is an unenthusiastic #3, mainly because I'm still annoyed that Auburn and LSU were ignored by pollsters for the past two seasons. Either Bama will prove that they belong in the next two weeks by showing an offense that can cross the goal line or they won't, in which case the Miami/Penn State/Oregon/Virginia Tech/LSU/Georgia debate begins.
And speaking of the Ducks, they might actually be persuasive evidence of an East Coast Bias. (Cue angry music from the Yale Whiffenpoofs.) The Ducks have one loss to #1 USC in a game that was at least close for a half. They've beaten everyone else on their schedule, including handing Fresno their only loss. They're two very winnable games from 10-1. Why are they not in the discussion with the other one-loss teams?
I have Florida State and Auburn lower than the human polls do. (By implication, does that last sentence mean that I'm not human?) I defy anyone who has watched Florida State over the past few weeks to tell me that they're a good team. That win over Miami looks more and more like a fluke as time goes on. Of course, it also looked like a fluke at the time, so what have we learned? As for Auburn, is it impolite for me to ask that the beat a decent team? (And no, South Carolina minus their quarterback doesn't count.) I'm sure there are Auburn fans cackling and saying "Just wait until this weekend." We'll see.
I have Colorado a lot higher than the human polls do, mainly because their two losses were both on the road to top five teams and the Big XII, as bereft of top teams other than Texas as it is, doesn't have any bad teams and Colorado has beaten all comers, most in decisive fashion. I get the sense that no one likes Gary Barnett anymore because he (or someone under him) had the outlandish idea of using sex to sell his program, but the guy is a good coach.
And I can't believe I didn't respond to last week's blogpolll on the coaches I would most like to knock back a few with, but here's my belated response:
1. Ron Zook - Just because I would like to buy him about seven Red Bull & vodkas to see what would happen. I'm imagining the night ending with Zook being riddled with bullets while shouting "I'M RON ZOOK!!! WHEN YOU'RE F***ING WITH ME, YOU'RE F***ING WIDDA BEST!!!"
2. Houston Nutt - During the 1/1/99 Citrus Bowl, my friend Bob and I dubbed Nutt a "snakecharmer." He just seemed like the kind of guy who would be preaching about damnation from fluoridation in a tent in Macon's Central City Park. Consequently, he would probably have access to some sort of vile grain alcohol that could make me exhale purple fumes, fart lightning, and make out with a dart board. Just call this a hunch.
3. Tommy Bowden - I put the over/under on reducing Bowden to a blubbery, "Daddy's so good! Daddy's so smart! Why can't Tommy be like Daddy? WELL NO ONE EVER ASKED TOMMY HOW THAT MAKES HIM FEEL!!!" mess at five beers. And then he'll pull a Commodus, suffocate his father, and order 100 days of South Carolina fans being slaughtered by like Tigers on the banks of Lake Hartwell.
(3a. would be Glen Mason for the same reason as Bowden, along with The Ohio State University standing in for Papa Bowden.)
And the three I would not like to blow suds with:
1. Bill Snyder - Makes William F. Buckley seem like Will Ferrell in comparison.
2. Barry Alvarez - There are few things I hate more in life than the guy who eats the pretzels so fast that I don't get my fair share.
3. George O'Leary - Something about those ruddy cheeks implies to me that he would put me to shame.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Monday, November 07, 2005
I Thought That Southerners Were The Provincial Ones?
Prove me wrong, Peter King:
"I think the one thing you can't understand unless you live somewhere on the Eastern Seaboard between Washington and Boston -- or unless you once lived there -- is the intensity of a big sports event. One of the reasons players love playing here, and one of the reasons guys like Joe Gibbs get drawn back into the game magnetically, is because the games are so electric and they feel so important. I felt it Sunday night at Eagles-Redskins and I'll feel it in front of the TV tonight for Pats-Colts. So much fun. Such a gas."
These people wouldn't know anything about a big sports event. They only had to suspend their rivalry for decades because it was getting too intense.
Or these people. Spanish Civil War? What's that? That can't compare to the Acela rivalry between the Redskins and Eagles, can it?
Or these guys. When have religious differences ever produced a good rivalry, I ask.
"I think the one thing you can't understand unless you live somewhere on the Eastern Seaboard between Washington and Boston -- or unless you once lived there -- is the intensity of a big sports event. One of the reasons players love playing here, and one of the reasons guys like Joe Gibbs get drawn back into the game magnetically, is because the games are so electric and they feel so important. I felt it Sunday night at Eagles-Redskins and I'll feel it in front of the TV tonight for Pats-Colts. So much fun. Such a gas."
These people wouldn't know anything about a big sports event. They only had to suspend their rivalry for decades because it was getting too intense.
Or these people. Spanish Civil War? What's that? That can't compare to the Acela rivalry between the Redskins and Eagles, can it?
Or these guys. When have religious differences ever produced a good rivalry, I ask.
At Least One Team In The South Has An Offense
I didn't think I'd be saying this on the morning following the Falcons' trip to Miami, but that was a fine offensive performance yesterday. If Mike Vick threw the ball like that on a consistent basis (22/31, 221 yards, one touchdown, no picks,) then he wouldn't be forced to defend his skills as a pocket passer and he wouldn't have to make defensive tirades about how no one should question his skills in that department ever again. Specifically, his throw to Alge Crumpler to set up the Falcons' first touchdown was a thing of beauty, inch-perfect to a well-covered receiver while rolling left with a man in his face. And speaking of rolling left, the Dolphins showed their lack of experience at defending Vick because they consistently let him roll left in the early going. There was also at least one instance of a defensive end running right at him, which Vick bounced outside just like he did for years before teams figured out that their defensive ends can't barrel straight at him.
The fact that the game was not a runaway was a testament to the importance of turnovers. A Justin Griffith fumble deprived the Falcons of a chance to take an early 14-0 lead (and thereby put the game in the hands of Gus Frerotte) and an Allen Rossum muff allowed the Dolphins to close to 14-10 at the half, despite being totally outplayed. Honestly, I feel a lot better after a win like this than I did after the Jets game because the Jets (read: Vinny Testaverde) just handed the game over to the Falcons, whereas yesterday's game was a blowout that was only kept close by easily correctable mistakes.
And regarding the Miami offense, their passing game is completely mismatched with their running game. With their running backs, Miami should be running the ball on just about every play, but when they aren't running, why aren't they trying to stretch the field in the passing game? How does the dink-and-dunk passing attack make life easier for Ronnie Brown and Ricky Williams? I guess that Frerotte just doesn't have the arm to wing the ball down the field, which means that Miami, for about the eighth straight year, is a better quarterback away from being a good team.
I don't want to get carried away, but with 1-7 Green Bay at home, a collapsing Tampa team that desperately misses Brian Griese, and wretched Detroit on the docket for the next three games, it's quite possible that the Falcons will take a six-game winning streak and a 9-2 record to Carolina for the first of two huge games with the Panthers.
The fact that the game was not a runaway was a testament to the importance of turnovers. A Justin Griffith fumble deprived the Falcons of a chance to take an early 14-0 lead (and thereby put the game in the hands of Gus Frerotte) and an Allen Rossum muff allowed the Dolphins to close to 14-10 at the half, despite being totally outplayed. Honestly, I feel a lot better after a win like this than I did after the Jets game because the Jets (read: Vinny Testaverde) just handed the game over to the Falcons, whereas yesterday's game was a blowout that was only kept close by easily correctable mistakes.
And regarding the Miami offense, their passing game is completely mismatched with their running game. With their running backs, Miami should be running the ball on just about every play, but when they aren't running, why aren't they trying to stretch the field in the passing game? How does the dink-and-dunk passing attack make life easier for Ronnie Brown and Ricky Williams? I guess that Frerotte just doesn't have the arm to wing the ball down the field, which means that Miami, for about the eighth straight year, is a better quarterback away from being a good team.
I don't want to get carried away, but with 1-7 Green Bay at home, a collapsing Tampa team that desperately misses Brian Griese, and wretched Detroit on the docket for the next three games, it's quite possible that the Falcons will take a six-game winning streak and a 9-2 record to Carolina for the first of two huge games with the Panthers.
Stewart Mandel, Read A Friggin' Box Score For Once
Here is Mandel's wrap-up column from the weekend and here's his self-pat on the back regarding Tennessee's performance bursting a myth about SEC defenses:
"That SEC scores were so low because of the league's dominant defenses. Hmm. Notre Dame didn't seem to have quite the same problem moving the ball against Tennessee's defense (QB Brady Quinn went 20-of-33 for 295 yards and three touchdowns) as undefeated conference leader Alabama did in its infamous 6-3 victory over the Vols. Furthermore, the Crimson Tide couldn't even score an offensive touchdown against 2-7 Mississippi State. And these guys are winning the conference right now. What does that say about everybody else?"
Yes, Quinn passed for 295 yards. Notre Dame also managed 343 yards of total offense, which was their second lowest total of the year. Georgia gained 405 yards in Knoxville. South Carolina gained 307. What did Notre Dame do that SEC teams have not? They scored more points, but could that have something to do with two returns for touchdowns, along with scoring drives of 27, 17, and ten yards? Gee, you think that Tennessee's disastrous special teams and offense had something to do with Notre Dame scoring 41 points? After Notre Dame scored a touchdown on one of their two good drives of the game to take a 28-21 lead, the mighty Vol offense gave the Irish the ball on the UT 34 and 20 to start their next two drives and the UT defense held Notre Dame to field goals both times.
As for Alabama not being able to score an offensive touchdown on Mississippi State, Mandel does have a point there. You would think that Tyrone Prothro is the second coming of Don Hutson, given how the Tide offense has completely ground to a halt in the past two weeks. In their defense, Bama has a long tradition of sitting on leads and once they scored on defense and special teams to take a 17-0 lead, they pretty much shut up shop. Still, that doesn't justify three offensive points against a bad team. Personally, I think that Bama's green offensive line, which was a major question mark coming into the season, is being exposed.
"That SEC scores were so low because of the league's dominant defenses. Hmm. Notre Dame didn't seem to have quite the same problem moving the ball against Tennessee's defense (QB Brady Quinn went 20-of-33 for 295 yards and three touchdowns) as undefeated conference leader Alabama did in its infamous 6-3 victory over the Vols. Furthermore, the Crimson Tide couldn't even score an offensive touchdown against 2-7 Mississippi State. And these guys are winning the conference right now. What does that say about everybody else?"
Yes, Quinn passed for 295 yards. Notre Dame also managed 343 yards of total offense, which was their second lowest total of the year. Georgia gained 405 yards in Knoxville. South Carolina gained 307. What did Notre Dame do that SEC teams have not? They scored more points, but could that have something to do with two returns for touchdowns, along with scoring drives of 27, 17, and ten yards? Gee, you think that Tennessee's disastrous special teams and offense had something to do with Notre Dame scoring 41 points? After Notre Dame scored a touchdown on one of their two good drives of the game to take a 28-21 lead, the mighty Vol offense gave the Irish the ball on the UT 34 and 20 to start their next two drives and the UT defense held Notre Dame to field goals both times.
As for Alabama not being able to score an offensive touchdown on Mississippi State, Mandel does have a point there. You would think that Tyrone Prothro is the second coming of Don Hutson, given how the Tide offense has completely ground to a halt in the past two weeks. In their defense, Bama has a long tradition of sitting on leads and once they scored on defense and special teams to take a 17-0 lead, they pretty much shut up shop. Still, that doesn't justify three offensive points against a bad team. Personally, I think that Bama's green offensive line, which was a major question mark coming into the season, is being exposed.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Ron Mexico Needs To Go Deep More Often
And with that rancid headline out of the way, Matt Winklejohn has an incisive piece in this morning's AJC on Mike Vick's struggles in the passing game. The article is noteworthy for a couple reasons:
1. While Vick has become an overhyped media monster in the past couple years, it's good to be reminded that during the 2002 season, he was a statistically proficient passer. The Football Prospectus noted this year that his 2002 season was, by their statistical measure, better than any of Tom Brady or Donovan McNabb's seasons prior to 2004, when both had career years statistically. Dan Reeves, who knows a thing or two about football and is as honest as the day is long, notes that Vick was very confortable throwing mid-range and deeper passes in his offense and was not comfortable with the types of passes that he's forced to throw now. We might have a classic case of coaches trying to fit their talent to a system, rather than the other way around. We also might have a classic case of coaches thinking that their winning results justify sub-optimal offensive strategies. (Paging Phil Fulmer!)
2. Joe Theismann makes some very intelligent points! Maybe he's better in print when he's not shouting for airtime with Patrick and Maguire or preening for the cameras with that blow-dried 'do that screams "Cheesy Notre Dame Guy!" Anyway, I've always thought that the West Coast Offense is a bad fit for Vick because it de-emphasizes one of his best traits: his insanely strong arm. The WCO (and when I use that term, I mean the Bill Walsh version that emphasizes short, accurate passes to backs, receivers, and tight ends) aids quarterbacks like Jake Plummer or Jeff Garcia who don't have strong arms, but are accurate enough to hit receivers in stride on shorter routes. Does that sound like Vick? It also puts a premium on good route-running. Does that sound like the Falcons' crop of receivers? Anyway, Theismann makes (or implies) the point that Vick's height is also a problem in the WCO because it involves a lot of low-trajectory throws through narrow lanes over the middle.
Jim Mora has obviously done a good job with the Falcons, as evidenced by the fact that only a second half collapse will prevent him from becoming the first coach in franchise history to lead the team to consecutive winning seasons. However, he's very defensive about the offensive scheme, which could mean either that he's mistakenly believing that the scheme for the passing game is fine and that the team isn't winning in spite of it, or that he recognizes that fact, but does not want to say so publicly.
1. While Vick has become an overhyped media monster in the past couple years, it's good to be reminded that during the 2002 season, he was a statistically proficient passer. The Football Prospectus noted this year that his 2002 season was, by their statistical measure, better than any of Tom Brady or Donovan McNabb's seasons prior to 2004, when both had career years statistically. Dan Reeves, who knows a thing or two about football and is as honest as the day is long, notes that Vick was very confortable throwing mid-range and deeper passes in his offense and was not comfortable with the types of passes that he's forced to throw now. We might have a classic case of coaches trying to fit their talent to a system, rather than the other way around. We also might have a classic case of coaches thinking that their winning results justify sub-optimal offensive strategies. (Paging Phil Fulmer!)
2. Joe Theismann makes some very intelligent points! Maybe he's better in print when he's not shouting for airtime with Patrick and Maguire or preening for the cameras with that blow-dried 'do that screams "Cheesy Notre Dame Guy!" Anyway, I've always thought that the West Coast Offense is a bad fit for Vick because it de-emphasizes one of his best traits: his insanely strong arm. The WCO (and when I use that term, I mean the Bill Walsh version that emphasizes short, accurate passes to backs, receivers, and tight ends) aids quarterbacks like Jake Plummer or Jeff Garcia who don't have strong arms, but are accurate enough to hit receivers in stride on shorter routes. Does that sound like Vick? It also puts a premium on good route-running. Does that sound like the Falcons' crop of receivers? Anyway, Theismann makes (or implies) the point that Vick's height is also a problem in the WCO because it involves a lot of low-trajectory throws through narrow lanes over the middle.
Jim Mora has obviously done a good job with the Falcons, as evidenced by the fact that only a second half collapse will prevent him from becoming the first coach in franchise history to lead the team to consecutive winning seasons. However, he's very defensive about the offensive scheme, which could mean either that he's mistakenly believing that the scheme for the passing game is fine and that the team isn't winning in spite of it, or that he recognizes that fact, but does not want to say so publicly.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
More Kicking of Jason Whitlock
Having just finished watching Boogie Nights last night, I can best compare this post to the scene towards the end when Jack Horner beats the crap out of a college student for telling him that his films now suck and then, as the poor kid is lying on the ground bloody and semi-conscious, Rollergirl skates over and kicks him in the head with her skate. In this instance, Jack Horner is played by MGoBlog, the hapless college student is played by Jason Whitlock's knee-jerk column about Charlie Weis getting a massive extension from Notre Dame, and I get to be Rollergirl (minus the perfect chest and desire to be mothered by a coked-out porn star.) Anyway, here's what I have to add to Brian's fine takeout of Whitlock's argument:As an initial matter, it needs to be said that major college football programs put themselves at risk for arguments like this because of their lousy collective history in hiring African-Americans. That history creates the context for reactionary writers looking for the next emotional hot button issue to ride to Stephen A. Smith-dom to view any story in college football with a hint of race as a big deal. That's why Fisher DeBerry's comments were such a big deal (aided by the fact that he's a older man who has previously voiced socially conservative views, both of which add to the impression that he could be prejudiced) and that's why the Weis extension is news. The irony is that Notre Dame is one of the few college football programs that has hired an African-American coach, so they shouldn't be punished for the context in which they find themselves. Brian makes a great point when he states that other programs will look at the heat that Notre Dame has taken and will be less likely to hire the next Tyrone Willingham, although he probably overstates the importance of the Jason Whitlocks of the world.
What Whitlock completely misses in his piece is the way that Notre Dame has gotten to 5-2, as opposed to the way that Notre Dame got to 8-0 under Willingham. Notre Dame has looked very good in every game they've played this year. They've blown out every bad team they've played, they won a reasonably close game against a good Michigan team on the road, they suffered an upset to Michigan State, an entirely reasonable result given State's history of playing up to the name opponents on its schedule, and they came within an eyelash of beating a team that hasn't lost in two years. In other words, they've looked like a very good team. (Incidentally, when Whitlock pillories the Notre Dame schedule, he glosses over who's coaching one-win Washington.) I'm by no means a Notre Dame fan and I have no problem saying that they look like a good bet to win a national title in the next five years. I NEVER got that sense about Willingham's first team at ND, a team that was one of the weakest 8-0 teams in recent memory and a team whose subsequent collapse over the next 2 and 1/3rd seasons was entirely predictable.
And why is Notre Dame only 5-2 this season, despite having an offense that ranks 9th in total offense? Gee, could it be because Willingham did a lousy job of recruiting on defense, specifically the defensive backfield? Any team with a semblance of a passing game can stay in a game with Notre Dame this year because the Irish can't stop the pass and were unable to do so for most, if not all, of Willingham's tenure. Weis has taken a team from which Willingham could coax six wins and has produced a top ten team. Is that not worth an extension? Whitlock gives Willingham credit for recruiting the offense that Weis has turned into a machine and Willingham did do a fairly good job recruiting offense skill position talent (although his offensive line recruiting was not good,) but Willingham was unable to get any production out of Quinn & co. Before the season, Quinn was viewed as a marginal NFL prospect. After a year with Weis, Whitlock now says he could go ahead of Leinart and acts as if this was fait accompli.
And what was the motivation for that extension, Jason? Could it have been the fact that the NFL is eyeing Weis like you eye all-you-can-eat riblet night at Applebee's? I don't recall NFL teams going ga-ga over Willingham in 2002 when Notre Dame was 8-0 because they played opponents who had a remarkable ability to hand the ball to Irish defenders at inopportune times. Weis, unlike Willingham, has a proven track record in the NFL. Willingham does not. The NFL is full of teams that are willing to pay $4M per season for a head coach. The NFL drives the monetary market for top-end college coaches, which is why Weis needs a raise and Willingham didn't.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
"I am not a committee!"
The BCS is college football's version of Phil and Kobe or TO and McNabb: a relentlessly overplayed story that breeds more inane commentary than any other. To with here is Gene Wojciechowski (thank G-d for cut and paste) making the same tired claim that a committee would be better than the current formula. I'd love to hear Gene address this simple question: how is a small group of humans making a decision any better than a large group? If he thinks there was a lot of criticism before of the results spit out by the BCS rankings, how does he think it's going to function when a small group of human beings, all with identifiable connections and presumed biases and agendas, are determining whose 11-0 is more impressive? The idea that Tommy Tuberville would be OK with his unbeaten team being denied a shot at the title because of a decision coming from the star chamber is insane. I'd voice surprise that ESPN would print such a dumb argument, but this is, after all, the network that decided that John Kruk needed a bigger platform to voice his sophisticated views on baseball.
Or, let's flip Wojo's counter-factual around and say that the star chamber anointed Auburn and USC as the Orange Bowl participants last year. Would Bob Stoops be OK with that decision coming from Wojo's suggested group that includes the former commissioner of the SEC, two former SEC coaches (including one who went to school at Auburn,) and Tommy Tuberville's former boss (Jimmy Johnson)?
All that needs to be said about the BCS is this: it is given the impossible task of picking two teams out of 117. It must do so despite the fact that the teams it must compare have almost never played and have few, if any, common opponents. No matter what method the BCS uses, it will come up short against the impossible task. There is really nothing else that needs to be said about it.
Or, let's flip Wojo's counter-factual around and say that the star chamber anointed Auburn and USC as the Orange Bowl participants last year. Would Bob Stoops be OK with that decision coming from Wojo's suggested group that includes the former commissioner of the SEC, two former SEC coaches (including one who went to school at Auburn,) and Tommy Tuberville's former boss (Jimmy Johnson)?
All that needs to be said about the BCS is this: it is given the impossible task of picking two teams out of 117. It must do so despite the fact that the teams it must compare have almost never played and have few, if any, common opponents. No matter what method the BCS uses, it will come up short against the impossible task. There is really nothing else that needs to be said about it.
Quintessential Met Decisionmaking
Per the link above, Rafael Furcal has offered to play second for the Mets. My initial reaction is that his agent is trying to drive up his client's price and with most of the big-money teams already set at short, this is a way to do so. That said, if the Mets took the bait and made Furcal a second baseman, that would be fitting for a franchise that spends money like a drunken sailor with little or no thought as to how they're spending it. This is the same franchise that spent millions on Carlos Beltran one winter after signing the best centerfielder on the market. Similarly, they signed Kaz Matsui to a huge deal and would now be throwing more money at their second base problem. And to top it off, they would be wasting their money on Furcal if they put him at second because much of his value is tied up in the fact that he has the best arm of any shortstop in baseball, an arm that would be rendered mostly superfluous at second. (Again, this is like paying Mike Cameron, a guy whose value is tied up in the fact that he plays very good defense in centerfield, in right.) He's a better shortstop than Reyes, but we wouldn't want to move our wonder child, would we?
The only way this works out for the Mets is if signing Furcal prompts the Mets to move Reyes and his sub-par OBP lower in the lineup, but knowing them, they'll have Furcal hitting second after Reyes because speed guys have to be at the top of the lineup.
The only way this works out for the Mets is if signing Furcal prompts the Mets to move Reyes and his sub-par OBP lower in the lineup, but knowing them, they'll have Furcal hitting second after Reyes because speed guys have to be at the top of the lineup.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
We've been here before
In all of the kvelling that will likely take place in the Dawg Nation in the next two weeks, this picture ought to say a thousand words. Florida, despite their struggles against Alabama and LSU, was and is a good football team with a major psychological advantage when they play Georgia in Jacksonville. Georgia was going into the game with its quarterback and best defensive tackle, both of whom are captains, on the shelf. In those circumstances, it isn't that surprising that the Dawgs came up short. If Shockley gets healthy and Georgia takes care of business against Auburn, then they'll head to Atlanta, probably at 10-1. Who wouldn't have taken that result at the start of the season?Now, after getting off to a positive start, it's time for the recriminations:
1. Not since watching an ESPN Classic Replay of Michigan in the 1/1/77 Rose Bowl have I seen a team trail in the final two minutes and still insist on play action on every passing down. In Michigan's case, it was because they didn't have any passing plays that were not play action. I'm pretty sure that that is not true for Mark Richt's offense, so what in the world was Georgia doing running play action in the final three minutes of the game. JTIII already had trouble reading the defense and making accurate throws; why make his life more difficult by keeping his eyes on a running back instead of the secondary for the first part of a passing play? Steve Spurrier always hated the shotgun because it takes the quarterback's eyes off the coverage when he's getting the snap. Play action is even more pronounced in this respect.
2. I thought that Georgia had a good chance to win the game primarily because their defense would take care of Florida's offense and to a certain extent, they did by holding the Gators to 14 points and 261 yards, although Florida might have been more effective on offense if they wouldn't have been playing with the lead for the entire game. (Also, Georgia was fortunate to have only allowed 14 points at halftime because of the unforced fumble by DeShawn Wynn that deprived the Gators of a chance to really salt the game away at the end of the second quarter.) My second reason was the fact that teams often rally around a back-up quarterback and play well for a game or two before reality sets in. This, however, was not the case for Georgia. From their first offensive snap of the game, which ended with Martrez Milner dropping, to their last, which ended with JTIII having to throw the ball up under pressure because his line full of juniors and seniors could not protect him, the rest of the offense didn't make up for Shockley's absence. The line and receivers needed to exceed their norms on Saturday and they failed to do so.
3. On the next-to-last drive, did anyone else get the sense that Mohammed Massaquoi came fairly close to becoming Lindsey Scott, Jr.? Absent the intervention of Jarvis Herring (I think it was Jarvis who made the tackle,) Massaquoi might have scored on that wide receiver screen. And wouldn't it have been amusing if the play that Georgia fans have grown to revile because of its overuse would have saved the team in the biggest game of the season.
4. Up until the last drive when it was obvious that Georgia would be throwing, Mark Richt called pass plays on five first and tens. JTIII's stats on those plays: 3/5 for 40 yards and one drop by Milner. On the rest of his passes, JTIII was 5/16 for 60 yards and one pick. Seems to me that the better strategy for the offense, given a shaky quarterback, would have been to have him throw in non-obvious passing downs.
5. It's interesting that Florida got their biggest win of the year when they completely abandoned the option. On the other hand, they didn't win because of their offense, so maybe we shouldn't read too much into the change in Urban Meyer's offensive strategy.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Georgia-Florida musings
This has been a weird year for me. After watching Georgia's first two games, I haven't seen them play since, save for the Tennessee game, but my recollection of that is slightly fuzzy because I was: (1) drunk; (2) bothered by the fact that Michigan had just handed the Brown Jug over to Minnesota for the first time since Lou Holtz was their coach and I dressed in bright orange Auburn sweatshirts; and (3) watching a desperate female Vol fan hitting on a table of obviously gay male Vol fans. (Not that my gaydar is anything to brag about. When I was a summer associate, I asked the partner who was my mentor at the firm when we were going to do lunch at the Cheetah. Needless to say, this did not interest this partner in any way, other than to raise legitimate "maturity concerns.") I watched Florida against Kentucky, Alabama, and LSU, so my impression of them so far is that they can only beat the worst team in the conference. Needless to say, this won't stop me from acting all prophetic.
It worries me that the conventional wisdom seems to be that Georgia is going to win, despite the fact that they have a wretched history against the Gators and Florida is a five-point favorite. Everyone analyzing the game thinks that Florida is going to struggle mightily to move the ball and I can't say that I disagree. More than anything else, Florida's offense has been killed this year because their offensive line can't get Urban Meyer's zone blocking scheme. Georgia, like Tennessee, Alabama, and LSU, has the defensive line to completely disrupt Florida's offense and make Chris Leak break out the "I can't believe I'm thinking this, but I miss Ron Zook, now look into my beautiful eyes" face. It's hard to imagine Florida moving the ball in this game after their performances against Alabama and LSU, but they have had two weeks to prepare for the game and they have a funny way of playing a lot better when they see the Red and Black. Also, if they force turnovers by the bushel like they did in Baton Rouge (and that isn't inconceivable with Joe Tereshinski (hereinafter "JTIII"), then offense might not be a problem.
When Georgia has the ball, Florida is going to quickly disabuse them of the notion that they'll be able to run the ball and have JTIII do nothing more than manage the game. Moreover, the idea that Georgia's just going to run the ball and throw only when forced to is wrong. If I'm smart enough to figure out that JTIII is far more likely to be successful throwing on occasions other than third and long, then Mark Richt is smart enough to reach the same conclusion. He's not going into a Lloyd Carr death spiral, where he loses faith in his quarterback and then puts him in position to fail by allowing him to throw only on obvious passing downs. The question is simply whether JTIII will perform well enough that Florida has to back off the run a little, allowing Georgia's offense to function properly. Who the hell knows, but I will say that JTIII has been in this offense for a long time, he's very experienced, he was fairly heavily recruited in high school, and he's beaten out the highly-touted Blake Barnes to be the back-up, so he's probably not a bad option.
The more I write about this game, the more I reach two conclusions:
1. Georgia should win if both teams play to form.
2. Georgia and Florida rarely play to form when they meet in Jacksonville.
Confused yet? Me too.
It worries me that the conventional wisdom seems to be that Georgia is going to win, despite the fact that they have a wretched history against the Gators and Florida is a five-point favorite. Everyone analyzing the game thinks that Florida is going to struggle mightily to move the ball and I can't say that I disagree. More than anything else, Florida's offense has been killed this year because their offensive line can't get Urban Meyer's zone blocking scheme. Georgia, like Tennessee, Alabama, and LSU, has the defensive line to completely disrupt Florida's offense and make Chris Leak break out the "I can't believe I'm thinking this, but I miss Ron Zook, now look into my beautiful eyes" face. It's hard to imagine Florida moving the ball in this game after their performances against Alabama and LSU, but they have had two weeks to prepare for the game and they have a funny way of playing a lot better when they see the Red and Black. Also, if they force turnovers by the bushel like they did in Baton Rouge (and that isn't inconceivable with Joe Tereshinski (hereinafter "JTIII"), then offense might not be a problem.
When Georgia has the ball, Florida is going to quickly disabuse them of the notion that they'll be able to run the ball and have JTIII do nothing more than manage the game. Moreover, the idea that Georgia's just going to run the ball and throw only when forced to is wrong. If I'm smart enough to figure out that JTIII is far more likely to be successful throwing on occasions other than third and long, then Mark Richt is smart enough to reach the same conclusion. He's not going into a Lloyd Carr death spiral, where he loses faith in his quarterback and then puts him in position to fail by allowing him to throw only on obvious passing downs. The question is simply whether JTIII will perform well enough that Florida has to back off the run a little, allowing Georgia's offense to function properly. Who the hell knows, but I will say that JTIII has been in this offense for a long time, he's very experienced, he was fairly heavily recruited in high school, and he's beaten out the highly-touted Blake Barnes to be the back-up, so he's probably not a bad option.
The more I write about this game, the more I reach two conclusions:
1. Georgia should win if both teams play to form.
2. Georgia and Florida rarely play to form when they meet in Jacksonville.
Confused yet? Me too.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
And now a defense of Fisher DeBerry
For instance, take this ill-reasoned criticism of his "we need more fast players and African-Americans sure seem to be faster" remark. The author, and others (almost all middle-aged white guys doing their best to personify White Guilt) who are in a tizzy about DeBerry's comments, has to have his eyes closed to think that there aren't more African-Americans (or, more specifically, individuals of West African descent) with top-end speed. How many Caucasian cornerbacks are there in the NFL? What's that? Zero? And how about halfbacks? Is that another zero I hear? Is that a coincidence that two of the top three speed positions in the NFL are uniformly honky-free? How in the world can anyone look at that disparity and think that DeBerry is wrong? And let's not even discuss the world of Olympic sprinting. Yeah, there is one Caucasian world champion in the 200. There is also the minor fact that approximately 196 of the top 200 times ever turned in in the 100M dash were turned in by runners of West African descent. Another striking coincidence. (And this, incidentally, is where the "race" arguments should end. People of East African descent don't have the type of speed that DeBerry was describing. Instead, they dominate the long distance events. So when DeBerry spoke of "African-Americans," he wasn't really describing a race, although I doubt that he knows that. He was describing people of West African descent, not the entire race of people of African descent.)
The author also creates a straw man argument by stating that DeBerry was making a "[b]lanket statement[] meant to describe a particular race of humans." Not exactly. He was saying that there are more African-Americans with top-end speed. I doubt he was saying that African-Americans are all faster than Caucasians. DeBerry could probably outrun Star Jones and he'd be the first to say that. He was saying that there are greater numbers of African-Americans with top end speed and that's completely right.
And then finally, we get the argument that public school education sucks in this country and that African-Americans are faster because they have no other options in life. Wrong wrong wrong. Public school education also sucks for rural whites in Appalachia, for instance, but you don't see Kentucky and West Virginia playing super fast Caucasians in their backfields, do you? And it can't be an American phenomenon. Again, the 100M dash is dominated by West Africans, as well as individuals from North America and Europe who are of West African descent. Are the schools crappy in all of those places? And are the schools crappy for West Africans in London, but not East Africans? How about all those poor kids in Pakistan with no hopes in life? Why aren't there sprinters coming from Islamabad?
Bottom line: why is it so hard to believe that groups from different areas of the world might have different distributions of genetic characteristics? Are we Jews full of it when we worry that we're more likely to have offspring with Tay-Sachs? Liberals who bend over backwards to claim that there are absolutely no differences between different racial groups just make themselves look dumb because they are making a claim that anyone with two eyes can see is not true. (Some sociologists would probably dispute my use of the term "race" there and a more precise way to say it might be that groups from different areas of the world, i.e. West Africans, Caucasians, Aboriginals, etc., sometimes have different genetic distributions in their populations.)
The author also creates a straw man argument by stating that DeBerry was making a "[b]lanket statement[] meant to describe a particular race of humans." Not exactly. He was saying that there are more African-Americans with top-end speed. I doubt he was saying that African-Americans are all faster than Caucasians. DeBerry could probably outrun Star Jones and he'd be the first to say that. He was saying that there are greater numbers of African-Americans with top end speed and that's completely right.
And then finally, we get the argument that public school education sucks in this country and that African-Americans are faster because they have no other options in life. Wrong wrong wrong. Public school education also sucks for rural whites in Appalachia, for instance, but you don't see Kentucky and West Virginia playing super fast Caucasians in their backfields, do you? And it can't be an American phenomenon. Again, the 100M dash is dominated by West Africans, as well as individuals from North America and Europe who are of West African descent. Are the schools crappy in all of those places? And are the schools crappy for West Africans in London, but not East Africans? How about all those poor kids in Pakistan with no hopes in life? Why aren't there sprinters coming from Islamabad?
Bottom line: why is it so hard to believe that groups from different areas of the world might have different distributions of genetic characteristics? Are we Jews full of it when we worry that we're more likely to have offspring with Tay-Sachs? Liberals who bend over backwards to claim that there are absolutely no differences between different racial groups just make themselves look dumb because they are making a claim that anyone with two eyes can see is not true. (Some sociologists would probably dispute my use of the term "race" there and a more precise way to say it might be that groups from different areas of the world, i.e. West Africans, Caucasians, Aboriginals, etc., sometimes have different genetic distributions in their populations.)
Sabbatical's over...
and it took this inane gem from Stewart Mandel to rouse me from my slumber. (We Southerners can be so prickly some times!) Anyway, Mandel misses several points:
1. Southerners are a little defensive right now about our teams because the last few years have seen them screwed routinely. In 2003, LSU only got a spot in the national title game because of Oklahoma's loss. The consensus of the human polls (which are greatly affected by media coverage and emphasis on chosen story lines, as well as inertia in that their assessment of teams rarely change unless those teams lose, hence the uncritical assumption that USC and Texas are the two best teams in the land) was that LSU was not on the level of USC or Oklahoma until the Sooners were exposed. In 2004, the human polls made the same judgment about Auburn, namely that they weren't on the level with USC or Oklahoma. In both instances, Oklahoma didn't do anything in their bowl game to justify the faith that the human polls had in them. Now, it's 2005, two SEC teams are unbeaten, and naturally, they have been judged to be inferior to USC and a Big XII team, such that they'll never get a shot at the national title unless one of those two teams lose. Stewie, you'll forgive us bumpkins if we don't take your proclamations of the inferiority of SEC teams seriously in light of the way that LSU and Auburn were erroneously written off in the past two seasons.
(And speaking of which, how is it that Big XII teams win out every time there is a controversy with the BCS? Flat-state bias?)
2. The reference to "ugly" SEC football is another illustration of why Southerners are so prickly and, incidentally, it explains why I like have computers as part of the BCS formula. Human voters always overrate the importance of offense and underrate the importance of defense when evaluating teams. Why was Bama's win over Tennessee ugly, but USC's win over Notre Dame and Texas' win over Ohio State were both glorious WHEN THEY WERE ALL BY THREE POINTS? Yes, Bama's six points against Tennessee were unimpressive, but how about USC allowing 31 points to Notre Dame? That was evidence of a top team? USC's defense was a complete sieve after they scored to take the lead at 27-24. That performance, more than Bama's problems scoring against the Tennessee defense, is inconsistent with a national champion. Hell, Mandel authored a very perceptive piece as part of SI.com's 2004 college football preview about the common factor for all national champions in the past decade being a top ten defense. USC isn't close to that right now, although in their defense, they've played far better offenses than any of the other unbeaten teams. The Trojans might get by being an exception to the rule that teams without great defenses don't win national titles because the rest of their schedule is manageable and I'm not going against the Trojans when Carroll has a month to prepare for a home game for the national title. That said, they don't look like a national champion right now, but most of the media are so obsessed with offensive skill position talent that they are overlooking that team's flaws.
And how does this relate to my original point? Simply put, Mandel's criticism of the SEC based on the games being defensive is idiotic because defense is central to winning a national title, so Georgia and Alabama aren't getting their due.
3. I love this:
"As a more lucid SEC alum in my office said this week, you can sum up the conference this season with a word: 'unwatchable.'
"Now, compare that to the ACC, which not only has three teams that could play with anyone in the SEC (Virginia Tech, Florida State and Miami) but also no less than six other teams (Boston College, Clemson, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest and North Carolina) capable of beating those squads on any given week."
As an initial matter, anyone who thinks that a well-played defensive game is "unwatchable" shouldn't be writing for SI. Additionally, Mandel shifts his argument from the aesthetics of SEC games to the depth of the SEC versus the depth of other conferences, which is actually a reasonable point for him to make. (The bottom half of the SEC is not good this year and that's a legitimate criticism of Alabama and Georgia.) Sticking with aesthetics, did Stewie watch the Miami-Florida State game? Or the Clemson-Boston College game? And he's going to criticize SEC teams for playing boring, defensive games?
4. And it gets even dumber with this gem:
"Perhaps if the Tide or Bulldogs had beaten an Ohio State or Notre Dame in their non-conference slate rather than Middle Tennessee, Southern Miss, Utah State, Boise State or Louisiana-Monroe, I'd have a better measuring stick."
Refresh my recollection, Stew. Weren't you the one who proclaimed Boise State to be the best mid-major before the season, along with every other SI college football writer? Hell, Georgia can't win for losing. They clobber a top 25 team with an offense that enamors everyone and that win makes that team worthless. (Incidentally, Boise State then lost a three-point game on the road to Oregon State and has not lost since.) And by the end of the year, Georgia and Alabama will have played Tennessee, Florida, Auburn, and LSU, all of whom would probably be better than anyone else in the Big XII other than Texas. I guess those four games just don't give Stew the same ability to evaluate Georgia and Alabama in the same way that one win over Ohio State does with Texas. Ohio State must be SO good.
5. And let's not forget this last nugget:
"In the absence of that, perhaps the best point of comparison you can make is this: USC gained more yards against Arkansas in a two-minute span (261) than Georgia did against the Razorbacks over the course of an entire game (217)."
How about this: Washington scored more points against USC than they did against any other opponent this season. USC led mighty Arizona by seven points after three quarters. If we're going to judge teams based on not putting away bad opponents, how about those apples?
1. Southerners are a little defensive right now about our teams because the last few years have seen them screwed routinely. In 2003, LSU only got a spot in the national title game because of Oklahoma's loss. The consensus of the human polls (which are greatly affected by media coverage and emphasis on chosen story lines, as well as inertia in that their assessment of teams rarely change unless those teams lose, hence the uncritical assumption that USC and Texas are the two best teams in the land) was that LSU was not on the level of USC or Oklahoma until the Sooners were exposed. In 2004, the human polls made the same judgment about Auburn, namely that they weren't on the level with USC or Oklahoma. In both instances, Oklahoma didn't do anything in their bowl game to justify the faith that the human polls had in them. Now, it's 2005, two SEC teams are unbeaten, and naturally, they have been judged to be inferior to USC and a Big XII team, such that they'll never get a shot at the national title unless one of those two teams lose. Stewie, you'll forgive us bumpkins if we don't take your proclamations of the inferiority of SEC teams seriously in light of the way that LSU and Auburn were erroneously written off in the past two seasons.
(And speaking of which, how is it that Big XII teams win out every time there is a controversy with the BCS? Flat-state bias?)
2. The reference to "ugly" SEC football is another illustration of why Southerners are so prickly and, incidentally, it explains why I like have computers as part of the BCS formula. Human voters always overrate the importance of offense and underrate the importance of defense when evaluating teams. Why was Bama's win over Tennessee ugly, but USC's win over Notre Dame and Texas' win over Ohio State were both glorious WHEN THEY WERE ALL BY THREE POINTS? Yes, Bama's six points against Tennessee were unimpressive, but how about USC allowing 31 points to Notre Dame? That was evidence of a top team? USC's defense was a complete sieve after they scored to take the lead at 27-24. That performance, more than Bama's problems scoring against the Tennessee defense, is inconsistent with a national champion. Hell, Mandel authored a very perceptive piece as part of SI.com's 2004 college football preview about the common factor for all national champions in the past decade being a top ten defense. USC isn't close to that right now, although in their defense, they've played far better offenses than any of the other unbeaten teams. The Trojans might get by being an exception to the rule that teams without great defenses don't win national titles because the rest of their schedule is manageable and I'm not going against the Trojans when Carroll has a month to prepare for a home game for the national title. That said, they don't look like a national champion right now, but most of the media are so obsessed with offensive skill position talent that they are overlooking that team's flaws.
And how does this relate to my original point? Simply put, Mandel's criticism of the SEC based on the games being defensive is idiotic because defense is central to winning a national title, so Georgia and Alabama aren't getting their due.
3. I love this:
"As a more lucid SEC alum in my office said this week, you can sum up the conference this season with a word: 'unwatchable.'
"Now, compare that to the ACC, which not only has three teams that could play with anyone in the SEC (Virginia Tech, Florida State and Miami) but also no less than six other teams (Boston College, Clemson, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest and North Carolina) capable of beating those squads on any given week."
As an initial matter, anyone who thinks that a well-played defensive game is "unwatchable" shouldn't be writing for SI. Additionally, Mandel shifts his argument from the aesthetics of SEC games to the depth of the SEC versus the depth of other conferences, which is actually a reasonable point for him to make. (The bottom half of the SEC is not good this year and that's a legitimate criticism of Alabama and Georgia.) Sticking with aesthetics, did Stewie watch the Miami-Florida State game? Or the Clemson-Boston College game? And he's going to criticize SEC teams for playing boring, defensive games?
4. And it gets even dumber with this gem:
"Perhaps if the Tide or Bulldogs had beaten an Ohio State or Notre Dame in their non-conference slate rather than Middle Tennessee, Southern Miss, Utah State, Boise State or Louisiana-Monroe, I'd have a better measuring stick."
Refresh my recollection, Stew. Weren't you the one who proclaimed Boise State to be the best mid-major before the season, along with every other SI college football writer? Hell, Georgia can't win for losing. They clobber a top 25 team with an offense that enamors everyone and that win makes that team worthless. (Incidentally, Boise State then lost a three-point game on the road to Oregon State and has not lost since.) And by the end of the year, Georgia and Alabama will have played Tennessee, Florida, Auburn, and LSU, all of whom would probably be better than anyone else in the Big XII other than Texas. I guess those four games just don't give Stew the same ability to evaluate Georgia and Alabama in the same way that one win over Ohio State does with Texas. Ohio State must be SO good.
5. And let's not forget this last nugget:
"In the absence of that, perhaps the best point of comparison you can make is this: USC gained more yards against Arkansas in a two-minute span (261) than Georgia did against the Razorbacks over the course of an entire game (217)."
How about this: Washington scored more points against USC than they did against any other opponent this season. USC led mighty Arizona by seven points after three quarters. If we're going to judge teams based on not putting away bad opponents, how about those apples?
Friday, September 23, 2005
My picks for the weekend
Here are the lines as I try to improve from a whopping 4-3 start to the season:
Ohio State (-7) vs. Iowa - The last time I took the Buckeyes, I looked good for the first 50 minutes or so until Jim Tressel's scorching hot romance with the field goal cost his team the game. (In his defense, he probably didn't coach Ryan Hamby to drop a wide open touchdown that would have put the Horns behind the eight-ball, nor did he coach Buckeye fans to then show their class by sending Hamby hate mail. That story never gets old for me, nor does the apology issued by Ohio State's President for the way that Texas fans were treated in Columbus, but I digress.) This sounds like the Bucks' bounce-back game. Last year, Iowa came into the season highly thought of, got embarrassed in a road non-conference game, then got beaten up by the Big Ten favorite on the road. In the interests of everything remaining consistent, we'll take Ohio State to cover, although I'm already pondering the wisdom of picking the Bucks to cover a touchdown when their M.O. under Tressel has been to win every game in overtime.
Virginia Tech (-10.5) vs. Georgia Tech - I'm not a big fan of the Hokie offense, but they play like gangbusters at home and the M.O. of Georgia Tech under Gailey has been that they can't sustain solid performances. Only six teams have stayed within single digits of Virginia Tech at Lane Stadium in the past six seasons. If they get a lead on Georgia Tech and force a quarterback coming back from viral meningitis to rally, then this game will be ugly. By the way, if Marcus Vick had herpes instead of Michael, then there would be all sorts of tasteless one-liners to be had about this game...and I'm just the kind of guy to make them.
Notre Dame (-13) at Washington - Washington is probably worse than Pitt and ND covered this number in Pittsburgh, plus the Irish probably had a great week of practice after losing at home to Michigan State. The media have hyped this game up because of the coaching match-up, but if they paid attention to the two teams that will actually line up against one another (a rare occurrence in today's personality-obsessed media and this comes from the guy who got a "PLANNING TO MARRY!!!" US Weekly headline in his mailbox this week), then there wouldn't be much reason to pay attention to this one.
Michigan (-3) at Wisconsin - After picking the two arch rivals of my alma mater and the arch rival of my law school alma mater, I might as well do something for my self-esteem and take the ol' winged helmets for once. Everyone is obsessed with Michigan's terrible record in road openers this century, but the main reason for that bad record is that Michigan still takes Bo's view of non-conference games as warm ups for the real season: the eight game march in the Big Ten. How else do we explain that Lloyd Carr loses just about every non-conference game on the road, but is a perfect 10-0 in Big Ten openers? Or that Michigan is a ridiculous 35-1 in Big Ten openers since Schembechler became the coach in 1969? This Wisconsin team is overrated right now because they're 3-0 against a bunch of patsies, but they have injuries on the defensive line that will negate their ability to exploit Michigan's banged up offensive line and backfield. UM played last week without its top two right tackles, its right guard, its starting tight end, and its 1,500 yard tailback from last year. This week, it's allegedly getting its right guard and back-up right tackle back, which will mean time to Chad Henne to pick on Wisconsin's bad secondary. (Admittedly, relying on Michigan injury information is like relying on economic statistics from the Communist-era Kremlin.) If Mike Kolodziej and Matt Lentz play at anything close to 100%, then Michigan wins comfortably, i.e. by seven.
One problem with my pick: my youngest brother is currently a freshman at Michigan and, as I warned him, his freshman football season is going exactly as my 1993 freshman year went: easy non-conference win to start the year, followed by upset loss at home to Notre Dame in which the quarterback implodes, followed by easy non-conference win. 1993 was also the year that Michigan lost at Camp Randall Stadium, punctuated by a Heysel-esque riot (minus the projectiles, large death count, and five-year European ban) by always level-headed Badger students. Are we about to have a George Santayana moment?
Ohio State (-7) vs. Iowa - The last time I took the Buckeyes, I looked good for the first 50 minutes or so until Jim Tressel's scorching hot romance with the field goal cost his team the game. (In his defense, he probably didn't coach Ryan Hamby to drop a wide open touchdown that would have put the Horns behind the eight-ball, nor did he coach Buckeye fans to then show their class by sending Hamby hate mail. That story never gets old for me, nor does the apology issued by Ohio State's President for the way that Texas fans were treated in Columbus, but I digress.) This sounds like the Bucks' bounce-back game. Last year, Iowa came into the season highly thought of, got embarrassed in a road non-conference game, then got beaten up by the Big Ten favorite on the road. In the interests of everything remaining consistent, we'll take Ohio State to cover, although I'm already pondering the wisdom of picking the Bucks to cover a touchdown when their M.O. under Tressel has been to win every game in overtime.
Virginia Tech (-10.5) vs. Georgia Tech - I'm not a big fan of the Hokie offense, but they play like gangbusters at home and the M.O. of Georgia Tech under Gailey has been that they can't sustain solid performances. Only six teams have stayed within single digits of Virginia Tech at Lane Stadium in the past six seasons. If they get a lead on Georgia Tech and force a quarterback coming back from viral meningitis to rally, then this game will be ugly. By the way, if Marcus Vick had herpes instead of Michael, then there would be all sorts of tasteless one-liners to be had about this game...and I'm just the kind of guy to make them.
Notre Dame (-13) at Washington - Washington is probably worse than Pitt and ND covered this number in Pittsburgh, plus the Irish probably had a great week of practice after losing at home to Michigan State. The media have hyped this game up because of the coaching match-up, but if they paid attention to the two teams that will actually line up against one another (a rare occurrence in today's personality-obsessed media and this comes from the guy who got a "PLANNING TO MARRY!!!" US Weekly headline in his mailbox this week), then there wouldn't be much reason to pay attention to this one.
Michigan (-3) at Wisconsin - After picking the two arch rivals of my alma mater and the arch rival of my law school alma mater, I might as well do something for my self-esteem and take the ol' winged helmets for once. Everyone is obsessed with Michigan's terrible record in road openers this century, but the main reason for that bad record is that Michigan still takes Bo's view of non-conference games as warm ups for the real season: the eight game march in the Big Ten. How else do we explain that Lloyd Carr loses just about every non-conference game on the road, but is a perfect 10-0 in Big Ten openers? Or that Michigan is a ridiculous 35-1 in Big Ten openers since Schembechler became the coach in 1969? This Wisconsin team is overrated right now because they're 3-0 against a bunch of patsies, but they have injuries on the defensive line that will negate their ability to exploit Michigan's banged up offensive line and backfield. UM played last week without its top two right tackles, its right guard, its starting tight end, and its 1,500 yard tailback from last year. This week, it's allegedly getting its right guard and back-up right tackle back, which will mean time to Chad Henne to pick on Wisconsin's bad secondary. (Admittedly, relying on Michigan injury information is like relying on economic statistics from the Communist-era Kremlin.) If Mike Kolodziej and Matt Lentz play at anything close to 100%, then Michigan wins comfortably, i.e. by seven.
One problem with my pick: my youngest brother is currently a freshman at Michigan and, as I warned him, his freshman football season is going exactly as my 1993 freshman year went: easy non-conference win to start the year, followed by upset loss at home to Notre Dame in which the quarterback implodes, followed by easy non-conference win. 1993 was also the year that Michigan lost at Camp Randall Stadium, punctuated by a Heysel-esque riot (minus the projectiles, large death count, and five-year European ban) by always level-headed Badger students. Are we about to have a George Santayana moment?
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Today's game was a real playoff preview
Not because the Braves are going to play the Phillies in the playoffs, but instead because the Braves lost a game against a quality opponent because Bobby Cox left his starter in for too long and Tim Hudson, who had pitched effectively for eight innings, got torched in the ninth after he had clearly run out of gas. In this instance, though, Bobby can be blamed because he does have one obviously reliable pitcher - Kyle Farnsworth - and he was at home, meaning there was no chance for a save opportunity once the ninth inning rolled around. Bobby possibly worried about pitching Farnsworth in a third straight game, but was it better to send his game two NLDS starter's pitch count north of 110?
And let's not lose sight of the fact that the Braves were only in a predicament in the first place because they didn't score a run all game, which makes it hard to win a baseball game. The offense's downfall has been a large reason why the team has played mediocre baseball over the past 50 games.
And let's not lose sight of the fact that the Braves were only in a predicament in the first place because they didn't score a run all game, which makes it hard to win a baseball game. The offense's downfall has been a large reason why the team has played mediocre baseball over the past 50 games.
A few thoughts on the Braves game last night
As with most seasons when the Braves have a significant lead in September and college football occupies all of my sports attention, I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to the Braves over the past few weeks, other than just looking at their box scores and concluding that they have about a 35% chance of winning a series against the Astros because of the dearth of quality bullpen options other than the closer. (Speaking of which, at the end of the year when we look back and analyze why the Braves were able to win the division again [assuming that they don't have a monumental collapse,] Schuerholtz's acquisition of Kyle Farnsworth will be a major factor. Without him, the bullpen would have been a complete waste of space and the team might have tailed into second place. On the other hand, Chris Reitsma has quietly allowed one run in his last ten appearances, so maybe we do have an 8th inning guy after all.) Anyway, I went to the game last night and have a few late-season observations:
1. The offense last night came from two sources that have been completely absent over the second half of the season: Johnny "I'll see you at Beef's" Estrada and Adam LaRoche. If they start to hit, then this team has a puncher's chance of making a playoff run. Then again, this season has provided confirmation of the truism that you can never tell too much about one game. Remember the questions about Smoltz as a starter that arose after he was shelled in the opener?
2. As a result of several Miller Lites and our seats in left field, by the end of the game, I didn't know who was pitching for either team. The Braves have a $12M high-definition scoreboard that is one of the three manmade objects that can be seen from outer space (OK, I made that part up,) but there apparently isn't enough room on it to note who is pitching. Fortunately, I was sober and well-prepared enough at the start of the game to know that Horacio was starting and that I could expect a barrage of balls into our area. In the end, the total was only one (to David Bell of all people, a fact that I hollered to the embarrassment of several of my co-workers as part of my march to partnership,) but he did manage to surrender four earned runs and eleven baserunners in six innings. His peripherals (strikeouts, walks, and home runs) are lousy and I'm hoping that there's enough competition next year in spring training that he isn't awarded a spot in the rotation by default. One good bit of news about Horatio last night: he inexplicably struck Chase Utley out three times.
3. Speaking of next year, I heard some vague statements on the radio today that insurance is going to cover a significant portion of Mike Hampton's contract next year. If true, then that frees up a good amount of salary (possibly to re-sign Raffy?) and it means that his postponement of surgery this year, which initially annoyed me as unrealistic thinking, might turn out to be a blessing in disguise. The AJC, naturally, has nothing on this issue, although my tuning out of the Braves might have blurred my usual keen analysis of their Braves nuggets.
4. One reason to root for the Red Sox: if they can come back and win the division, which is looking unlikely because of their wretched bullpen, and the Braves hold onto their lead in the East, then the Braves will have the longest streak of divisional titles in baseball at 14 and the Cardinals and Angels will be tied for second at two. That will keep me warm in October when watching another NLDS flame-out.
1. The offense last night came from two sources that have been completely absent over the second half of the season: Johnny "I'll see you at Beef's" Estrada and Adam LaRoche. If they start to hit, then this team has a puncher's chance of making a playoff run. Then again, this season has provided confirmation of the truism that you can never tell too much about one game. Remember the questions about Smoltz as a starter that arose after he was shelled in the opener?
2. As a result of several Miller Lites and our seats in left field, by the end of the game, I didn't know who was pitching for either team. The Braves have a $12M high-definition scoreboard that is one of the three manmade objects that can be seen from outer space (OK, I made that part up,) but there apparently isn't enough room on it to note who is pitching. Fortunately, I was sober and well-prepared enough at the start of the game to know that Horacio was starting and that I could expect a barrage of balls into our area. In the end, the total was only one (to David Bell of all people, a fact that I hollered to the embarrassment of several of my co-workers as part of my march to partnership,) but he did manage to surrender four earned runs and eleven baserunners in six innings. His peripherals (strikeouts, walks, and home runs) are lousy and I'm hoping that there's enough competition next year in spring training that he isn't awarded a spot in the rotation by default. One good bit of news about Horatio last night: he inexplicably struck Chase Utley out three times.
3. Speaking of next year, I heard some vague statements on the radio today that insurance is going to cover a significant portion of Mike Hampton's contract next year. If true, then that frees up a good amount of salary (possibly to re-sign Raffy?) and it means that his postponement of surgery this year, which initially annoyed me as unrealistic thinking, might turn out to be a blessing in disguise. The AJC, naturally, has nothing on this issue, although my tuning out of the Braves might have blurred my usual keen analysis of their Braves nuggets.
4. One reason to root for the Red Sox: if they can come back and win the division, which is looking unlikely because of their wretched bullpen, and the Braves hold onto their lead in the East, then the Braves will have the longest streak of divisional titles in baseball at 14 and the Cardinals and Angels will be tied for second at two. That will keep me warm in October when watching another NLDS flame-out.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
I love Leo Mazzone
From Baseball Prospectus:
"That ball left Andruw's bat, traveled about 450 feet, and the next contact it made was with my freakin' head. That thing came straight out of the sky. Then I was face down in the bullpen."
--Braves pitching coach Leo Mazzone, on getting hit on the head by an Andruw Jones home run during batting practice (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
"I probably could have caught it if I knew it was coming. It smoked him, right in the head. It hit him hard, and he hit the ground. I was like, 'He's dead.'"
--Braves reliever Blane Boyer, who was standing a few feet away from Mazzone when he got hit
"He was bleeding all over the place. But he just wore it. He got up and walked away. Horacio [Ramirez] said, 'Stay down, stay down.' "
--Boyer
"No more than usual."
--Mazzone, on whether he felt any dizziness the next day
"I never was normal."
--Mazzone, on whether he felt back to normal
"That ball left Andruw's bat, traveled about 450 feet, and the next contact it made was with my freakin' head. That thing came straight out of the sky. Then I was face down in the bullpen."
--Braves pitching coach Leo Mazzone, on getting hit on the head by an Andruw Jones home run during batting practice (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
"I probably could have caught it if I knew it was coming. It smoked him, right in the head. It hit him hard, and he hit the ground. I was like, 'He's dead.'"
--Braves reliever Blane Boyer, who was standing a few feet away from Mazzone when he got hit
"He was bleeding all over the place. But he just wore it. He got up and walked away. Horacio [Ramirez] said, 'Stay down, stay down.' "
--Boyer
"No more than usual."
--Mazzone, on whether he felt any dizziness the next day
"I never was normal."
--Mazzone, on whether he felt back to normal
My Top 25
1. Southern Cal
2. Texas
3. Louisiana State
4. Florida
5. Virginia Tech
6. Georgia
7. Florida State
8. Ohio State
9. Miami (Florida)
10. Louisville
11. Arizona State
12. Tennessee
13. Clemson
14. Notre Dame
15. Georgia Tech
16. Texas A&M
17. Michigan
18. Alabama
19. Minnesota
20. UCLA
21. Michigan State
22. Texas Tech
23. Boston College
24. Iowa State
25. Oregon
No change in the top five for obvious reasons. I dropped Notre Dame down a ways for giving up a million points to Michigan State, but I kept them above the Spartans because the Irish still have two quality wins; they didn't get a two-game preseason to get ready for this game like Michigan State did. Both teams seem to have great offensive designs and will score a ton of points, but will likely finish in the 8-3 range because neither of them can stop opponents from throwing the ball at will. I'm not the first one to say this, but State has to beware against a frisky Illinois team this week. Stat of the week, by the way: I don't know if this is right, but I read somewhere that Michigan State is 9-1 against Top Ten teams since 1997...and 46-43 against the rest of college football.
Miami and Florida State both get bumps for quality road wins against ranked opponents. FSU's newfound ability to complete a forward pass should be frightening for opponents, because their defense is outstanding and they've always had good running backs. By the way, isn't is a rite of passage in the fall that the leaves change, the air gets chilly, and Florida State figures out that they have a better offense when they spread out with four-wide out of the shotgun as opposed to running out of the I-formation and compressing their talent between the hashmarks? It seems that they've been making this startling revelation every year since 1992. (Is it possible for me to say anything nice about the 'Noles?) I didn't penalize Clemson too much; an overtime loss to a Top Ten team is nothing to be upset about. That said, Clemson fans are going to be seeing that missed throw in the end zone at the end of regulation when they close their eyes every night until March.
Tennessee takes a tumble in the rankings for their inexplicable play-calling against Florida. I didn't see the game because I was at a wedding in Providence, which is about as far from the bright center of the college football universe as possible (although I did get introduced, over and over again, to something called a Dark and Stormy, which is a local drink with dark rum and ginger beer. I'm not much for sweet alcoholic beverages, but this one was an exception. Mmmmmm.) Looking at the box score late Saturday night, Tennessee's play-calling seemed inexplicable to me. How does Gerald Riggs get five yards per pop and yet you still keep calling pass plays that are not working? The stereotype during the off-season, at least among Tennessee fans who get their corn from a jar, was that they were going to teach fancy pants Urban Meyer a few things about life in the SEC by smash-mouthing their way to victory in a venue that they "own" on the basis of a whopping two-game winning streak. Instead, Meyer was the one whose team had the smash-mouth personality, winning by great defensive play and special teams. Tennessee had the ability to match them by running the ball and yet they gave their stud back only 17 carries. And this is on the road, no less, the place where Fulmer (and most coaches) tend to become more conservative, not less. Anyway, it's inexplicable, especially to me because Riggs is on my fantasy team, but Tennessee's likely response is to try to run the ball on every play at LSU. The problem is that LSU, unlike Florida, is a team that needs to be attacked through the air. If the Vols overreact to their Left Coast gameplan from last week, they will end up calling the wrong plays two weeks in a row.
Alabama shoots up the rankings this week after dominating South Carolina in Columbia, a tough venue for most teams. Bama probably benefited from seeing South Carolina's defense on tape twice, but give them their due. I got tired the past few years listening to excuses from Bama fans as to why their team wasn't winning ten games per year as they believe is their birthright, but the way the Tide look this year, they may have been right. They're combining last year's defense with a solid running game and - finally - a healthy passing game. And their rise makes life a lot easier for...Georgia. If LSU and Alabama are clearly the top two teams in the West, and Florida and Tennessee play both of them and Georgia plays neither, well, you do the math. By the way, Bama's strong performance is illustrating one of my pet theories: in major, major rivalries, when one team has a great year, it often spurs the rival to have a great year in the following season. To wit:
1992 - Alabama goes unbeaten, then the following year, Auburn does the same.
1999 - Alabama wins the SEC, then the following year, Auburn wins the SEC West.
Or from another famous rivalry:
1997 - Michigan goes unbeaten, then the next year, Ohio State goes 11-1 and finishes #2
2002 - Ohio State goes unbeaten, then the next year, Michigan wins the Big Ten and goes to the Rose Bowl.
We're also introducing UCLA and Oregon into the poll, since both teams are 3-0 and had big home wins over the weekend. UCLA might prove to be the better team because they can play defense, but Oregon, like Michigan State and Notre Dame, seems to have the ability to get opponents into shootouts and they can win their share of those. It'll be interesting to see if they can get USC into a scorefest. I suspect that the Trojans' defensive line will prevent that from happening, especially since they've been put on upset alert about this game since June.
2. Texas
3. Louisiana State
4. Florida
5. Virginia Tech
6. Georgia
7. Florida State
8. Ohio State
9. Miami (Florida)
10. Louisville
11. Arizona State
12. Tennessee
13. Clemson
14. Notre Dame
15. Georgia Tech
16. Texas A&M
17. Michigan
18. Alabama
19. Minnesota
20. UCLA
21. Michigan State
22. Texas Tech
23. Boston College
24. Iowa State
25. Oregon
No change in the top five for obvious reasons. I dropped Notre Dame down a ways for giving up a million points to Michigan State, but I kept them above the Spartans because the Irish still have two quality wins; they didn't get a two-game preseason to get ready for this game like Michigan State did. Both teams seem to have great offensive designs and will score a ton of points, but will likely finish in the 8-3 range because neither of them can stop opponents from throwing the ball at will. I'm not the first one to say this, but State has to beware against a frisky Illinois team this week. Stat of the week, by the way: I don't know if this is right, but I read somewhere that Michigan State is 9-1 against Top Ten teams since 1997...and 46-43 against the rest of college football.
Miami and Florida State both get bumps for quality road wins against ranked opponents. FSU's newfound ability to complete a forward pass should be frightening for opponents, because their defense is outstanding and they've always had good running backs. By the way, isn't is a rite of passage in the fall that the leaves change, the air gets chilly, and Florida State figures out that they have a better offense when they spread out with four-wide out of the shotgun as opposed to running out of the I-formation and compressing their talent between the hashmarks? It seems that they've been making this startling revelation every year since 1992. (Is it possible for me to say anything nice about the 'Noles?) I didn't penalize Clemson too much; an overtime loss to a Top Ten team is nothing to be upset about. That said, Clemson fans are going to be seeing that missed throw in the end zone at the end of regulation when they close their eyes every night until March.
Tennessee takes a tumble in the rankings for their inexplicable play-calling against Florida. I didn't see the game because I was at a wedding in Providence, which is about as far from the bright center of the college football universe as possible (although I did get introduced, over and over again, to something called a Dark and Stormy, which is a local drink with dark rum and ginger beer. I'm not much for sweet alcoholic beverages, but this one was an exception. Mmmmmm.) Looking at the box score late Saturday night, Tennessee's play-calling seemed inexplicable to me. How does Gerald Riggs get five yards per pop and yet you still keep calling pass plays that are not working? The stereotype during the off-season, at least among Tennessee fans who get their corn from a jar, was that they were going to teach fancy pants Urban Meyer a few things about life in the SEC by smash-mouthing their way to victory in a venue that they "own" on the basis of a whopping two-game winning streak. Instead, Meyer was the one whose team had the smash-mouth personality, winning by great defensive play and special teams. Tennessee had the ability to match them by running the ball and yet they gave their stud back only 17 carries. And this is on the road, no less, the place where Fulmer (and most coaches) tend to become more conservative, not less. Anyway, it's inexplicable, especially to me because Riggs is on my fantasy team, but Tennessee's likely response is to try to run the ball on every play at LSU. The problem is that LSU, unlike Florida, is a team that needs to be attacked through the air. If the Vols overreact to their Left Coast gameplan from last week, they will end up calling the wrong plays two weeks in a row.
Alabama shoots up the rankings this week after dominating South Carolina in Columbia, a tough venue for most teams. Bama probably benefited from seeing South Carolina's defense on tape twice, but give them their due. I got tired the past few years listening to excuses from Bama fans as to why their team wasn't winning ten games per year as they believe is their birthright, but the way the Tide look this year, they may have been right. They're combining last year's defense with a solid running game and - finally - a healthy passing game. And their rise makes life a lot easier for...Georgia. If LSU and Alabama are clearly the top two teams in the West, and Florida and Tennessee play both of them and Georgia plays neither, well, you do the math. By the way, Bama's strong performance is illustrating one of my pet theories: in major, major rivalries, when one team has a great year, it often spurs the rival to have a great year in the following season. To wit:
1992 - Alabama goes unbeaten, then the following year, Auburn does the same.
1999 - Alabama wins the SEC, then the following year, Auburn wins the SEC West.
Or from another famous rivalry:
1997 - Michigan goes unbeaten, then the next year, Ohio State goes 11-1 and finishes #2
2002 - Ohio State goes unbeaten, then the next year, Michigan wins the Big Ten and goes to the Rose Bowl.
We're also introducing UCLA and Oregon into the poll, since both teams are 3-0 and had big home wins over the weekend. UCLA might prove to be the better team because they can play defense, but Oregon, like Michigan State and Notre Dame, seems to have the ability to get opponents into shootouts and they can win their share of those. It'll be interesting to see if they can get USC into a scorefest. I suspect that the Trojans' defensive line will prevent that from happening, especially since they've been put on upset alert about this game since June.
Sorry for the long absence
Work is ramping up and it pays the bills, so it gets first priority. So no, I haven't been trying to ignore the Braves' stumble towards October (and it might not be to October if it becomes a full collapse, although that seems unlikely with nine of the last 12 at home and a three-game set against the Rockies included) or the struggles of the Falcons' passing game or a few blah efforts from Georgia and Georgia Tech.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Furcal
I can't remember who left the comment that Rafael Furcal isn't going to be expensive this off-season, but Joe Sheehan of the outstanding Baseball Prospectus agrees with me and, in fact, sets Furcal's value higher:
"I missed this, so maybe you did, too: Rafael Furcal, whose OBP was below .300 on July 1, is hitting .322/.399/.470 since the All-Star break and having his best defensive season to boot. He's a huge part of the Braves' jillionth division title, and about to become a very wealthy man. If Edgar Renteria got four years and $40 million coming off his .287/.327/.401 age-28 season, how does Furcal not start at four and $48 million hitting the market a a year younger and with higher everything, including a possible Gold Glove Award?"
Furcal's value won't be quite that high because most of the primary big spenders in baseball - the Yankees (Jeter), Red Sox (Renteria), Orioles (Tejada), Mets (Reyes), Dodgers (Izturis), Phillies (Rollins), Angels (Cabrera), Cardinals (Eckstein), and Cubs (Nomar) - all have long-term commitments at the position. The most likely suitors would be the White Sox, Mariners, Nationals, Astros, D-Backs, or Giants, unless some team came completely out of nowhere and decided to increase their payroll. That said, there's always the possibility that one of the big market teams could trade their shortstop or move him around the infield, as the Cubs are apparently considering. Still, the Braves might luck out this winter and find that the market for Furcal isn't commensurate with his actual value. On the other hand, if Giles was the free agent, then a number of the wealthy teams would be interested, starting with the Red Sox.
"I missed this, so maybe you did, too: Rafael Furcal, whose OBP was below .300 on July 1, is hitting .322/.399/.470 since the All-Star break and having his best defensive season to boot. He's a huge part of the Braves' jillionth division title, and about to become a very wealthy man. If Edgar Renteria got four years and $40 million coming off his .287/.327/.401 age-28 season, how does Furcal not start at four and $48 million hitting the market a a year younger and with higher everything, including a possible Gold Glove Award?"
Furcal's value won't be quite that high because most of the primary big spenders in baseball - the Yankees (Jeter), Red Sox (Renteria), Orioles (Tejada), Mets (Reyes), Dodgers (Izturis), Phillies (Rollins), Angels (Cabrera), Cardinals (Eckstein), and Cubs (Nomar) - all have long-term commitments at the position. The most likely suitors would be the White Sox, Mariners, Nationals, Astros, D-Backs, or Giants, unless some team came completely out of nowhere and decided to increase their payroll. That said, there's always the possibility that one of the big market teams could trade their shortstop or move him around the infield, as the Cubs are apparently considering. Still, the Braves might luck out this winter and find that the market for Furcal isn't commensurate with his actual value. On the other hand, if Giles was the free agent, then a number of the wealthy teams would be interested, starting with the Red Sox.
My Top 25
1. Southern Cal
2. Texas
3. Louisiana State
4. Florida
5. Virginia Tech
6. Notre Dame
7. Georgia
8. Tennessee
9. Ohio State
10. Miami (Florida)
11. Louisville
12. Arizona State
13. Clemson
14. Florida State
15. Georgia Tech
16. Texas A&M
17. Michigan
18. Boston College
19. Minnesota
20. Purdue
21. Cal
22. Texas Tech
23. Oklahoma
24. Alabama
25. Iowa State
I thought long and hard about bumping Texas ahead of LSU and finally decided to do so because a win at Ohio State is a little more impressive than a win at Arizona State, although the Sun Devils certainly did a lot to impress on Saturday night. If LSU can shore up the defense a little, then they'll be a better team than Texas. They'll certainly get more chances to prove themselves over the next two months with games against Florida, Tennessee, and Alabama all on deck. I dropped Georgia a couple spots because of D.J. Shockley's Quincy Carter imitation on Saturday night. Quarterback play is often overrated in college football, but Georgia's season will rise or fall on whether Shockley can distribute the ball in an accurate fashion. Every other piece of Georgia's team seems to be in place. I didn't penalize Ohio State or Arizona State much; if I truly believe that LSU and Texas are the second and third best teams in the country, then losing very narrow games to them shouldn't affect their ranking much.
Regardless of the final score, I did punish Florida State for trailing The Citadel in the second quarter. Ditto for Oklahoma and their game with Tulsa. I gave Clemson another bump; they arguably have the best collection of scalps right now with narrow wins over Texas A&M and Maryland. Ultimately, they might prove to be overrated based on the fact that they've won a couple nail-biters and aren't necessarily better than the teams that they've played. We'll learn a lot about the Tigers when they entertain Miami this weekend.
I punished Iowa worse than Michigan and Ohio State because they got beaten so soundly by an inferior opponent, along with my underlying sense that Iowa was overrated heading into the season. Michigan and Ohio State, their flaws aside, did put up fights against Top Ten teams. Iowa got rolled from the start by their in-state rival, even before Drew Tate was concussed. I suspect that the Hawks will reappear in the rankings down the road once they make their customary second half run.
2. Texas
3. Louisiana State
4. Florida
5. Virginia Tech
6. Notre Dame
7. Georgia
8. Tennessee
9. Ohio State
10. Miami (Florida)
11. Louisville
12. Arizona State
13. Clemson
14. Florida State
15. Georgia Tech
16. Texas A&M
17. Michigan
18. Boston College
19. Minnesota
20. Purdue
21. Cal
22. Texas Tech
23. Oklahoma
24. Alabama
25. Iowa State
I thought long and hard about bumping Texas ahead of LSU and finally decided to do so because a win at Ohio State is a little more impressive than a win at Arizona State, although the Sun Devils certainly did a lot to impress on Saturday night. If LSU can shore up the defense a little, then they'll be a better team than Texas. They'll certainly get more chances to prove themselves over the next two months with games against Florida, Tennessee, and Alabama all on deck. I dropped Georgia a couple spots because of D.J. Shockley's Quincy Carter imitation on Saturday night. Quarterback play is often overrated in college football, but Georgia's season will rise or fall on whether Shockley can distribute the ball in an accurate fashion. Every other piece of Georgia's team seems to be in place. I didn't penalize Ohio State or Arizona State much; if I truly believe that LSU and Texas are the second and third best teams in the country, then losing very narrow games to them shouldn't affect their ranking much.
Regardless of the final score, I did punish Florida State for trailing The Citadel in the second quarter. Ditto for Oklahoma and their game with Tulsa. I gave Clemson another bump; they arguably have the best collection of scalps right now with narrow wins over Texas A&M and Maryland. Ultimately, they might prove to be overrated based on the fact that they've won a couple nail-biters and aren't necessarily better than the teams that they've played. We'll learn a lot about the Tigers when they entertain Miami this weekend.
I punished Iowa worse than Michigan and Ohio State because they got beaten so soundly by an inferior opponent, along with my underlying sense that Iowa was overrated heading into the season. Michigan and Ohio State, their flaws aside, did put up fights against Top Ten teams. Iowa got rolled from the start by their in-state rival, even before Drew Tate was concussed. I suspect that the Hawks will reappear in the rankings down the road once they make their customary second half run.
I heard this crazy rumor...
that there's going to be some sort of football game tonight at the Georgia Dome. I was previously unaware of it, but at the gym this morning, one guy was motivating another during his sets with "Eagles! Tonight! It's all starting! C'mon! Get up!" (Only in Atlanta can you hear people talking up the visiting team at the gym at 6:45 in the morning. Actually, that's not entirely true. I watched some of the San Diego-Dallas game yesterday and the crowd was half Cowboys fans. I wonder if San Diego is going to be dubbed "worst sports town in America" for that. Naw, we wouldn't want to shatter sportswriters' pre-conceived views on the way the world works.) Anyway, here are my thoughts on the game tonight:
1. For all the criticism that I and others make of Michael Vick for being so-so as a passer, every time I think about the game tonight, I picture him getting loose on a run and the Dome going absolutely apeshit. Stats don't do justice to how exciting it is to root for a player like Vick. He's a reminder of why I started watching sports in the first place. The Falcons are going against their entire history, namely that the team has never had consecutive winning seasons and has an abysmal record on Monday nights, but we have Vick when we walk through the valley of death. (I'm going to hate myself for writing that tomorrow morning in the aftermath of a 23-10 loss.)
2. Tonight's game, like the other Falcons-Eagles games of the past several years, all of which have been one by Philly in relatively comfortable fashion, will come down to the Falcons' ability to handle Philly's pressure. The Eagles have a great defensive line and they blitz a lot, thus negating the Falcons' running game and putting pressure on their two weakest units: the offensive line, which doesn't pass protect very well, and the wide receivers, which need to get off of the bump, make good sight-adjustments, and then make plays down the field. The McKay/Mora regime has increased the talent base on the team and tonight will be a good test to see if the offensive line and wide receivers are ready to make this team a Super Bowl contender.
3. Speaking of the Eagles' defense, the Patriots slowed the Eagles' pass rush down last February with a diet of screen passes. Look for the Falcons to try those tonight. If the running game doesn't get going, then that would be the best way to get the ball into Dunn and Duckett's hands in position to make some plays. I'm tittilated by the thought of Duckett getting a head of steam and heading down the field on a screen pass.
4. Is there anything worse than imagining Terrell Owens celebrating in the end zone of the Georgia Dome? Yeah, that's what I thought. That said, Jason Webster and Kevin Mathis are going to be critical tonight because the coverage is going to be rolled towards Owens and they're going to have to win their individual match-ups with Greg Lewis and Reggie Brown for the Falcons' defense to be successful.
Overall, I view the Eagles in the same way that Colts fans probably view New England. Heck, Colts fans can at least point to their regular season match-ups with the Pats, which have been very competitive. The Falcons have been handled easily by the Eagles twice in the playoffs. The Falcons did play the Eagles surprisingly tough in 2003 during Vick's broken ankle sabbatical, losing only 23-16, but the stats from that game (the Eagles outgained the Falcons 430 to 278 and were +2 in turnovers) are indicative of a blowout. Although this is the first time that a Vick-led Falcons team has had a home game against Philly, I'm not going to believe that the Falcons can play with the Eagles until I see it on the field.
One other note: the Falcons stayed in the game with the Eagles in 2003 primarily because of Allen Rossum's work in the return game. If the Falcons are going to win tonight, then he needs to be a factor.
1. For all the criticism that I and others make of Michael Vick for being so-so as a passer, every time I think about the game tonight, I picture him getting loose on a run and the Dome going absolutely apeshit. Stats don't do justice to how exciting it is to root for a player like Vick. He's a reminder of why I started watching sports in the first place. The Falcons are going against their entire history, namely that the team has never had consecutive winning seasons and has an abysmal record on Monday nights, but we have Vick when we walk through the valley of death. (I'm going to hate myself for writing that tomorrow morning in the aftermath of a 23-10 loss.)
2. Tonight's game, like the other Falcons-Eagles games of the past several years, all of which have been one by Philly in relatively comfortable fashion, will come down to the Falcons' ability to handle Philly's pressure. The Eagles have a great defensive line and they blitz a lot, thus negating the Falcons' running game and putting pressure on their two weakest units: the offensive line, which doesn't pass protect very well, and the wide receivers, which need to get off of the bump, make good sight-adjustments, and then make plays down the field. The McKay/Mora regime has increased the talent base on the team and tonight will be a good test to see if the offensive line and wide receivers are ready to make this team a Super Bowl contender.
3. Speaking of the Eagles' defense, the Patriots slowed the Eagles' pass rush down last February with a diet of screen passes. Look for the Falcons to try those tonight. If the running game doesn't get going, then that would be the best way to get the ball into Dunn and Duckett's hands in position to make some plays. I'm tittilated by the thought of Duckett getting a head of steam and heading down the field on a screen pass.
4. Is there anything worse than imagining Terrell Owens celebrating in the end zone of the Georgia Dome? Yeah, that's what I thought. That said, Jason Webster and Kevin Mathis are going to be critical tonight because the coverage is going to be rolled towards Owens and they're going to have to win their individual match-ups with Greg Lewis and Reggie Brown for the Falcons' defense to be successful.
Overall, I view the Eagles in the same way that Colts fans probably view New England. Heck, Colts fans can at least point to their regular season match-ups with the Pats, which have been very competitive. The Falcons have been handled easily by the Eagles twice in the playoffs. The Falcons did play the Eagles surprisingly tough in 2003 during Vick's broken ankle sabbatical, losing only 23-16, but the stats from that game (the Eagles outgained the Falcons 430 to 278 and were +2 in turnovers) are indicative of a blowout. Although this is the first time that a Vick-led Falcons team has had a home game against Philly, I'm not going to believe that the Falcons can play with the Eagles until I see it on the field.
One other note: the Falcons stayed in the game with the Eagles in 2003 primarily because of Allen Rossum's work in the return game. If the Falcons are going to win tonight, then he needs to be a factor.
Why can't the AJC have post-game warp-ups like this?
This is one of the best post-game articles I've read in terms of depth of analysis and useful information provided. Are football fans in Honolulu better able to handle insightful comments regarding a game than fans in Atlanta (or indeed, anywhere on the mainland)? Do our newspapers dumb their articles down excessively? Is journalism taught differently in Hawaii?
Seriously, I woke up Sunday morning and had almost no desire to read the AJC's write-up of the Georgia game because I knew that it would convey little or no information that I didn't glean for myself watching the game on TV. Does anyone else have that feeling? And it isn't just the AJC. Post-game write-ups generally suck because they convey very little that the box score doesn't, other than the formulaic quotes from coaches and players who do everything in their power to avoid saying anything controversial or interesting.
Seriously, I woke up Sunday morning and had almost no desire to read the AJC's write-up of the Georgia game because I knew that it would convey little or no information that I didn't glean for myself watching the game on TV. Does anyone else have that feeling? And it isn't just the AJC. Post-game write-ups generally suck because they convey very little that the box score doesn't, other than the formulaic quotes from coaches and players who do everything in their power to avoid saying anything controversial or interesting.
Friday, September 09, 2005
And this is what I love about Sports Guy
One day after he infuriates me with more whining about the lack of respect for New England, he starts with some level-headed analysis of their problems on both sides of the running game and ends with one of his best jokes in recent memory:
Eagles (PK) over FALCONS
Quick preview impression of Michaels and Madden on Monday night:
Michaels: "Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb?"
Madden: "Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb."
Michaels: "Which raises a great point -- Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb."
Madden: "Absolutely. Al, this is what it's all about, right here -- Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb."
Michaels: "Let's go down to Michele Tafoya."
Tafoya: "Al, I just talked to Andy Reid, and he said, 'Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb...'"
He left out a little Michael Vick love, but that would be no different than this entire summer in terms of NFL coverage and I'm sure that the ABC production crew is going to order them to hammer the personality angle over and over and over again, just like they did last night with their Tom Brady fellatio. And another beef with ABC: the pre-game festivities last night made bowl game halftime shows seem subtle. Ozzy Osborne on top of a giant Patriots helmet singing "Crazytrain" with a prozac permagrin while the defending champions come running out, looking strangely business-like? And nothing screams football like Freddie Prinze, Jr. Or the Stones and Santana for everyone whose musical tastes haven't changed since the 70s. Thank G-d college football teams have too much self-respect to let their big games start with this drivel. Ohio State, please don't disappoint me by having Celine Dion belting out "My Heart Will Go On" when the Bucks take the field tomorrow night.
Eagles (PK) over FALCONS
Quick preview impression of Michaels and Madden on Monday night:
Michaels: "Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb?"
Madden: "Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb."
Michaels: "Which raises a great point -- Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb."
Madden: "Absolutely. Al, this is what it's all about, right here -- Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb."
Michaels: "Let's go down to Michele Tafoya."
Tafoya: "Al, I just talked to Andy Reid, and he said, 'Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb Terrell Owens Donovan McNabb...'"
He left out a little Michael Vick love, but that would be no different than this entire summer in terms of NFL coverage and I'm sure that the ABC production crew is going to order them to hammer the personality angle over and over and over again, just like they did last night with their Tom Brady fellatio. And another beef with ABC: the pre-game festivities last night made bowl game halftime shows seem subtle. Ozzy Osborne on top of a giant Patriots helmet singing "Crazytrain" with a prozac permagrin while the defending champions come running out, looking strangely business-like? And nothing screams football like Freddie Prinze, Jr. Or the Stones and Santana for everyone whose musical tastes haven't changed since the 70s. Thank G-d college football teams have too much self-respect to let their big games start with this drivel. Ohio State, please don't disappoint me by having Celine Dion belting out "My Heart Will Go On" when the Bucks take the field tomorrow night.
A little friendly advice for the local hockey collective
This would not be a good way to reignite fan interest after a one-year absence from the Atlanta sports scene. I sympathize with them because in a salary cap era, they probably can't afford to pay Ilya $7M/year and still field a good team. And since Ilya has to know that, one wonders whether Don Waddell would ever be able to build a team around a guy who can be that selfish and stand-offish. All that said, the short term effects of losing Kovalchuk to the Russian League and coming out of the signing period without either of the young stars around whom the Thrashers centered their marketing campaign for two years would be very significant. I really hope that the two sides can come back to earth and ink Ilya to a Rick Nash type deal, but this article does not make that prospect sound tenable.
Picks for this week
I was 2-1 last week, nailing Notre Dame and Georgia and missing out on Bowling Green. Anyway, here are the lines for this week and here are the games that jump out at me:
Notre Dame (+7) at Michigan - Given the poor performance from Michigan's defense last week, the terrific performance from Notre Dame's offense, the mismatch of Charlie Weis versus Jim Herrmann, and Michigan's historical underperformance against Notre Dame (primarily because the game means a lot more for the Irish, just like the Boston College-Notre Dame game means more to the Eagles,) there seems to be no way that Michigan will win by more than a score. There are only three factors going in Michigan's favor, but they aren't enough to make me think that they'll win:
1. Michigan is 59-6 at home under Lloyd Carr and has lost all of two home games this decade.
2. Michigan is 13-4 in revenge games under Lloyd Carr.
3. Michigan has the passing game to take advantage of Notre Dame's suspect secondary and is going into the game probably assuming that they're going to allow a lot of points, which means a fairly open gameplan from UM.
Iowa State (+9.5) vs. Iowa - Iowa is a typically slow-starting team, they're on the road in a rivalry game, and Iowa State is a fairly competitive team that will have a chip on their shoulder against those "snobs" from Iowa City. (I assume that every rivalry involving a team with "State" in their name involves the "State" team viewing the state flagship school as a bunch of snobs who think they're so much better than us common folk. See: N.C. State vs. North Carolina, Florida State vs. Florida, Michigan State vs. Michigan, Mississippi State vs. Ole Miss, etc.) Ferentz's Hawkeyes have only put up a number that would cover this spread once in his fine career at Iowa and that was against a Cyclone team that would end up 2-10.
Arkansas (-10) vs. Vandy - I thought this line was a misprint at first. Have we taken Vandy's opening win a tad too seriously? This is the Commodores on the road in the SEC against a team that plays far better at home historically under Houston Nutt. Arkansas is going to run the ball all day on the Commodores. This won't be the game where the Hawgs' new quarterback is going to be tested.
Ohio State (-1) vs. Texas - I have several reasons for this pick:
1. Mack Brown vs. Jim Tressel. I like Mack and all, but like Lloyd Carr or Phil Fulmer, do you really feel that confident with Mack on the sidelines in a big game against one of the better coaches in the country? (Note that I will forget I said that the week of the Michigan-Ohio State game.)
2. Ohio State has never lost a home night game before and most of the games have been blowouts. The Bucks have a major homefield advantage to begin with. Give all those future pharma reps and cell phone salesmen a day to get liquored up and the environment will make Bhopal look like a hyperbaric chamber.
3. As has been mentioned everywhere, Ohio State has a back seven that can tackle, which will probably make this game Vince Young's Waterloo. I guess that makes Jim Tressel Wellington and his linebacker corps a bunch of Hessian mercenaries. Texas is going to have to get production out of their passing game and I just don't trust their receiving corps to take advantage of the Bucks' suspect second and third corners.
4. If the two defenses dominate as many think they will, which special teams unit do we trust more? Ohio State has one of the best returners in the country and a coach whose teams have never failed to be good in this department. Texas allowed Steve Breaston to set a Rose Bowl record for kick returns in a game (although the Michigan defense helped matters by allowing Texas to kick off six times) and a shaky kicker.
Notre Dame (+7) at Michigan - Given the poor performance from Michigan's defense last week, the terrific performance from Notre Dame's offense, the mismatch of Charlie Weis versus Jim Herrmann, and Michigan's historical underperformance against Notre Dame (primarily because the game means a lot more for the Irish, just like the Boston College-Notre Dame game means more to the Eagles,) there seems to be no way that Michigan will win by more than a score. There are only three factors going in Michigan's favor, but they aren't enough to make me think that they'll win:
1. Michigan is 59-6 at home under Lloyd Carr and has lost all of two home games this decade.
2. Michigan is 13-4 in revenge games under Lloyd Carr.
3. Michigan has the passing game to take advantage of Notre Dame's suspect secondary and is going into the game probably assuming that they're going to allow a lot of points, which means a fairly open gameplan from UM.
Iowa State (+9.5) vs. Iowa - Iowa is a typically slow-starting team, they're on the road in a rivalry game, and Iowa State is a fairly competitive team that will have a chip on their shoulder against those "snobs" from Iowa City. (I assume that every rivalry involving a team with "State" in their name involves the "State" team viewing the state flagship school as a bunch of snobs who think they're so much better than us common folk. See: N.C. State vs. North Carolina, Florida State vs. Florida, Michigan State vs. Michigan, Mississippi State vs. Ole Miss, etc.) Ferentz's Hawkeyes have only put up a number that would cover this spread once in his fine career at Iowa and that was against a Cyclone team that would end up 2-10.
Arkansas (-10) vs. Vandy - I thought this line was a misprint at first. Have we taken Vandy's opening win a tad too seriously? This is the Commodores on the road in the SEC against a team that plays far better at home historically under Houston Nutt. Arkansas is going to run the ball all day on the Commodores. This won't be the game where the Hawgs' new quarterback is going to be tested.
Ohio State (-1) vs. Texas - I have several reasons for this pick:
1. Mack Brown vs. Jim Tressel. I like Mack and all, but like Lloyd Carr or Phil Fulmer, do you really feel that confident with Mack on the sidelines in a big game against one of the better coaches in the country? (Note that I will forget I said that the week of the Michigan-Ohio State game.)
2. Ohio State has never lost a home night game before and most of the games have been blowouts. The Bucks have a major homefield advantage to begin with. Give all those future pharma reps and cell phone salesmen a day to get liquored up and the environment will make Bhopal look like a hyperbaric chamber.
3. As has been mentioned everywhere, Ohio State has a back seven that can tackle, which will probably make this game Vince Young's Waterloo. I guess that makes Jim Tressel Wellington and his linebacker corps a bunch of Hessian mercenaries. Texas is going to have to get production out of their passing game and I just don't trust their receiving corps to take advantage of the Bucks' suspect second and third corners.
4. If the two defenses dominate as many think they will, which special teams unit do we trust more? Ohio State has one of the best returners in the country and a coach whose teams have never failed to be good in this department. Texas allowed Steve Breaston to set a Rose Bowl record for kick returns in a game (although the Michigan defense helped matters by allowing Texas to kick off six times) and a shaky kicker.
Mack, I try so hard to love you, but you make it so hard
I wrote a piece defending Mack Brown about three summers ago for the since-folded PigskinPost.com. It was one of my better pieces and it got a tremendous amount of fan reaction, almost all of which was positive from Texas fans. That said, it's hard to root for Mack Brown when he does his best to personify a [insert slang term for female genitalia here]:
"At places like ours, we're going to fill up our stadium regardless of who we're playing, so we'd actually make more money playing another game at home, getting our guys ready for our conference schedule. So I don't see this continuing [beyond next year's game in Austin."
First of all, that doesn't exactly sound like a guy who relishing the opportunity to play a game in one of the famous venues in college football, mainly because he knows what the headlines are going to be if he loses: "MACK BLOWS THE BIG ONE AGAIN!!!" Those headlines will be unfair because the task of winning a road game against a Top Five team is a monumental one in college football. (And don't get carried away, Notre Dame fans. I mean a legitimate top five team, not a team that's in the top five solely because of inertia like your opponent tomorrow.) Second, his reasoning is ludicrous. He plays one perennial top 15 team every year: Oklahoma. It's possible that Franchione will turn Texas A&M into a second, but that hasn't happened yet. The rest of the Big XII South lack recruiting bases necessary to be perennial Top 15 teams. If Florida can play three perennials (Tennessee, Georgia, and LSU) and still have the balls to play a fourth (Florida State) and a fifth in years with the 12-game schedule (Miami), then you can have the balls to play a second outside of the conference. Do you really need three games against patsies to get your young players ready? Wouldn't it be better preparation for the Red River Shootout for your players to play a game against a quality opponent so you know who can play on the highest levels and who can't? What do you really learn about your team by beating Louisiana-Lafayette 60-3?
And then there's this comment:
"[When the series was scheduled], the national championship game was not what it is today. At places like Texas and Ohio State, everyone wants you to win the last one, and obviously after Saturday, one of us is going to take a step back."
How is the national title more important now than it was in the mid to late 90s? Maybe it's different for you because you're at a school where it's a legitmate aspiration, but it's always been important. And Mack is in no place to talk about how important it is when he's never won a conference champtionship, let alone a national title. I can't imagine that Texas fans wouldn't be happy with him if his team lost in Columbus, but then beat Oklahoma and won the Big XII. Coaches don't get fired for losing non-conference games in September; they get fired for failing to meet expectations. (I guess that Mack's counter would be that a national title would make him untouchable and there's some merit to that point.) Additionally, fans are so prey to recency that they'll overlook and possibly forget a loss in September if October and November are good.
"At places like ours, we're going to fill up our stadium regardless of who we're playing, so we'd actually make more money playing another game at home, getting our guys ready for our conference schedule. So I don't see this continuing [beyond next year's game in Austin."
First of all, that doesn't exactly sound like a guy who relishing the opportunity to play a game in one of the famous venues in college football, mainly because he knows what the headlines are going to be if he loses: "MACK BLOWS THE BIG ONE AGAIN!!!" Those headlines will be unfair because the task of winning a road game against a Top Five team is a monumental one in college football. (And don't get carried away, Notre Dame fans. I mean a legitimate top five team, not a team that's in the top five solely because of inertia like your opponent tomorrow.) Second, his reasoning is ludicrous. He plays one perennial top 15 team every year: Oklahoma. It's possible that Franchione will turn Texas A&M into a second, but that hasn't happened yet. The rest of the Big XII South lack recruiting bases necessary to be perennial Top 15 teams. If Florida can play three perennials (Tennessee, Georgia, and LSU) and still have the balls to play a fourth (Florida State) and a fifth in years with the 12-game schedule (Miami), then you can have the balls to play a second outside of the conference. Do you really need three games against patsies to get your young players ready? Wouldn't it be better preparation for the Red River Shootout for your players to play a game against a quality opponent so you know who can play on the highest levels and who can't? What do you really learn about your team by beating Louisiana-Lafayette 60-3?
And then there's this comment:
"[When the series was scheduled], the national championship game was not what it is today. At places like Texas and Ohio State, everyone wants you to win the last one, and obviously after Saturday, one of us is going to take a step back."
How is the national title more important now than it was in the mid to late 90s? Maybe it's different for you because you're at a school where it's a legitmate aspiration, but it's always been important. And Mack is in no place to talk about how important it is when he's never won a conference champtionship, let alone a national title. I can't imagine that Texas fans wouldn't be happy with him if his team lost in Columbus, but then beat Oklahoma and won the Big XII. Coaches don't get fired for losing non-conference games in September; they get fired for failing to meet expectations. (I guess that Mack's counter would be that a national title would make him untouchable and there's some merit to that point.) Additionally, fans are so prey to recency that they'll overlook and possibly forget a loss in September if October and November are good.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Play it again, Bill
What a f***ing whiner! I could insert any one of my complaints about Bill Simmons' writings about the Patriots from last four years here and make the same points, since he's a complete stuck record. There is nothing worse than a fan of a team that wins all the time who still manages to whine that his team doesn't get enough respect and who constantly belittles his rival as overrated. That's pretty much the definition of "sore winner." And speaking of sore winner, the excuses that come rolling out are choice! Philly almost won the Super Bowl because the Pats ran out of DBs. Indy is going to get homefield because of their weak schedule. Have some f***ing grace and acknowledge that the Pats' rivals have some merit! I've gotten to the point where I expect his agenda to shine through every time he makes reference to one of the major teams in the NFL.
And the best part is that he's now on the opposite side from where he was for years with the Yankees and Red Sox. Now that he's on top, he belittles the underdog as incapable of ever beating the favorite (without acknowledging that Indy might be a little better after drafting well and signing Corey Simon,) but when he wore his Red Sox hat, he dutifully analyzed Yankees/Red Sox match-up in nauseating detail, as if the Sox had a chance to win (and ultimately, they did.) History is replete with teams that knock on the door for a while before finally getting over the hump, such as the Eagles last year, the Broncos under Elway, Tennessee against Florida, Osborne's Nebraska against Oklahoma, Bowden against Miami, etc. Then again, Bill doesn't have much of a grasp of anything outside of the last few years, so what do I expect?
And does anyone get the irony that he bitches about no respect and his article is linked on the front page under a headline story from Len Pasquarelli that states that the Pats are the favorites to win again? Sports Guy must look far and wide to find people who don't pick New England (as if picking against a team trying to perform an unprecedented task of winning three straight Super Bowls is totally irrational) and then latch onto them, ignoring the hordes who pick them. (There's an analogy here to the right wingers who bitch about the liberal media because they latch onto liberal articles/statements and ignore the rest, not unlike the blind man who grabs the elephant's trunk and thinks he's feeling a snake.)
And yet I keep coming back for more...
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
My top 25
1. Southern Cal
2. Louisiana State
3. Texas
4. Florida
5. Georgia
6. Virginia Tech
7. Notre Dame
8. Tennessee
9. Iowa
10. Miami (Florida)
11. Louisville
12. Florida State
13. Michigan
14. Arizona State
15. Georgia Tech
16. Texas A&M
17. Clemson
18. Boston College
19. Oklahoma
20. Purdue
21. Minnesota
22. Texas Tech
23. Cal
24. Alabama
25. TCU
I'm probably overreacting on Notre Dame a little, but 35-13 at the half on the road against a decent team is nothing to sniff at. I punished Michigan and Oregon for bad defensive performances. I docked Bama, Tennessee, and Cal for struggling against teams that they should have beaten handily. I also have Miami over FSU because anyone who watched that game and would still take FSU on a neutral field is deluding themselves.
[Note: It has been pointed out to me that I forgot to include Ohio State. This was not an intentional effort on the part of a Michigan grad to disparage the fine academic institution in Columbus, Ohio. Slot them in between Virginia Tech and Notre Dame.]
2. Louisiana State
3. Texas
4. Florida
5. Georgia
6. Virginia Tech
7. Notre Dame
8. Tennessee
9. Iowa
10. Miami (Florida)
11. Louisville
12. Florida State
13. Michigan
14. Arizona State
15. Georgia Tech
16. Texas A&M
17. Clemson
18. Boston College
19. Oklahoma
20. Purdue
21. Minnesota
22. Texas Tech
23. Cal
24. Alabama
25. TCU
I'm probably overreacting on Notre Dame a little, but 35-13 at the half on the road against a decent team is nothing to sniff at. I punished Michigan and Oregon for bad defensive performances. I docked Bama, Tennessee, and Cal for struggling against teams that they should have beaten handily. I also have Miami over FSU because anyone who watched that game and would still take FSU on a neutral field is deluding themselves.
[Note: It has been pointed out to me that I forgot to include Ohio State. This was not an intentional effort on the part of a Michigan grad to disparage the fine academic institution in Columbus, Ohio. Slot them in between Virginia Tech and Notre Dame.]
Quick thoughts on the game last night
It was definitely one of those "baseball is weird" kind of games. Smoltz gave up a number of extra-base hits, but managed to pitch himself out of jams time and again. The Braves did not hit Pedro hard at all after the first two batters of the game, but they did a great job of moving runners over and getting them home. The wife and I agreed that we don't have a lot of confidence in Andruw getting runners home from third with fewer than two outs, but he did that successfully in the first and third innings and with Smoltz pitching effectively, but not dominantly, that was enough. He got a big double play out of Cliff Floyd with a runner on third and fewer than two outs and then he got another double play out of Jose Reyes on his final pitch of the night. Luck? Skill? Combination thereof?
The bullpen was very encouraging last night. Farnsworth has been pitching well for the entire season, so it wasn't a surprise that he dominated against the dregs of the Mets' order in the 9th. Chris Reitsma, on the other hand, pitched a scoreless eighth against the heart of the Mets' order and only allowed one runner, although that one runner did get on on a smoked double, so it wasn't all peaches and cream. Cox views Reitsma as his bridge to Farnsworth. I don't have as much confidence in Reitsma because of the fact that he never came back from his dead arm period last year and was a complete disaster by the time October rolled around. Still, hope springs eternal for some teams in Spring Training and for the Braves in September as they look towards another postseason appearance.
By the way, I made a mistake yesterday in saying that the Braves hadn't hit Pedro in his two starts against them. I forgot Martinez's third start against the Braves on April 26, when they dinked and dunked their way to a three-run first and then held on for a 4-3 win, surviving one of Dan Kolb's worst outings of the year. So anyway, the Braves are 2-2 against Pedro this year, which is pretty good, but that stat is a little deceiving because Smoltz has started three of those four games and allowed four earned runs in those three starts.
The bullpen was very encouraging last night. Farnsworth has been pitching well for the entire season, so it wasn't a surprise that he dominated against the dregs of the Mets' order in the 9th. Chris Reitsma, on the other hand, pitched a scoreless eighth against the heart of the Mets' order and only allowed one runner, although that one runner did get on on a smoked double, so it wasn't all peaches and cream. Cox views Reitsma as his bridge to Farnsworth. I don't have as much confidence in Reitsma because of the fact that he never came back from his dead arm period last year and was a complete disaster by the time October rolled around. Still, hope springs eternal for some teams in Spring Training and for the Braves in September as they look towards another postseason appearance.
By the way, I made a mistake yesterday in saying that the Braves hadn't hit Pedro in his two starts against them. I forgot Martinez's third start against the Braves on April 26, when they dinked and dunked their way to a three-run first and then held on for a 4-3 win, surviving one of Dan Kolb's worst outings of the year. So anyway, the Braves are 2-2 against Pedro this year, which is pretty good, but that stat is a little deceiving because Smoltz has started three of those four games and allowed four earned runs in those three starts.
Trev storms off
Well, we won't have Trev Alberts to kick around anymore. Miffed at perceived second-fiddle status behind the Gameday crew, Alberts played the role of French farmer or London customs agent and went on strike. ESPN, knowing that the number of potential replacements who would be happy to work as a studio analyst probably has six or seven digits, sent him on his merry way. In terms of landing spots, ABC seems to be set with their annoying Craig James/Uncle Fester studio combo, but what about CBS? They only have the forgettable Spencer Tillman in studio with Tim Brando. Plus, Alberts has always sung the praises of SEC teams, which is somewhat odd for a former Nebraska Cornhusker, given how that program owned SEC opponents during its heyday, but there's no accounting for taste. Alberts, for all of the irrational things he has said, is controversial without making completely unsupportable arguments and his name now has some value, so how about it, CBS?
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Going to see Smoltz v. Pedro, Part Deux tonight
Five thoughts before the game:
1. I'm very interested to see how Smoltz is pitching now. He's tailed off a little over his past several starts, with shorter endurance and more propensity to allow hits and runs. Right now, the Braves are a slightly less than 50% proposition against any non-NL West playoff opponent because of the lack of depth in the bullpen. (Come to think of it, I'd feel pretty confident in an NLCS against any of the opponents in the East other than the Marlins.) If Smoltz isn't pitching well when October rolls around, then their odds slide even further. I'll pay attention to his velocity and command as the game goes on.
2. Chipper Jones is to Mets fans as _______ is/are to Braves fans? Who is our bete noire? Ben Sheets? Mike Redmond? Opposing pitchers making their first career starts?
3. The Braves have been totally ineffectual against Pedro so far this season, despite having two games to take cracks at him. Is there any reason to think that tonight will be different? Will experience against him help the team tonight, as it did last year against Kris Benson? Is Pedro tiring at the end of the year, just like Smoltz appears to be?
4. One encouraging thought about the team is that John Thomson has made two solid starts in a row. If he's healthy and pitching well, then all of a sudden, I like this team a lot more because they can move Sosa from the starting rotation to the bullpen to act as the third reliable option behind Farnsworth and Boyer. And speaking of which, Kyle Davies has been pretty solid in a couple long relief outings in recent weeks, so he could play a constructive role in the Braves' pen in October. If we keep Dan Doodie or Jim Brower on the post-season roster in place of Davies, then I might...write a very stern letter to Bobby Cox expressing my displeasure at that decision.
5. The Braves' six-game lead in the N.L. East is nice. Ideally, the team will be pushed by someone in the division so they don't coast to the finish, a problem for the team (and conversely, the major advantage for wild card teams) over the past several years, but at this stage, I don't really see this Braves team as a major threat to win the World Series, so preserving the streak of winning divisional titles seems very important to me. That said, I don't know how I would feel about being eliminated for the fourth straight year in the first round, although there would be no dishonor in losing to a team fronting Clemens-Oswalt-Pettite as its playoff rotation.
1. I'm very interested to see how Smoltz is pitching now. He's tailed off a little over his past several starts, with shorter endurance and more propensity to allow hits and runs. Right now, the Braves are a slightly less than 50% proposition against any non-NL West playoff opponent because of the lack of depth in the bullpen. (Come to think of it, I'd feel pretty confident in an NLCS against any of the opponents in the East other than the Marlins.) If Smoltz isn't pitching well when October rolls around, then their odds slide even further. I'll pay attention to his velocity and command as the game goes on.
2. Chipper Jones is to Mets fans as _______ is/are to Braves fans? Who is our bete noire? Ben Sheets? Mike Redmond? Opposing pitchers making their first career starts?
3. The Braves have been totally ineffectual against Pedro so far this season, despite having two games to take cracks at him. Is there any reason to think that tonight will be different? Will experience against him help the team tonight, as it did last year against Kris Benson? Is Pedro tiring at the end of the year, just like Smoltz appears to be?
4. One encouraging thought about the team is that John Thomson has made two solid starts in a row. If he's healthy and pitching well, then all of a sudden, I like this team a lot more because they can move Sosa from the starting rotation to the bullpen to act as the third reliable option behind Farnsworth and Boyer. And speaking of which, Kyle Davies has been pretty solid in a couple long relief outings in recent weeks, so he could play a constructive role in the Braves' pen in October. If we keep Dan Doodie or Jim Brower on the post-season roster in place of Davies, then I might...write a very stern letter to Bobby Cox expressing my displeasure at that decision.
5. The Braves' six-game lead in the N.L. East is nice. Ideally, the team will be pushed by someone in the division so they don't coast to the finish, a problem for the team (and conversely, the major advantage for wild card teams) over the past several years, but at this stage, I don't really see this Braves team as a major threat to win the World Series, so preserving the streak of winning divisional titles seems very important to me. That said, I don't know how I would feel about being eliminated for the fourth straight year in the first round, although there would be no dishonor in losing to a team fronting Clemens-Oswalt-Pettite as its playoff rotation.
Wall to wall college football
At least that's what this weekend would have been for me, absent the first of two inconveniently scheduled weddings in the Northeast on my September docket. On the bright side, the wife and I did get to play the "count the passed-out drug addicts and disoriented-looking senior citizens on the Atlantic City boardwalk" game. We also got to watch the world's oldest profession at work later that night, although not too close for comfort, thank you very much. With that incoherent lead-in, here are my thoughts on the weekend:
It goes without saying that Georgia looked great, as we said they would this summer. (Incidentally, HeismanPundit has now taken the position that if he would have known that Jared Zabransky would turn the ball over six times in a half, he wouldn't have picked them. That's helpful. I would have taken Wisconsin over Bowling Green if I would have known that Wisconsin was going to score more point than BGSU. I hope to get to his rebuttal in greater detail, but the short version is that he doesn't understand what is most important in college football and what makes his own beloved Trojans a national title team: defense. I'm also looking forward to addressing his argument that ACC teams are exposed to sophisticated offenses, but SEC teams are not. Maybe he hasn't had a TV over the past two nights?)
My first thought is that Georgia fans should not get carried away. We didn't learn that much about the Georgia offense on Saturday, other than that they can dominate a team that can't stop anyone on the road. Georgia fans were rightly confident going into the game after looking at Boise's defensive record from last year, but that record limits the deductions we can draw from a 48-point outburst. We did learn that D.J. Shockley is fairly accurate when he has time and that Georgia is going to spread the ball out among its receivers this year, which will make them harder to defend.
We did learn a lot about the Georgia defense, namely that they are still great hitters even with Brian VanGorder plying his trade in Jacksonville. I've only watched the first half of the game tape, but the number of great hits by Georgia defenders was outstanding. The Georgia defensive line controlled their theater, which allowed the back seven to ignore the play-action fakes that are the basis of the Boise State offense and drop into deep zones. Jared Zabransky was clearly flummoxed by the athleticism of the Georgia linebackers in coverage, which is not surprising since WAC defenders aren't exactly on the same level. I'd also be willing to bet that Zabransky was thrown off-kilter by 1) the crowd noise and 2) the hits he took from the outset. Again, this was all new to him.
Somewhat surprisingly, Georgia Tech also looked very good in dispatching Auburn. I said before the game that the team that scored the first touchdown would win and that turned out to be right, although there was more offense in the first half than I expected there would be. The second half played out like I thought the entire game would: the trailing team was forced to take risks offensively and ended up making mistakes that killed them. Georgia Tech has a very good defense and Brandon Cox trying to lead his team from behind against that unit, especially with no semblance of a running game to take the pressure off, was always going to be a losing proposition. Reggie Ball looked pretty good, although he did have a running game to help him and 4.8 yards per attempt is nothing to get too excited about. That said, he only threw one pick, which means that he controlled his bete noire for at least one night.
Speaking of HeismanPundit, I was thinking about him over the past couple nights watching ACC offenses attempt to gum one another to death like denture-less senior citizens in heat. Miami, Florida State, and Virginia Tech are the conference favorites and they combined for 715 yards of offense, although the quality of the defensive opposition has to be taken into account. Miami looks like the most likely of the three to have a decent offense by the end of the year, based on the facts that Kyle Wright got better and better as the game went on, Tyrone Moss gave them a reasonable running threat until he cramped up, and they have two quality receiving threats in Ryan Moore and Greg Olson. That said, their offensive line was completely dominated last night. Florida State consistently got pressure with three- and four-man rushes and when FSU actually brought more than that, rushers were getting free shots at Wright. The communication between the Miami linemen was abysmal.
Speaking of abysmal, Florida State fans are probably happy that they got the Miami monkey off their backs (and to do so on botched field goals must have been especially sweet,) but they can't feel confident that Jeff Bowden has figured out what ails his offense. The Noles had absolutely no passing game other than the screen passes that they ran successfully to their running backs, the only strong suit of their offense. What's worse, Gary Danielson kept saying that Miami was bringing their safeties up and pressing the FSU wide receivers, but the Noles never took any shots down the field. Given that they were punting on every possession anyway, what would have been bad about an interception that functions as a 40-yard punt? And the Noles would have completed a downfield pass eventually, which would have given them more offense than they had otherwise and would have backed the Miami safeties off. Instead, FSU kept trying short passes that were low reward. I didn't see anything last night to make me think that FSU is better than an 8-3 team. No matter how good their front seven is, they will eventually play a team that has a competent long-snapper and/or exploits their shaky tight corner.
And then we come to Virginia Tech. From the post-game coverage, you would have thought that Marcus Vick played like his brother for a night. You wouldn't know that Lil' Vick averaged 5.1 yards per pass attempt and 2.4 yards per carry. He had a couple great runs and a couple beautiful throws, but, like his brother last year, he was wildly inconsistent. (And speaking of his brother, the HateVick crowd got a little boost on Sunday night by ESPN's continued love-in with him. Big Vick was on camera more than the players themselves were, as if seeing him eat fries or react to a three-yard run is a matter of national security. We all knew that Patrick, Theismann, and Maguire all want to have Vick's babies, but who knew that they also work as producers for ESPN's college football coverage.) Tech does have a fairly decent running game, but Vick right now is the anti-Randall: occasionally brilliant, but not the guy who's going to throw an accurate pass on third and five to move the chains.
Fortunately for the Hokies, they were playing self-destructomatic N.C. State, who killed themselves like they've been doing for years. The wife and I played the "guess when N.C. State gets their first personal foul" game and she won because she took the first quarter and I foolishly thought they would wait 15 minutes. After two personal fouls and a third false alarm, I left with my tail between my legs. Just like Florida State fans with their inept offense and Michigan fans with their underperforming defense, N.C. State fans have to be discouraged that their team lost games last year because of penalties and there was apparently no effort to correct this problem in the off-season. It's unbelievable to me that the Wolfpack kill themselves repeatedly and yet Chuck Amato still refuses to get onto his players for committing stupid penalties. At most major programs, the coach would curse at and then bench a player who commits a 15-yard penalty. At N.C. State, you apparently get a helmet sticker for doing so.
And lets go back to the media criticism for a second. I'd like to keep a list of media gems from this year. Here's what I have from this weekend:
1. Mark Jones refers to the weather in Madison as "irradiant," which, like "irregardless," is not a word, unless he means that Madison was being treated with radiation at the time.
2. Thanks to ABC for refusing to switch from the latter stages of Notre Dame's annihilation of Pitt to the finish of the weekend at Clemson. Charlie Weis is so damned sexy and we really needed all those additional shots of him looking constipated as his team returned to glory.
3. The crew doing the N.C. State-Virginia Tech game saw fit to remind us that Chuck Amato understands the importance of recruiting in Florida. That must be why he's in Mensa! Where else is he going to get players who can get personal fouls while putting on their pads before the game?
4. Do we really need sideline reporters to tell us that the bench is excited after their team scores a touchdown?
5. Nick Lachey on Gameday? Really? What college football fan takes him seriously or views him as anything more than the guy who rolls his eyes at his wife every time she says something stupid. And did they really call him a "life-long USC fan"? He grew up in Ohio, for G-d sakes. Now I trust him even less.
And the king of media idiocy goes to our old friend Terrence Moore, who has deduced that wearing a David Greene jersey makes the wearer racist. Who knew that Terrence is a post-modern deconstructionist who can find racist power relationships in jersey choices? I hesitate to link to this column because doing so serves the interest of a true huckster, but you need to read this column to get its full magnificence.
And for more media idiocy, here is my overrated list that ran on CFN on Thursday and here are some nice words from the Boston Herald about it. I take back everything I've ever said about Mass Holes.
It goes without saying that Georgia looked great, as we said they would this summer. (Incidentally, HeismanPundit has now taken the position that if he would have known that Jared Zabransky would turn the ball over six times in a half, he wouldn't have picked them. That's helpful. I would have taken Wisconsin over Bowling Green if I would have known that Wisconsin was going to score more point than BGSU. I hope to get to his rebuttal in greater detail, but the short version is that he doesn't understand what is most important in college football and what makes his own beloved Trojans a national title team: defense. I'm also looking forward to addressing his argument that ACC teams are exposed to sophisticated offenses, but SEC teams are not. Maybe he hasn't had a TV over the past two nights?)
My first thought is that Georgia fans should not get carried away. We didn't learn that much about the Georgia offense on Saturday, other than that they can dominate a team that can't stop anyone on the road. Georgia fans were rightly confident going into the game after looking at Boise's defensive record from last year, but that record limits the deductions we can draw from a 48-point outburst. We did learn that D.J. Shockley is fairly accurate when he has time and that Georgia is going to spread the ball out among its receivers this year, which will make them harder to defend.
We did learn a lot about the Georgia defense, namely that they are still great hitters even with Brian VanGorder plying his trade in Jacksonville. I've only watched the first half of the game tape, but the number of great hits by Georgia defenders was outstanding. The Georgia defensive line controlled their theater, which allowed the back seven to ignore the play-action fakes that are the basis of the Boise State offense and drop into deep zones. Jared Zabransky was clearly flummoxed by the athleticism of the Georgia linebackers in coverage, which is not surprising since WAC defenders aren't exactly on the same level. I'd also be willing to bet that Zabransky was thrown off-kilter by 1) the crowd noise and 2) the hits he took from the outset. Again, this was all new to him.
Somewhat surprisingly, Georgia Tech also looked very good in dispatching Auburn. I said before the game that the team that scored the first touchdown would win and that turned out to be right, although there was more offense in the first half than I expected there would be. The second half played out like I thought the entire game would: the trailing team was forced to take risks offensively and ended up making mistakes that killed them. Georgia Tech has a very good defense and Brandon Cox trying to lead his team from behind against that unit, especially with no semblance of a running game to take the pressure off, was always going to be a losing proposition. Reggie Ball looked pretty good, although he did have a running game to help him and 4.8 yards per attempt is nothing to get too excited about. That said, he only threw one pick, which means that he controlled his bete noire for at least one night.
Speaking of HeismanPundit, I was thinking about him over the past couple nights watching ACC offenses attempt to gum one another to death like denture-less senior citizens in heat. Miami, Florida State, and Virginia Tech are the conference favorites and they combined for 715 yards of offense, although the quality of the defensive opposition has to be taken into account. Miami looks like the most likely of the three to have a decent offense by the end of the year, based on the facts that Kyle Wright got better and better as the game went on, Tyrone Moss gave them a reasonable running threat until he cramped up, and they have two quality receiving threats in Ryan Moore and Greg Olson. That said, their offensive line was completely dominated last night. Florida State consistently got pressure with three- and four-man rushes and when FSU actually brought more than that, rushers were getting free shots at Wright. The communication between the Miami linemen was abysmal.
Speaking of abysmal, Florida State fans are probably happy that they got the Miami monkey off their backs (and to do so on botched field goals must have been especially sweet,) but they can't feel confident that Jeff Bowden has figured out what ails his offense. The Noles had absolutely no passing game other than the screen passes that they ran successfully to their running backs, the only strong suit of their offense. What's worse, Gary Danielson kept saying that Miami was bringing their safeties up and pressing the FSU wide receivers, but the Noles never took any shots down the field. Given that they were punting on every possession anyway, what would have been bad about an interception that functions as a 40-yard punt? And the Noles would have completed a downfield pass eventually, which would have given them more offense than they had otherwise and would have backed the Miami safeties off. Instead, FSU kept trying short passes that were low reward. I didn't see anything last night to make me think that FSU is better than an 8-3 team. No matter how good their front seven is, they will eventually play a team that has a competent long-snapper and/or exploits their shaky tight corner.
And then we come to Virginia Tech. From the post-game coverage, you would have thought that Marcus Vick played like his brother for a night. You wouldn't know that Lil' Vick averaged 5.1 yards per pass attempt and 2.4 yards per carry. He had a couple great runs and a couple beautiful throws, but, like his brother last year, he was wildly inconsistent. (And speaking of his brother, the HateVick crowd got a little boost on Sunday night by ESPN's continued love-in with him. Big Vick was on camera more than the players themselves were, as if seeing him eat fries or react to a three-yard run is a matter of national security. We all knew that Patrick, Theismann, and Maguire all want to have Vick's babies, but who knew that they also work as producers for ESPN's college football coverage.) Tech does have a fairly decent running game, but Vick right now is the anti-Randall: occasionally brilliant, but not the guy who's going to throw an accurate pass on third and five to move the chains.
Fortunately for the Hokies, they were playing self-destructomatic N.C. State, who killed themselves like they've been doing for years. The wife and I played the "guess when N.C. State gets their first personal foul" game and she won because she took the first quarter and I foolishly thought they would wait 15 minutes. After two personal fouls and a third false alarm, I left with my tail between my legs. Just like Florida State fans with their inept offense and Michigan fans with their underperforming defense, N.C. State fans have to be discouraged that their team lost games last year because of penalties and there was apparently no effort to correct this problem in the off-season. It's unbelievable to me that the Wolfpack kill themselves repeatedly and yet Chuck Amato still refuses to get onto his players for committing stupid penalties. At most major programs, the coach would curse at and then bench a player who commits a 15-yard penalty. At N.C. State, you apparently get a helmet sticker for doing so.
And lets go back to the media criticism for a second. I'd like to keep a list of media gems from this year. Here's what I have from this weekend:
1. Mark Jones refers to the weather in Madison as "irradiant," which, like "irregardless," is not a word, unless he means that Madison was being treated with radiation at the time.
2. Thanks to ABC for refusing to switch from the latter stages of Notre Dame's annihilation of Pitt to the finish of the weekend at Clemson. Charlie Weis is so damned sexy and we really needed all those additional shots of him looking constipated as his team returned to glory.
3. The crew doing the N.C. State-Virginia Tech game saw fit to remind us that Chuck Amato understands the importance of recruiting in Florida. That must be why he's in Mensa! Where else is he going to get players who can get personal fouls while putting on their pads before the game?
4. Do we really need sideline reporters to tell us that the bench is excited after their team scores a touchdown?
5. Nick Lachey on Gameday? Really? What college football fan takes him seriously or views him as anything more than the guy who rolls his eyes at his wife every time she says something stupid. And did they really call him a "life-long USC fan"? He grew up in Ohio, for G-d sakes. Now I trust him even less.
And the king of media idiocy goes to our old friend Terrence Moore, who has deduced that wearing a David Greene jersey makes the wearer racist. Who knew that Terrence is a post-modern deconstructionist who can find racist power relationships in jersey choices? I hesitate to link to this column because doing so serves the interest of a true huckster, but you need to read this column to get its full magnificence.
And for more media idiocy, here is my overrated list that ran on CFN on Thursday and here are some nice words from the Boston Herald about it. I take back everything I've ever said about Mass Holes.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
SI likes the Ted
Sports Illustrated did a reasonably interesting ranking of major league ballparks and ranked the Ted fifth in the majors, which I suppose is fitting since the Braves are probably about 5th in the majors right now, as well. It's interesting to hear an outsider come to a game and make the same observations that I and countless others have made about the park: terrible neighborhood, occasional traffic problems, relatively blase fans, but reasonably priced with good amenities and, most importantly, a terrific product on the field.
The only beef I have with the rankings is that they gave a low score to the neighborhood around Camden Yards, which is a load of crap because, as the author admits, a fan can follow the crowds three blocks to the Inner Harbor and have a host of eating and drinking options. I've always wished that the Ted would have been integrated into a cooler neighborhood and have held Camden Yards and Coors Field out as the archetypes, although I'm not sure what that neighborhood would have been. Maybe in between the Georgia Dome and downtown (assuming that downtown ever develops some nightlife)? It would have been neat to build the stadium on the old site of Ponce De Leon Park, but there would be no freeway access from that point and MARTA doesn't go there, so the hordes from Cobb and Gwinnett, who make up a plurality of the Braves' fan base, would come to games with less frequency.
The only beef I have with the rankings is that they gave a low score to the neighborhood around Camden Yards, which is a load of crap because, as the author admits, a fan can follow the crowds three blocks to the Inner Harbor and have a host of eating and drinking options. I've always wished that the Ted would have been integrated into a cooler neighborhood and have held Camden Yards and Coors Field out as the archetypes, although I'm not sure what that neighborhood would have been. Maybe in between the Georgia Dome and downtown (assuming that downtown ever develops some nightlife)? It would have been neat to build the stadium on the old site of Ponce De Leon Park, but there would be no freeway access from that point and MARTA doesn't go there, so the hordes from Cobb and Gwinnett, who make up a plurality of the Braves' fan base, would come to games with less frequency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)