The Platonic Ideal of a Michael Column

There are certain times where it makes sense to pull out the esoteric stops.  When Fisking a writer who spent a chapter of his polemic against the South arguing that SEC football is overrated, it comes in handy to drop C. Wright Mills, Sheeple, Jubal Early, and Joseph McCarthy.  If I’m defending a region against a writer who no doubt believes that we are slack-jawed yokels, it helps to dispel that notion quickly.  If someone came up with a drinking game for my columns, this one would check all of the major boxes:

• Using Sagarin and SRS to prove a point;
• Advocating the use of a big sample size over a smaller one;
• Mocking Gary Danielson for being a shill;
• Taking the position that Auburn should have won the national title in 1983;
• Deploying least one Latin legal phrase;
• Using numbered arguments;
• Making at least one ad hominem attack that I just cannot resist, in this case “I guess these are the rigorous research skills and commitment to precise language that one learns as the features editor of Maxim”; and
• Referencing World War II;

All this column was missing was a James Bond reference, an entire paragraph delivered in sarcastic voice, and at least one shot at Northeastern media figures.  My goal at some point in my life is to check every one of these boxes.

¿Por qué?

Jose Mourinho has decided that "The Special One" will no longer do for a nickname:

"In England, I was presented as the 'Special One'," Mourinho told Portuguese TV channel SIC on Monday night.

"Thanks to God, things have gone well and, whether you like it or not, I am the only one who has won the English, Italian and Spanish championships. So, more than the 'Special One', they must begin to call me the 'Only One'."

In the same interview, Mourinho also says that his ego has shrunk:

"After having won practically everything, as time has passed I have become less self-centred and egocentric," he said. "I have always liked more the joy of other people, those around me. For this, winning with Inter gave me a special pleasure. These are challenges, not personal goals. I also think I could have been a good human resources executive."

If Mourinho is newly-humble and is proclaiming himself the "Only One," how big was his ego before?  Also, if he is motivated by the joy of those around him (as opposed to, say, being the highest-paid soccer coach in the world), then why wouldn't he take the coaching job at a club like Newcastle that has not won a title in decades?  That would seem to be the situation where he could create the maximal joy for those around him, as opposed to delivering Real Madrid a 33rd La Liga title. 

There are those who say that Mourinho's comments are designed to deflect attention from his players so that they can focus on winning titles and he can take the arrows from the media.  However, we are in an international break right now and Real are five days from starting the season.  There is no need to defuse pressure right now and yet Jose is still mouthing off about being the humblest "Only One" in the world.  Maybe, just maybe, the chant is right.*

* - Note: in that clip, Barca fans are singing about Jose in a road match against Villarreal.  It was the first song that I heard on the escalators to the upper deck at the Wembley Champions League Final.  Jose doesn't need to be in the building to be the target of love songs.  I wonder if he likes the contempt of other people as much as their joy.

A Message Board Gem

Sorry for the lack of posting in the last several months, but time has been short and what time I have had has been spent on writing longer pieces for the Atlanta SB Nation site.  Here is the complete list of what I've been doing.  I quite enjoyed writing the piece on 2008 Georgia and 2012 USC because 2007 Georgia remains one of the strangest teams that I have ever followed.  The radical transformation that that team underwent before the Florida game was something to behold.  So, when USC made a similar turn mid-season, it became obvious that I was going to make an analogy based on a sample size of one.

One of the pleasures of writing, either on this blog or on SB Nation, is that I get to track the sites that link to my work so I can gauge reactions.  The discussion about the piece on the USC Rivals board was hilarious as an illustration of message boards generally and of Rivals boards specifically.  Most of the response from USC fans was that it is folly to compare USC and Georgia, just in general.  Georgia has not had the historical success that USC has had, so a season where Georgia was preseason #1 and was led by the presumptive top pick in the Draft at quarterback cannot possibly be compared to a USC season that will start under the exact same conditions.  Res ipse loquitur.  My personal favorite was from a poster who goes by the witty moniker of Ribbed Trojan:

He didn't know how Marquis' name was spelled? He was co-Pac-10 Freshman of the year...

Also, comparing the wide receivers is ridiculous. AJ Green is great, but he Massaquoi is no match for Lee. Plus, USC has outstanding tight ends and 2 running backs. Yes, Silas was not on the team when he wrote this. Furthermore, we get Stanford early before their QB gets too many reps and we get Oregon at home. Georgia may have had tough games on the road to end the year.

Defensive line is the most important position group in college football. If our line ends up marginal, that could be our achilles heal.

Ah yes, the irony of making fun of me for having to look up how Marqise Lee spells his name ... and then misspelling it yourself.  You're a funny one, Ribbed Trojan.  The next paragraph says that "Georgia may have had tough games on the road to end the year."  Yes, because it is so hard to find a schedule and determine that Georgia's three losses in 2008 came either at home or on a neutral field.  Finally, you have an instance of a Trojan referencing Achilles and then confusing "heal" with "heel."  This is why I write.

It's All Football

Here's Jonathan Wilson on the decline of Brazil, which was on full view in their tepid performance against Mexico in the gold medal match on Saturday:

A generation has grown up watching Nike adverts showing carefree men with questionable hair-cuts freestyling through airports, cityscapes and prison ships and wondering how that equates to Dunga and César Sampaio, or Edmilson and Gilberto Silva, or Zé Roberto and Gilberto Silva, or Felipe Melo and Gilberto Silva, sitting doggedly in front of the back four. Nike's advertising hasn't created the contradiction that lies at the heart of Brazilian football culture, but it has highlighted it, perhaps even accentuated it.

Neymar, poor, overhyped, brilliant Neymar, is compelled to do tricks. It's not enough that his team wins; he must also perform individual miracles and live up to the advertisers' ideal. It is his misfortune to live in the age of an Argentinian genius: he must also confirm to Brazilians with every breath that he is as good, or at least may soon become as good, as Lionel Messi. Pelé's pursuit of the line that they are equals not merely confirms his debased status as a pundit, but is actually counter-productive, heaping pressure on Neymar and deflecting attention from far more significant issues.

The twin pressures on the Brazilian game have resulted in a style of football that recalls Arrigo Sacchi's description of Real Madrid in the galacticos era: it is full of specialists. There are those who dribble and run and shoot, and there are those who sit back and fill the spaces to allow them to do so. It's simplistic and effective against weaker opposition, but vulnerable to more streetwise opponents: even before Mexico beat them, Brazil had stuttered against Egypt and Honduras, before being extraordinarily fortunate against South Korea, who should have had two penalties in the semi-final. It also explains why so many of Brazil's holding midfielders are tacklers and distributors like Lucas or shuttlers like Ramires, and so few of them deep-lying creators in the way Falcão or Gerson once were.

As football elsewhere becomes increasingly about universality, about players being able to perform a multiplicity of roles, it also feels like an old-fashioned style.

And here is Chris Brown on the evolution of hybrid defenders in American football:

The 1990s Cowboys may have set the path, but it's the current coaching innovators who are molding the idea to the present. On offense, the trend appears to be so-called "hybrid" offensive players, primarily the new wave of tight ends like New England's Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez, the Saints' Jimmy Graham, and Jermichael Finley of the Packers. All are big, tall, and fast downfield receiving threats, and those like Gronkowski can also block. Then there are the smaller "space players" like Darren Sproles who are just as dangerous catching the ball as they are running with it from the backfield. The meaning of the term "spread offense" is debatable, but the principle it embodies — that all available skill players are a potential threat on any given play, and gone are the blocking-only fullbacks and tight ends who never touch the ball — is now the standard at every level of football. These multitalented and multipurpose offensive weapons are merely the latest embodiment of that.

In response, Jimmy Johnson's edict — that speed on offense must be matched with even more speed on offense — has been adopted by defensive coaches at every level of football. Those hybrid offensive players are being met with hybrid defenders.

I think I have my theme for the season in both soccer and football: the decline of specialization.  

Hitler, John Junker, DeLoss Dodds, Mike Brown ... Arthur Blank

This one is from last week, but it was a theme that I had been considering for quite a while.  Here is the conclusion:

I mention all of this as a cautionary tale for the Falcons. The local professional football franchise is seeking to replace the Georgia Dome - a facility that is only twenty years old and is a perfectly good place to watch a football game - with a retractable roof facility. The price tag for the new stadium is estimated at $948 million, although that seems to be a conservative estimate. Additionally, the only funding source listed so far has been a hotel/motel tax. The remaining funding is undetermined, but could very well come in the form of either additional tax revenue or in the form of charging fans more for the privilege of supporting the local team through PSLs and higher ticket prices.

I feel leery about any analogy that has Mike Brown and Arthur Blank in a sequence. Mr. Blank is widely popular in Atlanta for a variety of reasons, two of which are his various philanthropic endeavors and his generally good stewardship of the Falcons. That said, the Falcons risk the same sort of backlash that the bowls, Texas, and Bengals have all seen for pushing their position too hard. A new Falcons stadium promises little or nothing for an average fan, save for fewer seats, higher ticket prices, and the opportunity cost involved with $300 million in tax revenue going for a private business as opposed to schools, police, and other public services. The Falcons rely on the local community for much of their revenue. They ought to consider that fact when pushing for an unnecessary new stadium.

Arthur Blank faces an interesting quandary.  Mike Brown has no reputation to protect, either in Cincinnati or elsewhere.  The fact that the Cincinnati Bengals remain in the NFL despite decades of miserly mismanagement is a testament to the cartel nature of the league, one free from the competitive pressures that the possibility of relegation creates in the rest of the world.  Brown does not care about his reputation locally, so he has no issue driving a hard bargain with his city and county and then turning a deaf ear when the effects of that bargain affect the services that the local government can provide. 

Blank, on the other hand, has a sterling reputation in Atlanta.  His commercial creation - Home Depot - is generally popular, as are his philanthropic endeavors.  He has done a good job as the owner of the Falcons.  Moreover, he simply has a pleasant demeanor because he smiles and speaks well.  If I were casting a movie and wanted to fill the role of doting grandfather, I would pick someone who looks and acts like Blank.  Because of that reputation, Blank cannot credibly make the threat that would get him a new stadium: "give me this or I'll move the team."  He has too much to lose if he becomes the person known as the guy who killed professional football in Atlanta, a city that loves the sport.  This positive reputation works against him.

That last paragraph, by the way, can operate as a criticism of Liberty Media and Atlanta Spirit.  Whereas Blank has roots in the community and therefore wants the Falcons to do well to enhance his local reputation, Liberty Media, as an out-of-state media company, has no such interest.  Nor does Atlanta Spirit, which (at least in terms of ownership share) is predominantly composed of individuals from out-of-state.

Fisking Buzz Bissinger

I'm not going to lie; this was a lot of fun. 

It occurred to me while I was writing that Bissinger and John Feinstein occupy the same place in my head.  Both wrote indisputably great sports books in the late 80s.  Both are now grumpy old men, writing screeds against college football from the Acela Corridor.  In both instances, I read their writing and remember the day when my childhood ended: the day that I read the obituary of Roald Dahl (my favorite author as a boy) obituary and learned that he said the following:

There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity ... I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason.

Bissinger also reminds me of Don Draper at the end of last week's Mad Men, left behind in a world where he didn't understand The Beatles in their "Hard Day's Night" stage, let alone their new "Tomorrow Never Knows" style, and having a drink while his actual wife is meditating and his office wife is smoking a joint while writing copy.  Buzz sees a world where college football has become a national sport, outpacing baseball in a number of ways.  The barbarians are at his gates.  For a guy already prone to angry outbursts, his WSJ column was entirely predictable. 

V-E Day Turns Into The Alamo

Last year, Barcelona came home for the second leg of the Champions League semifinal having played three matches against Real Madrid, two on the road and one at a neutral site.  Barca had salted away a third straight La Liga title, lost a heart-breaker in the Copa del Rey Final, and then beaten Real 2-0 in the first leg of the Champions League semi.  They were like warriors coming home after winning the war, so a hype video using the theme from The Pacific made perfect sense:



This year, the Blaugrana enter a Champions League semifinal trailing 1-0 to Chelsea after a disastrous first leg in which Barca spurned at least six good scoring chances and allowed the Blues to score on their only shot of the match. Barca was described as "unlucky," after the match, but luck implies factors outside of their control. Barca's terrible finishing was within their control, as was the ability to mark Didier Drogba in the box when he was Ramires's only passing target.

Barca then followed that match by being beaten at home by Real Madrid in an entirely deserved fashion. Whereas Chelsea were timid and rode their luck (while Barca were not unlucky, Chelsea were most definitely lucky because they had nothing to do with Busquets and Cesc skying open-goal chances into the stands), Real were powerful, created more good chances, and won their La Liga title in emphatic fashion. In so doing, they ended all sorts of streaks: Mourinho having never won at the Nou Camp, not beating Barca in La Liga in four years, Barca not losing at home in La Liga in almost two seasons, Barca not having lost two meaningful games in a row since the beginning of Guardiola's time at Barca, etc.

So, when Barca deploy another hype video using the theme from The Pacific, this feels more like a last stand than a victory parade:





How did this come to pass for Barca?  I would point to the complete uncertainty up front.  In 2009, Barca won the Champions League with a set front three: Messi on the right, Henry on the left, and Eto'o in the center.  Those three combined to score 97 goals, including both of the strikes on that famous night in Rome when Barca started building their resume for being one of the best sides of all-time.  In 2010, Barca went out of the Champions League in the semifinals in no small part because they were in the middle of a transition away from Zlatan Ibrahimovic as a striker and towards Leo Messi as a false nine.  Ibra started both matches against Inter and was ineffective, in part because he was coming back from an injury and in part because Barca was realizing that he just was not a fit for their style.  By the end of the season, the Blaugrana were playing Bojan Krkic as a starter and Ibra was a very expensive substitute.  In 2011, Barca again had a stable front three: Messi in the middle, Pedro on the right, and David Villa on the left.  Messi dropped off of the front and created space for the other forwards to use.  Those three produced 95 goals and Barca won the Champions League again.

This year has been a lot more 2010 than 2009 or 2011.  I don't have any idea who is going to go on the team sheet and neither do most Barca fans.  Alexis Sanchez seems like a fairly likely bet, despite his pair of glaring misses at Stamford Bridge, because he provides Messi with a runner.  As for the other?  Cuenca because he plays as a true winger?  Tello because he is a dangerous dribbler?  Cesc because he combines well with Messi?  Pedro because he is a scorer of big goals (and was very nearly the hero last Wednesday)?  Dani Alves because he can play right forward?  Barca are 58 matches into the season and they don't know the identity of their front three.  Blame new signings, injuries, or a tendency to sit and watch the best player in the world if you like, but here we are.

The lack of certainty up front has made Barca weaker at the back.  Pep always says that Barca is not a very good defensive team when the other team is allowed to have the ball, so keeping the ball and then pressing hard when turning it over is essential.  If the front line isn't doing its job, then the back line gets exposed.  As Michael Cox explained, Pep has been forced to use quantity up front to make up for a lack of quality, which has created defensive vulnerability:

Whereas Real played their usual 4-2-3-1, Guardiola’s choice of formation was a surprise. He went for the 3-4-3, which meant Dani Alves pushed very high up on the right, Tello on the opposite flank, and Adriano on the left of a back three. This was an attacking gamble by Guardiola – he’s commented before on how dangerous it is to play a back three without controlling the whole game.

In a sense, it also hinted at Guardiola’s lack of confidence in Barcelona’s attacking department – he felt he needed two wingers to stretch the play on either side, yet also an additional midfielder to ensure superiority in the centre. This came at the risk of defensive stability, and Barcelona were particularly vulnerable to breaks into the channels/wings.

Today's match against Chelsea is no time to batten down the defensive hatches, as Barca need a two-goal win to progress.  (1-0 just gets the Blaugrana to extra time.)

So, here we are at the Alamo, Thermopylae, Bastogne, Rorke's Drift, Shiroyama.  Barca are struggling, at least relative to the standard that they have set for the last three years, but even a struggling Barca side can put together a great performance.  They are playing for history (first club to retain the Champions League), so it would figure that they will need a last stand to make that happen.

Hello Blueness My Old Friend

For the ninth time in the past decade, Barca and Chelsea will meet today in the Champions League.  In fact, one of the neat little facts about this year's semifinals is that they pit the two most commonly-played match-ups in European history, with Bayern-Real first and Barca-Chelsea second.  The Barca-Chelsea ties have always been very close, tightly-contested affairs, with each one settled by a single goal or less over 180 minutes.  A few thoughts in advance of the match tonight:

1. In 2009, one of the excuses that I and other Cules used to justify Barca's struggles against Chelsea was the fact that the two matches book-ended a La Liga-decider against Real Madrid.  The same issue will exist this year, although Chelsea is similarly conflicted in that they played an FA Cup semifinal on Sunday and they have a big match against Arsenal over the weekend.  Chelsea are currently fighting for fourth place, the last Champions League spot in England, and they know that attracting new talent to the squad is always harder when you can only offer the Europa League (and where your prior ability to dump bags of cash at the feet of new signings is constricted someone by FFP).  In 2009, they were set, with little chance of winning the Premiership and almost no chance of missing out on the Champions League.  The teams they played before and during the tie with Barca - West Ham and Fulham - were both cemented in mid-table places.  Thus, both teams will have significant distractions and the playing field should be even.

2. At least that's what I tell myself, because the second possibility is that Chelsea are just a very difficult match-up for Barca.  They have the defensive midfielders that Manchester United lack, so they can clog the middle and deny Barca the ability to play through them.  It would be nice to say to myself "this is the Chelsea team that struggled so much over the course of the season, so they are clearly inferior," but that would only be true if Andre Villas Boas were still in charge.  Roberto Di Matteo (or, if you are cynical, John Terry) has Chelsea playing in their more traditional, defensive style, which remains the right approach against Barca.  Two banks of four without the ball and then long balls to Drogba with Mata, Kalou, and Ramires as the runners?  That can work very well, as Cesc has fretted.  (Kudos to the English rags for turning a statement of the obvious into some sort of insult.)  Chelsea can pose a threat without taking too many risks.  It's not the way that an expensively assembled side should play, but I've been saying the same thing for six years.  The Blues are who they are.  They tried to play a more aggressive, attractive style, the patient rejected the transplant, and now they are playing the way that gives them the best chance to succeed.  It is what it is.

3. From the Barca perspective, I will be most interested in how the Barca front line stacks up against a tight, talented defense.  Three years ago, Chelsea were able to negate a front line that had Eto'o in the middle with Messi on the right and Henry on the left.*  Now, Messi will be drifting into the middle between the central defenders and the midfield.  Thus, John Terry and Gary Cahill will be confronted with the choice of whether to step out and follow him (thus leaving space for runs for the left and right forwards; that dynamic has led to Messi leading all players in the five big European leagues in assists) or stay back, leaving Mikel and Lampard to deal with Messi.  Assuming that Cesc and Sanchez are the forwards, they bring different dimensions as opposed to what Eto'o and Henry did.  Sanchez is faster and Cesc has a better ability to link up with Messi than any other Barca forward has had.

* - Warren Barton hilariously claimed last night on FSC that Chelsea have always done well at denying Messi the space in between the lines.  That's where Messi plays now as a false nine, but previously, he was a right winger who attacked fullbacks at pace instead of floating in the middle.  Moreover, he was outstanding at Stamford Bridge in 2006, ripping Chelsea apart and drawing a red card that was a major event in the match.  In fact, that match is generally seen as the instance where Messi announced himself to the world.  Other than all that, you're totally solid, Warren.   

4. From the Chelsea perspective, I'll be interested to see whether they will be comfortable with a 0-0.  Milan got a 0-0 at home against Barca and then lost 3-1 at the Nou Camp, but Milan without Thiago Silva were also more defensively suspect than Chelsea.  0-0 wouldn't be a bad result for Chelsea, although as they showed in the second leg in 2009, they can play defensively and still create a ton of chances on the counter.  Conversely, of the three crunch games that Barca will play in the next seven days, this is the one for which they will have the most rest.  Do they view this as the chance to win the tie early so they can go for broke on Saturday and then have an easier time on Tuesday?  Or do they conserve energy and accept a 0-0 if it is tacitly offered.  (If Keita is in the lineup, then the latter is a distinct possibility.)

5. It's also worth watching Xavi's fitness.  He is the player who makes Barca go, but he has been struggling with a calf/Achilles issue during the second half of the season.  He was subbed after 45 minutes on Saturday with Barca trailing at Levante, a move that Pep said was strategic, but may very well have been to rest his fulcrum for the match today.  Real Madrid are suffering because their key midfielder - Xabi Alonso - is running out of steam.*  Will Barca show signs of the same?

* - It's interesting that Real Madrid are the deeper side than Barca, but Xabi Alonso has had to make 45 starts this year, whereas Xavi has made only 40 (and this is despite the fact that Barca played in two extra competitions and made a deeper run in the Copa del Rey).  If Real's season comes unglued at the end, it may be down to the fact that Nuri Sahin never broke into the lineup to give Mourinho a viable alternative to Xabi Alonso. 

Roy Kramer and Radical Change

I wrote a piece yesterday at SB Nation about how Roy Kramer expresses concern about anything more than incremental change when it comes to a college football playoff, but he had no such concerns when he reorganized the SEC in 1992 in a significant, swift fashion:

What's interesting about Kramer's rejection of "big change" (although I am quoting Barnhart here, so this might be more of a poke at Tony) is that he initiated one of the most radical and ultimately successful (as evidenced by how much it has been copied) changes in recent college football history: expanding the SEC to 12 teams, splitting into two divisions, and initiating the first conference championship game. Prior to 1992, the SEC was a ten-team league in which each team played seven conference games and the champion was the team with the best record at the end. As of 1992, the SEC was a 12-team league split into two divisions with protected cross-division rivalries and the champion was the team that won a game between the winners of the East and West divisions. Florida had to win seven conference games in 1991 to win the conference; Alabama had to win nine the next year to do the same, the last of which was a "neutral" site game against the Gators. Bama's highest SEC hurdle was its last, not unlike what it would face in winning its next national title in 2009.

Kramer's change met with resistance from the coaches in the league, but it was ultimately a complete success such that every major conference now either has a conference championship game (Big Ten, Pac Ten, and ACC) or would have one if it could keep 12 stable members (Big XII, Big East). In fact, the solution that Kramer suggests for the college football post-season - a four-team playoff comprised of three conference winners and then the highest-ranked remaining team - is made possible by the conferences moving themselves into a format where the league season progresses to a final game and then produces an ultimate champion. Kramer's solution for the college football postseason is an incremental change in the same way that the Bowl Alliance and then the Bowl Coalition were, but Kramer's career was not marked solely by smaller alterations. His best change was his biggest.

Upon reflection, the salient difference is that Kramer was in charge of the SEC, but not all of college football.  As the SEC Commissioner, he could expand the league and create the division structure, albeit with ultimately approval of the SEC presidents and athletic directors.  He was not in charge of major college football as a whole.  The SEC was merely one voice at the table when the BCS was created, so Kramer would have had a much tougher time implementing a playoff in 1995 and 1998 as opposed to simply creating a bowl structure to guarantee a #1 versus #2 matchup.  If that's the case, then he ought to identify the times where significant change is possible and the times where we have to move slowly because the SEC's interests are not wholly aligned with those of other major conferences.

The post also led to a little Twitter exchange with Blutarsky about Tony Barnhart. I will admit to having the same reservations about Barnhart's writing, a feeling that was crystallized when Barnhart was apparently aware of the SEC inviting Missouri to join the conference and participated in a Q&A about the subject that was packaged to run when the news broke, but did not share this information with his readers.  At this stage, reading Barnhart is like reading Pravda during the Cold War: he is more interesting as a gauge of what newsmakers (in this case, major players in the SEC) are thinking and what they want to disseminate.  If you accept his writing on that principle, it's worthwhile.  In this case, he is disseminating the opinion of Roy Kramer, who doesn't really have a stake anymore and is therefore an interesting analyst of the playoff discussions.

Chemistry is for Laboratories, Urban Meyer Edition

Here's my reaction to Matt Hayes' piece on Urban Meyer.  In short, I thought that the whole thing was overblown, mainly because Hayes was describing a time period in which Florida was remarkably successful.  In fact, the piece serves as an unintentional rejoinder to everything that Kirk Herbstreit says about the emotions and intangibles of college football:

To summarize the article, Florida's players engaged in various forms of bad behavior during the 2008 season. The highlights include Percy Harvin complaining about running stadium stairs and then choking his position coach, Janoris Jenkins getting into various scrapes with the law, Meyer applying laxer discipline to his best performers, and Florida players generally smoking a lot of marijuana.

And here's the punchline: it's an afterthought in the article, but Florida won the national championship in 2008. In fact, there's an argument to be made that 2008 Florida was the best team of the Aughts, as evidenced by the fact that their yards-per-play margin ranked up with those of 2001 Miami and 2005 Texas, despite the fact that the Gators played a tough schedule. The Hats Guys of the world (and there are plenty of analogs in the world of college football) want us to believe that teams win based on senior leadership, authoritative performances from quarterbacks in the huddle, and "everyone coming together as a team." According to this ideology, 2008 Florida should have been terrible, as their players should have been split apart by inconsistent discipline and a star player being permitted to commit a battery on a coach. Instead, they ended the season passing around a crystal football.

The piece then goes on to criticize both John Pennington for using the article as a platform to dump further praise onto Tim Tebow (Tebow being a great college quarterback just isn't enough anymore) and NFL personnel directors for letting the smoke surrounding Florida players cloud their judgment as to just how good those players are.  (Good lord, that was a terrible pun on my part.)

There are additional weaknesses to the piece that I'm sure have been noted by Ohio State fans.  For instance, the bit about Bryan Thomas falls flat for two reasons.  First, it makes it sound as if a football coach can make a unilateral decision to give a player a medical hardship letter without any involvement from a doctor.  Second, Florida wasn't a serial abuser of the hardship rule like their buddies in Tuscaloosa.  In fact, Florida has been one of the paragons in the SEC in refusing to engage in oversigning generally, a fact that refutes Hayes' argument entirely. 

In the end, the article just struck me as a kitchen sink approach.  Hayes took every single negative that he could find about Urban Meyer since Meyer moved from Utah to Florida and then threw them into a piece without providing context.  Some of the allegations are indeed pretty interesting, most notably the story about Percy Harvin choking Billy Gonzalez.  They reflect poorly on Meyer and well on Hayes' ability to obtain information.  However, Hayes then goes haywire when he moves from reporting the stories to claiming that Florida's weaker performances in the last two years are the result of a lack of discipline.  It's a fitting result that a guy named Hayes would write a column about the Ohio State football coach and then he would go nuts.

Barca-Milan: I Feel a Change Coming On

You know that I'm jaded by Barca's success when they close out a 3-1 win over AC Milan - the current leaders in Serie A - and my first thought is "well, that wasn't especially impressive."  Barca played well, created a bevy of chances, outshot Milan 18-3, and were able to take their feet off the proverbial pedal for the last 20 minutes of the match, but because their finishing was poor and they relied on two penalties - one of which was debatable - they didn't win with the sort of panache that one would expect from this team.

Then again, from a historical perspective, I'm probably asking for too much in wanting every home match to finish 5-0, regardless of the opponent.  Last year, Barca benefited a dubious red card against Robin Van Persie and a clumsy touch from Niclas Bendtner in order to see off Arsenal.  Three years ago, Barca slogged their way through 180 minutes against Chelsea before finally getting the break-through in injury time after having survived a number of penalty appeals (one of which was actually legitimate).  In 2006, Barca needed a late miss by Benfica in the quarters and then a favorable call on a potential equalizer in the semi against Milan in order to progress.  In all three instance, Barca won the Champions League.  It's not necessary to dominate every match and it's helpful to keep in mind that I always remember the opponents' close calls without accounting for those of my team.

The main issue that I had last night after watching the match was that Pep Guardiola still seems to be searching for the best combination with this team.  In his two previous Champions League victories, Pep had to shuffle players at the back to deal with injuries and suspensions, but he always knew whom to play in the midfield and forward lines.  In contrast, in 2010, he was dealing with the unraveling Ibra situation and so he didn't really know how to deploy a striker along with Messi and Pedro.  After Ibra flopped against Inter, Pep saw out a second straight league title with Bojan as the third forward.

This year is closer to 2010.  Pep has to deal with Xavi's calf/Achilles issues.  More importantly, he is constantly shuttling players in and out around Messi.  At times, he plays Cesc as a second striker because his interplay with Messi is so good.  At times, he uses Alexis Sanchez as a runner for Messi's passes.  At times, he uses Isaac Cuenca and Cristian Tello for width.  And then there is a Pedro, a fixture for the last two years and a reliable scorer in big matches, but also a guy who has lost much of his form this year, at least in part because of injuries.

With all of these questions swirling in the background, Pep used a new formation for the most important match of the season: a 3-3-4.  On the one hand, it's nice to have a manager who can tailor his team to the opponent and thus remain unpredictable:

The real interest here was Barcelona’s shape. Dani Alves was pushed up even higher than in the first leg, with (at first) no responsibility to get back into the right-back zone. He and Cuenca played on roughly the same horizontal line, with Fabregas in a free role and Lionel Messi as a false nine. It could be interpreted as a 3-4-3 with a diamond midfield, with Fabregas at the front tip, but he and Messi were often together, playing as a partnership and dovetailing – therefore, the unusual 3-3-4 notation makes sense here.

Barcelona have played that way briefly in league games at the Nou Camp against weak opposition, but this was probably the first time they’ve looked 3-3-4 in a truly big game. In many ways, it makes perfect sense against this Milan side. It allows a spare man at the back, and if Fabregas dropped back slightly, equal numbers in midfield against Milan’s diamond. The obvious problem with a 3-3-4, on paper, is the lack of cover on the flanks – but few sides are as narrow as Milan, so in theory it shouldn’t be an issue.

On the other hand, Barca are supposed to be a team with a set way of playing that says to opponents "we are going to play a certain way and we are so good at it, you'll know what's coming and you won't be able to stop it."*

* - Michigan fans will be familiar with this mantra.  It worked when Bo was the coach and was more problematic when Lloyd was in charge and had only 85 players on scholarship.

Jonathan Wilson, a student of history who has previously wondered if this Barca team is going to reach its statute of limitations the way that most great teams do after 3-4 years, thinks that Pep tinkering with his formations is a good thing:

What marks Guardiola out is his awareness of the future, not in the sense of positioning himself for a move to another club or even in terms of youth development – although he is clearly acutely aware of that – but in terms of understanding the sweep of history, of recognising that what is good now will not necessarily be good in a year or two's time. Dress it as the lesson of Bela Guttmann ("the third year is fatal") or Karl Marx ("all that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned"*), but that awareness marks Guardiola as a true dynastician. Not for him the club-hopping of Guttmann or even José Mourinho: he wants to erect an edifice for the ages, something, paradoxically, strengthened by his refusal to commit to more than a 12-month rolling contract; he will not become a weary leader, governing by convention, but leaves open a perpetual route to step down for a fresher man when the occasion calls for it. (As examples from Tony Blair to Abdoulaye Wade indicate, though, leaving the door open does not necessarily mean he will still be willing to step through it when the time is right.)

In football terms, Guardiola is clearly determined to prevent Barcelona ever becoming complacent or predictable, to make sure they always have a second line of attack. The signing of Zlatan Ibrahimovic was intended to give them height, the option of going aerial if the usual tiki-taka didn't deliver and, when that didn't quite work, he began experimenting with the back three.

What I am trying to accept in my head is the idea that change and uncertainty might not be a bad thing.  When a team has won as much as Barca has, it's natural for a fan to say to himself "keep doing what you've been doing."  The memories of Rome and Wembley are so happy and positive in my mind that I want Barca to avoid change at all costs.  However, opponents are constantly changing their approaches to playing the Blaugrana and Barca's personnel is changing in all sorts of ways, so sticking with what worked before isn't a realistic option.  Hard to accept as it might be, if Barca are to win the Champions League again this year, they will have to do it in a different way.

Zlatan, Please Remember that this is a Tuesday

I shouldn't be nervous about Barca-Milan today.  A draw on the road in the first leg of a Champions League knock-out tie is generally a good result, especially when one's team was denied an obvious penalty, outshot the home team 18-6, and took the only two corners of the match.  The only time when a Pep Guardiola-coached Barca team was knocked out of Europe, they lost the road leg by two goals.  Pep's Barca sides have drawn the opening leg four times - Arsenal, Lyon, Stuttgart, and Chelsea - and progressed each time.  In the three instances in which they drew on the road, they then won the home legs by a combined score of 13-3.  Additionally, Barca were hampered in the first leg by a suspect pitch.  At home, on a perfect, wide pitch, they should have no problem circulating the ball quickly.  Reason says that they won't have issues today.

And yet, I still fret.  Maybe it's a residual effect of AC Milan's famous red and black stripes, which remind me of the fact that only Real Madrid have won more European Cups.  Maybe it's the fear that Zlatan has been waiting for an opportunity just like this.  Maybe it's the fact that Milan played a good game in the first leg, pressing for the first 20 minutes and then settling into a counter-attacking style that works well with their personnel.  Maybe it's the fact that we're into April and Pep still doesn't know his best XI.  Whatever the case may be, this match has more menace than a win-or-go-home game at the Nou Camp should.

The prevailing sentiment in the lead-up to the match has concerned Barca's lack of width in the first leg.  The consensus is that Pep erred by deploying a left side of Puyol (a solid defender who isn't great going forward), Keita (a defensively solid midfielder who isn't as good a passer as others on the team), and Iniesta (a great midfielder who usually looks to come inside when deployed on the wing).  Barca had no width on the left and thus became a lop-sided team that didn't stretch a narrow Milan side.  Michael Cox spotted this flaw:

Maybe the pitch was to blame, but it was surprising how little Barcelona tested AC Milan down the flanks in last week’s 0-0 draw at the San Siro. Milan’s narrow 4-3-1-2 formation means the full-backs are often left free, and Max Allegri’s side can be vulnerable to a quick switch of play from one side to the other.

Part of the problem was that Barcelona played Andres Iniesta in the left-sided forward position. Iniesta is a fine player, but he prefers playing an attacking midfield role, and when used as a forward he tends to come inside into his natural position anyway. Pep Guardiola probably played Iniesta there in order to give Barcelona more options in midfield – Milan have a four-against-three advantage in terms of pure formations, but it meant Barca were unable to stretch the play. With Carles Puyol used at left-back, they had no width down that side.

Ramzi from The Offside Barcelona also addresses width, but argues that the solution should be attackers who can play between the lines (read: Cesc):

Width is important for offense to be more lethal. However there is another factor needed hand in hand width – aerial threat. Without it, width becomes irrelevant. Even for a team like Manchester City, where you find Dzeko and co, teams made a well calculated risk and decided to defend narrow.

That’s something you can expect from AC Milan, a very narrow, tactically disciplined defense. The only setback for them will be fatigue impact where teams become increasingly prone to mistakes.   Messi’s dribbling quality will drag defenders toward him like magnets. That creates holes. Fatigue plays a role there in slowing down Milan’s players to reposition continuously and close the popping out gaps.  That’s where players capable of moving between the lines comes in handy.

If Cesc is fully fit, he will play. Unlike the first leg, the game at home is a perfect game for a player like the Fabregas. Where will he play? It depends.

There were some whispers that Xavi had a slight injury. If he is not able to play, Cesc may play in the midfield. Thiago is obviously a better alternative there, but he played a very physically demanding match against Athletic Bilbao. Even for a player his age, such games leave some bruises.

If he plays in offense, leaving Keita on the bench, it is important that he plays in front of Messi, not behind him. Alexis on the left and Alves on the right can provide the passing outlets on the flanks to breakthrough Milan’s press on ball holder. Messi on a free role accompanied with Iniesta while Xavi plays in a more conservative role closer to Busquets.

Personally, I'd rather see Tello play as opposed to Cesc.  Alexis Sanchez is coming on, but he does not strike me as a player to provide a lot of width.  I prefer the idea of Messi and Sanchez joined by Tello on the front line with Xavi, Iniesta, and Busquets as the midfield.  With Pedro's form having dipped, this is Barca's best front six and it ought to be the starting lineup today.  Then again, it's possible that Pep knows a little more about soccer than I do, so we'll see what he cooks up.

Is Hank Schrader Working at Butts-Mehre?

Though I generally view the focus on the off-field exploits of Georgia football players as a tired pursuit of sports radio hosts and Jeff Schultz, the suspensions for Bacarri Rambo and Alec Ogletree have caught my attention.  Georgia is now going to be missing at least four defensive starters for the SEC opener at Missouri, at least three because of apparent marijuana use.  The crusade by Georgia's football program against any drug use is going to have significant effects on the field.  The development has put me into rhetorical question mode:

Georgia's football program is in an interesting place right now. The Dawgs' head coach is a well-liked coach who is pretty clearly a B+ head man competing for titles against an A+ coach in the state to the west. The fan base is fiercely loyal and turns out for every game, but one has to wonder whether they will continue to make significant donations for the privilege to buy tickets to increasingly soft home schedules. How much do Georgia fans really want Mark Richt to play the role of Joe Friday when the conference is hyper-competitive? Do they really want to pay hundreds of dollars per ticket to see back-ups because the starters smoked pot on spring break?

The question that remained after I wrote that column was whether the current stance taken by the Georgia athletic department is the result of media attention paid to off-field issues.  Is Georgia overreacting to criticism from members of the media?  Or has this policy been in effect throughout the Richt era?  Is it just a function of the coach's personality and worldview?  I'm interested to hear from people who know more about the program than I do.

Back to the San Siro

It's been a while since I wrote about the Catalan Futbol Colllective and we are coming down to the business end of the season, so this seems like as good a time as any to spill a few words.  Barca go to Milan for the first leg of the Champions League quarterfinal.  This is not an unfamiliar venue, as Barca played Milan at the San Siro in late November, taking a 3-2 decision that cemented first place in the group.  That win allowed Barca to play Bayer Leverkusen - a team that was more interested in getting Leo Messi's shirt than actually trying to tackle him - instead of Arsenal in the round of 16.  In addition, Barca played at the San Siro against Inter twice in 2009-10 (a 0-0 draw and then the famous 3-1 defeat to Mourinho's Inter that led to Ibra's now-famous "you have no balls!" insult directed at Pep Guardiola) and once against Milan in 2006 (a famous 0-1 win in the Champions League semifinals en route to Barca winning their first Champions League title in 14 years).  In short, the San Siro is a familiar place for Barca and most of their memories there have been happy ones.*  It's certainly better than playing Milan in Athens.

* - Along with Tiger Stadium (the one in Baton Rouge), the San Siro is my favorite backdrop for a televised sporting event.  The design is distinctive, the mist/smoke that envelops the place during a match gives it an otherworldly quality, and the noise is outstanding because of the vertical stands.  It's not always full, but it will be tonight.

In terms of this match-up, Milan present a pair of weaknesses that Barca should be able to exploit.  First, Milan don't have the type of aggressive defensive midfielders who can give Barca trouble.  Massimiliano Allegri, the Milan manager, said that his team is more "technical" than physical, but there is no team in the world that can compete with Barca on technical ability.  While teams have had some joy coming out and attacking Barca this year, no longer afraid of putting pressure on Barca's defenders (Real have had success with this approach), this Milan side doesn't have the front players for that sort of task.  After all, if you cut away all of the bullshit from Zlatan, the big reason why his stay in Catalunya was so short was that he was a bad fit in this Barca side because he isn't much on pressing opposing defenders when not in possession.  If Robinho is his partner, then you have another player who isn't exactly know for his work-rate.  Thus, the two favorable approaches to playing Barca - parking a narrow bus to congest the middle or pressing Barca at the back to force turnovers - seem to both be beyond Milan's grasp.

Second, Milan have weak fullbacks.  If you don't believe me, read The Guardian's minute-by-minute of Arsenal's demolition of Milan in the round of 16 at the Emirates.  Some highlights:

24 min: Arsenal attack down Milan's right flank again, having clearly identified Milan left-back Djamel Mesbah as a weak link. The link-up play between Song, Gervinho and Walcott is marvellous, releasing ... oh my word!

39 min: Theo Walcott sets off on a gallop down the right flank and is taken out by beleaguered full-back Djamel Mesbah, who he's been tormenting all night. The Arsenal winger goes down holding his thigh, but is fit to continue after receiving treatment.

44 min: You'd have to say Arsenal are the favourites to win this tie at this stage, as long as they don't lose the run of themselves and forget to defend stoutly. They've been making hay down the right wing, where the visitors' left-back Djamel Mesbah looks like some supporter who's won a competition where first prize was the opportunity to play for AC Milan in a Champions League match. He's having a shocker.

Second half: And we're off ... there don't appear to be any changes on either side. That seems odd to me, as I'd suggest Milan would be better off playing with 10 man rather than 11 including Djamel Mesbah.

54 min: Theo Walcott picks up the ball on the right flank, waltzes past the hapless Djamel Mesbah and tries to square the ball across the face of the Milan goal. At the near post, Thiago Silva clears.

88 min: Milan substitution: Djamel Mesbah gets put out of his misery and walks off very slowly - his first worthwhile contribution to his team's cause this evening. He's replaced by Daniele Bonera.

While the La Masia has struggled to produce top defenders in recent years, it has had no such issues producing tricky wingers.  Thus, Guardiola has Pedro, Isaac Cuenca, and Cristian Tello to throw at Milan's fullbacks, not to mention Alexis Sanchez and the now-fit Ibrahim Affelay.  If Barca's play-makers - Xavi, Iniesta, and Messi - have time to operate between the defense and midfield, then they will be able to find the wingers cutting in behind the fullbacks all day.  Additionally, the wingers ought to be able to beat the fullbacks and put passes into the box.

Against all of this, Barca's big weakness is at the back.  With Eric Abidal out for the year and possibly having to retire because of his impending liver transplant and Adriano also injured, Barca don't have depth at fullback.  Additionally, Gerard Pique's form has dipped this year, leading to all sorts of analogies between his girlfriend Shakira and Yoko Ono (or, if you are a Man United fan, Posh Spice).  Milan have terrific attackers.  If they can get the ball to their forwards (the big question in this match), then I don't have the same confidence in Barca's defenders that I have had in recent years.  I have this mental image of Pique deploying his befuddled face as Zlatan wheels away to the corner flag to celebrate a vindicating goal. 

In the end, this match doesn't give me too much heartburn.  Barca have been playing better in recent weeks, winning nine in a row since the loss at Osasuna.  Additionally, Barca's overall problem this year has been one of focus, as they have dropped points on the road against a number of lesser opponents.  In the toughest road games - two matches at the Bernabeu, one at the San Siro, and one at the Calderon (where they never win - they have won every time.  There are teams out there that will give the Blaugrana fits - Chelsea looked ominous last night with their ability to negate Benfica and then ground out an ugly 0-1 win - but this Milan side do not look to be one of them.

Confronting my Feelings on the Hawks

Here's my latest at SB Nation, trying to explain why I can't get as excited as I should about the Hawks' surprisingly solid season.  As usual, I start babbling about sample sizes:

This is an instance where my sports ideology conflicts with my self-interest as a fan. My favorite sports are college football and European club soccer. One of the reasons for these preferences is the fact that these sports have meaningful regular seasons. College football's two-team playoff puts a premium on winning regular season games. In Europe, domestic championships are decided in the fairest way possible: each team plays each other team home and away and the team with the best record at the end is the winner.

The NBA doesn't have this structure. It has the conventional American pro sports model that annoys me: a long regular season, followed by a reset button and then a short tournament during which the long regular season is a total afterthought. However, because: (1) home court advantage matters so much; and (2) the better team tends to win in basketball because the large number of possessions reduces variance, the NBA doesn't lend itself to upsets. If my problem with the NFL and MLB is that undeserving teams like the St. Louis Cardinals and New York Giants can win multiple championships after merely decent regular seasons, then I should like the NBA. Even on the rare occasions where the NBA produces a surprise champion like Dallas last year, that team is usually a perennial contender that finally broke through from a slightly lower seed.

The NBA is pretty good at crowning a deserving champion, so where does that leave the Hawks? With the Braves and Falcons, we can be excited when they go into the playoffs because the MLB and NFL playoffs have turned into lotteries. The Hawks aren't buying a lottery ticket so much as they are facing a firing squad. As someone who tries to value the big sample over the small one, I should be enjoying the Hawks' solid regular season, but in a league where regular season success is dismissed, I find it hard to step outside of this mindset. Reduced to focusing on the postseason, I try to imagine a Black Swan world of highly improbable events, but with the Hawks, it is hard to make myself believe.

One factor that I didn't mention because it's somewhat trite is that I'm at the stage of life where I don't have as much leisure time as I used to.  For example, I got home yesterday at seven, had dinner with the wife and kids, helped give the boys their bath, read books to the younger, more rambunctious version of B&B Jr., and then had about an hour of free time before going to sleep.  I decided to watch Benfica-Chelsea instead of the Hawks game.  In my younger days, I would have had time for both.  In this instance, I chose to watch a game that had more riding on it.

Mes Que Un Club, Syrian Resistance Edition

You have to love embattled dictatorships:

Syria’s state-run television channel has made the astonishing claim that the Barcelona soccer team is assisting a group of rebel fighters by delivering coded messages via its tactical formations...

 

Al-Dunya TV aired a bizarre feature Sunday outlining how Barcelona transmitted details of effective smuggling routes that could be used to distribute arms to dissident fighters. The program repeated charges originally made in December. According to the TV reporter, the Barca side’s positioning on the field allegedly was deliberately set up to recreate a giant map, with players representing smugglers and the ball depicting a cache of arms.

A run from Andres Iniesta is said to portray the first part of the route, while the end of the move, where superstar World Footballer of the Year Lionel Messi passes the ball, indicates the successful handover of the shipment, according to Al-Dunya.

All season, Michael Cox has been trying to decipher the evolution of Barca's formations away from a set 4-3-3, but he's been looking in the wrong place for explanations.  He should have been looking at maps of Syria.  And doesn't this allegation really end the debate as to whether Barca is the best team of all-time?  If they have been winning while being hamstrung by the need to send covert messages to rebel groups, then they truly are the best. 

Is Georgia the most Underachieving Basketball Program in the Country

I wrote a lengthy piece last night for SB Nation addressing this question.  My methodology is to list the Rivals five-star players from the past decade in an effort to show which states produce the most top-end talent.  The results confirmed my suspicion.  Georgia is tied with Florida for third nationally in terms of production of five-star players.  Of those top prospects, Georgia has signed exactly two, one of whom went straight to the NBA (Louis Williams) and the other lasted a year and a half in Athens (Mike Mercer).

The comparison between Georgia and Florida is bad; the comparison between Georgia and Vandy is worse:

The chart above leads to the conclusion that Georgia and Florida produce a lot of basketball talent, but the flagship school of the Sunshine State has produced 17 trips to the Tournament, 11 appearances in the final AP poll, seven regular season SEC titles, four trips to the Final Four, and the aforementioned pair of national titles. The flagship school of the Peach State pales in comparison, having produced 11 trips to the Tournament, five appearances in the final AP poll, three regular season SEC titles, and a sole visit to the Final Four in 1983 led by Vern Fleming. Heck, Vandy has been in the final poll eleven times and has made 13 trips to the Tournament. What excuse does Georgia have to be significantly behind the Commodores in a revenue sport? (A note: switch Georgia's flagship program to the Flats and you do not do much better, as the Jackets have produced 16 trips to the Tournament, eight appearances in the final AP poll, three regular season conference titles, and two trips to the Final Four.)

I am working in my head through a follow-up piece seeking to explain Georgia's lack of success in basketball.  One possibility is simple luck.  What happens if Rick Pitino never blunders into the Boston Celtics' job?  Does Tubby Smith stay in Athens for ten years and builds the brand of Georgia basketball?  What happens if Louis Williams would have come along after the NBA passed its rule forbidding players from going directly from high school to the pros?  What happens if Mike Mercer doesn't tear his ACL?  What happens if both of the latter two what ifs occur and Georgia gets two solid seasons of a five-star back court?  As critical as my premise is, it's actually encouraging because UGA has the potential to be a top program if they can just get momentum going in the right direction.  The same is true for Georgia Tech, only for Tech, it's less of a hypothetical because the Jackets have experienced more recent periods of success than Georgia has.

Catching Up

Sorry for the lack of content in recent weeks, but between work and my posts at SB Nation's Atlanta site, time has been tight.  For those of you who don't visit the Atlanta page on a daily basis, hang your heads in shame ... and then click on the tab that I added to the right that goes directly to my profile there.  That has a fill list of what I have been posting, both in shorter and longer form.  Some highlights from the last few weeks:

My predictable gloating over the Saints' little bounty issue:

The last parallel between the Ohio State and New Orleans scandals is that both relate to the most pressing issues facing their respective sports. College football has been plagued in recent months with significant scandals involving major programs and improper benefits, leading many to question the continued viability of a sport that is built on a fiction. For instance, the 2010 national title game was contested between a team whose star quarterback's father was trying to sell his son to the highest bidder and an opponent currently under investigation for paying a runner in Texas to direct players to Eugene.

The biggest issue facing the NFL is the long-term health impact of the sport, a dilemma that leads to a plausible scenario in which the NFL no longer exists. Through a combination of: (1) the school firing its head coach and suspending several of its best players; and (2) the NCAA tacking on a one-year bowl ban, Ohio State has essentially had to give up two football seasons. That's the message that the NCAA and its members have to send to deter money finding its way to the players who generate it.

I don't pretend to know what is in Roger Goodell's holster in terms of potential punishments, but it is clear that he is going to have to bring the hammer down because the participation of Saints' coaches in the team's bounty system and the acquiescence of the head coach and general manager in that system touches on the biggest problem facing the league. Goodell has to ensure that current and future authority figures in the league see what happened to the Saints and take the lesson that they have to stamp out incentives to injure opposing players.

This is one of those instances where I am quite happy that Roger Goodell has given himself untrammeled power to punish league figures who "damage the shield," to quote that preposterous phrase that was bandied about by authority worshipers when Goodell was disciplining Ben Roethlisberger for tawdry conduct that did not lead to criminal charges.  Let's see him use that power when the wrongdoers are management instead of labor.  That, after all, is the big issue with the Saints scandal.  It's not that the Saints had a bounty system, as that appears to be something that happens every now and again in the NFL.  It's that this appears to be the first instance in which a defensive coordinator, a head coach, and a general manager all either participated or at least knew about the scheme and did nothing.

My predictable counter to Forbes labeling Atlanta as the most miserable sports city in America:

Forbes would never permit this terrible reasoning when evaluating companies. Financial reporting is (at least theoretically) based on reviewing the entirety of a company's record to make the best evaluations possible. That same rigor apparently does not apply to sports analysis, where we define disappointment based on a "small sample size important; big sample size unimportant" framework.

The point of sports is to provide us with entertainment. We all want an escape from the ennui of the working world and games provide us with exactly that. A team like the Braves during their heyday provided great entertainment, as they consistently won more than they lost. Day after day, we could rely on the Braves to make us happy by beating down the rest of the NL East. Losing a playoff series was a sad experience, but was it enough to overwhelm six months of happiness? No.

Personally, this has been a pretty good period to be an Atlanta sports fan.  How many other times in city history can we say that two of our teams - the Hawks and Falcons - are playoff regulars and the third - the Braves - are at least on the cusp and have a roster full of promising young players.  Maybe my expectations were beaten down by two of the city's three teams being so bad in the 80s when I was growing up, but this seems fine to me.  It's unfortunate that the Hawks have reached their ceiling at the second round of the playoffs and the Falcons can't win a playoff game, but as between playoff disappointment and finishing in last place every year, I'll take the former.

I also finished a post that I've been meaning to write for weeks on the decline of the ACC as a basketball conference.  I offered four potential explanations: conference expansion, bad coaches, the Big Dance killing the regular season, and the possibility that we are just seeing a statistical blip.  The decline of the ACC stands out for me because of the juxtaposition with SEC football.  The latter is as strong as ever, as population trends have dovetailed with the ability of athletic departments to monetize fan passion - and thereby build facilities and hire coaches that create a recruiting advantage - to put the SEC on top of college football.  Those same shifts in population should be helping the ACC in basketball, but they aren't.  That leads to a chicken-egg question: is fan intensity down in the ACC because the product is weaker or is the product weaker because fan intensity is down?

 

SEC Championship Game on the Brain

A couple posts from last week regarding the SEC Championship Game.  The first was supposed to be a short post about the fight over the site of the Copa del Rey Final and an analogy to the SEC Championship Game, but it ended up running for over 1,000 words.  I was titillated by the idea of SEC teams winning the conference title on the homefields of their rivals, as opposed to the Georgia Dome:

This scenario got me to thinking: wouldn't it be fun if the SEC Championship Game were played on a rotating basis at campus sites instead of the Georgia Dome? The title game is always a tough ticket, so it does not make sense that it is played at a facility that seats 70,000 when Sanford Stadium, Neyland Stadium, Williams-Brice Stadium, Florida Field, Jordan-Hare Stadium, Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tiger Stadium, Reynolds-Razorback Stadium, and now Kyle Field all have bigger capacities?

For instance, when Auburn and South Carolina met in 2010, demand for tickets was through the roof because Auburn was two wins away from their first national title in 53 years and South Carolina was playing in the title game for the first time in their 18th year as a member of the conference. If the game would have been in Baton Rouge, slightly more than 20,000 additional Tiger and Gamecock fans could have seen the game in-person. It seems like a waste for SEC programs to have giant stadia and then to relegate the culmination of the SEC schedule to a smaller venue.

Leaving stadium sizes aside, imagine the fun that would ensue with programs winning titles on their rivals' homefields? Imagine that Auburn is hosting the title game and Alabama wins the West. Imagine that Florida is hosting the title game and Georgia wins the East. Imagine those two fan bases occupying half of their bitterest rivals' sacred home grounds. Imagine 40,000 drunk obnoxious Georgia fans taking over Gainesville's nightlife. Admit it, my stuck record of finding things about European soccer that would make sense for American sports occasionally stumbles onto a good idea.

I realize that it is a little odd to advocate for the Georgia Dome losing the SEC Championship Game shortly after professing my opinion that the facility is perfectly fine and doesn’t need to be replaced, so I’ll just say that the Dome’s adequacy doesn’t make it better than the on-campus facilities in the SEC. 

In the course of writing the article, it also occurred to me that there is a correlation between stadium size and appearances in the conference title game.  There are four SEC programs that have stadia smaller than the Georgia Dome: Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State.  Those four programs have combined for one appearance in the title game in 20 years.  It turns out that stadium size has been a proxy for success in the conference.  Big stadium is proxy for fan interest, which means revenue, which means higher coaching salaries and better facilities, which means recruiting advantages, which means winning.  Or, viewed a different way, teams that have natural advantages have been historically successful and that success increases fan interest.  Chicken or egg?

I also wrote a shorter post about the opposition of certain SEC coaches to the conference title game when Roy Kramer brought it into existence in 1992:

I finally got around to watching The Play that Changed College Football, the ESPNU documentary on the first SEC Championship Game. In light of the SEC refusing to go to a nine-game schedule (and thus dooming two of the best rivalries in the Conference) ostensibly on the grounds that an extra conference game would be too much of a burden in light of the quality of the league, I was struck by the reaction of SEC coaches to Roy Kramer's decision to split the conference into divisions and stage a championship game.

Just as they are now, the coaches back then were opposed to adding an additional game. Steve Spurrier took the position that it would be unfair for a team that is clearly the best in the conference after the regular season to give a demonstrably lesser opponent an equal chance to win the title. Spurrier also noted that the East champion faced the prospect of playing Alabama on the Tide's quasi-homefield. Pat Dye, Johnny Majors, and Ray Goff all advanced the more basic position that another game against a good opponent is tough and tough is bad.

Upon reflection, it’s interesting that Spurrier’s answer displays more mental ability than those of Dye, Majors, and Goff.  Spurrier recognizes that adding a title game can help some teams and hurt others.  While it is an extra burden for the team that finishes first in the regular season, it is an extra opportunity for the team that finishes second.  Spurrier is able to think on levels, whereas the other three are just saying “more tough games are bad.”  It’s tough to gauge intelligence based on public remarks for a variety of reasons, but in this case, I’m willing to do so.  The fact that Spurrier washed the three out of the conference* with an offense that they had never seen before aids my conclusion.

* – With assistance from Eric Ramsey’s dictaphone and Phil Fulmer’s et tu brute moment.

Shorties from Last Week

Two shorter offerings from the past two weeks…

One was an analogy between Atlanta and Paris as sports cities, based on the fact that both are full of transplants:

Like Paris, Atlanta can be described as a city where a good portion of the populace comes from elsewhere, seeking better social and economic opportunities. Also like Paris, Atlanta sports fans are more attracted to the spectacle that the local teams can sometimes provide than we are creatures of habit, going to games because that's what they have always done. When the Braves came out of nowhere to contend in 1991, Fulton County Stadium was home to the spectacle, especially with the Tomahawk Chop being new and exciting. When Mike Vick hit the scene, the Georgia Dome was home to the spectacle, as Vick was the most exciting player that most of us had ever seen. To a lesser extent, the Hawks had the same attraction when Dominique was in his prime. For a hot minute, the Thrashers provided a spectacle when Heatley and Kovalchuk were electric. In short, we need a reason to go.

Naturally, it ended with a shot at Bill Simmons for making excuses on behalf of Pats fans that he would never make for Atlanta or other sports markets in the Sunbelt.  Speaking of Simmons, I strongly recommend the piece from the Classical about PSG.  It cites Simmons’ podcast with the CEO of Ticketmaster regarding the steps that American sports teams are taking to attract casual fans by making the gameday experience as personal as possible.  Of course, it also attacks Simmons for taking a very 1% view of the sports experience, but in this respect, I think that the author underestimates the ubiquity of flat-screen TVs.  Generally speaking, if you can get past the Nader-ite tangents (I especially love the fact that the whole piece is built around a defense of fan culture at PSG, when one of the two galaxies of fan associations – the Virage Boulogne – is a right-wing, all-white, sometimes ractis entity), it’s a fascinating look at the changes at PSG, ostensibly to deal with fan disputes.  There are some very interesting political parallels along the lines of “what do we sacrifice when we place security uber alles?”  I almost linked the piece again when I was writing about SEC scheduling, as there is a parallel to be made in terms of the management of sports teams viewing consumers as nothing more than walking wallets who will always support their teams, regardless of how poorly the fans are treated.

The second piece was a complaint about sports talk radio that will sound very familiar to those of you who have been reading this blog for a while.  The gripe, as usual, was reducing sports discussion to etiquette:

The discussion on 680 was mostly about the Super Bowl, but there was some attempt to discuss recruiting, namely the fact that the same teams are on top of the recruiting rankings every year. The discussion wasn't especially interesting, but at least the effort was there. The discussion on 790 was whether it is appropriate for high school stars to announce their college decisions in press conferences.

This is exactly what drives me crazy about sports talk radio in general and Mayhem in the AM specifically: the devolution of sports discussion to simplistic moral judgments. This discussion yesterday was about athletes being jerks when they (or their entourages) don't tip appropriately. The discussion this morning was another foray into the world of deciding what behavior is acceptable for athletes. My commute is generally about 20 minutes; I don't need to spend it listening to three middle-aged guys doing a bad imitation of Judith Martin. Any idiot can judge someone else's behavior. Before my commute was half done, I had started listening to The Solid Verbal podcast after muttering to myself "what the hell took me so long?" Oddly enough, the discussion was about actual topics relating to recruiting.

My tolerance for sports talk radio waxes and wanes.  During football season, I listen because there is some coverage of the games that interest me.  Later in the season, it was enjoyable listening to Steak Shapiro overrate the Falcons yet again.  (Listening to him discuss the Falcons is like surveying the emotions of a small boy during movie previews.)  With football done, I am less likely to listen because the local shows are going to put even more emphasis of schtick.