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.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Monday, April 4, 2011
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.
Friday, April 1, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)