The NFL Draft, The Royal Wedding, and America

I have no idea if these things connect. What I'm about to write may be the most incoherent, rambling, disconnected piece I've ever written. But there are two things that have been bothering me for the past twelve hours, and since I have not seen anyone else address them, I would be beating myself up if I didn't. Consider this part two in an ongoing series of "American Society Studies," along with Part 1 here, which I thought was good, but Blogger tells me no one has read.


Let me start with this simple fact. I hate Disney. I hate everything about them. I hate their attempts at globalization. I hate DisneyLand. I hate their films. I hate animation period. I hate that they control 16.6% of the world. Above all, I hate their ideologies, and hate that they have no shame in attempting to spread their ideologies. As you may or may not know, Disney owns ESPN.

So last night, when it started to look as though Mark Ingram was going to be picked (around 12-14), Suzy Kolber came on and said something to the effect of: "Mark Ingram figures to be picked soon. His dad, Mark Ingram Sr., played football in the NFL in the 80s, and is now in prison. I have a letter from his dad that I'm going to read to him on national TV."

Immediately this seemed very odd to me. And predictable. And exploitative. Why on Earth would Suzy Kolber have a letter or email from Mark Ingram Sr, and why would she be reading it on national TV, to his son, in front of millions of viewers? I couldn't wait for this trainwreck to unfold. Mark Ingram ended up not being selected until the late first round, so I had to wait an hour.

After he was selected, true to their promise, Suzy Kolber grabbed Mark Ingram, asked him a couple of generic questions, and then said, I have an email from your dad, and Ingram snapped his head a little bit in shock. Kolber read a nice letter that said how proud Ingram Sr. was of his son, and that he loved him, etc. Kolber then asked Ingram what he felt.

Unsurprisingly..............he broke down and cried. He put his head down, and the cameraman crouched down and zoomed in on his face. He said he missed and loved his father, and then walked off the stage. Chris Berman gave a voiceover "thats great."

I was sickened by this display. How exploitative could you get? And the fact that it was so pre-meditated too. Kolber announced she had a letter around pick 12, and then didnt read it until pick 28. So she, at the direction of ESPN/Disney, waited around for hours, knowing that they were going to read this letter to Ingram? And what the fuck did they think his reaction was going to be? If they had a prop bet on Ingram's reaction, wouldn't it look something like:

Cry -100000000000000000000000
Say "fuck my dad" +9999999999999999999999

So they had a piece of information that they knew would greatly affect someone, and purposely waited to release it so that he was on TV in front of millions of people. They couldn't have given him that letter in private, backstage, when he arrived at the building? They had to read it on TV? They had to take advantage of a 21 year old kid who was just drafted, so that Berman can say "that's great"? They were so steadfast in their way of doing this. Everything was arranged. They advertised that they had the letter. The camera moved down to get Ingram's reaction. They even held up the draft to do this (the Saints pick was in when they were at a commercial, then they picked, then the Bears pick was in as they were talkign to him).

I couldn't believe that they had done this. When I went online to see if anyone agreed, the twitter universe was lit up with how much it moved people, or made them cry, or how nice it was. How is that nice? People like seeing people exploited? You're at home saying you like that, youre saying "I love how they un-necessarily made that 21 year old kid cry." This was Disney's idea of a heart-felt moment, not too much unlike the countless ones we have seen through their catalogue of films.

This exploitation should come as no surprise, as Disney has had its fair share of contentions with portrayals of minorites in their films. The accounts are too numerous to go into detail here, and are subject matter for a wide range of other papers. But, think of films such as "Aladdin," "Mulan," "Remember the Titans," and "The Princess & The Frog," and we can see that they attempt to represent an entire race of people with one-dimensional, stereotypical characters. To them, Mark Ingram might as well have just been a character in a film of theirs. The problem is that he isn't in "Remember the Titans," and hes not some actor pretending to have a moment with Denzel Washington over the fact that his dad is in prison - this is his real life.

If you don't understand why I would have a problem with this, ask yourself this question. "If your dad was in prison, would you want to discuss it in any way, shape, or form on national TV?"


Interestingly, Disney has also been criticized for something else. Throughout their history, they have produced films where a low-class, low-income female works her ass off, struggles through the day, and sits patiently, waiting for a prince to come and rescue her from her daily drudgeries, so she can enter a high-class, high-wealth, sophisticated lifestyle. This should sound familiar to you because you grew up with all the films, and it is also the story of the Royal Wedding.

I'm not going to go into the actual story of Middleton and Prince William, because that isnt what is important. What is of more interest to me is how people have been reacting to it here in the USA. They see it as a modern, real-life fairy tale. That's fine, if that is how you want male-female relationships to be perceived. There has been TONS of feminist backlash against the Disney films for perpetuating hundred-years-old stereotypes of male dominance and female dependance, but I haven't seen anyone bring up that argument in relation to Middleton and Wiliam. If there has been such an argument, then I haven't heard it, but to me, I'm the first one.

And that isn't to say anything against Middleton. From what I know, I don't see her as a conniving, busted woman who was sitting around and is dependent on a man. She, and anyone, should be able to marry whoever the hell they want. Again, however, my concern is the reaction here in the States. I find it interesting, that in a post-feminist society, a society that produced the immensely popular and almost universally acclaimed "Sex & The City," that people still cheer on this old-fashioned chivalry/relationship. To me, I find it very hypocritical that people can feel empowered by "Sex & The City," and cheer on Samantha's sexual exploits, yet turn around and love that a commoner has ascended the ranks to royalty, simply by marrying into the family.

Why such a contradiction exists is baffling and would need more research (specifically into Sex&The City, which in full disclosure, I have probably seen a combined 100 minutes of). I would guess that it starts with the age-old stereotypes that Disney has instilled in us. Ya know, especially since we watch this bullshit when we're four years old, visit the theme parks, buy the merchandise, and are told that the Prince chooses the girl, and it could be anyone! That's what is so feel good about the Royal Wedding - as I said before, it could be read as a fairy tale come true. It also stands in opposition to the feminist/post-feminist texts and narratives that have been circulating for the past two decades.

My argument, I suppose, is that if push came to shove, everyone would trade places with Middleton (women that is). But same for men if I proposed the question "you could work hard for money, or you can marry the only-child-daughter of a tycoon and become the heir to the enterprise." Which are you going to choose? My argument is that feminists can say whatever they want; "Im independent, I don't need a man, Im self made," but they would all trade positions with Middleton (and if they wouldn't, where are they voicing their opinion on this). And im not picking on feminists, cause as I said, men would trade too.

And here's the point. That's America. People would trade their beliefs and values for money and fame. Seems obvious, but it's true. We saw it in the late 60s with the hippies. The same people who protested everything from the war to consumerism turned around and became lawyers and yuppies. People go on reality shows and degrade themselves for either money, fame, or both. You can preach any ideology you want, but if someone made you that offer to walk down the aisle with royalty, or a billionaire, or a movie star, I bet you would do it.

But why? What is America's obsession with money and fame? Again, a question that can't be answered in full here. But again, as a good start to research, I would imagine that Disney, (and Hollywood, television, the news, in general), perpetuate this desire. And if it isn't the media, it's the "american dream," "keeping up with the joneses," and whatever else that causes it, and the rest is a Domino Effect.

I knew that this was going to be a disorgainzed blog post. Two things though. 1) disney sucks, and 2) this will probably be the only blog you ever read that talks about the NFL draft and the ROyal Wedding in the same breath.

Mock Draft Version 6.9

The NFL Draft used to be one of my favorite things. For a five to six year stretch from 1995-2001, I would wake up on a Saturday Morning and eagerly anticipate the start. This was before Berman annoyed me. This is when the Bears were always picking relatively ealy, and always made the worst choice (from 95-01, their picks in the first round were: Salaam(21), Walt Harris (13), none in 97, Enis(5), McNown(12), Urlacher(9), David Terrell(8)). This is also before the Bears decided that first round picks werent important, and decided to trade them all, and when the first round would take less than 6 hours to complete. This was before they moved the draft to Thursday for no reason (other than the reason that now they have rights to the NBA finals and that would be a scheduling conflict). Most importantly though, this was before the time of Todd McShay.

Before I spit out everything I think about the NFL Draft that is on my mind (and it has been on my mind a while), let me point out that a lot of this stems from the increase of importance of the combine. A friend of mine once wrote this article which sums up the combine pretty nicely, so I won't go into it much more. Just know that the combine sucks, and while it did exist before 2002, no one in the general public paid too much attention to it. Back in the old days of 28k modems and only 99 cable channels, we did something so novel; we watched the games and made our own judgement calls. Shockingly, we were somehow able to determine who was good, and who wasnt, all without the aid of what their broad jump or shuttle run time was. Ultimately, it didn't matter because none of us were scouts, GMs, coaches, or owners, but in general the combine is turning our society into a nation of nerds; but thats another story.

Then, enter Todd McShay. He came on the scene around the same time in which the combine became popular, and people went to ESPN to look at NFL Draft stuff. At first, McShay was just a general annoyance to both me and Mel Kiper. Mel Kiper had been around for so long, and could be defined as a guy who a) never coached, b) never played, c) showed up just in April but didnt do anything else the other 11 months, d) was sporadically correct about a player, and e) knew every single possible attribute about a player. So when McShay showed up, and contributed the same 5 things which Kiper did, and nothing else, I was confused. Similar to old Biff in 2015 in Back to the Future II, I was saying "what the hell, two of em?"

McShay's general annoyance developed into something more. He came to embody the #1 thing in the world that I hate. That is, people in high profile jobs who don't know what theyre talking about, take no risks, have no guts, and ultimately contribute nothing to anything, yet are still highly regarded by the masses (which is like 99% of Los Angeles - and 100% of ESPN).

If he came out and said the following, I'd have respect for him: "Here are two lists, one, my top 32 players. The second, the order in which I think the first 32 picks are going to go, based upon the franchises needs." That is all you need. Period.

Instead, he re-does his Mock Draft every other week, and is now on Mock Draft 6.0 (more on this later). I don't have time to evaluate every single player at every single spot, but lets look at his history a little more closely. Our evaluation is going to be the top 5 picks in each version, and if ever a previous top 5 pick drops out, their new rank, and conversely, if someone eventually moves in, their ranking in other versions. If this doesn't make sense, it will.

Mock 1.0 November 11, 2010 (why this early, no idea).

1. Andrew Luck

2. Marcell Dareus

3. Da'Quan Bowers

4. Patrick Peterson

5. Prince Amukamara

10. AJ Green

21. Von Miller

24. Nick Fairley

NR. Blaine Gabbert

NR. Cam Newton

Couple of notes on this, and then I'm going to move on more rapidly. Why would someone release a mock draft a) before they knew who was coming out? b) before the season was over? c) when the NFL season was halfway done, and you had no idea the order of picks?

Mock 2.0 January 19, 2011

1. Da'Quan Bowers

2. Nick Fairley

3. Blaine Gabbert

4. A.J Green

5. Patrick Peterson

7. Marcell Dareus

9. Prince Amukamara

10. Cam Newton

11. Von Miller

Mock 3.0 February 10, 2011

1. Da'Quan Bowers

2. Nick Fairley

3. Von Miller

4. A.J. Green

5. Blaine Gabbert

6. Marcell Dareus

7. Patrick Peterson

8. Prince Amukamara

10. Cam Newton

(I think youre getting my point, but I will keep going. The point is that he is playing musical chairs with the spots. All of this is being done with NO games being played. Nevertheless, he now has his previous 8 players as the top 8, so that makes sense, bravo).

Mock Draft 4.0 March 16, 2011

1. Marcell Dareus

2. Von Miller

3. Blaine Gabbert

4. A.J. Green

5. Cam Newton

6. Bowers

7. Peterson

8. Fairley

13. Amukamara

Mock Draft 5.0 April 6, 2011

1. Newton (with the explanation; Newton is not #1 player)

2. Dareus

3. Miller

4. Green

5. Gabbert

7. Peterson

8. Fairley

13. Amukamara

20. Bowers

So, if you're scoring at home, he had three different number one picks in 4 drafts (not going to count the first). Of those #1s, he had Newton ranked as low as 10, Dareus as low as 7, and Fairley as low as 8. Again, the important thing to realize is that from Mock 2.0 to Mock 5.0, there were ZERO FOOTBALL GAMES PLAYED. I understand shit happens. People put on 50 pounds. People get arrested. People fail drug tests. People break bones. These extenuating circumstances did not play into any of these prospects except for Bowers, since people think theres something wrong with his knees. The point is, you would think that the football season's sample size would be enough to accurately judge these players, and running a 40 at Lucas Oil Field shouldnt matter much (especially for someone like Blaine Gabbert).

So at this point, the first week of April, I said enough is enough. Who would listen to this guy? Anyone could name the top 10 players in the draft, and have one of them picked, which is essentially what hes doing by continuously changing around his forecast. Ask me who's gonna be #1 next week? Well, it could be Bowers, Newton, Fairley, Dareus, Peterson, or Gabbert. I really went out on a limb there. I decided to write this article describing my feelings towards McShay.

But then, the impossible happened. McShay outdid himself. McShay released.............MOCK 6.0

And I can't even analyze this one. Why? Because McShay REALLY outdid himself in this one. No longer is he just naming one player for one team, now, hes naming multiple players for each team. In case you're not getting this because of insider restrictions, let me write what he wrote for the Panthers:

Scenario 1: I'm not hearing anything different, so the pick is Newton

Scenario 2: Panthers need a DT, so they draft Dareus, who I believe is best player.

Scenario 3: They take Gabbert, who is 10 spots better than Newton. Im also hearing things about Peterson and AJ Green.

So he just named four players that the Panthers could take. No fucking shit sherlock. The draft is a week away, and you're supposed to be a journalist who finds these things out. Instead you're just naming the most obvious names of who was good in the league last year. Also note that Green and Peterson were never #1 in any of his otehr Mocks, so now he has those two names covered.

Basically, unless Corey Liuget shocks the world and is taken #1 overall (lets hope), McShay will have gotten it right. I can't stand this shit anymore. I may not even watch the draft next Thursday because odds are: a) itll take 9 hours, b) McShay will be there, c) Berman will be there, d) I won't know 10 of the players in the draft even though I watched every football game possible last year - this being a result of people skyrocketing up the charts due to their combine/stats performance. In regards to d), you may say "thats why McShay knows more than you H, and you don't know shit about football." Well I invite you to think about this. Would you be able to tell the difference between Anthony Castonzo and Gabe Carimi if they walked into your apartment? Would you tap your friend on the shoulder in Chipotle and whisper; "dude, thats Brooks Reed over there!" Would you instantly tweet if you were at a bar and Muhammad Wilkerson walked in? No? Well all of those players are top 20 picks according to McShay's Mock 5.0.

In the meantime, I'll think back to the simpler times.......times.......like these.

Speed Hurts you pretty bad, but it doesn't Kill

The old saying is "speed kills." You can't teach it. You can take players to a sand pit and have them run up a hill to improve their quick twitch fibers or explosiveness, or have them jump on boxes and do pylometric exercises, but these methods only go so far. If you got a PrimeTime, Donte Stallworth, Mike Vick, Bo Jackson, you hang onto them, cause nobody is catching them from behind.

But speed only tells half of the story. I have to first mention something that you probably heard before; 40 time does not equal football speed. There is a difference between being fast and quick; so when Darius Heyward-Bey shows up and runs the best 40 at the combine, and his draft stock skyrockets faster than the Russian guy who went into space 50 years ago yesterday, this doesnt mean he is quick. What is quick? Getting in and out of cuts, running sharp, crisp routes, and making moves. You're playing football, not running track. But like I said, you already know this.

What is getting more and more lost is that speed doesnt equal a good player. This may seem evident, but fans, scouts, recruiters, and GMs seem to constantly miss this point.

What got me thinking about this was LSU when I wrote about Les Miles a few days ago. I will come back to them. I also stumbled across an article written by Feldman, which lists the top 10 fastest players in America. I think this is an insider article, so if you don't have access, allow me to reiterate the top 10:

1) Jeff Demps, RB Florida, 2) Marquise Goodwin, WR Texas, 3) T.J. Graham, WR N.C. State, 4) Quincy McDuffie, WR UCF, 5) Travis Benjamin, WR Miami, 6) Skye Dawson, WR TCU, 7) LaMichael James, RB Oregon, 8) Robert Griffin III, QB Baylor, 9) Derrick Hopkins, WR USF, 10) Dernard Robinson, QB Michigan.

Chances are that you have heard of maybe half of those players; Demps, James, Griffin and Robinson for sure. All of them play for major schools that are on TV on a regular basis, so why haven't we heard of them? Mainly because of their lack of productivity.

A few notes on this. Surprisingly, there are no defensive players listed. Secondly, the people you are most likely to not have heard of all play WR. That shouldn't be the case, given that WR is still a marquee position, and why would we have heard of Roy Williams of Texas ad nauseum, but not Marquise Goodwin, or any of the amazing WRs the U has had, but not Travis Benjamin?

Well, the answer lies in their productivity. I will relate some numbers, all 2010 season stats;

Goodwin; 32 catches, 324 yards, 1 TD, long of 32

Graham; 25/316/4/49

McDuffie; 13/144/2/28

Benjamin; 43/743/6/60

and Hopkins is a Freshman.

So, are those outstanding numbers? Certainly not. And I included the "long" statistic, because you would imagine that if you had one of the fastest player in the country, he would not be caught from behind, and would be able to make big plays. Yet, the longest play any of these WRs had combined came from Benjamin, a 60 yard TD in a losing effort @ Virginia. Is this the players' doing, or the coaches? I guess it really depends.

Let's look at LSU though.

LSU's offense is littered with "athletes" as the recruits now call them. These are guys who can play any position due to their speed and athleticism. Last year, they had Reuben Randle, Terrence Toliver, and Russell Shepard at WR. All guys who can tear it up. All guys who were highly recruited at the "ATH" position.

Yet, the three of them combined for 107 catches, and 1377 yards. If youre scoring at home, both Ryan Broyles of OU, and Justin Blackmon of OkState had more impressive numbers in both categories on their own last year. Overall, LSU finished 102nd in the nation in passing.

I know there are plenty of explanations for this. One would be that teams in the SEC play better defense than in the Big12. This would explain how LSU exploded for 41 points in the Cotton Bowl against Big12 opponent Texas A&M, (alebit had only 158 passing yards), but nevertheless had many at home were asking "where was this all year?" Another explanation would be that LSU's QB play was less than stellar, and started the season off with a revolving door (and to this day, they don't know the starter for Fall 2011). Both should be considered, but neither should negate the fact that these fast WRs underachieved for most of the year. No matter who the QB was, and who LSU was playing, there should have been some sort of gameplan to get these guys involved. In other words, there is no explanation as to why Terrence Tolliver had 2 TDs all year (both against Florida), and then had 3 in the Cotton Bowl.

Unless they just arent very good. Hell, they're fast. They may even be quick. But maybe they're not receivers. This is opening a whole nother can of worms, but maybe you cant just take freak athletes and throw them anywhere. There are exceptions, but they are rare. And maybe it takes more than a couple of years, which is all colleges really have, to teach someone how to play a certain position. Unfortunately, there isnt a stat for drops, missed blocks, poorly run routes, etc on ESPN, but having watched a majority of LSU games last year, I can say that they had a lot of all of those. I'm sure that a lot of these guys can outrun anyone, make great cuts, AND catch the ball in practice, on air. Im sure they look great doing it too. But get them on the road, in front of 100,000 people in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and have them run a short post right at S Mark Barron, and see if they're as successful.

I think it needs to be reiterated that speed is great, if you know how to use it. Somehow, it came to the forefront of discussion in the past few years. Ohio State destroyed Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl. LSU destroyed ND in the Sugar Bowl. Florida destroyed OSU in the national title. LSU did the same to OSU the next year. In these games, there was a noticeable speed difference. But all of the teams knew how to utilize it, and they had players that were born to play the position. Ted Ginn and Santonio Holmes weren't just fast dudes, they were fast dudes who could play WR.

The argument for speed reached an apex when in 2008, during the Beijing olympics, many speculated and wished for Usain Bolt to get an NFL contract. It would certainly be interesting to see, but I would guess that he wouldn't be successful (nor do GMs apparently, as nothing was ever worked out). But if you mention Bolt, the fastest man on the planet, to scouts, coaches, and GMs, and they laugh at his potential to play football, why are they more than willing to take people who are less fast, and have them adapt into a new position as well? It seems that more often than not, it doesnt work. A lot of people move positions. When it works, you hear all about it. When it doesn't, which is more often than not, you never hear about it because you usually never see the person play. And when you have people move positions, and not be successful, but still see playing time, you get LSU's offense as a result.

Les Miles is a better coach than you

The media is a funny thing, and that is an understatement. They have ways of twisting reality, presenting what they want, and going with it. Once you're on their good or bad side, you would have to a hell of a lot to get on the other side. So if Kobe is an awesome basketball players and a "fierce competitor," it doesnt matter that he raped somebody. If Terrell Owens is a terrible teammate and selfish on the football field, it doesnt matter that he received an award in D.C. for

raising Alzheimer's awareness. You get the idea.

Another stereotype that has come across lately is in regards to Les Miles and his "gunslinger," "throw caution to the wind," coaching style. If you asked someone about Les Miles they'd say "hes nuts," "hes an idiot," or "I dont trust him in big games." Other people openly question some plays and decisions hes made - even when they work (more on this later). This is a somewhat interesting point. Think of all the LSU trick plays you have seen in the past 3 years. How many blew up in their face? More often than not, they work. So how does that make him an idiot? It would be like Dr. House constantly thinking of new inventive ways to cure a patient, but never receives credit for being a genius - even in this show, people dont agree with his methods, but they dont ostracize him as a whole, since they realize his greatness.

His record speaks for itself. IN the three years proceeding his arrival at Oklahoma State, the Cowboys were 13-20. In four years there, Miles went 28-21, which included a 4-7 record in his inaugural season. Post Barry Sanders in 1988, OSU had one winning season; in 1997 when they eventually lost to Purdue in the Alamo Bowl. Once Miles showed up, they had 3 in a row. All said, the reason you see Oklahoma State on tv ever nowadays is because of what Miles created.

In his six years at LSU, he is 90-38. Hes won the national title. Hes won a sugar bowl. Hes won 2 peach bowls. In fact, he is 5-1 in bowl games, his lone loss coming against PSU in the Capital One Bowl. Hes 1-1 in SEC title games, and 3-3 vs Arkansas. So thats not stellar, but his bowl game record should eliminate any notion that he is not good in big games. Last year, LSU was 5-2 against ranked teams, the lone losses to Arkansas and #1 Auburn.

But people are still going to criticize his playcalling, clock management, and style. I can't break down and defend every single play, but I will do one. This one, from the 2007 game vs Auburn, drew a lot of attention. The narrative that exists is; "Miles was down 1, they only needed a field goal, and he bombed it with one second left and they miraculously caught it! They got lucky!"

Well, lets look at this all again, and realize that this was actually a really smart fucking play.

LSU has the ball on the 23, 3rd and 7, 40 seconds and ticking left. Mike Patrick, who should not be consulted for any sort of football strategy, assumed that LSU would run the clock down, line up for a field goal, and kick the 40 yard field goal to win the game by 2 as time expires.

But why would you do that? First off, David ended up 6/10 from FG's 40+ yards that year. So, if youre at that point, and you concede the time, let it tick down, and say "were kicking a field goal" you are giving yourself a 60% chance of winning. If you give yourself another play though, you are increasing your chances of winning. Seems simple right?

As Blackledge points out, they tell Flynn "dont take a sack" - okay, he took a quick 5 step drop, turned, and fired. He was in no jeopardy of taking a sack. Then, they say "throw it where only we can catch it." Again, good job. It ended up being a great throw and catch, but they didn't ask Flynn or Byrd to do anything extraordinary. 5 Step drop, 40 yard throw, fly route. Easy. It worked.

Many people would argue - what if it gets intercepted. Well, what are the odds of that happening? First off, the play works in large part due to its surprise factor. LSU got a one on one, which a receiver should win more often than not. So there was no roaming safety help here. Freeze it at :35, and look at Auburn's secondary. Mainly, look at #4, who is lined up on the 16 yard line just below the referee. He, if anyone, would be responsible for help on the bottom half of the field. However, he is playing SIX yards off the line, incredibly short for a safety. Clearly, Auburn was expecting run. His first step on the snap is forward as well, a recipe for disaster. Anyone who ever played football, basketball, outfield in baseball, etc, knows it is a lot easier to go back one step then forward, than it is to take a step in and then retreat.

Now, freeze it at 1:00. The play is already underway (nice replay ESPN), and #4 has already made his initial step. Look how he reacts. Does he move? No. He might as well have not been out on the field on that play. So the answer the question; odds that this particular pass gets intercepted? Slim. The DB on the bottom covering Byrd, who is caught off surprise to a certain extent on his own, would need to get fully turned around, something he never does, and make a terrific play on the ball. All in all, he defended it pretty well, and still had no chance of making an interception. Whatever the actual percentage of an interception is, its much less than David missing the field goal in the first place.

Lets look at it this way. David making FG = 60%. Missing 40%. If you take it on that play alone, then that was LSU's chances of winning and losing the game. Add in the pass, however, with some rough estimates;

Chance its intercepted = 5% Chance its caught 15%. Chance its incomplete. 80%. Those are generous, as I described above. But even under this assumption, we see that, obviously, LSU's chances of winning increases. 5% of the time, they lose on this play, but they would lose 40% of the time on the field goal anyway. 80% of the time, it comes down to the field goal anyway. But 15% of the time, they win. I would think that a good coach would do things that would increase their teams chances to win, and thats what Miles did.

The funniest part of the argument against Miles is that the call occurred with 1 second left. As you can see, LSU snapped it with 8 seconds left, and it was caught with 3 left, then the clock ticked down to 1. So it wasnt a do or die situation. If it was incomplete, then it was incomplete, and they get another play, and would try the FG.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything Tuberville did. If you're winning, you want to shorten the game; why take a time out wiht 40 seconds left, and let LSU draw up a play? Why not put more pressure on LSU? And I agree with LSU, obviously. If you're losing, why purposely take 40 seconds off the clock and leave yourself one play?

Its really this easy. If I told you "youre coaching a team, and youre losing; would you rather have two plays to try and score, or one play?" I think we all know which we would choose. This seemingly logical explanation is somehow lost. Instead, the media looks for cute alternatives, and says "Miles is crazy," or that hes "the mad hatter." Call him an idiot and say wahtever you want, but the truth is, surprise, he knows what the fuck he is doing. LSU is loaded again this year, and I can't wait to see what they do. They open up the season with Oregon in the Cowboys stadium. You think there might be some speed and smoke and mirrors on the display there? Mercy!

America: baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and white wine.

It is no secret that Obama is a White Sox fan. The President has thrown out the first pitch at a 2005 World Series game, wearning a black and white pinstriped "Obama 05" jersey. He wears his White Sox gear with pride, sometimes to the chagrin of MLB. Simultaneously, Obama has made his disdain for the Chicago Cubs well known. In 2008, when asked who he would root for in an all Chicago World Series that ultimately never came close to happening, Obama said: "You go to Wrigley Field, you have a beer, beautiful people up there. People aren't watching the game. It's not serious. White Sox, that's baseball. Southside." Okay, thats fine, and a common criticism of Wrigley. Last year, after Obama was unable to name his favorite White Sox player growing up, Obama offered one more jab at the Wrigley faithful: "And the nice thing about the Sox is it's real blue-collar baseball," Obama said. "We always tease about the Cubs, they, you know, they're up at Wrigley sipping wine …"

This offers a few contentiuous pieces. First off, there is really no difference in style of play that would differentiate the Cubs into white collar, and the Sox into blue collar. Some baseball teams rely more heavily on pitching, others on hitting, but I don't think any team could be categorized as a blue collar team. Football is another discussion, as there is much more variation in style; passing, running, blitzing, zone, spread, I formation, etc, etc. What Obama meant, of course, he couldnt say; that the White Sox fans on the majority are more blue-collar, working class, and minority than the yuppie, white collar businessman, north side Cubs fans.

That is all another story for another day, however (or for my final paper). What was funny at the time, and no longer is, is that Obama mentioned that Cubs fans are up at Wrigley drinking wine. "Wrigley doesn't have wine!" many Cubs fans said in defense of their team and stadium. And of course it doesn't, and Obama didn't mean that literally, but rather as a joke to illustrate how clueless Cubs fans are. Surely, anyone who goes to a baseball game and drinks wine must be a fucking idiot, clueless about the sport, and downright un-American. Baseball = Summer = Hot Dogs & Peanuts = Beer.

So you could imagine my amusement when I heard that AT&T Park, home of the SF Giants, serves sushi and wine. "What a bunch of nerds," I think was my most Politically Correct reaction to the incident. In the end, I chalked it up to being nothing more significant than the Giants being the Giants, living in the hippie capital of the world, and even was nice in the end saying "well, that is wine country." So, fuck the Giants, is what I said.

So today, I'm watching the Red Sox Yankees game. The best rivalry in baseball. The greatest players to play the game. Ted Williams. Babe Ruth. The Mick. Yaz. Pedro. Gehrig. Hideki Irabu. Oops, but you get the idea. This is the home opener for the Red Sox. Fenway Park. The OLDEST stadium in baseball. All the tradition of baseball, Boston, the rivalry, etc, all wrapped up into this opening day.

In the fourth inning, when things settled down after an offensive explosion from both teams, the Red Sox announcers sent it down to some woman who pretends to be a journalist to review the renovations and new ammenities at Fenway park this year. New HD scoreboard. New concourse. And, you guessed it, white wine and sushi. AT FUCKING FENWAY PARK!!!! IS NOTHING SACRED.

I understand we are currently in the era of postmodernism, where anything goes. But have we really fallen that far that we need to have white wine at a baseball game? Can people who go to baseball games really not live if they dont have white wine for three hours? What a bunch of pussies we have become. And if you don't believe me, just ask the President.

Now, of course Obama didn't call anyone a pussy, or even comment on the Red Sox' new menu. BUt, reading between the lines and using the transitive property from 10th grade, we see that Obama says 'Cubs not real baseball/white collar' - 'Cubs sipping white wine' - 'Red Sox Sipping White Wine'. Red Sox are a team with tons of history, and that between them, the Yankees, the Cubs, Pirates, Dodgers, White Sox, and Phillies, defined baseball as we know it. Boston also prides itself on its blue-collar, working class morals. Red Sox fans, Fenway Park, all that shit, having never been, I get the impression is full of blue-collar, hard working, Boston-ites, who want to go cheer on the Red Sox, and have a beer and a famous Fenway Frank. Now, they got fucking white wine and sushi.

What I'm trying to say is, if the Red Sox could be got, anyone could be got. It won't be long before wine, sushi, caviar, lobster tails, and dom perignon are staples at every major league ballpark. We've turned into a nation of "non-fans," non-real-baseball watchers, and pussies. And if he had the ability to do so, Obama would agree with me 100%.

Jereme Richmond, We Hardly knew you

News has broken that Freshman Jereme Richmond is leaving the Illinois Basketball team, heading for the NBA.

The move comes as a surprise to me, as Richmond was anything but excellent in his one year at Illinois. Richmond averaged 7.6 PPG, and 5 rebounds in 22 mins/game. He played his best game at home against Ohio State, where he did show off his athleticism as he ran the floor well, beating Sullinger down the court most times, and posted a season high 18 points. But since that January 22nd game, he scored in double figures only twice.

He did not play against Wisconsin in mid-January because of "personal reasons." He traveled back to his home in Waukegan, and rumors surfaced that he was going to transfer. He of course didnt, but he ended up playing 0 minutes combined against UNLV and Kansas in the NCAA tournament for an "athletic code violation."

All in all, he left no mark or lasting image.

Chad Ford, who I guess is supposedly assuming the role of the Mel Kiper of the NBA, has Richmond ranked as the 45th best prospect. So it isnt as if Richmond is guaranteed a top 5 pick, a lottery pick, or even a first round pick. Again, very strange indeed.

The Lake County News was a little more harsh on Richmond than I am being, quoted as saying, "Richmond wouldn't get picked in the 5th round of the NBA draft," and theres only two rounds.

Illinois was supposed to take the leap last year, with an experienced senior class, and two good consecutive recruiting classes. They didnt. Now, the seniors are gone, and one of the prized freshmen of the latest recruiting class is gone. All in all, Illinois is losing their three leading scorers, and 5 of their top 7. After Richardson and Paul, the best players they have returning are Leonard and Griffey, who each averaged 2 PPG last season.

Could be a long season ahead. And could be Weber's last.

Cubs

Spring. April Showers. Flowers blooming. Jim Nantz' voice as he ruins the Final Four and heads to Augusta. Easter. Bright colors of gold, pink, green, and lavender. And the Cubs fucking sucking ass.

Its great waking up to consecutive twitter texts stating:

Rotoworld_BB: Cubs' Wells to go on DL with Forearm Injury

Rotoworld_BB: Cashner headed to DL with rotator cuff strain.


So if you're keeping score at home, the season is not ONE week old, and the Cubs have already lost a series to Pittsburgh, have a minor but potentially nagging/recurring injury with their 1B and big offseason acquisition, and have 2/5 of their starting rotation on the DL.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

I am not Jim Calhoun's #1 fan. I don't really have anything against him, but I don't have unabashed love for him either. Basically, I can take him or leave him, and I guess that is saying something for someone in the Hall of Fame and three national titles.

But I will come to his defense in this case.

I don't know what the fuck this guy wanted from Calhoun. Ignoring the fact that UConn went on to win the game, the title, and capped off an incredible 11 Game winning streak, let me pose the question: what is the point of a pregame speech? Is it to go in and yell and say nonsensical gibberish just because the camera is on you? Or is it to rehash key points, and maintain the focus of the team? You tell me.

I titled this post "damned if you, damned if you dont," because if it were the opposite, and Calhoun came in and threw a clipboard against the wall and was screaming, I'm sure this blogger would be saying "why does he have to get up for this? no one is buying this! Calhoun is normally reserved, he must have known the cameras were on him," etc. So Calhoun was in a lose-lose situation, which is what happens ANYTIME you allow cameras into the locker room - any sport, any time, any situation. There is nothing good that happens in a locker room that you want broadcasted to the rest of the world, but thats another story.

But, the more I think about, not only do I want to defend Calhoun for being in a lose-lose situation, but I actually want to compliment him. If you listen closely to the speech, its a) pretty good, and b) the Huskies were able to do what he said. If you communicate to your team a list of goals, and tell them they will be successful if they do it, and then they do it, and you are in fact successful, I would imagine that is a pretty good day at the office. UConn was the better team, they did outwork Butler, they did drain Butlers will, etc.

On top of all that, this one minute clip is clearly a small section of the whole pregame locker room routine. That should be obvious regardless, but the blogger attacks Calhoun for concluding on "lets go get them," when he clearly continues to talk after it gets cut off. He has an entire dry erase board devoted to the gameplan, so I don't think he just talked to his team for one minute, and then walked out of the locker room without anymore direction.

It seems as though this blogger was just grasping at straws for a news story in an otherwise uneventful title game. Calhoun didn't throw a big "rah-rah" speech because he didn't have to. If you want to persecute him for his recruiting violations, his looming suspension, or his blow-up a few years back about his annual salary, that is one thing, but criticizing his pregame speech, and this one in particular - one that came before he won his third national title, is one of the dumbest things I ever heard.

That ISNT to say I wouldn't want to hear a pregame or halftime speech from Joe Kine.

Or, a postgame speech from Jim Mora.

Carlos Pena & the Cubs

Great start for Pena and the Cubs. Looking to silence his critics and show that he can hit 35+ bombs in the friendly confines of Wrigley Field, AND hit more than .200, Pena has come out and gone 2 for his first 10, with 0 HRs, (but 3 Walks!) And today, he finds himself on the bench because of a strained thumb. Great start.


Overall, I'm going to hold off on a judgement of the Cubs. I had hope for them at the beginning of the year, and while Pena and Byrd are not off to great starts, I have optimism in the form of Ramirez returning to some sort of a 2004-06 run, and the youth of Castro and Cashner. I don't like how they're continuously juggling their lineup, and dont know if they want to play Baker or Barney, and have a different lead off hitter every single day. These are the type of things I woulda thought would be ironed out during Spring Training. They will certainly need to do better than go 2-2 against the likes of Pitt and Arizona, but as I said, Ill hold off judgement for now.

Title Game and Shitting on Football Recruiting

The National Championship game was a perfect cherry on top to a pretty unremarkable tournament. Disappointing overall. I followed this college basketball season probably the most of any basketball season in years past, the only other year rivaling this year being 2006-07, the second of Florida's consecutive titles. I wrote in a previous post about my disappointment in the tournament, and nothing really changed since then.

I'll certainly give credit to UConn. They played great defense (although Clark Kellogg would think otherwise). They blocked 10 shots, and Butler made 12 shots. Butler went 3-31 from 2pt range.

That is nearly impossible. Pomeroy has noted that that was the worst 2pt FG % by ANY team all year in ANY game. Read that again. Butler turned out the worst 2pt shooting % of any team in any game this year. They finished with .72 points per possession, the lowest for them since 2004. Cynical-H would say: "why did they shoot 46% overall and 44% from 3 against Pitt, the team I had winning it all?" I-dont-want-to-talk-about-basketball-anymore-H would say: "UConn played good defense."

Uconn also closed an incredible run, winning 11 straight games. They won't go down as one of the most memorable title teams, or one of the greatest, but I don't think they really care. They had a 1% chance of winning at the beginning of the tournament. That means, if you got them at any less than 101-1 odds, you're an idiot. Since Vegas doesn't offer that on anyone in the major six conferences, odds are, you got ripped off on your Connecticut to win the national title bet. Odds are though, just like the real UConn team, that you don't give a shit what I have to say, and are probably saying "Im the one cashing the ticket, while you're the one who had BYU at 75-1, and had to hold your breath the whole season and hope that no one on their team had consensual sex with their girlfriend."

In addition to the game, the announcing didnt help. Kerr watched 8 games all year, roughly equivalent to the amount I watch at one time. Jim Nantz was checking his watch to make sure he got to Augusta National in time. And Clark Kellogg somehow adopted Yoda's language patterns and constantly flipped the subject and predicate of the sentence. As is usually the case, I will soon forget about the national title game.

So thats that.

On a lighter note, we are on the college football recruiting trail here. I get caught up in recruiting as much as anyone else, and I know its stupid. I've never seen any of these kids play. Theres a fair chance I won't see a lot of them again. Its even more useless than a preseason poll, as were ranking 17 year olds who haven't fully developed physically or mentally. Despite all this, coaches are hired, fired, and millions of dollars are spent on the ability to recruit.

And we've all heard the stories. We've seen the ESPN 30 for 30 "Pony Excess," (my favorite, ahead of "The U" in terms of enjoyment, while "The Two Escobars" is the best made of them all). Seemingly, every week, a recruiting violation occurs, someone releases information, coaches are on the hot seat for "failure to promote a atmosphere of compliance," or whatever, etc, etc, etc.

But today's news comes from Pullman, WA. Yup, Washington State. The team that has had no relevance since 2001. Did they get the #1 player? No. Did they land a five star? No. Did a recruit pull a Ryan Perriloux, and infamously 'Guarantee he will win four heismans?" No. The news comes from the fact that head coach Paul Wulff took a shit at a recruits house.

This doesn't seem that funny at first. Big deal, the dude had to shit, and after eating a pot of gumbo, I can't say I wouldn't have to do the same. But it got me thinking. And the more I think about it, the funnier it is.

Anytime you have to shit real bad, and again, assuming he ate gumbo and is going to actually go at someone elses house, its safe to say he had to go badly, you always ask your friends about the plumbing situation at their house. Can it handle what you're about to unleash? Where is the toilet paper? Are there candles? Etc. Can you imagine him asking any of these questions?

Or, do you think he just did it casually? Maybe he didn't even have to go that badly at all. Maybe he said "can I use your bathroom?" Got up, walked in, was in there for 15 minutes, and came out.

It also got me thinking about bathroom etiquette in general. The point of this article was that Wulff was able to show how closely-knit of a family they could be by taking a shit in this persons house. THe idea is, if you can shit in your friends place, you must be pretty good friends. Its on par with fridge-privileges, where you could go over to your buddys, and just go into the fridge, and grab a beer/coke without asking. Usually, you still warn people when you're about to shit, you dont just to do it. Youll be watching TV, and say "I gotta shit," but if youre at a good buddys, you wont expect him to say "no, dont!"

This got me to think that shitting in someone elses apartment is a major step. Especially, if you're at a girls house. Now, conventional wisdom has always told me to hold farts in when youre on a date. You cant be watching "10 Things I hate about you," and ripping ass casually. Naturally, you can't do the same as you do with your buddies and say "I gotta shit," get up, go do it, come back, and then engage in an insta-make out sesh. This is well documented, and there is even an early episode of Seinfeld where Costanza has to leave a girl's apartment because the bathroom is too centrally located in the apartment, and hes afraid the smell would be too protruding.

These feelings/attitudes leads us guys to hold in farts at all times. This leads to growling stomachs and discomfort. Often times, it gets to be that a fart is on the brink of exiting, and the slightest movement will cause it to escape. Any relaxation will cause it to escape. Because of this, you cant do anything. And if you're ever getting a blab jab, theres nothing worse than having to hold in your farts, cause there would be nothing worse than letting one loose while she's sucking on yo thang.

But what if you could just go shit without fear of repercussions? Im not saying be gross or repugnant with it. Dont bare butt fart the chick. But what if you did do the, "where is your bathroom," go in there, and do it. Would you consider doing this on a first date? Why not? If Wulff can do it and still land the recruit, why wouldn't you be able to do it on a first date? I'm sure* the woman will see things the same way that the recruit did; laugh about it, think it was funny, and think it was a great bonding experience. If she does, it could be significant move/step for your young/developing relationship.

* By 'sure' I mean 'I have no idea.'

Well see if this method works for Wulff. He is 5-32 at Wazzu. Two of those five wins are against DivisionII teams. These highlights are from Wazzu's 2008 season, Wulff's first, where they went 2-11, his second best record at Wazzu (to last years 2-10 campaign). In other words, shitting in people's houses can only help.

Neil Everett

Neil: "Lets be honest, you want Connecticut Stanford in the championship, just like you wanted Connecticut Tennessee in the final four."

Me: "lets be honest, no one watches or gives a fuck about the womens final four. And it took me a couple of seconds to even figure out what you were talking about since you didnt introduce it and acted like it was a real news story."

Football Playoff

The talk of a football playoff has been around for a while. It was brought up in 1999 when the BCS formed, it is brought up every time someone gets screwed, it is brought up every time Boise or TCU or another minor conference team does well, and even Obama, in his need to weigh in on every single thing under the sun, has expressed his opinion on it. Now, with the NCAA Basketball tournament going on, and VCU set to face Butler, many have started talking about how a football tournament would work.

Before I establish some ground rules of how it would work, let me be perfectly honest. I have, in the past, been against a playoff. I feel that it would ruin the regular season of football (Feldman agrees with me, to a certain extent).

I still feel this way, but I am warming up to the idea of a playoff. I will reach a conclusion as I go through the ground rules.

- I agree with Feldman in that it would have to be 8 teams or less. For one, football is not basketball. You cannot play multiple times a week. Going to eight teams means adding two games, and thus, two weeks. In a world full of concussions, injuries, and allegedly interest in academics and learning (or at least pretending to care about those things), adding two more games IS PLENTY. Therefore, we can already scrap Dodd's propsoal of a 16 game tourney, (although I will reference this article many times to make fun of Dodd).

-There will always be argument over who should be in. If here are four teams, there will be debate over the fifth team in (this year it would be oregon, auburn, and tcu, but you could easily argue Wisconsin vs Stanford!). If it is eight teams, you will argue who the eighth team should be. How do I know this? Look at the fucking basketball tournament. People, including myself, spend months arguing over who should be the last team into that tournament, and that has 68 teams! We sit here and say "No Way! Colorado and Alabama are way better than UAB and USC!), when 99% of the time, it doesnt matter; the other 1% is VCU.

- I would not automatically invite the conference champions. So again, Dodd's plan is kaput. Not only is it kaput, its fucking idiotic. No one said it has to work exactly like basketball, and invite every conference champion. And I know that people say "theres no way Hampton is going to beat Iowa State," or "theres no way that VCU is going to make the final four," but there would be no way that FIU would beat Auburn, or that any Sun Belt champion ever would beat the #1 team in the nation.

Why? Again, football is a different sport. The difference in athleticism between an SEC team and a Sun Belt team is more noticeable in football than it is in basketball. Also, football requires that players stay for 3+ years. I think that one of the equalizing factors for a lot of mid majors is their teams' chemistry and experience, where as the more traditional powers often times see their talent leave early for the NBA. Thats just a hunch though. The difference in athleticism is for real.

- Teams/conferences should not complain about not getting invited, since they already have a better chance than they do now. This may make sense and be obvious, but I can see it being a problem, and may actually be why Dodd invited everyone.

Say you're Virginia Tech last year. VT had no business being in the national championship game, and no one is arguing that, including VT people. VT wasn't one of the four best teams going into the bowl games last year. Again, no one is arguing that, although someone from their constituents could probably make some half ass claim otherwise. Therefore, if there was a four team playoff last year, no one should lose any sleep about VT not being invited, right?

I don't know if it would necessarily play out that way though, all because of conference affiliation/pride. I have a hard time believing that the ACC (or whoever it would be for any example any year), would sit idlely and be left out. Currently, only two teams and two conferences play for a title. BUT, the BCS takes care of everyone else. Therefore, this year the Big10 still made out pretty well, despite not having a team that had any chance of winning the championship. If you make the change, you're going to lose money, and thats what this is all about. Right now, the 6 BCS conferences are guaranteed money. So while the teams in the Sugar Bowl may not be playing for the title, they are getting paid. If you change the format, and make a four game tournament, now, all of a sudden, what are Ohio State and Arkansas playing for? They can still play on a neutral. It can still be a great game. The atmosphere may be the same, but they and their conferences wont get paid the same.

Despite what anyone tells you, this is the #1 reason why there isn't a playoff to this date. Isn't it interesting that this has all of a sudden become an issue that is discussed in Washington and congress? Well, go back through the history of this, and see which senators are proposing a playoff.........it isn't senators from any states such as Alabama, Ohio, California, Florida, but states like Utah and Idaho. Hmmmmmm, didnt those states recently have public universities in which their football teams did pretty well, but had to settle for minor BCS bowl victories?????


That all being said, I would not mind if there were a four team tournament....no more. These debates usually come down to 3 teams anyway. THis accomplishes a few things, and prevents a few others:

Let's say Arkansas was a top 8 team last year (they were 8th in the BCS going into the bowls). THis prevents Arkansas from winning the national championship. Does this sound unfair? It shouldnt. Why? Because Arkansas lost to Alabama and Auburn in the regular season. Tough shit, you should have won. If they had, they would have been in the real national championship. Critics of the tournament (including myself) feel that the tournament would take away from the importance of every single regular season game. Going to eight teams might; it wouldn't matter that Auburn beat Arkansas by 22 points in the regular season, because now, they would play again on a neutral field. As we see in basketball, the more teams you invite, the more likely someone unlikely is going to go far. The more likely it is that somone unlikely goes far, the more you delegitimize the regular season; if that makes sense.

But if you stick to four, you can see that there isn't a lot of bitching and moaning. The top 4 last year would have been Aubrun, Oregon, TCU, Stanford. Again, Wisconsin would argue that they deserve to be in there, but again, I would argue that they wouldnt be in a title game under the old rules, so tough shit. Now, critics of non-BCS schools criticize their soft schedule. If TCU went undefeated, and then beat Oregon and Auburn in consecutive weeks, I don't think anyone could argue against them being the national champion. It wouldnt be the same situation as VCU in basketball. You hear that Dodd? It WOULDNT. It does NOT deligitamize the regular season, because you still have to do a lot to make the top 4, and that is something that is hard earned.

I would go back and give the top four for every single year of the BCS, but I'm about to leave work. Instead, I will go back one year, to 2009-10. The top four was Alabama, Texas, Cincinatti, and TCU. Dodd proposes the question "would you be ready for Cinci to win the title?" Well, they went 12-0 in 2009. They ended up losing by a lot to Florida in the Sugar Bowl. BUT. If they went 12-0. And then they beat Texas, and then Alabama, then...FUCK YES, I would have no problem saying they are the national champion.

THis is what he doesnt understand. Just because a team isnt a traditional power doesnt mean they are undeserving. VCU is not a traditional power, AND they lost a lot of games this year, finished 4th in the CAA, and etc, etc.... Cinci is not a traditional football power, but they went 12-0 during the season, and under this hypothetical, they would be 14-0 with two more incredible wins. That, to me, is totally deserving of a national championship. By the way, in 2009, Florida finished 5th - no crying there, they shoulda beat Alabama in the SEC title (who played a perfect game IMO).

So, there you have it. I'm all for a four team playoff. I switched sides. Now, we just need all the execs to figure out how to make more money off of it than they do now to implement it.


Clip of the Day? When you're pressed for time, just go to your bread and butter.......Musburger, Rose Bowl, Great Game, and the all time best announcing call at 6:23.