Can someone please explain to me WHY Jurich keeps always going "out west" hiring coaching staffs that have NO vested interest in UL, when there are very good coaches who lived and played in Louisville?
Why did TJ IMMEDIATELY without any hesitation go after a coach with huge question marks about his capability, (at least I had question marks about him), instead of at least looking at the coaching staffs like at FAU where you have guys like Howard Schnellenberger, Gary Nord and Johnny Frost who would have been a GREAT fit for UL, and guys who have galvanized the fan base instead of fracturing it?
I know that UL is looking for a DC and Frost is not anywhere close to being capable of taking over a position like that, but what about getting one of the best LB's the University of Louisville has ever had, back here to coach a DL or a LB corps that was pretty weak under the current position coaching staff?
In retrospect, TJ has made some great "temporary" hires for UL football, but has he really made the RIGHT hires? I love John L Smith, he is a great guy, and a good HC, Petrino is, and was, a phenominal offensive mind, but during their tenures not ONCE did UL look to "promote from within" or look to "groom" future asst coach's by bringing in guys who have close ties to not only the university but also the community.
I am just getting more and more confused why the ONLY coach'es UL EVER wants to talk to about positions at UL are always coach'es that have never lived, worked or coached east of the Mississippi river prior to coming to UL.
It just seems disingenuous to all of those who have given so much to the UL football program in the past to not even be considered for positions at the school and community where they gave so much.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
FAU's "Old Warrior" still undefeated
Howard Schnellenberger, the Phoenix of college football, once again resurrected in a bowl game last night orchestrating a bowl victory with fledgling Florida Atlantic University football team, and stayed undefeated in post-season bowl games by completely dominating Memphis in the R+L Carriers New Orleans bowl.
In Boca Raton, they very affectionately refer to Schnellenberger as the "Old Warrior". And it aptly applies.
FAU, with a coaching staff HEAVY of assistants from the University of Louisville, plays a very tough, physical brand of football, which for 10 years we UL fans saw and loved. An NFL pro-style offense, using 2-back sets and an attacking passing attack, with a very physical running style; and a base 4-3 defense with huge fundamental emphasis on TACKLING as opposed to hard-hits. And if FAU's practices are anything like they were at UL, you can bet that game performance is the "EASY" part of a players week.
Schnellenberger has proven that pro-style offense with a physical defense can win at EVERY level of collegiate competition. From winning national championships at Miami University and playing on the biggest stages in college football, to selling just the CONCEPT of football with zero players to recruits at FAU. Not too mention what all UL fans know he accomplished at UL.
But Schnellenberger is more than just a throwback style brand of football. The man himself is a complete anathema to EVERY college coach in the nation. Schnellenberger THRIVES on challenge. It is literally the lifeblood of his heart. This is a man that LEFT Miami University AFTER winning a national championship there to come to UL to try and build a program that was all but dropped from competitive play back in 1994. And then, decided, (after a disastrous stint at Oklahoma where the fans and alumni there NEVER understood him), to build from literally NOTHING a football program in the heart and on the figurative doorsteps of the university where he won a national championship many years ago.
In an era of college football where we see coach's changing jobs every other year for ever increasing exhorbitant amounts of cash, where "loyalty" and "support of the coach" is DEMANDED of the fan base to support a head coach, REGARDLESS of the product they put on the field or their ever-wandering eye, here you have a coach that has a longer tenure at the schools he has been affiliated with than 90% of all the coaching staffs out there, but at the same time has taken positions that most former HC's would consider an INSULT, or a joke, if even mentioned as a job opportunity!
We praise HC's like Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno for staying with their respective universities so long; but would either of even THOSE guys have walked away from Miami after winning a national championship, NOT to take higher paying job, or a more prestigious job, but to breath life into a program at UL that had barely seen any success playing at the top level of college football? And NOT for money! Let's face it, had it been about money, Schnellenberger might even have been MICHIGAN'S number 1 pick at this point in his career, and even at his age. Because Schnellenberger could have stayed at Miami and won at least several MORE national championships there. And would be making a ton more dollars than he is right now at FAU.
As UL fans we owe a lot to Schnellenberger, and through that I was cheering as loud as I could last night for the FAU Owls to bring home their first bowl victory in their first bowl game ever, for a HC that I think deserves to at least be considered for nomination into the college football HOF.
In Boca Raton, they very affectionately refer to Schnellenberger as the "Old Warrior". And it aptly applies.
FAU, with a coaching staff HEAVY of assistants from the University of Louisville, plays a very tough, physical brand of football, which for 10 years we UL fans saw and loved. An NFL pro-style offense, using 2-back sets and an attacking passing attack, with a very physical running style; and a base 4-3 defense with huge fundamental emphasis on TACKLING as opposed to hard-hits. And if FAU's practices are anything like they were at UL, you can bet that game performance is the "EASY" part of a players week.
Schnellenberger has proven that pro-style offense with a physical defense can win at EVERY level of collegiate competition. From winning national championships at Miami University and playing on the biggest stages in college football, to selling just the CONCEPT of football with zero players to recruits at FAU. Not too mention what all UL fans know he accomplished at UL.
But Schnellenberger is more than just a throwback style brand of football. The man himself is a complete anathema to EVERY college coach in the nation. Schnellenberger THRIVES on challenge. It is literally the lifeblood of his heart. This is a man that LEFT Miami University AFTER winning a national championship there to come to UL to try and build a program that was all but dropped from competitive play back in 1994. And then, decided, (after a disastrous stint at Oklahoma where the fans and alumni there NEVER understood him), to build from literally NOTHING a football program in the heart and on the figurative doorsteps of the university where he won a national championship many years ago.
In an era of college football where we see coach's changing jobs every other year for ever increasing exhorbitant amounts of cash, where "loyalty" and "support of the coach" is DEMANDED of the fan base to support a head coach, REGARDLESS of the product they put on the field or their ever-wandering eye, here you have a coach that has a longer tenure at the schools he has been affiliated with than 90% of all the coaching staffs out there, but at the same time has taken positions that most former HC's would consider an INSULT, or a joke, if even mentioned as a job opportunity!
We praise HC's like Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno for staying with their respective universities so long; but would either of even THOSE guys have walked away from Miami after winning a national championship, NOT to take higher paying job, or a more prestigious job, but to breath life into a program at UL that had barely seen any success playing at the top level of college football? And NOT for money! Let's face it, had it been about money, Schnellenberger might even have been MICHIGAN'S number 1 pick at this point in his career, and even at his age. Because Schnellenberger could have stayed at Miami and won at least several MORE national championships there. And would be making a ton more dollars than he is right now at FAU.
As UL fans we owe a lot to Schnellenberger, and through that I was cheering as loud as I could last night for the FAU Owls to bring home their first bowl victory in their first bowl game ever, for a HC that I think deserves to at least be considered for nomination into the college football HOF.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Louisville signs 8 JUCO football recruits...
'Tis the season...the season of scrambling to fix holes and find quick fixes for all of those teams sitting at home this holiday season and not running through practices and drills getting ready for their post-season bowl games.
For the first time in 10 years, UL is sitting at home this season, even though the did reach .500 with a 6-6 record to become bowl eligible. But based on the team play this season, it would have been a perverse sense of justice if UL had gone to a bowl game.
Instead, Kragthorpe and remaining coaches have been scrambling to sign as many JUCO players as they can to fill some holes, to hopefully get UL back to a bowl game next season.
To be sure, UL has found numbers in the JUCO ranks, which they believe will help next season. But the truth is, JUCO transfers are at best a 50-50 shot at being impact players, and even less of a chance of being impact players their first eligible season.
Oh, I have no problem with UL getting JUCO's. UL has a very good history with them. No, I just prefer to err on the side of caution, rather than put the moniker of "UL IS BACK" on the team just yet.
But since it is the holiday season, let me put my wishes to song, in the spirit of the holiday season:
Oh come all UL faithful, hopeful but regretful, oh come ye, oh come ye to JUCO relief!
Come and be thankful, thankful for signing some talent.
Talent that will help us, talent that will help us, talent that will help us...
or so we think!
For the first time in 10 years, UL is sitting at home this season, even though the did reach .500 with a 6-6 record to become bowl eligible. But based on the team play this season, it would have been a perverse sense of justice if UL had gone to a bowl game.
Instead, Kragthorpe and remaining coaches have been scrambling to sign as many JUCO players as they can to fill some holes, to hopefully get UL back to a bowl game next season.
To be sure, UL has found numbers in the JUCO ranks, which they believe will help next season. But the truth is, JUCO transfers are at best a 50-50 shot at being impact players, and even less of a chance of being impact players their first eligible season.
Oh, I have no problem with UL getting JUCO's. UL has a very good history with them. No, I just prefer to err on the side of caution, rather than put the moniker of "UL IS BACK" on the team just yet.
But since it is the holiday season, let me put my wishes to song, in the spirit of the holiday season:
Oh come all UL faithful, hopeful but regretful, oh come ye, oh come ye to JUCO relief!
Come and be thankful, thankful for signing some talent.
Talent that will help us, talent that will help us, talent that will help us...
or so we think!
MLB is taken to task by.....PETE ROSE?...
This week, Pete Rose, an icon to many major league baseball fans, and a pariah of the MLB front offices; made statements about the recent release of the Mitchell Report and the subsequent "outing" of many MLB players who were named in the report for taking steroids, HGH and other performance enhancing drugs.
Pete Rose, in a statement the other day said that players who have used steroids or other PED's are "making a mockery" of baseball.
Yes, this is Pete Rose talking. The current and still leader in MLB history for career hits, the leader of the 1970's "Big Red Machine" that won several World Series, AND the SAME Pete Rose that was banned for life from the sport for gambling on baseball.
Honestly, I actually think that Pete Rose is actually right and has a point. I als think Rose has been given the shaft by MLB for years, and I think he SHOULD be given a pardon and be allowed to be voted on for HOF membership. But come on, Pete Rose talking about how players using drugs makes a mockery of baseball? That is just laughable at best. What Pete Rose SHOULD be saying, is to tell those very same players, (guys like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada, among others), that what they NEED to do is fess up, come clean, and ask for forgiveness.
The problem that EVERYONE had with Pete Rose, is exactly the SAME problem many fans have with sterioid and PED users in baseball. That being that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, they all want to deny everything. Ya' know what? THAT pisses fans off and alienates them from the players faster than anything else. But if those same players were to come out, admit they did use those drugs, but did not know what the consequences of those drugs were, (let's face it, back when these guys were accused of taking the drugs, we really did not know what they would or could do...nor even how dangerous they were.)
Look we all make mistakes, we all have used bad judgement. But at least Pettitte is showing SOME type of honor about his involvement, and is looking more and more the pitiable victim than a blatant cheater. That is the lesson that Pete Rose apparently has not learned.
Fans will forgive players, we WANT to forgive players, but we do NOT want to be made out to be dupes and look like idiots. The "court of public opinion" is what is at stake here, because none of the drugs used are criminal acts. So the ONLY risk these players will be taking is the risk that some fans will never forgive them. But you know what? MOST fans will. If given the chance. And that is something that Rose never really "got". Let's hope that the players named in the Mitchell report do learn that lesson.
Pete Rose, in a statement the other day said that players who have used steroids or other PED's are "making a mockery" of baseball.
Yes, this is Pete Rose talking. The current and still leader in MLB history for career hits, the leader of the 1970's "Big Red Machine" that won several World Series, AND the SAME Pete Rose that was banned for life from the sport for gambling on baseball.
Honestly, I actually think that Pete Rose is actually right and has a point. I als think Rose has been given the shaft by MLB for years, and I think he SHOULD be given a pardon and be allowed to be voted on for HOF membership. But come on, Pete Rose talking about how players using drugs makes a mockery of baseball? That is just laughable at best. What Pete Rose SHOULD be saying, is to tell those very same players, (guys like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada, among others), that what they NEED to do is fess up, come clean, and ask for forgiveness.
The problem that EVERYONE had with Pete Rose, is exactly the SAME problem many fans have with sterioid and PED users in baseball. That being that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, they all want to deny everything. Ya' know what? THAT pisses fans off and alienates them from the players faster than anything else. But if those same players were to come out, admit they did use those drugs, but did not know what the consequences of those drugs were, (let's face it, back when these guys were accused of taking the drugs, we really did not know what they would or could do...nor even how dangerous they were.)
Look we all make mistakes, we all have used bad judgement. But at least Pettitte is showing SOME type of honor about his involvement, and is looking more and more the pitiable victim than a blatant cheater. That is the lesson that Pete Rose apparently has not learned.
Fans will forgive players, we WANT to forgive players, but we do NOT want to be made out to be dupes and look like idiots. The "court of public opinion" is what is at stake here, because none of the drugs used are criminal acts. So the ONLY risk these players will be taking is the risk that some fans will never forgive them. But you know what? MOST fans will. If given the chance. And that is something that Rose never really "got". Let's hope that the players named in the Mitchell report do learn that lesson.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Mitchell report nothing new, only confirming....
After literally sitting down and reading nearly 75% of the Mitchell report last night, (yeah, I REALLY did download and read about 300 of the 409 pages of it...I am either sick and deranged or completely insane...well, I guess a case can be made for all 3), nothing in this report is in any way revelation or new from what most of us suspected. Most of the information presented is either 2nd hand, 1st person statements, or circumstantial evidence. So, what is the big deal? This report, (even though it concentrates only on Major League Baseball), for the first time ever, has confirmed and quantified just how insidious and pervasive the abuse of drugs is in all sports at every level. Something all of us knew, but chose to ignore. We can no longer afford to ignore it.
Sure, several of the names mentioned might surprise us, but I do not care at ALL about the names of the individuals, which so many in the media seem to be focused on, as the overall message this report sends. And that message is not only shocking in its scope but also very telling about the culture we have created for our athletes and sports.
What many media outlets are seeming to completely overlook, or at least are not reporting as being highly disturbing, is the overwhelming depth that MLB has had with regard to steroid, HGH, and other performance enhancing drugs, (referred to in this blog as PED for brevity). According to this report, of the 30 or so teams in MLB not a SINGLE team in the entire league was left untouched by the use of PED's by players. And at EVERY level, EVERYONE knew about it. If this were an NCAA football or basketball program where money in FedEx packages where being sent to athletes, EVERY fan in the nation would be up in arms for the NCAA to issue the "death penalty" to that program for lack of institutional control. It is obvious that in MLB, when it comes to PED use there is NO institutional control at all, and by not having control, condoning such activity.
IMHO, there are several major issues with the use of PED's by athletes.
1) First and foremost for me is the lack of outrage by the fans of baseball. The "integrity of the game" is NOT the issue. The issue is that what this behavior says is that it absolutely "legitimizes" for every 8-18 year old out there, that it is "ok" to junk up as long as you do it for your sport, because you can make millions of dollars at it. Or win Olympic gold medals and national praise, (see Marion Jones for exhibit 1A). You may not agree, but I defy you to argue that point. Where are those sanctimonious MADD people over THIS issue, or other groups like them, huh? So much for this whole "war on drugs" issue. "Don't do pot or crack, Johnny those drugs can kill you! But it's ok to use PED's, because that just makes you bigger and stronger." And do NOT give me that crap that these are not "dangerous" drugs. Just this YEAR we already know of one football player and one former pro wrestler who respectively died of leukemia and of suicide and all evidence suggested that steroids played a role in their deaths. Not even to mention the VERY well publicized account of former NFL player Lyle Alzado who just before his death let the world know that his cancer could be directly linked to his steroid use, which he did not know at the time was deadly. How can any parent sit in the stands and say, "Hey, all athletes are doing are taking PED's. It does not make any difference, so who cares?", while at the same time telling their CHILDREN not to smoke pot? Parents of kids who play sports are hypocrits and enablers of this behavior as well, unless they take a stand.
2) This report is literally just the tip of the iceberg. I completely agree with Mitchell that should not take any punitive action against the players mentioned even those currently still playing, like expunging records, or HOF induction...because the issue is even DEEPER than that. As the report noted not a single team in MLB was uneffected by this, so if you only punish those mentioned in the report, based on pretty much circumstantial evidence, how do you go after and deal with those guys who have NOT been mentioned or implicated? If MLB just throws those 20 or so active players under the bus, they are doing NOTHING to address the problem. Only placating the media at best.
3) Selig said that this report was a "call to action", well, if the action taken is anything LESS than the action taken regarding gambling, (i.e. one violation and you are banned from baseball for life), then maybe they SHOULD cancel the entire season next year! If for no other reason that hypocracy.
4) This issue is FAR worse than ANYTHING gambling could do, and far worse that anything Pete Rose did. What Rose did was a SINGLE individual, what the Black Sox did was a singular team and event. The use of performance enhancing drugs effects EVERY team, and I still believe better than 60% of ALL current players today. That is epidemic levels.
The use of PED's goes FAR beyond Major League Baseball. This IS a "drug abuse" issue at the very core. And we, as fans, as coach's, as franchise owners, as MEDIA reporters, are ALL to blame for creating a culture that says it is OK to take drugs, as long as you just THINK it helps you play the game better. I do not want to get into the debate of whether taking PED's does or does not enhance an athlete's skill or talent. The point is they BELIEVE it does, whether that is true or not. You can argue about whether it does or not, that is completely a moot point. The fact is, as I stated, the ATHLETE believes it does. And is that not the essence of "addiction"? That you MUST take a drug to "keep that high", or more accurately in this case, "keep or gain that edge". The use of PED's is, IMHO, 100% equal to the use of crack or powder cocaine or even heroine. Drug abuse is drug abuse whether you are smoking crack or injecting yourself with HGH, if you believe you MUST have it, because you can not perform without it. And in the case of PED's, the pressure of athletes to compete, by being bigger, stronger, faster, is breeding a culture of addicts.
There are legitimate medical reasons for athletes taking steroids, as I said. I get that. But it is the abuse of that legitimate use that is the insidious part of the culture in sports that we have all been enablers to. Yet, there is NOT the public outrage over the use of PED's. And nothing like there is over the use of even something like marijuana. Think about it, suppose that your son or daughter playing a HS sport started to believe that smoking pot would give them a greater advantage to playing their sport. REGARDLESS of whether it was true or not. If they believe it will give them the edge, would you allow them to take it? Would it be "ok" for our professional athletes to do it? Again, do NOT give me that crap about how pot is WORSE than PED's. I have already given you several examples that these drugs when used to excessive levels WILL be deadly. THAT is scientific fact.
It seems that the media, MLB, and even many fans want to punish the "few" who were caught, instead of addressing the real problem, and facing the problem for what it really is. That problem can be stated very simply.
THE USE OF PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS IS DRUG ABUSE.
And we need to address it as such.
Sure, several of the names mentioned might surprise us, but I do not care at ALL about the names of the individuals, which so many in the media seem to be focused on, as the overall message this report sends. And that message is not only shocking in its scope but also very telling about the culture we have created for our athletes and sports.
What many media outlets are seeming to completely overlook, or at least are not reporting as being highly disturbing, is the overwhelming depth that MLB has had with regard to steroid, HGH, and other performance enhancing drugs, (referred to in this blog as PED for brevity). According to this report, of the 30 or so teams in MLB not a SINGLE team in the entire league was left untouched by the use of PED's by players. And at EVERY level, EVERYONE knew about it. If this were an NCAA football or basketball program where money in FedEx packages where being sent to athletes, EVERY fan in the nation would be up in arms for the NCAA to issue the "death penalty" to that program for lack of institutional control. It is obvious that in MLB, when it comes to PED use there is NO institutional control at all, and by not having control, condoning such activity.
IMHO, there are several major issues with the use of PED's by athletes.
1) First and foremost for me is the lack of outrage by the fans of baseball. The "integrity of the game" is NOT the issue. The issue is that what this behavior says is that it absolutely "legitimizes" for every 8-18 year old out there, that it is "ok" to junk up as long as you do it for your sport, because you can make millions of dollars at it. Or win Olympic gold medals and national praise, (see Marion Jones for exhibit 1A). You may not agree, but I defy you to argue that point. Where are those sanctimonious MADD people over THIS issue, or other groups like them, huh? So much for this whole "war on drugs" issue. "Don't do pot or crack, Johnny those drugs can kill you! But it's ok to use PED's, because that just makes you bigger and stronger." And do NOT give me that crap that these are not "dangerous" drugs. Just this YEAR we already know of one football player and one former pro wrestler who respectively died of leukemia and of suicide and all evidence suggested that steroids played a role in their deaths. Not even to mention the VERY well publicized account of former NFL player Lyle Alzado who just before his death let the world know that his cancer could be directly linked to his steroid use, which he did not know at the time was deadly. How can any parent sit in the stands and say, "Hey, all athletes are doing are taking PED's. It does not make any difference, so who cares?", while at the same time telling their CHILDREN not to smoke pot? Parents of kids who play sports are hypocrits and enablers of this behavior as well, unless they take a stand.
2) This report is literally just the tip of the iceberg. I completely agree with Mitchell that should not take any punitive action against the players mentioned even those currently still playing, like expunging records, or HOF induction...because the issue is even DEEPER than that. As the report noted not a single team in MLB was uneffected by this, so if you only punish those mentioned in the report, based on pretty much circumstantial evidence, how do you go after and deal with those guys who have NOT been mentioned or implicated? If MLB just throws those 20 or so active players under the bus, they are doing NOTHING to address the problem. Only placating the media at best.
3) Selig said that this report was a "call to action", well, if the action taken is anything LESS than the action taken regarding gambling, (i.e. one violation and you are banned from baseball for life), then maybe they SHOULD cancel the entire season next year! If for no other reason that hypocracy.
4) This issue is FAR worse than ANYTHING gambling could do, and far worse that anything Pete Rose did. What Rose did was a SINGLE individual, what the Black Sox did was a singular team and event. The use of performance enhancing drugs effects EVERY team, and I still believe better than 60% of ALL current players today. That is epidemic levels.
The use of PED's goes FAR beyond Major League Baseball. This IS a "drug abuse" issue at the very core. And we, as fans, as coach's, as franchise owners, as MEDIA reporters, are ALL to blame for creating a culture that says it is OK to take drugs, as long as you just THINK it helps you play the game better. I do not want to get into the debate of whether taking PED's does or does not enhance an athlete's skill or talent. The point is they BELIEVE it does, whether that is true or not. You can argue about whether it does or not, that is completely a moot point. The fact is, as I stated, the ATHLETE believes it does. And is that not the essence of "addiction"? That you MUST take a drug to "keep that high", or more accurately in this case, "keep or gain that edge". The use of PED's is, IMHO, 100% equal to the use of crack or powder cocaine or even heroine. Drug abuse is drug abuse whether you are smoking crack or injecting yourself with HGH, if you believe you MUST have it, because you can not perform without it. And in the case of PED's, the pressure of athletes to compete, by being bigger, stronger, faster, is breeding a culture of addicts.
There are legitimate medical reasons for athletes taking steroids, as I said. I get that. But it is the abuse of that legitimate use that is the insidious part of the culture in sports that we have all been enablers to. Yet, there is NOT the public outrage over the use of PED's. And nothing like there is over the use of even something like marijuana. Think about it, suppose that your son or daughter playing a HS sport started to believe that smoking pot would give them a greater advantage to playing their sport. REGARDLESS of whether it was true or not. If they believe it will give them the edge, would you allow them to take it? Would it be "ok" for our professional athletes to do it? Again, do NOT give me that crap about how pot is WORSE than PED's. I have already given you several examples that these drugs when used to excessive levels WILL be deadly. THAT is scientific fact.
It seems that the media, MLB, and even many fans want to punish the "few" who were caught, instead of addressing the real problem, and facing the problem for what it really is. That problem can be stated very simply.
THE USE OF PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS IS DRUG ABUSE.
And we need to address it as such.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Petrino stikes again!.....
And the circus clown that is football coach Bobby Petrino is at it again. I have say, that if you are in the sports media business you have to LOVE this guy! Bobby Petrino gives you more fodder for copy than just about any high-profile coach today. And that is saying something, compared to the "colorful" characters and ethical fiber of guys like Nick Saban and Kelvin Sampson. When your actions make THOSE guys look good by comparison, you have begun setting a new high-water mark. This guy is more of a "drama queen" for the sports news than Britney Spears is for the paparazzi!
Petrino's abrubt and surprising resignation from the Atlanta Falcons just days after being given a large vote of confidence and show of support from Falcon's owner Arthur Blank, shows just how egocentric and fragile this guy's self-esteem really is.
No doubt that Petrino was given a very tough hand a few months after becoming the Falcon's HC. First the whole Vick fiasco which took away the best offensive weapon the Falcon's had; short-handed on NFL talent, then injuries then dissension and finally just outright mutiny by the players, left Petrino with absolutely nothing to work with.
But to leave the team under cover of deception with still 3 games remaining is FAR worse for Petrino, than it would have been had he tried to stick it out and finish the season. The reason is that without question, Petrino will now be labeled as a "quitter". And rightfully so. He quit the franchise, the fans, the players and most importantly, his boss who had faith in him. That is inexcusable, and Petrino's days as an NFL HC are completely ended, IMHO. What owner would take a chance on him now?
I have very little doubt, based on Petrino's past dalliances that he always wanted to be an SEC HC. To be literally worshiped by a rabid fan base that regardless of your ethics will not care what you as HC, or your players do, as long as you win. And win BIG!
If you do not think that being an HC in the SEC was Petrino's REALL "dream", then here are some very real past clues.
1) The first year as HC for UL, Petrino had a "secret" meeting with Auburn university to replace CURRENT HC, and his former boss Tommy Tuberville as Auburn's HC.
2) When the Auburn deal fell through, Petrino tried turning Louisville into "Auburn north", but instituting several pre-game ceremonies that Auburn had as their traditions. Hence the implementation of the now known, "Card March", which was based on Auburn pre-game walk by the players into the stadium.
3) The well publicized dance with LSU when Nick Saban scoffed and ran to the NFL Miami Dolphins.
There were indications from day one about his desire to be an SEC HC. But to walk away from the NFL, not only when he did, but HOW he did, just screams of a guy that has absolutely no clue about life, and has not only an over-inflated opinion of himself, but is a coward to boot.
Make no mistake, Bobby Petrino is a very, very good football offensive mind. And he WILL succeed at Arkansas, and his teams will be very strong and efficient. However, he has now proven to be something that no other HC has thought about being. A "quitter".
Petrino's abrubt and surprising resignation from the Atlanta Falcons just days after being given a large vote of confidence and show of support from Falcon's owner Arthur Blank, shows just how egocentric and fragile this guy's self-esteem really is.
No doubt that Petrino was given a very tough hand a few months after becoming the Falcon's HC. First the whole Vick fiasco which took away the best offensive weapon the Falcon's had; short-handed on NFL talent, then injuries then dissension and finally just outright mutiny by the players, left Petrino with absolutely nothing to work with.
But to leave the team under cover of deception with still 3 games remaining is FAR worse for Petrino, than it would have been had he tried to stick it out and finish the season. The reason is that without question, Petrino will now be labeled as a "quitter". And rightfully so. He quit the franchise, the fans, the players and most importantly, his boss who had faith in him. That is inexcusable, and Petrino's days as an NFL HC are completely ended, IMHO. What owner would take a chance on him now?
I have very little doubt, based on Petrino's past dalliances that he always wanted to be an SEC HC. To be literally worshiped by a rabid fan base that regardless of your ethics will not care what you as HC, or your players do, as long as you win. And win BIG!
If you do not think that being an HC in the SEC was Petrino's REALL "dream", then here are some very real past clues.
1) The first year as HC for UL, Petrino had a "secret" meeting with Auburn university to replace CURRENT HC, and his former boss Tommy Tuberville as Auburn's HC.
2) When the Auburn deal fell through, Petrino tried turning Louisville into "Auburn north", but instituting several pre-game ceremonies that Auburn had as their traditions. Hence the implementation of the now known, "Card March", which was based on Auburn pre-game walk by the players into the stadium.
3) The well publicized dance with LSU when Nick Saban scoffed and ran to the NFL Miami Dolphins.
There were indications from day one about his desire to be an SEC HC. But to walk away from the NFL, not only when he did, but HOW he did, just screams of a guy that has absolutely no clue about life, and has not only an over-inflated opinion of himself, but is a coward to boot.
Make no mistake, Bobby Petrino is a very, very good football offensive mind. And he WILL succeed at Arkansas, and his teams will be very strong and efficient. However, he has now proven to be something that no other HC has thought about being. A "quitter".
Thursday, December 6, 2007
A different alternative to the BCS debacle....
A couple of days ago I wrote that I believe there is a REAL solution to the entire BCS/post-season bowl/regular season integrity debate. But before laying that out, I wanted to lay out the two sides of the debate about the whole issue of the BCS vs Playoff.
We all know the arguments for and against a playoff format. BCS proponents talk about retaining the integrity of the bowl system, about how the regular season IS the playoffs, and post season debate about who should be playing in the championship game keeps the sport front page sporting news. The university presidents talk about how the preparation and games in a playoff would hurt the students academics and artificially lengthen their seasons. Playoff proponents talk about how the current system is unjust, and does not reflect any type of true winner, and how the system is designed to be all about conferences gobbling up as much as they can in dollars from the bowl system to create incredible financial gaps between the "haves" and "have nots".
We know all of those, we have heard all SORTS of comprising solutions. But one. And that one is not even MY idea. It comes from, of all sources, the ORIGINATOR of the whole BCS system, and the orchestrator of the SEC's dominance of post-season bowl berths. None other than Roy Kramer.
His idea was that the whole concept of Division I-A football, (NOW stupidly called the Football Bowl Subdivision, (FBS)), had two major flaws.
At first thought you might think, HELL NO! No WAY that would work. So did I....at first. But the more I thought about it, the more I not only liked the idea, (no, I LOVED the idea), and I began to figure out how such a machine might work, keeping in mind such things as traditional rivalries, traditional affiliations, post-season bowl games, regular season integrity and importance, length of regular season, other sports (like basketball and other olympic sports, although by no means does this mean that the schools MUST participate in equally distributed sports offerings, nor even necessarily mean that schools that do not participate in certain sports be forced out or in), and even how the makeup of this conference might change if a school is failing in such areas as minimum attendance figures, academic progress, even probation or NCAA sanctions for impropriety acts by a member institution.
To keep things as brief as possible for this blog entry, I will only deal today with the top-level issue. What that conference makeup might look like, how it might work, and how it is setup and managed. The other issues I will deal with either if there is enough interest, or maybe bring this whole issue back up during the "dog days" of summer.
For now, here is a first pass at how this "Super-80" conference would be structured.
The conference could be setup with 8 regions with 2 divisions per region and 5 schools/teams in each division. This sets up the members for not only a very balanced scheduling pattern, but also a very flexible one, even more so than they have today. And in every way, puts MORE emphasis on the importance of the regular season, than it does on the post season actually. Which you will see in a moment. (Although, I have thought about 10 regions of 8 teams with 2 divisions, that has interesting dynamics also.)
First, how does the scheduling work? With each region being split into 8 regions with 10 teams each, in sports such as football, every school in that region would play each other for a total of 9 "regional" football games, and then 3 "out of region" football dates to schedule. In each region, and at the end of the regular season, the two top teams in each "division" of each "region" would play in "regional" championship game, (not a bowl game, but like the conference championship games today that the ACC, SEC and B-12 have), to determine the 8 "regional" champions. Those 8 "regional" champions then would play in 4 major bowl games, (in this case, the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange) bowls; keeping in mind the "integrity" of the bowl games and their traditions. (For example, in the new makeup, two of the new "regions" could be made up almost entirely of the existing members from both the PAC-10 and the Big-10 and those two regional winners would ALWAYS play in the Rose bowl.)
Now, here is the interesting part. We literally COULD end things right there and actually go BACK to the old pre-BCS way of determining the national champions. That being by using the AP and/or Coach's poll for the champion. What is interesting about that, is that the ONLY controversy then would be who of the top 4 is the #1 team in the nation. And if at some point down the road, this "Super 80 conference" decided it WANTED to play two more games to determine the national champion in football, it could do so. A two game playoff, is FAR more easy to put in place and attain "buy in" than any other type of compromise situation.
But what about the money distribution and the other post-season bowl games? What about all of those other bowl games out there, who plays in those? You could STILL have those! BUT, ALL of the money from every bowl game that the Super-80 conference plays in, all gets pooled into a pot and distributed to all members in the conference, with bonus to those teams that are top 16, top 8 and top 4 at the end of the bowl post-season. (again, this is too long to discuss in this one blog, so we can do that some other time.)
But what about the other "money" sports like basketball? Ah, even MORE cool, IMHO than football. With 10 teams in each region, basketball would play a true "round-robin" 18 game regional schedule, and then follow a post-season playoff format to determine the Super-80 conference champion. (Guess what? This just might end up being bigger than the NCAA tournament, even though you could STILL play that. And the money would stay in the conference.) But again, another discussion too long for this single blog entry.
So, what would this Super-80 conference look like? What schools would make up that conference? As I noted, some of the schools might be in flux, but here is my take on one possible makeup of schools, while trying to retain as MANY of the "traditional" rivalries and geographical interest as possible. (you may have to scroll down quite a bit to see the table, because this blog forum does not handle html table tags very well. My apologies.)
Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg of the discussion. And I only wanted to put this out there for posterity and comment. There are MANY questions and considerations about such a proposal, and believe me, since I first heard about this over 10 years ago, I have thought of a lot of them, and thought through them. As this blog goes forward, I will try to come back to this topic, if there is interest, and address those. For now, that's the idea.
We all know the arguments for and against a playoff format. BCS proponents talk about retaining the integrity of the bowl system, about how the regular season IS the playoffs, and post season debate about who should be playing in the championship game keeps the sport front page sporting news. The university presidents talk about how the preparation and games in a playoff would hurt the students academics and artificially lengthen their seasons. Playoff proponents talk about how the current system is unjust, and does not reflect any type of true winner, and how the system is designed to be all about conferences gobbling up as much as they can in dollars from the bowl system to create incredible financial gaps between the "haves" and "have nots".
We know all of those, we have heard all SORTS of comprising solutions. But one. And that one is not even MY idea. It comes from, of all sources, the ORIGINATOR of the whole BCS system, and the orchestrator of the SEC's dominance of post-season bowl berths. None other than Roy Kramer.
His idea was that the whole concept of Division I-A football, (NOW stupidly called the Football Bowl Subdivision, (FBS)), had two major flaws.
- It was divisive among the 'top' power conferences causing them to not work together
- It was incredibly TOO large
At first thought you might think, HELL NO! No WAY that would work. So did I....at first. But the more I thought about it, the more I not only liked the idea, (no, I LOVED the idea), and I began to figure out how such a machine might work, keeping in mind such things as traditional rivalries, traditional affiliations, post-season bowl games, regular season integrity and importance, length of regular season, other sports (like basketball and other olympic sports, although by no means does this mean that the schools MUST participate in equally distributed sports offerings, nor even necessarily mean that schools that do not participate in certain sports be forced out or in), and even how the makeup of this conference might change if a school is failing in such areas as minimum attendance figures, academic progress, even probation or NCAA sanctions for impropriety acts by a member institution.
To keep things as brief as possible for this blog entry, I will only deal today with the top-level issue. What that conference makeup might look like, how it might work, and how it is setup and managed. The other issues I will deal with either if there is enough interest, or maybe bring this whole issue back up during the "dog days" of summer.
For now, here is a first pass at how this "Super-80" conference would be structured.
The conference could be setup with 8 regions with 2 divisions per region and 5 schools/teams in each division. This sets up the members for not only a very balanced scheduling pattern, but also a very flexible one, even more so than they have today. And in every way, puts MORE emphasis on the importance of the regular season, than it does on the post season actually. Which you will see in a moment. (Although, I have thought about 10 regions of 8 teams with 2 divisions, that has interesting dynamics also.)
First, how does the scheduling work? With each region being split into 8 regions with 10 teams each, in sports such as football, every school in that region would play each other for a total of 9 "regional" football games, and then 3 "out of region" football dates to schedule. In each region, and at the end of the regular season, the two top teams in each "division" of each "region" would play in "regional" championship game, (not a bowl game, but like the conference championship games today that the ACC, SEC and B-12 have), to determine the 8 "regional" champions. Those 8 "regional" champions then would play in 4 major bowl games, (in this case, the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange) bowls; keeping in mind the "integrity" of the bowl games and their traditions. (For example, in the new makeup, two of the new "regions" could be made up almost entirely of the existing members from both the PAC-10 and the Big-10 and those two regional winners would ALWAYS play in the Rose bowl.)
Now, here is the interesting part. We literally COULD end things right there and actually go BACK to the old pre-BCS way of determining the national champions. That being by using the AP and/or Coach's poll for the champion. What is interesting about that, is that the ONLY controversy then would be who of the top 4 is the #1 team in the nation. And if at some point down the road, this "Super 80 conference" decided it WANTED to play two more games to determine the national champion in football, it could do so. A two game playoff, is FAR more easy to put in place and attain "buy in" than any other type of compromise situation.
But what about the money distribution and the other post-season bowl games? What about all of those other bowl games out there, who plays in those? You could STILL have those! BUT, ALL of the money from every bowl game that the Super-80 conference plays in, all gets pooled into a pot and distributed to all members in the conference, with bonus to those teams that are top 16, top 8 and top 4 at the end of the bowl post-season. (again, this is too long to discuss in this one blog, so we can do that some other time.)
But what about the other "money" sports like basketball? Ah, even MORE cool, IMHO than football. With 10 teams in each region, basketball would play a true "round-robin" 18 game regional schedule, and then follow a post-season playoff format to determine the Super-80 conference champion. (Guess what? This just might end up being bigger than the NCAA tournament, even though you could STILL play that. And the money would stay in the conference.) But again, another discussion too long for this single blog entry.
So, what would this Super-80 conference look like? What schools would make up that conference? As I noted, some of the schools might be in flux, but here is my take on one possible makeup of schools, while trying to retain as MANY of the "traditional" rivalries and geographical interest as possible. (you may have to scroll down quite a bit to see the table, because this blog forum does not handle html table tags very well. My apologies.)
| Region One | Region Two | Region Three | Region Four |
| A Division | A Division | A Division | A Division |
| Syracuse | Memphis | UNC | Miami |
| Boston College | Louisville | Duke | South Florida |
| Notre Dame | Tennessee | Wake Forest | Central Florida |
| Navy | Kentucky | East Carolina | FSU |
| Rutgers | Vanderbilt | NC State | Florida |
| B Division | B Division | B Division | B Division |
| Virgina Tech | West Virginia | Clemson | Auburn |
| Maryland | Marshall | S. Carolina | Alabama |
| Army | Cincinnati | Georgia Tech | Ole Miss |
| Virginia | Penn State | Georgia | Miss State |
| UConn | Pittsburgh | MTSU/WKU | Southern Miss |
| Next four regions | |||
| Region Five | Region Six | Region Seven | Region Eight |
| A Division | A Division | A Division | A Division |
| Indiana | Iowa | Texas | Washington |
| Purdue | Iowa St. | Texas Tech | Washington St. |
| Ohio State | Kansas | Texas A&M | Oregon |
| Michigan | Kansas St. | TCU | Oregon St. |
| Michigan St. | Nebraska | Houston | Stanford |
| B Division | B Division | B Division | B Division |
| Illinois | Oklahoma | Colorado | Southern Cal |
| Northwestern | Oklahoma St. | Colorado St. | UCLA |
| Wisconsin | Arkansas | BYU | Arizona |
| Minnesota | LSU | Utah | Arizona St. |
| Missouri | Tulane | Air Force | California |
Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg of the discussion. And I only wanted to put this out there for posterity and comment. There are MANY questions and considerations about such a proposal, and believe me, since I first heard about this over 10 years ago, I have thought of a lot of them, and thought through them. As this blog goes forward, I will try to come back to this topic, if there is interest, and address those. For now, that's the idea.
Detroit Tigers team to beat in AL Central in 08?
As if the AL Central was not ALREADY tough enough, the Detroit Tigers just upped the ante on both the Twins and the Indians.
1 season removed from their World Series appearance, the Tigers completed a HUGE deal with the Marlins in an 8 player trade that will not only put them solidly as the #1 favorite to win the AL Central next season, but also will give Tigers fans a major reason to expect to contend for both the AL pennant and the possibly a World Series championship.
The Tigers trade deal included sending very talented Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller, along with 4 other prospects to Florida in exchange for BOTH left-handed hard throwing Donte' Willis and power hitter Miquel Cabrera who led the Marlins last year in HR's, (34), and was 2nd on the team in batting percentage, (.320).
The Red Sox are taking their time though in looking to acquire Santana from the Twins. If the Twins lose Santana, the Twins, IMHO, will have no shot at even getting 2nd place in the AL Central, much less winning it. But if the BoSox get Santana, and after re-signing Mike Lowell, you have to think that the Sox are the odds-on favorite to win the AL, even if the Tigers make a serious run at them.
The Dodgers just scored big in their quest for the NL West title by picking up Andru Jones from the Atlanta Braves. This will be a huge shot in the arm for a club that hand good pitching but suffered down the stretch to get runs across the plate with runners in scoring position.
1 season removed from their World Series appearance, the Tigers completed a HUGE deal with the Marlins in an 8 player trade that will not only put them solidly as the #1 favorite to win the AL Central next season, but also will give Tigers fans a major reason to expect to contend for both the AL pennant and the possibly a World Series championship.
The Tigers trade deal included sending very talented Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller, along with 4 other prospects to Florida in exchange for BOTH left-handed hard throwing Donte' Willis and power hitter Miquel Cabrera who led the Marlins last year in HR's, (34), and was 2nd on the team in batting percentage, (.320).
The Red Sox are taking their time though in looking to acquire Santana from the Twins. If the Twins lose Santana, the Twins, IMHO, will have no shot at even getting 2nd place in the AL Central, much less winning it. But if the BoSox get Santana, and after re-signing Mike Lowell, you have to think that the Sox are the odds-on favorite to win the AL, even if the Tigers make a serious run at them.
The Dodgers just scored big in their quest for the NL West title by picking up Andru Jones from the Atlanta Braves. This will be a huge shot in the arm for a club that hand good pitching but suffered down the stretch to get runs across the plate with runners in scoring position.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
BCS bowls...what to watch, and not watch.....
I admit it...I am a college football junkie. I am sure there are many of you out there. With the regular season behind us, and no games this weekend, I am sure many of us want to rend clothing, cry, and anything we can do as an excuse from going to the mall. Yes, is that time of year that is the most stress-filled part of our collective American culture and existence. I am talking about the Thanksgiving-Christmas-New Years holidays.
Yes, that time of year when all thoughts turn to....alcohol, sugar and caffeine. When you put large groups of people you hardly know into small spaces, get them all honked up on a buzzed laced, sugar rush, drunk high and expect them to get along. Like THAT is gonna happen......NOT! That type of comaraderie ONLY happens in the confines of your home team's stadium.
BUT, we have a solution fellow junkies! We do NOT need a self-help group. Why? Because we have 32 post-season bowl games to get us through. We can take refuge in our "man cave's" and bask in the warm glow of TV radiation, while we blissfully listen to the sound of bone crushing hits and QB's that bark out signals the way that a mall shopper does when grabbing that last Elmo. BTW, it is perfectly legitimate to be a woman and have a "man cave" for sports. I know several that do. Man cave's are gender neutral, but they all must have the same ambiance to them. You know what I mean. That dank, dark, musty smell that can only come from socks and spilled beer. It just gives you that "warm, fuzzy" feeling. Of course that could be just mold....but I digress.
Having said all of that though, I have to say, in all my 30 years of watching post season bowl games, NONE of them leave me as flat and disinterested as the BCS championship game this year. LSU vs Ohio State. Color me UN-impressed and completely bored.
There is no interest there are at all for me. And even though that game will be the only spoting event played on a Monday night in January, I will probably not watch it. Oh, I'll look up the stats and the score the next day, feign surprise about the winner and shock about the poor officiating. But the bottom line is, I just simply could NOT care less about that game. It is not even in my top 5 bowl games to watch this season. Maybe not in the top 10!
But there are a few that are absolutely "must watch" games, IMHO. As we get closer to the start of the games, I will add some detail, but for now, here are a few that I will NOT be missing regardless.
1) Hawai'i vs Georgia. This is going to be a VERY fun game. As good as UGa is, the speed of the Rainbow Warriors and that oddball passing attack will not be stopped. This game could be the highest scoring game of the post-season bowls. I expect this will be a video game score. And a LOT of fun to watch.
2) UCF vs Miss State. If you have not seen the RB for UCF this season, then you have missed something special. Kevin Smith is not only the leading rusher AND the leading scorer in the nation, but also now holds the all-time rushing yards in a season. The kid is just a phenom, and the best player you have never heard of. Too bad the Heisman voters have never heard of him either.
3) Southern Miss vs Cincinnati. This is a personal favorite of mine this season. It might not be a great game, but a great story. Two old conference foes going back at it in a bowl game.
4) Indiana vs Oklahoma State. How can this NOT be a 'must watch' game. With all that this IU team has struggled with to get to 7 wins and reach a bowl game, which was the goal of their coach who passed away over the summer, and their adopted 'MOM', who is their coach's widow. This may be the best "story" bowl game to watch.
5) Utah vs Navy. The big interest here is that with UL looking for a DC, one of the possible candidates for that position could be the Utes DC, Gary Anderson. And wouldn't that be interesting seeing as he is basically 2-0 vs Kragthorpe, as well as having beaten UL at PJCS this season.
I have other matchups and games to go over, but I am running out of time right now. I'll review some games in depth as they get closer. Like that Dec 20th matchup between Utah and Navy.
Yes, that time of year when all thoughts turn to....alcohol, sugar and caffeine. When you put large groups of people you hardly know into small spaces, get them all honked up on a buzzed laced, sugar rush, drunk high and expect them to get along. Like THAT is gonna happen......NOT! That type of comaraderie ONLY happens in the confines of your home team's stadium.
BUT, we have a solution fellow junkies! We do NOT need a self-help group. Why? Because we have 32 post-season bowl games to get us through. We can take refuge in our "man cave's" and bask in the warm glow of TV radiation, while we blissfully listen to the sound of bone crushing hits and QB's that bark out signals the way that a mall shopper does when grabbing that last Elmo. BTW, it is perfectly legitimate to be a woman and have a "man cave" for sports. I know several that do. Man cave's are gender neutral, but they all must have the same ambiance to them. You know what I mean. That dank, dark, musty smell that can only come from socks and spilled beer. It just gives you that "warm, fuzzy" feeling. Of course that could be just mold....but I digress.
Having said all of that though, I have to say, in all my 30 years of watching post season bowl games, NONE of them leave me as flat and disinterested as the BCS championship game this year. LSU vs Ohio State. Color me UN-impressed and completely bored.
There is no interest there are at all for me. And even though that game will be the only spoting event played on a Monday night in January, I will probably not watch it. Oh, I'll look up the stats and the score the next day, feign surprise about the winner and shock about the poor officiating. But the bottom line is, I just simply could NOT care less about that game. It is not even in my top 5 bowl games to watch this season. Maybe not in the top 10!
But there are a few that are absolutely "must watch" games, IMHO. As we get closer to the start of the games, I will add some detail, but for now, here are a few that I will NOT be missing regardless.
1) Hawai'i vs Georgia. This is going to be a VERY fun game. As good as UGa is, the speed of the Rainbow Warriors and that oddball passing attack will not be stopped. This game could be the highest scoring game of the post-season bowls. I expect this will be a video game score. And a LOT of fun to watch.
2) UCF vs Miss State. If you have not seen the RB for UCF this season, then you have missed something special. Kevin Smith is not only the leading rusher AND the leading scorer in the nation, but also now holds the all-time rushing yards in a season. The kid is just a phenom, and the best player you have never heard of. Too bad the Heisman voters have never heard of him either.
3) Southern Miss vs Cincinnati. This is a personal favorite of mine this season. It might not be a great game, but a great story. Two old conference foes going back at it in a bowl game.
4) Indiana vs Oklahoma State. How can this NOT be a 'must watch' game. With all that this IU team has struggled with to get to 7 wins and reach a bowl game, which was the goal of their coach who passed away over the summer, and their adopted 'MOM', who is their coach's widow. This may be the best "story" bowl game to watch.
5) Utah vs Navy. The big interest here is that with UL looking for a DC, one of the possible candidates for that position could be the Utes DC, Gary Anderson. And wouldn't that be interesting seeing as he is basically 2-0 vs Kragthorpe, as well as having beaten UL at PJCS this season.
I have other matchups and games to go over, but I am running out of time right now. I'll review some games in depth as they get closer. Like that Dec 20th matchup between Utah and Navy.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
the Big East busts, and the BCS should be next
We now have the THE perfect storm and the perfect nightmare for the BCS folks. We went into this week with no teams from the top 6 conferences being undefeated, however, no one was questioning the legitimacy of the teams sitting in the top two spots. Missouri and WVU. But with both of those teams losing, one getting throttled by a very good Oklahoma team for the second time in the season and the other pulling one of the greatest choke jobs you will ever see; the BCS standings and who plays for the BCS championship is completely turned upside down.
First, let's talk about WVU and their loss. WVU losing to Pitt did more to hurt the Big East than they did to themselves. WVU will still go to a BCS bowl game, and will likely be able to put themselves back on track and win that game. But the damage they did the Big East by losing to Pitt, IN MORGANTOWN, after being a 4 TD favorite and on national TV, will once again bring back all of the talk about the Big East not being "deserving" of an automatic bid to BCS games. All of those detractors will start coming out of the woodwork again. It was not even important that WVU WIN the BCS champ game, but to GET to it would have completely solidified and legitimzed the BE as both deserving and as a conference that truly is one of the elite. If you want proof of that, look to the ACC where since the expansion there, all but ONE season two former Big East teams have played for the ACC title. And this year was no exception. Former Big East teams have completely DOMINATED the ACC since that expansion, proving just how tough the Big East truly was....and still is. But that will not get noticed.
As for the BCS nightmare, well, the biggest single problem(s), they have are the two teams sitting the #4 and #5 spots in the Nov 25th BCS poll. Those two teams are Georgia and Kansas. With both Mizzou and WVU losing, ONE of those teams will almost positively move into that BCS #2 spot. Not by virtue of what they did on the field, but by what someone else did not do. But that alone is not the issue. The issue is, how can a team play for the BCS championship game, when NEITHER of those two teams were "good enough" to even attempt to play for their CONFERENCE championship, much less win their conference.
But here is the REAL problem that the "playoff proponents" have and that the BCS apologist always point to. In a playoff system it is ALSO possible that a non-conference champion could be playing for a national title. Unless, of course, you only include the conference champs. But then you have as big a mess as before, with bickering as to one conference being "deserving" while another one is not. I do think there is a solution to this, but it would not make ANYONE happy. And believe it or not the orchestator of the BCS, Kramer, is the one that had the answer, IMHO. A SINGLE 80 team conference. I will put a blog entry up about that some day. But for now, just know that a playoff would not solve this dilemma entirely. To prove that, look at the FCS, (formerly Div I-AA), championships where 3 of the top #1 seeds are out of the playoffs, and are NOT competing for the FCS title.
That is the BCS nightmare they have to face. The problem is, can Va Tech, who is the ACC champ, and sitting in the #6 spot of the BCS, over take both Georgia and Kansas to play for the BCS champ title? At least that way with Ohio State and Va-Tech, you would have two teams that WON their conferences!
If the BCS puts either Georgia or Kansas in the BCS title game, we will hear the biggest uproar for some type of playoff system than we have ever heard before. Not to mention it will be a DOG of a TV game to watch. Who would watch it, other than the fans of those teams?
Add to that, that the AP poll will almost 100% assuredly pick a different team as the #1 team in the nation and we will once again, have a split national championship. Something that the BCS was created to alleviate.
This season is the biggest nightmare for the BCS since it was created. And now the BCS apologists are going to have to come up with yet ANOTHER "tweak" to the system to try and make it work.
First, let's talk about WVU and their loss. WVU losing to Pitt did more to hurt the Big East than they did to themselves. WVU will still go to a BCS bowl game, and will likely be able to put themselves back on track and win that game. But the damage they did the Big East by losing to Pitt, IN MORGANTOWN, after being a 4 TD favorite and on national TV, will once again bring back all of the talk about the Big East not being "deserving" of an automatic bid to BCS games. All of those detractors will start coming out of the woodwork again. It was not even important that WVU WIN the BCS champ game, but to GET to it would have completely solidified and legitimzed the BE as both deserving and as a conference that truly is one of the elite. If you want proof of that, look to the ACC where since the expansion there, all but ONE season two former Big East teams have played for the ACC title. And this year was no exception. Former Big East teams have completely DOMINATED the ACC since that expansion, proving just how tough the Big East truly was....and still is. But that will not get noticed.
As for the BCS nightmare, well, the biggest single problem(s), they have are the two teams sitting the #4 and #5 spots in the Nov 25th BCS poll. Those two teams are Georgia and Kansas. With both Mizzou and WVU losing, ONE of those teams will almost positively move into that BCS #2 spot. Not by virtue of what they did on the field, but by what someone else did not do. But that alone is not the issue. The issue is, how can a team play for the BCS championship game, when NEITHER of those two teams were "good enough" to even attempt to play for their CONFERENCE championship, much less win their conference.
But here is the REAL problem that the "playoff proponents" have and that the BCS apologist always point to. In a playoff system it is ALSO possible that a non-conference champion could be playing for a national title. Unless, of course, you only include the conference champs. But then you have as big a mess as before, with bickering as to one conference being "deserving" while another one is not. I do think there is a solution to this, but it would not make ANYONE happy. And believe it or not the orchestator of the BCS, Kramer, is the one that had the answer, IMHO. A SINGLE 80 team conference. I will put a blog entry up about that some day. But for now, just know that a playoff would not solve this dilemma entirely. To prove that, look at the FCS, (formerly Div I-AA), championships where 3 of the top #1 seeds are out of the playoffs, and are NOT competing for the FCS title.
That is the BCS nightmare they have to face. The problem is, can Va Tech, who is the ACC champ, and sitting in the #6 spot of the BCS, over take both Georgia and Kansas to play for the BCS champ title? At least that way with Ohio State and Va-Tech, you would have two teams that WON their conferences!
If the BCS puts either Georgia or Kansas in the BCS title game, we will hear the biggest uproar for some type of playoff system than we have ever heard before. Not to mention it will be a DOG of a TV game to watch. Who would watch it, other than the fans of those teams?
Add to that, that the AP poll will almost 100% assuredly pick a different team as the #1 team in the nation and we will once again, have a split national championship. Something that the BCS was created to alleviate.
This season is the biggest nightmare for the BCS since it was created. And now the BCS apologists are going to have to come up with yet ANOTHER "tweak" to the system to try and make it work.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
the real tragedy of Sean Taylor....
This article does not have much to do with anything related to local sports in and around the Louisville area. However, there is a very sad lesson to be learned from the Sean Taylor tragedy that needs to be discussed.
If you had followed the career of Sean Taylor you know about the trouble he has had not just in the years growing up in some very rough areas of Miami, FL; but also even the problems the surrounded him when he had reached the pinnacle of his success to play a sport at the highest level in the NFL. To sum up in a very quick form, Taylor had problems in the NFL almost from day 1. Some of those issues were minor - such as skipping out on the NFL's rookie symposium, for which he was fined $25,000. There was also a $17,000 fine for spitting at Tampa Bay's Michael Pittman during a playoff game two years ago.
The most serious incident occurred in June 2005, when he was arrested and charged with felony assault after authorities said he pointed a gun at three men outside a house in West Perrine, a rough neighborhood south of Miami, and accused them of stealing two all-terrain vehicles from him.
After a plea bargain, which put him on probation and included community service and charitable gift donations, he still was not the model citizen.
The real change in Taylor's behavior came after the birth of his daughter. That single event changed him in ways that only that event could have. After the birth of his child, he did become the model citizen, both on and off the field. He became humble in his off-field dealings with the media and his coaches. Joe Gibbs, (Head Coach for the Washington Redskins), once said to media, that Taylor would cradle the baby in his arms as he carried her into Redskin Park and "you just knew how much that baby meant to him. I could see (that) maturing process (that happens) when you get a first child."
In the 2006 season, (the same year his daughter was born in May of that year), not only did Taylor's demeanor and attitude change, but also his level of play jumped up. That season he not only was named the Redskin's Defensive player of the year, but also made and played in the NFL Pro Bowl. He also started distancing himself from some very bad, and criminal "friends" that he had known growing up. This was a clear indication that he was changing, and for the better. During some Pro-Bowl game interview, Taylor was quoted as saying:
"I just take this job very seriously. It's almost like you play a kid's game for a king's ransom. And if you don't take it serious enough, eventually one day you're going to say, 'Oh, I could have done this; I could have done that.'
"So I just say, 'I'm healthy right now, I'm going into my fourth year and why not do the best that I can?' And that's whatever it is, whether it's eating right or training myself right, whether it's studying harder - whatever I can do to better myself."
At the time, media people claimed he was "downplaying" the importance of the Pro Bowl. Personally, I think he was putting football and his career in the right perspective.
The real tragedy of Sean Taylor's death is that he will never get to see the one factor in his life that was his turning point to his own maturation ever again. His daughter.
If you had followed the career of Sean Taylor you know about the trouble he has had not just in the years growing up in some very rough areas of Miami, FL; but also even the problems the surrounded him when he had reached the pinnacle of his success to play a sport at the highest level in the NFL. To sum up in a very quick form, Taylor had problems in the NFL almost from day 1. Some of those issues were minor - such as skipping out on the NFL's rookie symposium, for which he was fined $25,000. There was also a $17,000 fine for spitting at Tampa Bay's Michael Pittman during a playoff game two years ago.
The most serious incident occurred in June 2005, when he was arrested and charged with felony assault after authorities said he pointed a gun at three men outside a house in West Perrine, a rough neighborhood south of Miami, and accused them of stealing two all-terrain vehicles from him.
After a plea bargain, which put him on probation and included community service and charitable gift donations, he still was not the model citizen.
The real change in Taylor's behavior came after the birth of his daughter. That single event changed him in ways that only that event could have. After the birth of his child, he did become the model citizen, both on and off the field. He became humble in his off-field dealings with the media and his coaches. Joe Gibbs, (Head Coach for the Washington Redskins), once said to media, that Taylor would cradle the baby in his arms as he carried her into Redskin Park and "you just knew how much that baby meant to him. I could see (that) maturing process (that happens) when you get a first child."
In the 2006 season, (the same year his daughter was born in May of that year), not only did Taylor's demeanor and attitude change, but also his level of play jumped up. That season he not only was named the Redskin's Defensive player of the year, but also made and played in the NFL Pro Bowl. He also started distancing himself from some very bad, and criminal "friends" that he had known growing up. This was a clear indication that he was changing, and for the better. During some Pro-Bowl game interview, Taylor was quoted as saying:
"I just take this job very seriously. It's almost like you play a kid's game for a king's ransom. And if you don't take it serious enough, eventually one day you're going to say, 'Oh, I could have done this; I could have done that.'
"So I just say, 'I'm healthy right now, I'm going into my fourth year and why not do the best that I can?' And that's whatever it is, whether it's eating right or training myself right, whether it's studying harder - whatever I can do to better myself."
At the time, media people claimed he was "downplaying" the importance of the Pro Bowl. Personally, I think he was putting football and his career in the right perspective.
The real tragedy of Sean Taylor's death is that he will never get to see the one factor in his life that was his turning point to his own maturation ever again. His daughter.
Monday, November 19, 2007
TV sports giving the "shaft" to fans
This past weekend, for the third time this season, UL broadcast its weekly football game on ESPNU. That in and of itself is not worth noting. But what is worth noting is that in the Louisville area, only 10% of all households actually get ESPNU as an option on their cable TV service offered by Insight Communications. That does not include the satellite TV people, however, because I could not find out those numbers.
I happen to be one of the 90% that does not get this channel. Why? Because, quite frankly, it is stupid for me to pay a monthly charge for digital TV service and then an additional monthly charge on top of that, all in addition to my current monthly cable bill, expressly JUST to get a single channel. No matter HOW bad I want to watch the game. Or in this specific instance, the 3 games a year I want to watch.
This all started me thinking about how in recent years, sports TV broadcasting has really started screwing the "Top Row Joe" sports fan. And it is NOT just restricted to ESPN only.
As a result I started doing some research to see just how bad this problem really was and to see if it was just me that was being unfair. When I came across this article written by a CNNMoney columnist.
Cable's Fight with NFL, Big 10 leave fans in the dark
If you read the linked article the author does a wonderful job of outlining just how insidious the two sides are about your viewing dollar. And this will only get worse. More and more we will see big business entities like the NFL and NCAA conferences venture into the area of media broadcasting. And that will put more and more fans into the streets, (literally), trying to find a venue to watch their teams or favorite sports.
But as the article points out, there actually IS a solution, IF the cable companies and the sports businesses want to work it out. That being what MLB did with the cable companies and worked out a joint venture partnership, where the cable companies literally have ownership in the channel broadcast. And, as noted in the article, the cable companies now have a vested interest in providing that channel as part and parcel to the BASIC cable packages offered. If you do not believe that to be true, then read the article where it points out that Comcast was VERY quick to provide "free" to basic cable subscribers the "Golf Channel". (And personally I can think of NOTHING more boring that 24/7 of golf. But hey, that's just me.)
So, there is a solution. The problem is, it will likely never be decided by the cable and sports entities. It will likely be decided by Washington and the FCC. If that happens, I guarantee you that the sports fan like you and me will end up getting even more screwed in the process than we are now. And those powerful cable TV and sports lobbyists will see to that.
I happen to be one of the 90% that does not get this channel. Why? Because, quite frankly, it is stupid for me to pay a monthly charge for digital TV service and then an additional monthly charge on top of that, all in addition to my current monthly cable bill, expressly JUST to get a single channel. No matter HOW bad I want to watch the game. Or in this specific instance, the 3 games a year I want to watch.
This all started me thinking about how in recent years, sports TV broadcasting has really started screwing the "Top Row Joe" sports fan. And it is NOT just restricted to ESPN only.
As a result I started doing some research to see just how bad this problem really was and to see if it was just me that was being unfair. When I came across this article written by a CNNMoney columnist.
Cable's Fight with NFL, Big 10 leave fans in the dark
If you read the linked article the author does a wonderful job of outlining just how insidious the two sides are about your viewing dollar. And this will only get worse. More and more we will see big business entities like the NFL and NCAA conferences venture into the area of media broadcasting. And that will put more and more fans into the streets, (literally), trying to find a venue to watch their teams or favorite sports.
But as the article points out, there actually IS a solution, IF the cable companies and the sports businesses want to work it out. That being what MLB did with the cable companies and worked out a joint venture partnership, where the cable companies literally have ownership in the channel broadcast. And, as noted in the article, the cable companies now have a vested interest in providing that channel as part and parcel to the BASIC cable packages offered. If you do not believe that to be true, then read the article where it points out that Comcast was VERY quick to provide "free" to basic cable subscribers the "Golf Channel". (And personally I can think of NOTHING more boring that 24/7 of golf. But hey, that's just me.)
So, there is a solution. The problem is, it will likely never be decided by the cable and sports entities. It will likely be decided by Washington and the FCC. If that happens, I guarantee you that the sports fan like you and me will end up getting even more screwed in the process than we are now. And those powerful cable TV and sports lobbyists will see to that.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
UL MUST win vs USF for bowl bid?
I have been looking at UL's chances of getting a bowl bid if UL goes 6-6 this season, and quite frankly, it is NOT good. I think UL MUST reach 7 wins to go to a bowl game this year.
Before I explain why I think that, let's step back and look at the six BCS conference bowl tie-in's. Including the BCS bowl game, but not the BCS champ game.
Big East: 5 bowl games
Pac-10: 6 bowl games
Big 12: 8 bowl games
Big 10: 7 bowl games
SEC: 8 bowl games
ACC: 8 bowl games
So that accounts for 42 of the total of 62 spots from the 31 total post season bowl games played, NOT including the BCS championship game, of course.
Given those tie-in's right now it looks like from the Big East 4 teams are already sitting with 7 or more wins, 100% assuring themselves of a post-season bowl somewhere. Those teams are, (in no order), WVU, UConn, UC, and USF. And right now Rutgers is ahead of UL in the overall standing with a 6-4 record and only has to play Pitt and UL to finish the season.
The best shot that UL has of going to a post-season bowl game though, may NOT be in their control. If RU beats Pitt on saturday, and moves to a 7-4 record, even if they lose to UL, if UL does not have 7 wins, then UL will NOT get a Big East post season bowl bid, because of the NCAA and Big East conference rule that stipulates that all bowl tie-in bids MUST be filled by a team with 7 or more wins before a team with only 6 wins can be considered.
That means that the game vs USF this saturday for UL is an absolute must win game for the Cards. Or, the Cards have to hope that Pitt somehow finds a way to beat Rutgers on the Scarlet Knights home field, or UL's post-season bowl chances are all but zero.
But let's say that UL does finish the season 6-6, and that RU finishes 7-5 and UL does not get one of the 5 BE bowl game bids.
Is there any chance that UL might get an "at-large" bid to a bowl game somewhere? The answer is yes, but that is a very slim hope.
The best chance, I think that UL has of getting any type of "at large" bid to a bowl game if they are only 6-6 is IF one of the other conferences is unable to fill all of their bowl slot tie-in's by not having enough bowl eligible teams. The problem is, as of right now, there are three other conferences that even have a chance at finishing without enough bowl eligible teams. The Pac-10, the ACC and the Big-12. However, there is a wrench in that argument. The Big-10 with only 7 bowl tie-in's have a total of ten currently bowl eligible teams. Which leaves the Big-10 looking for a possible bowl berth for 3 of their teams. AND the SEC with 8 bowl tie-in's also have a total of ten currently bowl eligible teams. Even if you figure that the SEC and the Big-10 will both get two teams playing in the BCS bowl games, that still leaves 3 teams from those conferences, (1 from the SEC and 2 from the Big-10), that will be looking also for an "at-large" bowl bid somewhere.
The least likely conference to finish without any bowl eligible teams, is the ACC. With 8 bowl game tie-in's, the ACC is sitting with 7 current bowl eligible teams. However, both NC State and Maryland will play each other the last game of the season, and with both teams currently sitting at 5-5, one of them WILL finish at least 6-6 on the season so that fills all of their slots.
With 6 bowl game tie-in's, the PAC-10 is sitting with only 5 current bowl eligible teams in the conference. But UCLA, (currently 5-5, like UL), has two games remaining with both of those games against two top 11 teams in form of Oregon and USC. So it is VERY possible that the PAC-10 would not be able to fill all of their bowl slots. (There is an outside shot that Washington State may get to bowl eligibility, but that is a VERY long shot.) As a result, the PAC-10 could end up 1 short on their tie-in's. Which bowl may open up? Probably the Armed Services bowl, which pits the #6 picked PAC-10 team against a MWC opponent. Which at this point, looks like it would be Utah. Bowl executives are not real keen on rematching teams from the regular season, unless it has some sort of major mass TV market appeal. And let's face it, UL vs Utah does not grab TV headlines. If the MWC opponent does turn out to be some other MWC team, then MAYBE they might consider UL. But probably not, only because UL's record would be so poor, compared to other matchups they could get that might have more "regional" appeal, since it is played in Fort Worth, TX. And I think that with the Big-10 looking for a home for some of their schools, I would look for the Big-10 to make a play here. Especially with the PAC-10 and Big-10 relationship.
The Big-12 is like the ACC right now. While the Big-12 has only 6 eligible teams to fill 8 slots, both Kansas St and Oklahoma St look like they will get to 6 wins. Especially Ok-St since they play an awful Baylor team as one of their last two games. K-State would be the one real question mark out of the B-12, but again, with the SEC and the B-10 looking for a home for one of their 3 member schools, UL is probably out of luck here. And completely out of options.
I just do NOT see any set of circumstances where a 6-6 UL team gets a bowl bid this season. UL's only chance to get a bowl bid, I think is to win BOTH of their last two games vs USF and RU.
Which means then that this saturday's game vs the South Florida Bulls in Tampa is an absolute MUST win scenario.
Before I explain why I think that, let's step back and look at the six BCS conference bowl tie-in's. Including the BCS bowl game, but not the BCS champ game.
Big East: 5 bowl games
Pac-10: 6 bowl games
Big 12: 8 bowl games
Big 10: 7 bowl games
SEC: 8 bowl games
ACC: 8 bowl games
So that accounts for 42 of the total of 62 spots from the 31 total post season bowl games played, NOT including the BCS championship game, of course.
Given those tie-in's right now it looks like from the Big East 4 teams are already sitting with 7 or more wins, 100% assuring themselves of a post-season bowl somewhere. Those teams are, (in no order), WVU, UConn, UC, and USF. And right now Rutgers is ahead of UL in the overall standing with a 6-4 record and only has to play Pitt and UL to finish the season.
The best shot that UL has of going to a post-season bowl game though, may NOT be in their control. If RU beats Pitt on saturday, and moves to a 7-4 record, even if they lose to UL, if UL does not have 7 wins, then UL will NOT get a Big East post season bowl bid, because of the NCAA and Big East conference rule that stipulates that all bowl tie-in bids MUST be filled by a team with 7 or more wins before a team with only 6 wins can be considered.
That means that the game vs USF this saturday for UL is an absolute must win game for the Cards. Or, the Cards have to hope that Pitt somehow finds a way to beat Rutgers on the Scarlet Knights home field, or UL's post-season bowl chances are all but zero.
But let's say that UL does finish the season 6-6, and that RU finishes 7-5 and UL does not get one of the 5 BE bowl game bids.
Is there any chance that UL might get an "at-large" bid to a bowl game somewhere? The answer is yes, but that is a very slim hope.
The best chance, I think that UL has of getting any type of "at large" bid to a bowl game if they are only 6-6 is IF one of the other conferences is unable to fill all of their bowl slot tie-in's by not having enough bowl eligible teams. The problem is, as of right now, there are three other conferences that even have a chance at finishing without enough bowl eligible teams. The Pac-10, the ACC and the Big-12. However, there is a wrench in that argument. The Big-10 with only 7 bowl tie-in's have a total of ten currently bowl eligible teams. Which leaves the Big-10 looking for a possible bowl berth for 3 of their teams. AND the SEC with 8 bowl tie-in's also have a total of ten currently bowl eligible teams. Even if you figure that the SEC and the Big-10 will both get two teams playing in the BCS bowl games, that still leaves 3 teams from those conferences, (1 from the SEC and 2 from the Big-10), that will be looking also for an "at-large" bowl bid somewhere.
The least likely conference to finish without any bowl eligible teams, is the ACC. With 8 bowl game tie-in's, the ACC is sitting with 7 current bowl eligible teams. However, both NC State and Maryland will play each other the last game of the season, and with both teams currently sitting at 5-5, one of them WILL finish at least 6-6 on the season so that fills all of their slots.
With 6 bowl game tie-in's, the PAC-10 is sitting with only 5 current bowl eligible teams in the conference. But UCLA, (currently 5-5, like UL), has two games remaining with both of those games against two top 11 teams in form of Oregon and USC. So it is VERY possible that the PAC-10 would not be able to fill all of their bowl slots. (There is an outside shot that Washington State may get to bowl eligibility, but that is a VERY long shot.) As a result, the PAC-10 could end up 1 short on their tie-in's. Which bowl may open up? Probably the Armed Services bowl, which pits the #6 picked PAC-10 team against a MWC opponent. Which at this point, looks like it would be Utah. Bowl executives are not real keen on rematching teams from the regular season, unless it has some sort of major mass TV market appeal. And let's face it, UL vs Utah does not grab TV headlines. If the MWC opponent does turn out to be some other MWC team, then MAYBE they might consider UL. But probably not, only because UL's record would be so poor, compared to other matchups they could get that might have more "regional" appeal, since it is played in Fort Worth, TX. And I think that with the Big-10 looking for a home for some of their schools, I would look for the Big-10 to make a play here. Especially with the PAC-10 and Big-10 relationship.
The Big-12 is like the ACC right now. While the Big-12 has only 6 eligible teams to fill 8 slots, both Kansas St and Oklahoma St look like they will get to 6 wins. Especially Ok-St since they play an awful Baylor team as one of their last two games. K-State would be the one real question mark out of the B-12, but again, with the SEC and the B-10 looking for a home for one of their 3 member schools, UL is probably out of luck here. And completely out of options.
I just do NOT see any set of circumstances where a 6-6 UL team gets a bowl bid this season. UL's only chance to get a bowl bid, I think is to win BOTH of their last two games vs USF and RU.
Which means then that this saturday's game vs the South Florida Bulls in Tampa is an absolute MUST win scenario.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Too many bowls, or too few good teams?
It is that time of year when the college football fan starts thinking about where their favorite team is heading for a post-season bowl game. As result, it is time to bring up that yearly debate about who is actually "deserving" of a bowl game every year. The reason that is an annual debate because every year, some team, (often a team from a non-automatic BCS bid conference), with a very good W-L record gets left out of a post-season appearance for a team that just BARELY has a .500 record.
I do not want to get into the debate on whether the NCAA should sanction a post-season playoff vs a bowl game format to determine a national championship. That argument is so old my grandfather can argue the merits of both. And he has been dead for 20 years. Although I will say this much about it. The weakest argument I have ever heard for or against a playoff, is the one that some pro-bowl system supporters use saying that the regular season is a playoff. That is such a crap argument it is not even funny. And here is why. In a playoff system, you lose one game and you are out of the tournament. In the regular season, you can win every one of your games, go completely undefeated, and NEVER even be considered for a national title. So, how can you go undefeated and not even compete for a national title, if the regular season is equal to a playoff? That makes no sense. And that brings me back to the original point of this blog entry. The issue of a bad teams playing in bowl games versus good teams sitting at home watching.
The issue for me, and the one that I despise the NCAA for allowing, is the one I alluded to above. That a barely .500 W-L team has the ability to even be considered for a post-season bowl game. The last time I checked, if you are sitting at .500, that is a "push", and you are NOT a winning team. Prior to the NCAA allowing for 12 regular season games to be played, the rule was that in any given year where a school played 12 games, they had to have 7 wins to be considered bowl eligible. That was against a normal regular season schedule of 11 games, where it was required that 6 wins be considered for bowl eligibility. It was only after the Big-10 and primarily the SEC, with support from the B-12 lobbied the NCAA to change that rule such that even with 12 games a 6 win season is considered "bowl eligible" now. That means that instead of a team having the possibility of finishing the season including their bowl win @ or above .500, if they finished 6-5 or 7-5, now they can lose their bowl game and finish with a LOSING record and still be considered as having a "successful" season. (Assuming a 6-6 team loses its bowl game, to finish 6-7.) What a crock!
The NCAA is supposed to be not only the organization that does what is in the best interest of the athlete-student, (BTW, sometime in the future I will write about my distinction between athlete-students and student-athletes, because in today's college sporting world there IS a difference), but also the NCAA is supposed to have a responsibility to protect what is in the best interest of the sport itself. In this case, the NCAA should have stuck by the original rule that a team is NOT eligible for post-season bowl participation in the 12 game regular season, UNLESS it can reach a 7 win total. Period, end of story.
But guess what would happen then. We just might have had some teams from conferences like the SEC, Big-10 or Big-12 actually NOT GET TO PLAY IN BOWL GAME!!! Oh, the horror of it!! To actually possibly see a team from the Sun Belt, WAC or MAC take a bowl spot from the BCS conferences? Not a chance! That would be fiscal blasphemy!
As I mentioned before though, this is not about protecting or promoting good football, or rewarding teams who are deserving. This is all about dollars. And the big conferences are NOT going to give up dollars easily to any other conference not in their "circle of friends", or "favorite five", (to use a cellular phone term.)
So, we as football fans are stuck watching bowl games where a team like Miss State, (and do not get me wrong, I think what Croom has done there is GREAT for football), will get paired up with a school like Boise State, Air Force or Utah, who will blow them off the field and just be a boring game to watch, AND end up finishing with a losing record.
But let's face facts. The post-season bowl format is NOT about a good football game, or even just good football. It has almost NOTHING to do with football at all. Bowl games are all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$. And big dollars at that. The money generated by post-season bowl games funds most of all of the schools other athletic endeavors in other sports, especially those driven by Title IX. The only other sport to generate as much if not more money is men's college basketball. So, let's not even go down the road about whether bowl games, and the participating teams are about football...they are NOT. And never have been.
I do not want to get into the debate on whether the NCAA should sanction a post-season playoff vs a bowl game format to determine a national championship. That argument is so old my grandfather can argue the merits of both. And he has been dead for 20 years. Although I will say this much about it. The weakest argument I have ever heard for or against a playoff, is the one that some pro-bowl system supporters use saying that the regular season is a playoff. That is such a crap argument it is not even funny. And here is why. In a playoff system, you lose one game and you are out of the tournament. In the regular season, you can win every one of your games, go completely undefeated, and NEVER even be considered for a national title. So, how can you go undefeated and not even compete for a national title, if the regular season is equal to a playoff? That makes no sense. And that brings me back to the original point of this blog entry. The issue of a bad teams playing in bowl games versus good teams sitting at home watching.
The issue for me, and the one that I despise the NCAA for allowing, is the one I alluded to above. That a barely .500 W-L team has the ability to even be considered for a post-season bowl game. The last time I checked, if you are sitting at .500, that is a "push", and you are NOT a winning team. Prior to the NCAA allowing for 12 regular season games to be played, the rule was that in any given year where a school played 12 games, they had to have 7 wins to be considered bowl eligible. That was against a normal regular season schedule of 11 games, where it was required that 6 wins be considered for bowl eligibility. It was only after the Big-10 and primarily the SEC, with support from the B-12 lobbied the NCAA to change that rule such that even with 12 games a 6 win season is considered "bowl eligible" now. That means that instead of a team having the possibility of finishing the season including their bowl win @ or above .500, if they finished 6-5 or 7-5, now they can lose their bowl game and finish with a LOSING record and still be considered as having a "successful" season. (Assuming a 6-6 team loses its bowl game, to finish 6-7.) What a crock!
The NCAA is supposed to be not only the organization that does what is in the best interest of the athlete-student, (BTW, sometime in the future I will write about my distinction between athlete-students and student-athletes, because in today's college sporting world there IS a difference), but also the NCAA is supposed to have a responsibility to protect what is in the best interest of the sport itself. In this case, the NCAA should have stuck by the original rule that a team is NOT eligible for post-season bowl participation in the 12 game regular season, UNLESS it can reach a 7 win total. Period, end of story.
But guess what would happen then. We just might have had some teams from conferences like the SEC, Big-10 or Big-12 actually NOT GET TO PLAY IN BOWL GAME!!! Oh, the horror of it!! To actually possibly see a team from the Sun Belt, WAC or MAC take a bowl spot from the BCS conferences? Not a chance! That would be fiscal blasphemy!
As I mentioned before though, this is not about protecting or promoting good football, or rewarding teams who are deserving. This is all about dollars. And the big conferences are NOT going to give up dollars easily to any other conference not in their "circle of friends", or "favorite five", (to use a cellular phone term.)
So, we as football fans are stuck watching bowl games where a team like Miss State, (and do not get me wrong, I think what Croom has done there is GREAT for football), will get paired up with a school like Boise State, Air Force or Utah, who will blow them off the field and just be a boring game to watch, AND end up finishing with a losing record.
But let's face facts. The post-season bowl format is NOT about a good football game, or even just good football. It has almost NOTHING to do with football at all. Bowl games are all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$. And big dollars at that. The money generated by post-season bowl games funds most of all of the schools other athletic endeavors in other sports, especially those driven by Title IX. The only other sport to generate as much if not more money is men's college basketball. So, let's not even go down the road about whether bowl games, and the participating teams are about football...they are NOT. And never have been.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Big East....at it again?....
Ok, the Big East this week announced that beginning in the 2009 season, that all 16 member basketball schools will be invited to play at Madison Square Garden, (MSG), as part of the post-season Big East Conference tournament.
Is it just me, or do others also feel this is just completely ignorant. The only reason I can see the BE doing this is to placate the non-football schools who have complained from day one that they are losing money because of the strength of the conference, and not being able to get in to the post-season tournaments.
Well, guess what. College sports is NOT kindergarten playgrounds. There are supposed to be winners and losers. And if you can not compete well enough why should you get any type of charity for having a losing conference record? Here is a thought. How about actually GETTING BETTER!!
Is it just me, or do others also feel this is just completely ignorant. The only reason I can see the BE doing this is to placate the non-football schools who have complained from day one that they are losing money because of the strength of the conference, and not being able to get in to the post-season tournaments.
Well, guess what. College sports is NOT kindergarten playgrounds. There are supposed to be winners and losers. And if you can not compete well enough why should you get any type of charity for having a losing conference record? Here is a thought. How about actually GETTING BETTER!!
Tennis scandal....but this is serious....
It was reported yesterday that Germany's Tommy Haas may have been poisoned before his Davis Cup match, where he pulled out of the match against Russia's Mikhail Youzhny.
Haas before the match complained of vomiting and stomach problems, and forfeited his match, citing that he was too ill to play.
If this report turns out to be true, then professional tennis has just become the single biggest joke in all of professional sports. And IMHO, the Davis Cup should be immediately, and possibly permanently, be terminated.
This may seem like an extreme notion or response, but when athletes lives come in danger, NOT from playing their respective sport, but because of the simple fact that they are an athlete, then the sport itself has become WAY too serious about itself. This is a GAME people! We are not curing cancer and people's lives are not at stake due to the outcome of a game, match or set. And the whole idea OF sports is that there are winners and losers. But the cool thing is that you can shake hands walk off and play another day. No one is supposed to get hurt. Sports are, in fact, supposed to be a way for us to have gentile conflict over, and not life and death situations.
Well, that's my stance on the issue anyway.
Haas before the match complained of vomiting and stomach problems, and forfeited his match, citing that he was too ill to play.
If this report turns out to be true, then professional tennis has just become the single biggest joke in all of professional sports. And IMHO, the Davis Cup should be immediately, and possibly permanently, be terminated.
This may seem like an extreme notion or response, but when athletes lives come in danger, NOT from playing their respective sport, but because of the simple fact that they are an athlete, then the sport itself has become WAY too serious about itself. This is a GAME people! We are not curing cancer and people's lives are not at stake due to the outcome of a game, match or set. And the whole idea OF sports is that there are winners and losers. But the cool thing is that you can shake hands walk off and play another day. No one is supposed to get hurt. Sports are, in fact, supposed to be a way for us to have gentile conflict over, and not life and death situations.
Well, that's my stance on the issue anyway.
college basketball season mirroring football?
The 2007-2008 college basketball season has not even really begun and already we have seen some almost unbelievable and shocking upsets. Admittedly, the Mich St and Ohio St losses to two NCAA Division II schools were exhibition games, but come on, we ARE talking about one pre-season top-25 Div I team and the other a team that went to the NCAA national championship game last season. And losing to Div II Grand Valley St and University of Finley on the Spartan's and Buckeye's home floor no less. (BTW, 100 points if you can tell us where University of Finley is located WITHOUT first looking it up. And that is "Finley", not "Finland".)
And now we have seen #22 University of KY lose in Rupp Arena to Div II Gardner-Webb, by no less than 18 points! That is the 3rd worse loss ever by a UK team on their home court in the history of UK basketball. At least the Spartans took double overtime to lose at home by only 3 points, and the Buckeye's were literally decimated by graduation. But, the KY Wildcats, losing at home by 18? In regulation? And never really even seriously in contention for taking a lead in the game, much less getting it close enough to win?
So, here is the question. Are we going to see the same topsy-turvy college basketball season that we have seen in college football this year? And if so, can we really explain it so easily as to say that it is all due to "parity" across the nation in sports?
Is the win by Gardner-Webb over UK as big of an upset as App St was in beating Michigan at home in football?
Ok, I just asked a ton of questions there, so let me give you my take.
First, as to the GW win over UK, I absolutely believe that, that win by GW is completely on par with Appalachian State's victory over Michigan in football. Absolutely. If GW had hit a 3-point shot as a last second buzzer beater, then I would not say that. But in this case, GW not only lead wire-to-wire from the opening tip-off, but almost never had less than an 8 point lead the entire game. And ended blowing UK off of their home court. So I truly believe that the two games are 100% equal as to their respective impacts. I think that win by GW has to rank up there as one of the top 5 biggest upsets in the history of college basketball. Because unlike App St, Gardner-Webb was not predicted to win their conference. (BTW, another 100 points if you can name a single other team from the Sun Mountain Conference. Yeah, like I really knew what conference GW was in before this.)
As to the issue of whether we will see the same type of incredible upsets and topsy-turvy situation in college basketball that we have seen in college football this year. That has yet to be determined. But one thing is for sure. The trend now, is that if I am a Div II coach my players would definitely be believing that they can go into any Div I schools home floor and beat them now. And if I am any kind of Div I HC, I am putting that GW-UK score on the whiteboard during film seesions today, to prove to my team that regardless of how many people are in their ears telling them how good they are, and how they can possibly make millions in the NBA, if they lose to teams like University of Finley, they can kiss that #1 draft position goodbye. (Ok, probably not true, but I would tell the kids that anyway.)
I have to admit, I am not a huge basketball fan. Other than when UL plays, I hardly watch college basketball. But I will this season. Especially if upsets like this continue. If for no other reason than it will be fun to see what shakes out as a result.
Finally as to "parity" in college basketball, I am not so easy to say that is the case. Because let's be real about this for a minute. None of those upsets, even the regular season one by GW over UK, mean anything. Unlike in college football, a team in college basketball can lose 1/3rd of their games, and if they get into the NCAA tournament in March, can actually still become national champions. So, season loses do not mean anything with regard to national championship desire or contention. But what those early upsets and especially those by such obviously lower talented teams do show, is that a lot of Div I teams have a lot of holes in their armor. And those holes are the things worth watching to see if the coach's can fix them before games become VERY important at conference and NCAA tournament time.
So, if a team like GW can beat UK on their home floor, but then make a run in their Division II playoffs and win the Div II national championship, then maybe I will be more apt to say, "Yeah, there is a great deal of parity in college ball today." But, right now, I have to think that this is more a symptom of trying to get kids with one eye on the court and the other on the NBA to show up to play every night, as opposed to kids who have learned how to play together as a team, and within the system that their coach teaches. For me, I think this is more a parallel with how the U.S.A basketball teams underperform time and time again in international and during Olympic Games play. Where foreign teams with obviously lesser talent jump and beat more powerful, more talented and even bigger US teams. I think in college today, kids who look to play the game of basketball as a means to get a 4 year degree, are just that much more focused and determined, than college teams loaded with McD's AA talent who only show up to play when the bright lights of TV are on. And just like in college football, the college game is all about "coaching" now. If you can get 6 to 9 kids to play for 4 years, by the time they reach their senior seasons they CAN make that NCAA tourney run for the national championship.
And now we have seen #22 University of KY lose in Rupp Arena to Div II Gardner-Webb, by no less than 18 points! That is the 3rd worse loss ever by a UK team on their home court in the history of UK basketball. At least the Spartans took double overtime to lose at home by only 3 points, and the Buckeye's were literally decimated by graduation. But, the KY Wildcats, losing at home by 18? In regulation? And never really even seriously in contention for taking a lead in the game, much less getting it close enough to win?
So, here is the question. Are we going to see the same topsy-turvy college basketball season that we have seen in college football this year? And if so, can we really explain it so easily as to say that it is all due to "parity" across the nation in sports?
Is the win by Gardner-Webb over UK as big of an upset as App St was in beating Michigan at home in football?
Ok, I just asked a ton of questions there, so let me give you my take.
First, as to the GW win over UK, I absolutely believe that, that win by GW is completely on par with Appalachian State's victory over Michigan in football. Absolutely. If GW had hit a 3-point shot as a last second buzzer beater, then I would not say that. But in this case, GW not only lead wire-to-wire from the opening tip-off, but almost never had less than an 8 point lead the entire game. And ended blowing UK off of their home court. So I truly believe that the two games are 100% equal as to their respective impacts. I think that win by GW has to rank up there as one of the top 5 biggest upsets in the history of college basketball. Because unlike App St, Gardner-Webb was not predicted to win their conference. (BTW, another 100 points if you can name a single other team from the Sun Mountain Conference. Yeah, like I really knew what conference GW was in before this.)
As to the issue of whether we will see the same type of incredible upsets and topsy-turvy situation in college basketball that we have seen in college football this year. That has yet to be determined. But one thing is for sure. The trend now, is that if I am a Div II coach my players would definitely be believing that they can go into any Div I schools home floor and beat them now. And if I am any kind of Div I HC, I am putting that GW-UK score on the whiteboard during film seesions today, to prove to my team that regardless of how many people are in their ears telling them how good they are, and how they can possibly make millions in the NBA, if they lose to teams like University of Finley, they can kiss that #1 draft position goodbye. (Ok, probably not true, but I would tell the kids that anyway.)
I have to admit, I am not a huge basketball fan. Other than when UL plays, I hardly watch college basketball. But I will this season. Especially if upsets like this continue. If for no other reason than it will be fun to see what shakes out as a result.
Finally as to "parity" in college basketball, I am not so easy to say that is the case. Because let's be real about this for a minute. None of those upsets, even the regular season one by GW over UK, mean anything. Unlike in college football, a team in college basketball can lose 1/3rd of their games, and if they get into the NCAA tournament in March, can actually still become national champions. So, season loses do not mean anything with regard to national championship desire or contention. But what those early upsets and especially those by such obviously lower talented teams do show, is that a lot of Div I teams have a lot of holes in their armor. And those holes are the things worth watching to see if the coach's can fix them before games become VERY important at conference and NCAA tournament time.
So, if a team like GW can beat UK on their home floor, but then make a run in their Division II playoffs and win the Div II national championship, then maybe I will be more apt to say, "Yeah, there is a great deal of parity in college ball today." But, right now, I have to think that this is more a symptom of trying to get kids with one eye on the court and the other on the NBA to show up to play every night, as opposed to kids who have learned how to play together as a team, and within the system that their coach teaches. For me, I think this is more a parallel with how the U.S.A basketball teams underperform time and time again in international and during Olympic Games play. Where foreign teams with obviously lesser talent jump and beat more powerful, more talented and even bigger US teams. I think in college today, kids who look to play the game of basketball as a means to get a 4 year degree, are just that much more focused and determined, than college teams loaded with McD's AA talent who only show up to play when the bright lights of TV are on. And just like in college football, the college game is all about "coaching" now. If you can get 6 to 9 kids to play for 4 years, by the time they reach their senior seasons they CAN make that NCAA tourney run for the national championship.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Video review.....in BASEBALL??...no WAY!
Ok, today during a meeting of MLB's GM's in Orlando FL, a vote was passed to "explore the use of video replay", in MLB. Oh, but ONLY for homerun's mind you.
Could these guys BE any more wrong-headed?
The only good thing about this is that it is a "non-binding" resolution. Meaning that not only will MLB not be implementing it, but also that Bud Selig has final say and does not have any obligation to consider the issue any further. And he should not. Video replay for making calls in baseball does not belong.
Look I get that sometimes an ump may be in the wrong position to make a call, (see Boston's Manny Ramirez's HR non-call during this year's ALCS for example number 1.) But that is part of the game. It is what makes baseball unique. The fractions of an inch, the minutiae of being able to make a call where a ball roughly less than 3 inches in diameter makes surface contact to determine whether the ball is "in play" or "out" is just all part of the game, and the ability or position of the ump is far more critical than some "eye in the sky" camera.
Baseball is a unique and wonderful sport. It is the ONLY sport to have the following:
The only sport where the "defense" actually starts with the ball and to score the "offense" must put the ball in play.
The only sport where time does not matter. (Ok, there is an actual rule that once a pitcher comes set, he has only 20 seconds to throw the ball before the ump can call an intentional balk on him. But other than that, there is NO clock in baseball.)
And the only major sport in America that does NOT use any type of video review replay to make a call by an official.
When the first televised baseball game was played, (a game in 1939 @ Ebbets field between the Brooklyn Dodgers and Cincinnati Reds), I am sure that even then the few thousand that watched the game thought the umps blew a call that they were SURE they saw on their 2-dimensional TV sets. But since about the early 1970's when TV baseball broadcasts started incorporating replay during the inning changes, more often than not what those replays showed us was just how GOOD the umps really do call a game. Time after time, objective fans who would grouse about a bad call had to rescind their badmouthing when the TV replay actually proved that the ump had gotten the call right.
And that is the point. If the game of baseball was being severely hurt by rash after rash of very poor calls by the umps which had tremendous impact on the outcome of a game and led to a lot of GM's and or even player association complaints or even law suits, then yeah, MAYBE I could see using video replay to suspend disbelief and make the right call. But that is not, and has not ever, been the case. Like I mentioned in another article here, MLB is the ONLY sport where the officials are full time employees of the sport. And that makes MLB umps hone their craft to be very good professionals. By taking the time to train, re-educate and continue learning, MLB assures that it has the best officiating in all of professional sports.
And again, yes, a bad call will happen every now and then, but tell me what sport does NOT have one? Even those that currently employ video review. There are bad calls that change the outcomes of games in every pro sport. Regardless of whether video replay is used or not. But baseball being unique with regard to time and ball possession, does not need that extra incentive. The proof has been evident for quite some time as I noted before.
Baseball is not the most popular professional sport in America. It is not the most glamorous. It probably is at best 3rd in the nation among professional sports fans. Far behind the NFL, and the NBA. And it MIGHT even be less popular than college basketball and/or college football. But major league baseball is THE oldest professional sport in America. It dates back to pre-Civil War times and has seen the best and worst of America history. It is indelibly tied to the fabric of our history. And in keeping with that history, one of the tenets should be that in perpetuity all officiating will be made only by umps, and not dependent on technology. Because that, IMHO, is a very slippery slope. Why? Because where do you stop then? It might sound ridiculous right now, but if you start down the road of introducing technology to make call in baseball, it is NOT outside the realm of possibility that a home plate umpire would become obsolete. It is VERY technically possible to put a micro, passive transducer inside of a baseball that adds less than 1/1000th of an ounce to the weight and then using lasers or other mechanisms determine the exact location of a ball as it does, or does not cross the plate. And at what height and speed. But does anyone really want to watch that? If we go that far, should be not let MLB hitters use aluminum bats? Yes, there will always be some small types of technological changes in the game of baseball which will make it better. Solid core baseballs, instead of sawdust ones. The use of batting helmets, and other protective gear. Different turned wood bats with the ends that have been "scooped" out to lighten the bat and give more control. But even all of those advances were to improve the sport. Make it better. As I have pointed out, using video replay does not.
We owe it to ourselves to keep baseball as close to the original roots of the game as possible. Because of baseball's unique nature, and the way the game is played. And to keep a tie to our sports past.
Could these guys BE any more wrong-headed?
The only good thing about this is that it is a "non-binding" resolution. Meaning that not only will MLB not be implementing it, but also that Bud Selig has final say and does not have any obligation to consider the issue any further. And he should not. Video replay for making calls in baseball does not belong.
Look I get that sometimes an ump may be in the wrong position to make a call, (see Boston's Manny Ramirez's HR non-call during this year's ALCS for example number 1.) But that is part of the game. It is what makes baseball unique. The fractions of an inch, the minutiae of being able to make a call where a ball roughly less than 3 inches in diameter makes surface contact to determine whether the ball is "in play" or "out" is just all part of the game, and the ability or position of the ump is far more critical than some "eye in the sky" camera.
Baseball is a unique and wonderful sport. It is the ONLY sport to have the following:
The only sport where the "defense" actually starts with the ball and to score the "offense" must put the ball in play.
The only sport where time does not matter. (Ok, there is an actual rule that once a pitcher comes set, he has only 20 seconds to throw the ball before the ump can call an intentional balk on him. But other than that, there is NO clock in baseball.)
And the only major sport in America that does NOT use any type of video review replay to make a call by an official.
When the first televised baseball game was played, (a game in 1939 @ Ebbets field between the Brooklyn Dodgers and Cincinnati Reds), I am sure that even then the few thousand that watched the game thought the umps blew a call that they were SURE they saw on their 2-dimensional TV sets. But since about the early 1970's when TV baseball broadcasts started incorporating replay during the inning changes, more often than not what those replays showed us was just how GOOD the umps really do call a game. Time after time, objective fans who would grouse about a bad call had to rescind their badmouthing when the TV replay actually proved that the ump had gotten the call right.
And that is the point. If the game of baseball was being severely hurt by rash after rash of very poor calls by the umps which had tremendous impact on the outcome of a game and led to a lot of GM's and or even player association complaints or even law suits, then yeah, MAYBE I could see using video replay to suspend disbelief and make the right call. But that is not, and has not ever, been the case. Like I mentioned in another article here, MLB is the ONLY sport where the officials are full time employees of the sport. And that makes MLB umps hone their craft to be very good professionals. By taking the time to train, re-educate and continue learning, MLB assures that it has the best officiating in all of professional sports.
And again, yes, a bad call will happen every now and then, but tell me what sport does NOT have one? Even those that currently employ video review. There are bad calls that change the outcomes of games in every pro sport. Regardless of whether video replay is used or not. But baseball being unique with regard to time and ball possession, does not need that extra incentive. The proof has been evident for quite some time as I noted before.
Baseball is not the most popular professional sport in America. It is not the most glamorous. It probably is at best 3rd in the nation among professional sports fans. Far behind the NFL, and the NBA. And it MIGHT even be less popular than college basketball and/or college football. But major league baseball is THE oldest professional sport in America. It dates back to pre-Civil War times and has seen the best and worst of America history. It is indelibly tied to the fabric of our history. And in keeping with that history, one of the tenets should be that in perpetuity all officiating will be made only by umps, and not dependent on technology. Because that, IMHO, is a very slippery slope. Why? Because where do you stop then? It might sound ridiculous right now, but if you start down the road of introducing technology to make call in baseball, it is NOT outside the realm of possibility that a home plate umpire would become obsolete. It is VERY technically possible to put a micro, passive transducer inside of a baseball that adds less than 1/1000th of an ounce to the weight and then using lasers or other mechanisms determine the exact location of a ball as it does, or does not cross the plate. And at what height and speed. But does anyone really want to watch that? If we go that far, should be not let MLB hitters use aluminum bats? Yes, there will always be some small types of technological changes in the game of baseball which will make it better. Solid core baseballs, instead of sawdust ones. The use of batting helmets, and other protective gear. Different turned wood bats with the ends that have been "scooped" out to lighten the bat and give more control. But even all of those advances were to improve the sport. Make it better. As I have pointed out, using video replay does not.
We owe it to ourselves to keep baseball as close to the original roots of the game as possible. Because of baseball's unique nature, and the way the game is played. And to keep a tie to our sports past.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
When is scoring too much?
Originally, I was not going to write about this, but upon reading the head coach response to Kansas HS Smith Center's 83-0 win, (including a 72 point 1st QUARTER assault), I have to weigh in on this.
The reason I have to comment is because I completely DIS-agree with Smith Center HC Roger Barta's response to his team mid-way through the 2nd quarter. When a HC stands up in front of his players and tells them, not only that no one else on the team is going to score, but also that even if they get close to the goal line to literally "fall down at the 5 yard line", then I HAVE to take exception to the HC's decision.
I completely understand that this is prep football, and that Barta had NO desire to embarrass the kids from Plainville HS, (the opposing team that suffered this beatdown). And I do completely agree with Barta's decision to pull all of his 1st string offensive players in the 1st quarter and all of his 1st string defensive players in the 2nd quarter. That I agree with. If those kids in Plainview were THAT outclassed by the talent-level then putting in your 2nd and 3rd teams is a way to try and give the opposing kids a chance at being competitive.
But I think it sends completely the wrong message to tell kids to DELIBERATELY "throw in the towel" and literally throw the game. Because in all actuality that is what Barta told his team. "Give up." In Kansas there were already rules pertaining to blowout wins to try and protect the ego's and psyches of young players. One such rule is that once the game reaches a 40 point margin the clock never stops, even on time outs or change of possessions. And, BTW, a sidebar note, it was NOT as if Smtih Center was throwing the ball all over the field. The Smith Center Redmen only attempted 3, yes, 3, total passes all night, and only completed two of them. All in the first quarter and only went for a TD. Every other play they called all night long was a running play.
As a former youth athlete myself, having an opposing team that was beating the hell out of me actually start LETTING me try to win, was even MORE embarrassing than them just continuing to stomp me. At least I knew that the opposing team respected me and my teammates, we just sucked. But when you suck AND your opposing team deliberately takes a dive on you that just made me mad, and was really embarrassing the next day.
It is not up to teams to stop themselves. It is up to the opponents they play to stop them, or continue to be stopped themselves. Whichever the case may be. (Afterall, Plainview did not score the entire night.) By having the team that was that far ahead give up, then why should I, (as an opposing player), continue to play hard? What's the point then?
Sometimes, in sports, you get your head handed to you. Just like in life. And it is how you deal with those adversities which determine part of your character. I think in deciding to "lay down" Barta completely disrespected the kids who played for Plainview, and was more concerned with how HE would look by continuing to run his offense, and the game, than what it meant for the kids of Plainview to try and fight their way back and make the game respectable.
The reason I have to comment is because I completely DIS-agree with Smith Center HC Roger Barta's response to his team mid-way through the 2nd quarter. When a HC stands up in front of his players and tells them, not only that no one else on the team is going to score, but also that even if they get close to the goal line to literally "fall down at the 5 yard line", then I HAVE to take exception to the HC's decision.
I completely understand that this is prep football, and that Barta had NO desire to embarrass the kids from Plainville HS, (the opposing team that suffered this beatdown). And I do completely agree with Barta's decision to pull all of his 1st string offensive players in the 1st quarter and all of his 1st string defensive players in the 2nd quarter. That I agree with. If those kids in Plainview were THAT outclassed by the talent-level then putting in your 2nd and 3rd teams is a way to try and give the opposing kids a chance at being competitive.
But I think it sends completely the wrong message to tell kids to DELIBERATELY "throw in the towel" and literally throw the game. Because in all actuality that is what Barta told his team. "Give up." In Kansas there were already rules pertaining to blowout wins to try and protect the ego's and psyches of young players. One such rule is that once the game reaches a 40 point margin the clock never stops, even on time outs or change of possessions. And, BTW, a sidebar note, it was NOT as if Smtih Center was throwing the ball all over the field. The Smith Center Redmen only attempted 3, yes, 3, total passes all night, and only completed two of them. All in the first quarter and only went for a TD. Every other play they called all night long was a running play.
As a former youth athlete myself, having an opposing team that was beating the hell out of me actually start LETTING me try to win, was even MORE embarrassing than them just continuing to stomp me. At least I knew that the opposing team respected me and my teammates, we just sucked. But when you suck AND your opposing team deliberately takes a dive on you that just made me mad, and was really embarrassing the next day.
It is not up to teams to stop themselves. It is up to the opponents they play to stop them, or continue to be stopped themselves. Whichever the case may be. (Afterall, Plainview did not score the entire night.) By having the team that was that far ahead give up, then why should I, (as an opposing player), continue to play hard? What's the point then?
Sometimes, in sports, you get your head handed to you. Just like in life. And it is how you deal with those adversities which determine part of your character. I think in deciding to "lay down" Barta completely disrespected the kids who played for Plainview, and was more concerned with how HE would look by continuing to run his offense, and the game, than what it meant for the kids of Plainview to try and fight their way back and make the game respectable.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
The stretch run....football awards
Ok, here we are. The MLB season is over, culminating in my Boston RedSox winning the World Series. The college football regular season is rapidly coming to end and the conference championships are coming closer. Other fall collegiate sports are gearing up for their post-seasons, as the collegiate basketball season gets underway.
So much to talk about, and what thought keeps coming up in my mind of local interest? College football's Unitas Award.
What about the Heisman? Forget it. Both local candidates from UL and UK will NOT be invited to the DAC, (Downtown Athletic Club), in New York come early December. And that is REGARDLESS of what they do or do not achieve over these last few games in November.
Both Brian Brohm and Andre' Woodson are all but eliminated from consideration. Why? Because recent history suggests that they are out of it completely. Since 1997 NONE of the top 4-5 invitees for the Heisman award ceremonies have been from a team that had 4 or more losses on the season. Woodson MIGHT still make it, but UK has to win out AND the top 5 guys in front of Woodson have to slip up. Brohm is out of it completely.
I am sure I am going to take a ton of heat for this, but that is the reality of the situation. Both QB's could put up HUGE numbers and lead their respective teams to win out the rest of the year, and that would NOT make a difference. Again, it is because guys in front of them have slip in the national presence. And right now, those top 4 candidates are looking pretty strong. Right now, according to ESPN, the top 5 candidates are Matt Ryan (BC), Dennis Dixon (OR), Tim Tebow (FL), Pat White (WV), and Mike Hart (MI). Out of the top 15, Woodson checks in at #13, and Brohm is not listed at all. Basically, put a fork in them.
However, there IS a post season award that both can and will be considered for that is pretty prestigious in and of itself. And presented right here in Louisville. The Johnny Unitas Golden-Arm award, given each year to the best SENIOR QB. And with both Brohm and Woodson we are lucky to have two of the top QB's in the nation right here in the state. And how cool would is it to have these two guys fighting for this award in their home state?
So, here is the question: Which QB deserves the award?
First, they will have competition from Heisman candidates Matt Ryan and Dennis Dixon. But it is actually rare that even a Heisman winner gets both of these awards. And the primary reason is that the Unitas Award is based on the overall performance and that Sr QB's full body of work over their career, not just how well their team is doing or how good their Sr. year is.
But if you look at the body of the work that all of these Sr QB's have put together, (Ryan, Dixon, Woodson and Brohm), I think the CLEAR winner is Brian Brohm. The overall performance of his 4 years at UL overshadows the work that the other 3 have accumulated. Especially in the early parts of their careers. Brohm has been the starting QB since his Sophomore season, and his results speak for themselves. The highpoint of his career may not have been his MVP Orange Bowl award and leading his team the Orange Bowl victory, but actually may be THIS 2007 season. In a season where the UL football team is as dysfunctional as the NY Mets with 2 weeks to go in the baseball season, Brohm has been a MAJOR stabilizing force and reliable leader on the field. The past two seasons he suffered injuries and forced him to miss several games. But this season he has remained healthy, and incredibly prolific amid all sorts of horrific play and dubious coaching. As a result, I think this may be Brian Brohm's best year he has ever had. With Brian Brohm, I shudder to think where UL would be right now. And not because of his ability throwing the ball, but just his presence and ability to make the right choices.
So, in a year that Brohm could have, and maybe even expected, to win college football's most prestigious award, (Heisman Award), given to the supposedly "best football player", the best award for him might be to take home the award that epitomizes the real virtue of a true QB. The Unitas Award.
So much to talk about, and what thought keeps coming up in my mind of local interest? College football's Unitas Award.
What about the Heisman? Forget it. Both local candidates from UL and UK will NOT be invited to the DAC, (Downtown Athletic Club), in New York come early December. And that is REGARDLESS of what they do or do not achieve over these last few games in November.
Both Brian Brohm and Andre' Woodson are all but eliminated from consideration. Why? Because recent history suggests that they are out of it completely. Since 1997 NONE of the top 4-5 invitees for the Heisman award ceremonies have been from a team that had 4 or more losses on the season. Woodson MIGHT still make it, but UK has to win out AND the top 5 guys in front of Woodson have to slip up. Brohm is out of it completely.
I am sure I am going to take a ton of heat for this, but that is the reality of the situation. Both QB's could put up HUGE numbers and lead their respective teams to win out the rest of the year, and that would NOT make a difference. Again, it is because guys in front of them have slip in the national presence. And right now, those top 4 candidates are looking pretty strong. Right now, according to ESPN, the top 5 candidates are Matt Ryan (BC), Dennis Dixon (OR), Tim Tebow (FL), Pat White (WV), and Mike Hart (MI). Out of the top 15, Woodson checks in at #13, and Brohm is not listed at all. Basically, put a fork in them.
However, there IS a post season award that both can and will be considered for that is pretty prestigious in and of itself. And presented right here in Louisville. The Johnny Unitas Golden-Arm award, given each year to the best SENIOR QB. And with both Brohm and Woodson we are lucky to have two of the top QB's in the nation right here in the state. And how cool would is it to have these two guys fighting for this award in their home state?
So, here is the question: Which QB deserves the award?
First, they will have competition from Heisman candidates Matt Ryan and Dennis Dixon. But it is actually rare that even a Heisman winner gets both of these awards. And the primary reason is that the Unitas Award is based on the overall performance and that Sr QB's full body of work over their career, not just how well their team is doing or how good their Sr. year is.
But if you look at the body of the work that all of these Sr QB's have put together, (Ryan, Dixon, Woodson and Brohm), I think the CLEAR winner is Brian Brohm. The overall performance of his 4 years at UL overshadows the work that the other 3 have accumulated. Especially in the early parts of their careers. Brohm has been the starting QB since his Sophomore season, and his results speak for themselves. The highpoint of his career may not have been his MVP Orange Bowl award and leading his team the Orange Bowl victory, but actually may be THIS 2007 season. In a season where the UL football team is as dysfunctional as the NY Mets with 2 weeks to go in the baseball season, Brohm has been a MAJOR stabilizing force and reliable leader on the field. The past two seasons he suffered injuries and forced him to miss several games. But this season he has remained healthy, and incredibly prolific amid all sorts of horrific play and dubious coaching. As a result, I think this may be Brian Brohm's best year he has ever had. With Brian Brohm, I shudder to think where UL would be right now. And not because of his ability throwing the ball, but just his presence and ability to make the right choices.
So, in a year that Brohm could have, and maybe even expected, to win college football's most prestigious award, (Heisman Award), given to the supposedly "best football player", the best award for him might be to take home the award that epitomizes the real virtue of a true QB. The Unitas Award.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Is the time right for the Big East?
This week was the annual Big East media days to kick off, (or should I more correctly say, 'tip off'), the basketball season. The hottest topic among all of the coaches in attendance was the issue of the conference size, strength and schedule.
More and more we are seeing that the BBall coaches are becoming less and less enamoured with the current Big East makeup. One of the biggest topics centered around the Syracuse Orange getting a snub for the NCAA tournament last year with a very good record. That snub, and the imbalance of schedule regarding the strength of who is playing whom is driving a lot of the consternation.
Personally I agree.
So, I am very convinced that some type of changes are in the offing next year during the Big East conference annual meeting in June/July. What those changes are, is anyone's guess. Suggestions have ranged from "dumbing" down the in-conference schedule to even divisional play. As some of you may know I have for quite some time, almost from the start, have my take on what should be done, and once again I offer this as at least one possible solution.
I have never liked the idea of a large mega-conference format where everyone plays everyone. I actually like the idea of divisional play, and I really hope that it gets serious consideration during the off-season by the Big East schools. Divisional play in basketball, (and several other olympic sports that have more that 10 participating members), makes all the sense in the world to me. And for various reasons. In the current Big East configuration, with the BE having 16 member schools, splitting those members up into two 8-team divisions and having a full 14 game round-robin format would be ideal. You can then setup, if they so choose to, 2 to as many as 4, inter-division conference games just to ease the out of conferene scheduling. But I am thinking that with the strength of the BE conferene in bball, most AD's and cosches would opt out for non-conference games. Although I suggest that at 2 games be inter-divisional games just for rivalry sake.
The schools originally that were dead set against divisional play were those that did not participate in football. The thought, so they maintained, was that they needed to play some of those stronger football participating schools, (like UL, UConn, and Syracuse), to keep their conference strength of schedule up an bolster their RPI rating come NCAA selection sunday. They also wanted MORE schools available to play in the BE tournament at MSG, and the thinking was that with all schools playing everyone that would be a more "fair" breakdown. That has not worked out well so far. What has happened is that the league is SO competitive that they end up beating up on each other creating some mediocre in-conference records, which then the NCAA has to try and justify to other conferences. Those non-football schools though rely HEAVILY on the money brought in by the appearance in the NCAA tournament. Every year they miss costs them a lot of money that feeds their other athletic engines. So, I think the time is right for those schools to be finally willing to look at divisional play.
With 2 divisions of 8 teams, it not only allows for a true intra-divisional round-robin format, but also sets up a great bracket breakdown for the BE tournment in MSG every year. How are those divisions to be setup? Which schools would go in which divsions? Well, I have a suggestion, but I think the member schools themselves are better able to determine that. But here is my thought:
Break the schools down by relative geographic dispersion first, but give consideration to long standing rivalries.
For example:
Division A: Marquette, Notre Dame, DePaul, Cincy, UL, WVU, USF, Pitt
Division B: Georgetown, Providence, St. Johns, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, Seton Hall, Villanova
Now, given that breakdown, with only 14 intra-divisional games, you could then also setup 2 other inter-divisional games which could cross over and keep some long running rivalries going. And that still only sets up a 16 game in-conference schedule, so OOC scheduling would give you at least 14 games, (and anymore schools play 32 regular season games), to play prior to the conference start.
But how to break down selection for the BE tournament? Here again is my suggestion. First, the top two teams from each division get a "bye" are seeded in the tournment for the 2nd round as the top 4 teams in the conference. That means the 1st round of 4 games includes 8 additional teams from both of the divisions, giving you a total of 12 of the total of 16 schools. Sorry but I do NOT think that EVERY team should be allowed to play in a post-season tournament. Some teams, some years, are just going to be bad, and should not play. And in this scenario, only the bottom 4 teams would be left out. But how to choose those 4? I suggest that be based on the total conference record and not their standing in their division. I understand that in some years one division might be much stronger than the other and due to weaker play the bottom two teams in each division might have better records but not be quite as strong a team. That just happens, that kind of situation though is very cyclical, and that is what MANY schools always seem to forget.
So that is my suggestion. Modest proposal as it may be, if the BE does adopt a divisional format, I think you will see actually MORE schools from the BE getting into the NCAA tournament, only because the paring down of the schools will work in the BE's favor. Right now, I think the NCAA has to work too hard to figure out what are the better schools. In divisional format, I think it makes their job easier.
Also, if the BE does set up that situation, it also sets up a future blog for me about what the BE future makeup might be...(wink)....but that is a future blog.
More and more we are seeing that the BBall coaches are becoming less and less enamoured with the current Big East makeup. One of the biggest topics centered around the Syracuse Orange getting a snub for the NCAA tournament last year with a very good record. That snub, and the imbalance of schedule regarding the strength of who is playing whom is driving a lot of the consternation.
Personally I agree.
So, I am very convinced that some type of changes are in the offing next year during the Big East conference annual meeting in June/July. What those changes are, is anyone's guess. Suggestions have ranged from "dumbing" down the in-conference schedule to even divisional play. As some of you may know I have for quite some time, almost from the start, have my take on what should be done, and once again I offer this as at least one possible solution.
I have never liked the idea of a large mega-conference format where everyone plays everyone. I actually like the idea of divisional play, and I really hope that it gets serious consideration during the off-season by the Big East schools. Divisional play in basketball, (and several other olympic sports that have more that 10 participating members), makes all the sense in the world to me. And for various reasons. In the current Big East configuration, with the BE having 16 member schools, splitting those members up into two 8-team divisions and having a full 14 game round-robin format would be ideal. You can then setup, if they so choose to, 2 to as many as 4, inter-division conference games just to ease the out of conferene scheduling. But I am thinking that with the strength of the BE conferene in bball, most AD's and cosches would opt out for non-conference games. Although I suggest that at 2 games be inter-divisional games just for rivalry sake.
The schools originally that were dead set against divisional play were those that did not participate in football. The thought, so they maintained, was that they needed to play some of those stronger football participating schools, (like UL, UConn, and Syracuse), to keep their conference strength of schedule up an bolster their RPI rating come NCAA selection sunday. They also wanted MORE schools available to play in the BE tournament at MSG, and the thinking was that with all schools playing everyone that would be a more "fair" breakdown. That has not worked out well so far. What has happened is that the league is SO competitive that they end up beating up on each other creating some mediocre in-conference records, which then the NCAA has to try and justify to other conferences. Those non-football schools though rely HEAVILY on the money brought in by the appearance in the NCAA tournament. Every year they miss costs them a lot of money that feeds their other athletic engines. So, I think the time is right for those schools to be finally willing to look at divisional play.
With 2 divisions of 8 teams, it not only allows for a true intra-divisional round-robin format, but also sets up a great bracket breakdown for the BE tournment in MSG every year. How are those divisions to be setup? Which schools would go in which divsions? Well, I have a suggestion, but I think the member schools themselves are better able to determine that. But here is my thought:
Break the schools down by relative geographic dispersion first, but give consideration to long standing rivalries.
For example:
Division A: Marquette, Notre Dame, DePaul, Cincy, UL, WVU, USF, Pitt
Division B: Georgetown, Providence, St. Johns, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, Seton Hall, Villanova
Now, given that breakdown, with only 14 intra-divisional games, you could then also setup 2 other inter-divisional games which could cross over and keep some long running rivalries going. And that still only sets up a 16 game in-conference schedule, so OOC scheduling would give you at least 14 games, (and anymore schools play 32 regular season games), to play prior to the conference start.
But how to break down selection for the BE tournament? Here again is my suggestion. First, the top two teams from each division get a "bye" are seeded in the tournment for the 2nd round as the top 4 teams in the conference. That means the 1st round of 4 games includes 8 additional teams from both of the divisions, giving you a total of 12 of the total of 16 schools. Sorry but I do NOT think that EVERY team should be allowed to play in a post-season tournament. Some teams, some years, are just going to be bad, and should not play. And in this scenario, only the bottom 4 teams would be left out. But how to choose those 4? I suggest that be based on the total conference record and not their standing in their division. I understand that in some years one division might be much stronger than the other and due to weaker play the bottom two teams in each division might have better records but not be quite as strong a team. That just happens, that kind of situation though is very cyclical, and that is what MANY schools always seem to forget.
So that is my suggestion. Modest proposal as it may be, if the BE does adopt a divisional format, I think you will see actually MORE schools from the BE getting into the NCAA tournament, only because the paring down of the schools will work in the BE's favor. Right now, I think the NCAA has to work too hard to figure out what are the better schools. In divisional format, I think it makes their job easier.
Also, if the BE does set up that situation, it also sets up a future blog for me about what the BE future makeup might be...(wink)....but that is a future blog.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The problem of bad calls....
Last friday night during the UL vs UConn football game we witnessed one of, if not the, most egregious bad calls in collegiate football history. You could say that the Oklahoma vs Oregon on-side kick call was worse, but in that situation, there were a lot of bodies flying around. In the case of the UL vs UConn game, what we saw was in that non-call of a clearly fair catch signal with the back judge standing not more than 10 yards away, looking dead on AT the UConn's return man Taylor, with NO other players around him, was nothing less than hideously stupid. And led to not only all of the opposing coverage players stop dead in their tracks, but also UConn's coverage team as well, it led to a touchdown, in a game where UL eventually lost by 7 points.
But the problem we saw friday night past, I believe, is FAR more large than this one bad call and how it did or did not effect the outcome of the game between UL and UConn. The problem of dozens of blown calls over the past few years, is symptomatic of the fact that in all by one sport, (including professional sports), all of the officials are PART-TIME employees of their craft. The ONLY sport that actually pays and retains officials as Full Time Employees, (FTE's), is Major League Baseball. And THAT for me is the problem.
How can we expect some sap official who spends half the year working at Home Depot in the hardware section, to be good at the craft of officiating a sport where every call and action is critical and vital to the outcome of a game, with literally millions of dollars riding on it? And while it is easy to see the millions in pro sports like the NBA and NFL, let's face it, even in college, post-season bowl games, sponsors and boosters are BIG money issues.
If officials spend half of the year wandering around working other jobs, and NOT spending the off season honing their craft by learning the rule book inside and out, as well as watching video and attending learning sessions to make themselves better, we will continue to see this type of extremely poor officiating continue, and even get worse as things move forward.
While pro sports have their own ways and worries of trying to deal with this problem, in the case of collegiate sports, the NCAA MUST step in soon and make this a top priority issue. And not just for the example of horrible play calls or non-calls like illustrated by the UL-UConn game. But also for the complete integrity of the game as a whole. We have already seen this past summer an NBA official admit to gambling on games, even those that he officiated. Do we REALLY believe that part-time officials at the collegiate level, guys who do NOT make this their living, and get paid paltry sums of money, are immune to the temptations of such outside influences as gambling?
The conferences themselves are also to blame here, for they, as decided by the NCAA, employ and maintain their conference affiliated officiating staffs. But that makes it even worse. You would think that the conferences, which bring in HUGE amounts of TV money would not want the incredible media beat down that is 100% justified and inevitable when horrible calls or non-calls are made that impact the outcomes of their own conference games.
Instead of issuing the required, "Mea culpa!" to the impacted schools of their own conference, what they SHOULD be doing is looking to greatly improve the status and skills of all of their officiating in every sport and level. And IMHO, that all starts with making officials full-time employees, so that they can be held much more accountable for their actions.
Well, that's my take on it anyway.......
But the problem we saw friday night past, I believe, is FAR more large than this one bad call and how it did or did not effect the outcome of the game between UL and UConn. The problem of dozens of blown calls over the past few years, is symptomatic of the fact that in all by one sport, (including professional sports), all of the officials are PART-TIME employees of their craft. The ONLY sport that actually pays and retains officials as Full Time Employees, (FTE's), is Major League Baseball. And THAT for me is the problem.
How can we expect some sap official who spends half the year working at Home Depot in the hardware section, to be good at the craft of officiating a sport where every call and action is critical and vital to the outcome of a game, with literally millions of dollars riding on it? And while it is easy to see the millions in pro sports like the NBA and NFL, let's face it, even in college, post-season bowl games, sponsors and boosters are BIG money issues.
If officials spend half of the year wandering around working other jobs, and NOT spending the off season honing their craft by learning the rule book inside and out, as well as watching video and attending learning sessions to make themselves better, we will continue to see this type of extremely poor officiating continue, and even get worse as things move forward.
While pro sports have their own ways and worries of trying to deal with this problem, in the case of collegiate sports, the NCAA MUST step in soon and make this a top priority issue. And not just for the example of horrible play calls or non-calls like illustrated by the UL-UConn game. But also for the complete integrity of the game as a whole. We have already seen this past summer an NBA official admit to gambling on games, even those that he officiated. Do we REALLY believe that part-time officials at the collegiate level, guys who do NOT make this their living, and get paid paltry sums of money, are immune to the temptations of such outside influences as gambling?
The conferences themselves are also to blame here, for they, as decided by the NCAA, employ and maintain their conference affiliated officiating staffs. But that makes it even worse. You would think that the conferences, which bring in HUGE amounts of TV money would not want the incredible media beat down that is 100% justified and inevitable when horrible calls or non-calls are made that impact the outcomes of their own conference games.
Instead of issuing the required, "Mea culpa!" to the impacted schools of their own conference, what they SHOULD be doing is looking to greatly improve the status and skills of all of their officiating in every sport and level. And IMHO, that all starts with making officials full-time employees, so that they can be held much more accountable for their actions.
Well, that's my take on it anyway.......
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Still ready for baseball in October?
Tonight the UL baseball team plays its last fall scrimmage in the annual "Pizza Bowl" at Patterson Stadium. If you get a chance, and weather permitting, try and get out to watch them. Louisville has four pitchers with pro potential on this staff in personages of BJ Rosenberg, Zach Pitts, Justin Marks and UL's version of "The Big Unit" in 6-foot-7 behemoth Bob Revesz. When Revesz releases the ball, he has already covered 25 of the 60 feet to home plate.
Should be a fun time.
There is other baseball happening tonight at The Jake. This where the struggling BoSox pitching staff will try to figure out SOME way of quieting the Indians bats and keeping the RedSox hopes of World Series appearance on life support. But the real drama that is baseball was actually last night when......nothing at all happened.
The real problem with baseball is that in a 7 game series and dead in the MIDDLE of a 3 game stand in Cleveland, MLB because of BAD FOX Sports programming left all of us baseball fans high and dry last night!
What the HELL?!
This was the single most stupid thing I have ever witnessed in MLB scheduling since, oh, how about insipid "inter-league" play. How can baseball expect to try to gather back some marketshare from an increasingly thinning sports viewing public. Just when you build up some interest and momentum, as a fan you are then left hanging and waiting for the other shoe to drop. This was NOT a travel day where the teams were changing ballpark venues.
The reason for this stupid "dead period" was MLB's decision to change the post-season schedule so that the World Series would start in the middle of the week in hopes to gain ratings. Ok, I get that, but to STOP a 3 game stand just to do that? That makes NO sense whatsoever. Especially when what the MLB COULD have done is push the playoffs up earlier in the schedule by just ending the season a few days earlier, rather than on a weekend, like they did. But instead, MLB decided to extend the season longer by adding more "off days" during the regular season.
MLB Commissioner Bud Selig is doing everything he can to ruin baseball for the "casual" baseball fan. It used to be that you could catch a Cubs or Braves game on WGN or TBS almost every day of the week during the season, but his idiocy of leadership is pushing more and more to "pay per view" types of situations, and this latest scheduling change in the middle of the ALCS is just another example of that.
I did the math and if you add up all of the "extra day off" during the playoffs this season, it add up to 9 total days! That is up and above counting any travel days.
For those of us who are fans of the "game of baseball" and not necessarily of any particular team, it breaks up the continuity of the game and artificially extends the season for no real gain, or even purpose.
Oh, well, as a fan I will still be watching, but the decisions made to extend baseball artificially, is about an insane as watching the NHL Stanley Cup playoffs in May during 80 degree weather.
Someday, these commissioner's are going to figure out that there IS a seasonal timeline to sporting events and that you should not screw around with it, regardless of whether you THINK you might be additional viewers or not. A concept that has yet turned out to be true.
Should be a fun time.
There is other baseball happening tonight at The Jake. This where the struggling BoSox pitching staff will try to figure out SOME way of quieting the Indians bats and keeping the RedSox hopes of World Series appearance on life support. But the real drama that is baseball was actually last night when......nothing at all happened.
The real problem with baseball is that in a 7 game series and dead in the MIDDLE of a 3 game stand in Cleveland, MLB because of BAD FOX Sports programming left all of us baseball fans high and dry last night!
What the HELL?!
This was the single most stupid thing I have ever witnessed in MLB scheduling since, oh, how about insipid "inter-league" play. How can baseball expect to try to gather back some marketshare from an increasingly thinning sports viewing public. Just when you build up some interest and momentum, as a fan you are then left hanging and waiting for the other shoe to drop. This was NOT a travel day where the teams were changing ballpark venues.
The reason for this stupid "dead period" was MLB's decision to change the post-season schedule so that the World Series would start in the middle of the week in hopes to gain ratings. Ok, I get that, but to STOP a 3 game stand just to do that? That makes NO sense whatsoever. Especially when what the MLB COULD have done is push the playoffs up earlier in the schedule by just ending the season a few days earlier, rather than on a weekend, like they did. But instead, MLB decided to extend the season longer by adding more "off days" during the regular season.
MLB Commissioner Bud Selig is doing everything he can to ruin baseball for the "casual" baseball fan. It used to be that you could catch a Cubs or Braves game on WGN or TBS almost every day of the week during the season, but his idiocy of leadership is pushing more and more to "pay per view" types of situations, and this latest scheduling change in the middle of the ALCS is just another example of that.
I did the math and if you add up all of the "extra day off" during the playoffs this season, it add up to 9 total days! That is up and above counting any travel days.
For those of us who are fans of the "game of baseball" and not necessarily of any particular team, it breaks up the continuity of the game and artificially extends the season for no real gain, or even purpose.
Oh, well, as a fan I will still be watching, but the decisions made to extend baseball artificially, is about an insane as watching the NHL Stanley Cup playoffs in May during 80 degree weather.
Someday, these commissioner's are going to figure out that there IS a seasonal timeline to sporting events and that you should not screw around with it, regardless of whether you THINK you might be additional viewers or not. A concept that has yet turned out to be true.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Nebraska situation vs Louisville issues
In case anyone might get the wrong impression, this article is NOT about whether Nebraska would interview Tom Jurich for its vacant AD spot after firing Steve Pederson yesterday; nor is it about whether Jurich would consider such a move. This is NOT about anything of the kind.
What I do want to do is compare the relative situations between UL and Nebraska football. I find it extremely fascinating how the two situations parallel each other, and how the fan base and the actions taken by Nebraska is so very different than UL, but for the exact same basic reasons.
First, look at the two schools record this year, and the expectations coming in. Nebraska was ranked 16th in the AP and 17th in the Coach's poll in the preseason. While UL had one of the most successful years ever in their history, Nebraska had a good season in 2006, finishing only 9-5, but did win the B-12 North and played in the B-12 Championship game. Ok, yeah, they lost to Oklahoma, and then lost their bowl game vs Auburn in the Cotton Bowl. But losing to teams like those in post-season games, while disappointing, is hardly anything to be upset over. Note that this all happened in the 3rd year of HC Bill Callahan's tenure. So as a result, expectations for the Huskers were big coming into 2007. They were the heavy favorites to win the B-12 North, and could even have their shot at a BCS game.
And then the season started. The Huskers on defense this season have looked like Louisville West this season. Averaging giving up over 40 points in all three of their loses this season, including last saturday's worst home loss ever to Oklahoma State. (Not Oklahoma mind you, Oklahoma STATE).
So what was the reaction to this horrible start by a team that was to be a "contender" for the B-12 conference title? A firing of the Athletic Director. (Now, I realize that there are being reported some other issues with Pederson and the job he was doing at Nebraska; such as employee dissatisfaction and job morale issues. Still, none of those appeared to be big problems back in June/July when the Nebraska administration extended Pederson's contract for 5 years. Those only became "issues" as criteria for dismissal once the football team's season tanked.)
Now, compare that with the reaction of Louisville where the season this year has been, well, to be kind, far below what people have thought it would be. Including pundits like Phil Steele, among others. But at no time has the UL fan base, or the UL administration had anything but continued faith in UL VP of Athletics Tom Jurich, to fix the problems with this football team and with the coaching staff where/if applicable.
The question is: How much does the AD truly and really impact the final W-L column of the football program?
Is not that the responsibility of the HEAD FOOTBALL COACH?? The AD's job, whether it be in Louisville, or in Nebraska, is to provide all the tools and means necessary for the football HC to build a football program that will result in wins on the field. Making sure of things like facilities, fund raising, NCAA compliance, and even player eligibility are all in order. The only other function is the fact that the AD is responsible for hiring the HC's for every sport the university offers, but it is the HC's job to put together a coaching staff that can teach the game fundamentals, techniques, schemes and methods which result in positive success on the football field. It just seems ridiculous to hold an AD responsible for the W-L records of any of the sports teams. Either from a "firing" of the AD because of it, or of a "the AD has to fix this" perspective. Both, for me, seem to be not focusing on the real problems at hand.
The real issues, for both schools, has been horribly inconsistent play by the defense, as well as some key injuries and poor game management in other phases of the game.
Yes, UL won a very key game up in Cincinnati over the weekend. One in which the UL DL played a big part in. But, given this team's track record they could turn around this week and make UConn look like the New England Patriots. The biggest key to UL's win over Cincy this past weekend were the turnovers they created, and the ones that the Cincy defense did not. That is not necessarily a trend that you want to depend on every week to get you a win. But I am digressing.
The point here to this issue for me, is that I think that that Head Coach's of each respective program at not taking enough responsibility for the current state of each respective program. With UL, you can be a little more forgiving because it is a first year coach, but how can you give a 4th year HC a nod of approval, and then turn around and fire the AD for on field performance? Conversely, how can the UL fan base give unwavering support believing that JURICH, not Kragthorpe, will "fix" UL's football on the field success? When I see both Pederson and Jurich on the practice fields with a whistle, a game plan, and putting kids through drills, them maybe I will accept that. Until then, I think it is a bit unfair and a little naieve to expect the AD of any school to have that sort of on the field impact.
What I do want to do is compare the relative situations between UL and Nebraska football. I find it extremely fascinating how the two situations parallel each other, and how the fan base and the actions taken by Nebraska is so very different than UL, but for the exact same basic reasons.
First, look at the two schools record this year, and the expectations coming in. Nebraska was ranked 16th in the AP and 17th in the Coach's poll in the preseason. While UL had one of the most successful years ever in their history, Nebraska had a good season in 2006, finishing only 9-5, but did win the B-12 North and played in the B-12 Championship game. Ok, yeah, they lost to Oklahoma, and then lost their bowl game vs Auburn in the Cotton Bowl. But losing to teams like those in post-season games, while disappointing, is hardly anything to be upset over. Note that this all happened in the 3rd year of HC Bill Callahan's tenure. So as a result, expectations for the Huskers were big coming into 2007. They were the heavy favorites to win the B-12 North, and could even have their shot at a BCS game.
And then the season started. The Huskers on defense this season have looked like Louisville West this season. Averaging giving up over 40 points in all three of their loses this season, including last saturday's worst home loss ever to Oklahoma State. (Not Oklahoma mind you, Oklahoma STATE).
So what was the reaction to this horrible start by a team that was to be a "contender" for the B-12 conference title? A firing of the Athletic Director. (Now, I realize that there are being reported some other issues with Pederson and the job he was doing at Nebraska; such as employee dissatisfaction and job morale issues. Still, none of those appeared to be big problems back in June/July when the Nebraska administration extended Pederson's contract for 5 years. Those only became "issues" as criteria for dismissal once the football team's season tanked.)
Now, compare that with the reaction of Louisville where the season this year has been, well, to be kind, far below what people have thought it would be. Including pundits like Phil Steele, among others. But at no time has the UL fan base, or the UL administration had anything but continued faith in UL VP of Athletics Tom Jurich, to fix the problems with this football team and with the coaching staff where/if applicable.
The question is: How much does the AD truly and really impact the final W-L column of the football program?
Is not that the responsibility of the HEAD FOOTBALL COACH?? The AD's job, whether it be in Louisville, or in Nebraska, is to provide all the tools and means necessary for the football HC to build a football program that will result in wins on the field. Making sure of things like facilities, fund raising, NCAA compliance, and even player eligibility are all in order. The only other function is the fact that the AD is responsible for hiring the HC's for every sport the university offers, but it is the HC's job to put together a coaching staff that can teach the game fundamentals, techniques, schemes and methods which result in positive success on the football field. It just seems ridiculous to hold an AD responsible for the W-L records of any of the sports teams. Either from a "firing" of the AD because of it, or of a "the AD has to fix this" perspective. Both, for me, seem to be not focusing on the real problems at hand.
The real issues, for both schools, has been horribly inconsistent play by the defense, as well as some key injuries and poor game management in other phases of the game.
Yes, UL won a very key game up in Cincinnati over the weekend. One in which the UL DL played a big part in. But, given this team's track record they could turn around this week and make UConn look like the New England Patriots. The biggest key to UL's win over Cincy this past weekend were the turnovers they created, and the ones that the Cincy defense did not. That is not necessarily a trend that you want to depend on every week to get you a win. But I am digressing.
The point here to this issue for me, is that I think that that Head Coach's of each respective program at not taking enough responsibility for the current state of each respective program. With UL, you can be a little more forgiving because it is a first year coach, but how can you give a 4th year HC a nod of approval, and then turn around and fire the AD for on field performance? Conversely, how can the UL fan base give unwavering support believing that JURICH, not Kragthorpe, will "fix" UL's football on the field success? When I see both Pederson and Jurich on the practice fields with a whistle, a game plan, and putting kids through drills, them maybe I will accept that. Until then, I think it is a bit unfair and a little naieve to expect the AD of any school to have that sort of on the field impact.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
UL coach under fan fire
It is the halfway point for the University of Louisville football season. Louisville is currently sitting at 3-3 on the season, having lost two games at HOME vs teams with a combined W-L record of 4-8. With the other loss being to UK on UK's home field. So the question has to be asked, where does this leave UL for the remainder of the season?
UL now has 6 games remaining with 4 of them road games. Oddly, this might be a blessing in disguise. UL has played abysmally at home this season, while showing at least SOME form of clean effort and play when going on the road. UL did lose to UK in Commonwealth Stadium, but actually led in the game with less than a minute to play, and were it not for a horrible defensive breakdown, might have come away with that victory. Add to that they did go on the road to NC State and admittedly beat a very poor Wolfpack team, but did so by playing much more sound in every aspect of the game. So maybe going on the road will actually be the best thing for this team. The problem is, the teams that UL plays get harder and harder on the road. And like the UK game, most of the rest of the teams UL plays on the road have the date with UL circled as one they want to 'payback' UL for.
First up is Cincinnati this weekend who not only is sitting in the top 20 and 6-0 on the season; UL has also beaten UC 7 of 8 times they have faced each other. And UC badly wants this game to prove they are a legitimate team. After that comes another road trip to UConn with a very much improved Huskie team, but is still very young. That might be UL's best chance to steal a game on the road, but it will not be easy. As for the other road games, @ WVU and @ USF. UL has yet to ever beat USF in Raymond James Stadium, even when going in with a much better team and none of the problems that this one faces. Add to that the Bulls are also undefeated @ 5-0 and ranked in the top 10 in the nation, and things do not look good at all there. Morgantown is one of the toughest places to play in, in the nation. WVU is ALWAYS dangerous. The 'Eers have had a lot of problems early this season with key injuries, but are still 5-1 headed into the meat of the Big East conference, with their only loss at the hands of the aforementioned USF Bulls in RJS. So, if UL has ANY chance at a post-season bowl game THE "must win" game of the year has to be against either UC or UConn. My guess is it will be the UConn game.
All of that is assuming that UL wins BOTH of their remaining home games, mind you. Given UL's ability to throw in MAJOR klunkers on their home field, even against VASTLY inferior teams, by no means do the games against Pitt and Rutgers at home look like they are "easy wins". It could come down to UL needing BOTH the UC AND the UConn games on the road to be bowl eligible.
Which brings up the real issue here. Why is this UL team so HORRIBLY bad when playing at home? If it were not for the fact that this team just so "out-classed" its two early season opponents, (FBS doormat Murray State, and nearly winless Middle TN State, (1-5)), UL could already by completely out of contention for a bowl game.
The fans have completely revolted against new HC Steve Kragthorpe, and what we see now is a completely fractured fanbase seperating into three VERY distinct groups. Those groups are the "fire Kragthrope now", "give Kragthorpe 2 years" and the smallest group, (of which I consider myself), the "jury is still out". I believe that the last group is probably the most realistic. I am not even close to saying, "get rid of Kragthorpe", but I am just as far away on the issue of saying that "Kragthorpe is the best coach for UL". Personally, I wrote this season off as a rebuilding one after the Middle Tennessee game. UL looked worse in that game that they won, as they ever have in any game that they have LOST in the past 8 years. At this point, for me, I do not care if this team does get to a bowl game or not. The major problem for me, is that during NONE of the first 6 games has there been any phase of the game, (defense, offense, special teams, or even kicking), that has shown marked, or even steady improvement from one game to the next. NONE. And more than anything else that disturbs me the most. If anything, there has been a backslide of areas that early in the season looked very strong. For example the offense has not produced in the past two home games in the first half and in both cases had to rely on offensive heroics in the last few minutes of the game to even make the games close at the end. The UL offense, on their home field, even BLANKED in the first quarter of their game against Utah, and only scored 7 total points for the 1st half. The punting game that last year avg nearly 34 yds per kick looks like it is a kindergarten kickball team. And the ST kick coverage is at best marginally better than the coverage last year that gave up an avg return of 20+ yards.
This lack of game to game improvement, and even backsliding, is a big sign of problems that go a LOT deeper than just "kids not buying into the system", or, "bad kids that need to be weeded out", "poor coaching by the assistants", "lack of communication from the coaching staff about the team", or even, "poor game planning/scheming/preparation by the coaching staff". For me, it speaks that the whole system is faltering. From coaching staffs not on the same page, to kids being confused and then getting angry and acting out, to a total lack of on-the-field discipline and communication. Still, even with all of that concern, I am not ready, after only half of a season, to say that Kragthorpe should go. No, instead what I will be watching is to see what off-season changes are made. Nothing can or will be "fixed" during this season, of that I am convinced. So I am just going to ride this out this season, and not make any judgments based on what I see on the field, or the results in the W-L column for this season. Instead, I want to see what happens in the off-season. Will there be coaching changes in the staff? (I'm about 99.9999% sure on that one) How will that effect recruiting? Will there be a ton of position shifts of the current players? Will there be a lot of kids transferring out? If so, how many are underclassman, (sophomores and freshman), vs current juniors? How will that impact the senior leadership next season, as well as the off-season team-led workouts? Will this coaching staff become more open and forthright with the fan base about the internals of the team? (Which brings up a sidebar note. I VERY much believe that a great deal of the animosity some of the UL fan base have with this coaching staff is the LACK of straightforward communication about the team. When things are going great, everyone, from coach's to CEO's of companies are afforded the luxury of being tight-lipped. But when things are going wrong, fans and stockholders alike want answers. They want to know, not only that issues ARE being addressed, but HOW they are being addressed. This does not mean that they have to, or even should, know the exact tactics or problems, but that there is a clear and distinct course of action being taken. So far, this staff, and the UL Athletic Department as whole has failed miserably on that. However, I do give Kragthorpe a big shout-out for at least throwing the fan base a bone and now releasing NFL type player injury information. That I think at least shows a sign of offering some sort of olive branch.)
I have a ton of questions about this staff right now. But none of the questions I have can, or will, be answered for a while yet. I think this HC deserves every chance to put the pieces in place he thinks he needs to fix the problem. But one thing he cannot do, is after the season, bunker down and not even communicate out to the fans what is being done. For Kragthorpe to survive at UL he needs to lose a little bit of his "stubborn" streak and really make an effort to allow the fans to embrace him. I think they can, and will, but right now, the issues on the field and the apparent cavalier attitude toward them is causing a lot more fans to head towards that "fire Kragthorpe now" group than the other two.
UL now has 6 games remaining with 4 of them road games. Oddly, this might be a blessing in disguise. UL has played abysmally at home this season, while showing at least SOME form of clean effort and play when going on the road. UL did lose to UK in Commonwealth Stadium, but actually led in the game with less than a minute to play, and were it not for a horrible defensive breakdown, might have come away with that victory. Add to that they did go on the road to NC State and admittedly beat a very poor Wolfpack team, but did so by playing much more sound in every aspect of the game. So maybe going on the road will actually be the best thing for this team. The problem is, the teams that UL plays get harder and harder on the road. And like the UK game, most of the rest of the teams UL plays on the road have the date with UL circled as one they want to 'payback' UL for.
First up is Cincinnati this weekend who not only is sitting in the top 20 and 6-0 on the season; UL has also beaten UC 7 of 8 times they have faced each other. And UC badly wants this game to prove they are a legitimate team. After that comes another road trip to UConn with a very much improved Huskie team, but is still very young. That might be UL's best chance to steal a game on the road, but it will not be easy. As for the other road games, @ WVU and @ USF. UL has yet to ever beat USF in Raymond James Stadium, even when going in with a much better team and none of the problems that this one faces. Add to that the Bulls are also undefeated @ 5-0 and ranked in the top 10 in the nation, and things do not look good at all there. Morgantown is one of the toughest places to play in, in the nation. WVU is ALWAYS dangerous. The 'Eers have had a lot of problems early this season with key injuries, but are still 5-1 headed into the meat of the Big East conference, with their only loss at the hands of the aforementioned USF Bulls in RJS. So, if UL has ANY chance at a post-season bowl game THE "must win" game of the year has to be against either UC or UConn. My guess is it will be the UConn game.
All of that is assuming that UL wins BOTH of their remaining home games, mind you. Given UL's ability to throw in MAJOR klunkers on their home field, even against VASTLY inferior teams, by no means do the games against Pitt and Rutgers at home look like they are "easy wins". It could come down to UL needing BOTH the UC AND the UConn games on the road to be bowl eligible.
Which brings up the real issue here. Why is this UL team so HORRIBLY bad when playing at home? If it were not for the fact that this team just so "out-classed" its two early season opponents, (FBS doormat Murray State, and nearly winless Middle TN State, (1-5)), UL could already by completely out of contention for a bowl game.
The fans have completely revolted against new HC Steve Kragthorpe, and what we see now is a completely fractured fanbase seperating into three VERY distinct groups. Those groups are the "fire Kragthrope now", "give Kragthorpe 2 years" and the smallest group, (of which I consider myself), the "jury is still out". I believe that the last group is probably the most realistic. I am not even close to saying, "get rid of Kragthorpe", but I am just as far away on the issue of saying that "Kragthorpe is the best coach for UL". Personally, I wrote this season off as a rebuilding one after the Middle Tennessee game. UL looked worse in that game that they won, as they ever have in any game that they have LOST in the past 8 years. At this point, for me, I do not care if this team does get to a bowl game or not. The major problem for me, is that during NONE of the first 6 games has there been any phase of the game, (defense, offense, special teams, or even kicking), that has shown marked, or even steady improvement from one game to the next. NONE. And more than anything else that disturbs me the most. If anything, there has been a backslide of areas that early in the season looked very strong. For example the offense has not produced in the past two home games in the first half and in both cases had to rely on offensive heroics in the last few minutes of the game to even make the games close at the end. The UL offense, on their home field, even BLANKED in the first quarter of their game against Utah, and only scored 7 total points for the 1st half. The punting game that last year avg nearly 34 yds per kick looks like it is a kindergarten kickball team. And the ST kick coverage is at best marginally better than the coverage last year that gave up an avg return of 20+ yards.
This lack of game to game improvement, and even backsliding, is a big sign of problems that go a LOT deeper than just "kids not buying into the system", or, "bad kids that need to be weeded out", "poor coaching by the assistants", "lack of communication from the coaching staff about the team", or even, "poor game planning/scheming/preparation by the coaching staff". For me, it speaks that the whole system is faltering. From coaching staffs not on the same page, to kids being confused and then getting angry and acting out, to a total lack of on-the-field discipline and communication. Still, even with all of that concern, I am not ready, after only half of a season, to say that Kragthorpe should go. No, instead what I will be watching is to see what off-season changes are made. Nothing can or will be "fixed" during this season, of that I am convinced. So I am just going to ride this out this season, and not make any judgments based on what I see on the field, or the results in the W-L column for this season. Instead, I want to see what happens in the off-season. Will there be coaching changes in the staff? (I'm about 99.9999% sure on that one) How will that effect recruiting? Will there be a ton of position shifts of the current players? Will there be a lot of kids transferring out? If so, how many are underclassman, (sophomores and freshman), vs current juniors? How will that impact the senior leadership next season, as well as the off-season team-led workouts? Will this coaching staff become more open and forthright with the fan base about the internals of the team? (Which brings up a sidebar note. I VERY much believe that a great deal of the animosity some of the UL fan base have with this coaching staff is the LACK of straightforward communication about the team. When things are going great, everyone, from coach's to CEO's of companies are afforded the luxury of being tight-lipped. But when things are going wrong, fans and stockholders alike want answers. They want to know, not only that issues ARE being addressed, but HOW they are being addressed. This does not mean that they have to, or even should, know the exact tactics or problems, but that there is a clear and distinct course of action being taken. So far, this staff, and the UL Athletic Department as whole has failed miserably on that. However, I do give Kragthorpe a big shout-out for at least throwing the fan base a bone and now releasing NFL type player injury information. That I think at least shows a sign of offering some sort of olive branch.)
I have a ton of questions about this staff right now. But none of the questions I have can, or will, be answered for a while yet. I think this HC deserves every chance to put the pieces in place he thinks he needs to fix the problem. But one thing he cannot do, is after the season, bunker down and not even communicate out to the fans what is being done. For Kragthorpe to survive at UL he needs to lose a little bit of his "stubborn" streak and really make an effort to allow the fans to embrace him. I think they can, and will, but right now, the issues on the field and the apparent cavalier attitude toward them is causing a lot more fans to head towards that "fire Kragthorpe now" group than the other two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)