I have been hearing a LOT of complaining going on by UL fans over recent losses to both Seton Hall and UConn.
Admittedly, both games UL has had more talent, and both games UL could have, and perhaps should have won. But the type of comments being made are sometimes pretty silly, and often just downright pathetic. And on both sides of the argument.
Some people saying that the kids are not talented, can't shoot, Pitino can't win close games, etc. While others say that Pitino is still one the best in the biz, and there is a lot of young, very good talent on this team that has suffered from lack of SR leadership due to injuries that have just started to get their games back.
Perhaps both are right. But neither argument has any real validity.
This is NCAA Basketball. NOT College football. Losing to teams that you can beat, and probably SHOULD beat, do not mean anything. The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not UL can win ENOUGH games to get invited to the NCAA tournament, where they would have a chance at winning the national championship.
Period. End of story.
(but not the end of diatribe blog entry...VBG)
Let's stop with all of the gnashing of teeth over whether "Sosa should have done this", "Palacios should have done that", "what Pitino could have done", "what T-Will should have done". Or why Padgett makes this team better and why Smith is a great 2 guard. NONE of that matters. NONE.
What DOES matter is that Louisville is sitting 15-6 (5-3) and plays in THE toughest basketball conference in the nation, but still has 10 games left to get at least 6 wins, and make both the BE and the NCAA post-season play. Losing a game here and there might hurt the Cards "seeding", but as long as they find a way to win at least 21 games, then they will have their chance. Unlike in football where 1 loss WILL drop a team out of the national title picture, a bad loss here and there for UL does nothing, except to give media-wonk critics something to write about to justify their so-called "expertise".
So, just cool down everyone, and let's see what happens now that we are in February. This is truly "crunch" time for the Cards, and they need to put it together for sure. But the season still has a LONG way to go.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Santana and the Mets
Look I KNOW that most people in Louisville think that "basketball is god". But baseball has a ton of people who care and follow the sport. That is why I do write so much about baseball here. And in Louisville, as being the Triple-A home for the Cincinnati Reds, the deal that happened recently between the Mets and Johan Santana has huge implications for many Reds followers in Louisville.
It is obvious that while the Mets scored a MAJOR coups in snatching Santana from the Twins, it is also true that the Twins really took a major bath on the deal. The question is, what happened that BOTH the Yankees and the Red Sox backed off of this deal?
Personally, I think the only reason that the RedSox were involved to begin with was to keep Santana out of Yankee pinstrips. While they would have loved to have had him, I do not think they were all that keen about losing Ellsbury, or a couple of the other players mentioned, given what they have returning in their pitching rotation anyway.
Why did the Yankees backoff? Good question. And I really have no idea. The Yankees pitching last year was AWFUL, and without question they BADLY needed Santana far more than Santana needed to play in front of those backwoods, country morons, known as "Yankee Fans". But here is what is interesting, George Steinbrenner would never have allowed Santana off the hook, whereas his idiot progeny did. In two of the major off-season deals, (Santana recently and the nearly botched loss of A-Rod), it is becoming VERY clear that not only are these guys not their father, they are complete idiots. (More's the better for a lifelong Yankess hater and RedSox fan like me!)
These are guys have nearly screwed up and did screw up two of the biggest deals in recent Yankees history, and the more they get involved, the more you realize that they are not the right owners for this storied ballclub.
If the Yankees start going down the tubes this season they way they did last year, these guys might just be stupid enough to not only fire the manager again, but also have a "fire sale" on some of their better players, just to try and get a "quick fix" in place.
It will be interesting to watch over the next few years.
It is obvious that while the Mets scored a MAJOR coups in snatching Santana from the Twins, it is also true that the Twins really took a major bath on the deal. The question is, what happened that BOTH the Yankees and the Red Sox backed off of this deal?
Personally, I think the only reason that the RedSox were involved to begin with was to keep Santana out of Yankee pinstrips. While they would have loved to have had him, I do not think they were all that keen about losing Ellsbury, or a couple of the other players mentioned, given what they have returning in their pitching rotation anyway.
Why did the Yankees backoff? Good question. And I really have no idea. The Yankees pitching last year was AWFUL, and without question they BADLY needed Santana far more than Santana needed to play in front of those backwoods, country morons, known as "Yankee Fans". But here is what is interesting, George Steinbrenner would never have allowed Santana off the hook, whereas his idiot progeny did. In two of the major off-season deals, (Santana recently and the nearly botched loss of A-Rod), it is becoming VERY clear that not only are these guys not their father, they are complete idiots. (More's the better for a lifelong Yankess hater and RedSox fan like me!)
These are guys have nearly screwed up and did screw up two of the biggest deals in recent Yankees history, and the more they get involved, the more you realize that they are not the right owners for this storied ballclub.
If the Yankees start going down the tubes this season they way they did last year, these guys might just be stupid enough to not only fire the manager again, but also have a "fire sale" on some of their better players, just to try and get a "quick fix" in place.
It will be interesting to watch over the next few years.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
One other MLB and PED comment
In case you missed this little item that was in the news last week.
Chuck Knoblauch, also accused in the Mitchell report of taking PED's during his career with the NY Yankees, was served a congressional subpoena last week for failing to respond to request to appear before the congressional subcommittee investigating the Mitchell report claims.
Knoblauch yesterday, has agreed to appear and testify before the committee yesterday. And Waxman, (chair of the committee), has withdrawn the subpoena.
But here is the best part, and if you are a baseball fan you will love this. Last week, during the MSNBC show Countdown, hosted by Keith Olbermann, had the best baseball joke line I have ever heard about this.
Olbermann, when referencing Knoblach's failure to respond to the committee summons, said this, "Perhaps it was not that Mr. Knoblauch has in any way intentionally refused to answer or reply to the committee. Instead, he probably received the request in the mail, promptly balled it up, and attempted to throw it to first base, sailing it into the stands and hitting my mother!"
Any baseball fan that watched Knoblauch play 2nd base for the Yankees knows just how funny that line is!
Chuck Knoblauch, also accused in the Mitchell report of taking PED's during his career with the NY Yankees, was served a congressional subpoena last week for failing to respond to request to appear before the congressional subcommittee investigating the Mitchell report claims.
Knoblauch yesterday, has agreed to appear and testify before the committee yesterday. And Waxman, (chair of the committee), has withdrawn the subpoena.
But here is the best part, and if you are a baseball fan you will love this. Last week, during the MSNBC show Countdown, hosted by Keith Olbermann, had the best baseball joke line I have ever heard about this.
Olbermann, when referencing Knoblach's failure to respond to the committee summons, said this, "Perhaps it was not that Mr. Knoblauch has in any way intentionally refused to answer or reply to the committee. Instead, he probably received the request in the mail, promptly balled it up, and attempted to throw it to first base, sailing it into the stands and hitting my mother!"
Any baseball fan that watched Knoblauch play 2nd base for the Yankees knows just how funny that line is!
18,000 words? EIGHTEEN THOUSAND?!
Ok, in the ever revolving story of the use of PED's in MLB, Clemens and his lawyer yesterday released a 40+ page document with 18,000 words, which was really nothing more than a statistcal biography of Clemens career.
Nearly nothing in this report gives is anything that you can not lookup in the Baseball Almanac, or on MLB.com.
You would think that a guy that is accused of taking PED's, would at least ADDRESS the exact issues that his accusers have stated, instead of trying to use statistics of how his play actually improved around and after the same time frame he has been accused of this action.
But let's put that aside for a minute.
I actually applaud Clemens for vehemently defending his name. Because, let's face it, his career is over, so it is not like he is going to be going back to baseball in hopes of winning another Cy Young award. The only reason he might go back is just to make 'mo money' and because he does not know when to quit.
So the reason he is fighting this is for his baseball legacy. And I understand that. Because if proven that he did take PED's, then his chances for HOF induction are all but zero.
Which makes this document so very confusing. The argument is at best an odd tangent, and at worst completely moot. You would think that instead of trying to make this document about the whole of Clemen's career and saying "See! Look at his stats it shows how good he has been as a pitcher!", they would instead address specific issues and events that McNamee has accused Clemens of. Why talk about Clemens lowest in the majors ERA during that time period, but not address any issues or situations off the field, which is where the allegations are said to have occurred? It does not make much sense.
And why has Clemens legal team not seen fit to address the questions raised by Pettite's admission of guilt directly? For example, why would McNamee lie, what does he stand to gain or lose by falsifying information about Clemens?
While it is an interesting tack, this document does nearly nothing to address the questions or innocence of Clemens being accused of PED use. At least none that I can see.
Nearly nothing in this report gives is anything that you can not lookup in the Baseball Almanac, or on MLB.com.
You would think that a guy that is accused of taking PED's, would at least ADDRESS the exact issues that his accusers have stated, instead of trying to use statistics of how his play actually improved around and after the same time frame he has been accused of this action.
But let's put that aside for a minute.
I actually applaud Clemens for vehemently defending his name. Because, let's face it, his career is over, so it is not like he is going to be going back to baseball in hopes of winning another Cy Young award. The only reason he might go back is just to make 'mo money' and because he does not know when to quit.
So the reason he is fighting this is for his baseball legacy. And I understand that. Because if proven that he did take PED's, then his chances for HOF induction are all but zero.
Which makes this document so very confusing. The argument is at best an odd tangent, and at worst completely moot. You would think that instead of trying to make this document about the whole of Clemen's career and saying "See! Look at his stats it shows how good he has been as a pitcher!", they would instead address specific issues and events that McNamee has accused Clemens of. Why talk about Clemens lowest in the majors ERA during that time period, but not address any issues or situations off the field, which is where the allegations are said to have occurred? It does not make much sense.
And why has Clemens legal team not seen fit to address the questions raised by Pettite's admission of guilt directly? For example, why would McNamee lie, what does he stand to gain or lose by falsifying information about Clemens?
While it is an interesting tack, this document does nearly nothing to address the questions or innocence of Clemens being accused of PED use. At least none that I can see.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Please forgive me....
I was reminded today that I have not written any article on the blog for about a week. My apologies.
I have been ill the past week, and have been neglecting my duties.
I have several things to comment on, and I will get back on it this week.
Sorry for the dead period.
And thank you for your patience and reading attention!
I have been ill the past week, and have been neglecting my duties.
I have several things to comment on, and I will get back on it this week.
Sorry for the dead period.
And thank you for your patience and reading attention!
Monday, January 21, 2008
On MLK day, time to take note....
On the holiday to honor Martin Luther King, it is only fitting to reflect a bit on the state of racial equality in American sports today.
To begin with, let us thing about were we were in 1968. The sports world was just barely coming to grips with racial equality in America. Major league baseball's Jackie Robinson, the first black man to ever play in major league baseball was a key player, (pun not intended), in forming the first black-owned bank in America. In tennis, Arthur Ashe became the first winner, (of ANY race), to win the US Open, and led the American team to a Davis cup victory. In the NBA, Louisville's own Wes Unseld won the NBA's Rookie of the year award.
But even with those successes, there were ugly reminders of just how divided and segregated the country was about its racial feelings.
In this year, the sport of golf was still dominated by country clubs that would not let "those of color" in as members, (and never would have allowed a woman either, I might add.)
In October of 1968 the summer olympics were held in Mexico City. In the 200 m medal award ceremony, two african-american athletes Tommie Smith (gold) and John Carlos (bronze) raised their black-gloved fists as a symbol of Black Power. As punishment, the International Olympic Committee banned them from the Olympic Games for life. A "punishment" that did not reflect the correct statement of the subject the two athletes wanted the world to know about.
The aforementioned Arthur Ashe was also denied a visa to South Africa, thereby denying him even the opportunity to play in the South African Open tennis championships.
Fast forward 40 years, and things HAVE changed. For the better. In the media, we almost never hear the phrase uttered, "so-and-so athlete/coach was the first person of their race to be champion/member/owner/coach". We have begun to honor athletes AND coaches, not for being of a particular race which made "x" type of accomplishment, but instead to honor and praise them for their talent and skill AS athletes and coaches.
African-American athletes enjoy unprecedented support and praise from the sporting world. But it goes beyond just african-americans. The message of Martin Luther King was that he wanted to see beyond all colors of race, not just black and white. And today we are seeing that. Look at the NBA and you will not see it dominated by white or black athletes, but also athletes from other races across the globe. Hispanic and Asian both have equal representation. The same goes for major league baseball, in which the racial diversity has expanded far across the globe to the point where some teams travel with multi-lingual interpretors for their players to communicate with their coaching staff and other players. We see women's sports increasing, not only in quantity, but also in acceptance and national exposure, which gives women more opportunities than ever before for careers in professional sports.
Still, we have a long ways to go. That was never more evident than last years racial epithets thrown at Serena Williams during a tennis match, in which resulted in the removal of a fan from the stands.
Or the unfortunate, and VERY poor taste, mind slip by a golf announcer in choosing the word "lynch" with regard to one of the greatest golfers of all time, who just happens to be african-american. And while the female announcer immediately apologized and admitted it was a very poor choice of words, and most of the nation forgave her as an error of judgement, we were shocked by the provocative and heinous visual use of a picture of a noose on the frontpage of a weekly golf magazine. One in which the editor of the magazine was summarily, and correctly, fired over.
We have made progress. But as these examples show, we still have more to overcome. Even 40 years after Martin Luther King's death.
To begin with, let us thing about were we were in 1968. The sports world was just barely coming to grips with racial equality in America. Major league baseball's Jackie Robinson, the first black man to ever play in major league baseball was a key player, (pun not intended), in forming the first black-owned bank in America. In tennis, Arthur Ashe became the first winner, (of ANY race), to win the US Open, and led the American team to a Davis cup victory. In the NBA, Louisville's own Wes Unseld won the NBA's Rookie of the year award.
But even with those successes, there were ugly reminders of just how divided and segregated the country was about its racial feelings.
In this year, the sport of golf was still dominated by country clubs that would not let "those of color" in as members, (and never would have allowed a woman either, I might add.)
In October of 1968 the summer olympics were held in Mexico City. In the 200 m medal award ceremony, two african-american athletes Tommie Smith (gold) and John Carlos (bronze) raised their black-gloved fists as a symbol of Black Power. As punishment, the International Olympic Committee banned them from the Olympic Games for life. A "punishment" that did not reflect the correct statement of the subject the two athletes wanted the world to know about.
The aforementioned Arthur Ashe was also denied a visa to South Africa, thereby denying him even the opportunity to play in the South African Open tennis championships.
Fast forward 40 years, and things HAVE changed. For the better. In the media, we almost never hear the phrase uttered, "so-and-so athlete/coach was the first person of their race to be champion/member/owner/coach". We have begun to honor athletes AND coaches, not for being of a particular race which made "x" type of accomplishment, but instead to honor and praise them for their talent and skill AS athletes and coaches.
African-American athletes enjoy unprecedented support and praise from the sporting world. But it goes beyond just african-americans. The message of Martin Luther King was that he wanted to see beyond all colors of race, not just black and white. And today we are seeing that. Look at the NBA and you will not see it dominated by white or black athletes, but also athletes from other races across the globe. Hispanic and Asian both have equal representation. The same goes for major league baseball, in which the racial diversity has expanded far across the globe to the point where some teams travel with multi-lingual interpretors for their players to communicate with their coaching staff and other players. We see women's sports increasing, not only in quantity, but also in acceptance and national exposure, which gives women more opportunities than ever before for careers in professional sports.
Still, we have a long ways to go. That was never more evident than last years racial epithets thrown at Serena Williams during a tennis match, in which resulted in the removal of a fan from the stands.
Or the unfortunate, and VERY poor taste, mind slip by a golf announcer in choosing the word "lynch" with regard to one of the greatest golfers of all time, who just happens to be african-american. And while the female announcer immediately apologized and admitted it was a very poor choice of words, and most of the nation forgave her as an error of judgement, we were shocked by the provocative and heinous visual use of a picture of a noose on the frontpage of a weekly golf magazine. One in which the editor of the magazine was summarily, and correctly, fired over.
We have made progress. But as these examples show, we still have more to overcome. Even 40 years after Martin Luther King's death.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Yarmuth ask question that has dual answer
In the hearings on PED use in MLB, US Rep John Yarmuth asked the question of MLBPA head Donald Fehr if there has been any scientific evidence that the use of performance enhancing drugs, (PEDs), actually improve performance.
The answer to Yarmuth's question is "yes" and "no". Because the science has been completely inconclusive. But I also think that Yarmuth has COMPLETELY missed the point. And that point is that it is NOT whether or not drugs actually give someone an edge or advantage, but that the drug users THINK that they do.
As a Boston RedSox fan I use as an example the ages old argument of Bucky "F'ing" Dent. Every RedSox fan, including me, still believes that Dent used a corked bat to hit his HR that sent the Yankees to the World Series. And years later we learned that MANY MLB players used, (and suspicions abound even today), corked bats which they believe help them get an edge to get more hits and even more power.
The problem? It was scientifically proven on the Discovery Channel's MythBusters show that a corked bat does NOT provide any power advantage over a non-corked bat. Their tests even went so far as to prove that a corked bat is actually WORSE for generating power or solid hits, because the cork inside the bat acts as a shock absorber to the impact of a ball hitting it, actually REDUCING the force to drive the ball! That is proven. Corked bats do NOT give hitters an advantage and even have proven to give more of an advantage to pitchers than hitters! The only thing a corked bat is, is slightly lighter, which may allow a hitter to have a slighter faster swing, but since the ball is deadened by the impact, it is not going to go anywhere. Yet, we still hear of hitters using corked bats, (although banned by MLB), because they believe it gives them an edge. Regardless of how wrong-headed that may be.
The same is true for PEDs use. Whether or not it does give athletes an edge is completely a MOOT point Mr Yarmuth. The point is that MLB players THINK it does. And by using those PEDs they are setting the expectation to all high school and even little league athletes that if they are not as "strong as they want to be", "as fast as they want to be", "or as quick as they want to be", then taking PEDs MIGHT be your ticket to a scholarship or even a professional sports career.
Mr Yarmuth, your question is interesting, but completely invalid.
The answer to Yarmuth's question is "yes" and "no". Because the science has been completely inconclusive. But I also think that Yarmuth has COMPLETELY missed the point. And that point is that it is NOT whether or not drugs actually give someone an edge or advantage, but that the drug users THINK that they do.
As a Boston RedSox fan I use as an example the ages old argument of Bucky "F'ing" Dent. Every RedSox fan, including me, still believes that Dent used a corked bat to hit his HR that sent the Yankees to the World Series. And years later we learned that MANY MLB players used, (and suspicions abound even today), corked bats which they believe help them get an edge to get more hits and even more power.
The problem? It was scientifically proven on the Discovery Channel's MythBusters show that a corked bat does NOT provide any power advantage over a non-corked bat. Their tests even went so far as to prove that a corked bat is actually WORSE for generating power or solid hits, because the cork inside the bat acts as a shock absorber to the impact of a ball hitting it, actually REDUCING the force to drive the ball! That is proven. Corked bats do NOT give hitters an advantage and even have proven to give more of an advantage to pitchers than hitters! The only thing a corked bat is, is slightly lighter, which may allow a hitter to have a slighter faster swing, but since the ball is deadened by the impact, it is not going to go anywhere. Yet, we still hear of hitters using corked bats, (although banned by MLB), because they believe it gives them an edge. Regardless of how wrong-headed that may be.
The same is true for PEDs use. Whether or not it does give athletes an edge is completely a MOOT point Mr Yarmuth. The point is that MLB players THINK it does. And by using those PEDs they are setting the expectation to all high school and even little league athletes that if they are not as "strong as they want to be", "as fast as they want to be", "or as quick as they want to be", then taking PEDs MIGHT be your ticket to a scholarship or even a professional sports career.
Mr Yarmuth, your question is interesting, but completely invalid.
MLBPA and MLB execs again stonewalling...
Once again, here is the MLB being dragged up in front of congressional hearings to answer questions with regard to steroid and PED use in their sport.
Nothing new here.
The question is, will there be any new results? My answer. Not on your life.
MLB has absolutely NO desire to go after any of its star players who abused PED's, the owners who knew about it, or even the trainers and front office personnel who may have encouraged such abuse.
To reinforce that, look at the continued snipping that is going on between the MLBPA and the World Anti-Doping Agency, (WADA). The Mitchell report, reinforced and suggested once again that MLB would be BEST served by putting a non-MLB managed drug testing agency in charge of the MLB testing. But the MLBPA, and specifically Donald Fehr, will have NOTHING whatsoever to do with that suggestion. Which only goes to show to me that the MLBPA 100% SUPPORTS the use of steroids and other PED's in MLB. Because if they have not been part of the solution, which the Mitchell report says they have not been, then they will be damned if they will let anyone else be part of it.
It is my opinion and contention that MLB and the MLBPA do not WANT to stop steroid and PED abuse, because everyone from the MLB exec's to the owners to the players even down to the concessionaires have benefited from players using drugs. And the reason they have benefited is because as players have "juiced" up, so to have the fans increased. And obviously, more fans, more money. So there is NO incentive for them to stop using PEDs.
Nothing new here.
The question is, will there be any new results? My answer. Not on your life.
MLB has absolutely NO desire to go after any of its star players who abused PED's, the owners who knew about it, or even the trainers and front office personnel who may have encouraged such abuse.
To reinforce that, look at the continued snipping that is going on between the MLBPA and the World Anti-Doping Agency, (WADA). The Mitchell report, reinforced and suggested once again that MLB would be BEST served by putting a non-MLB managed drug testing agency in charge of the MLB testing. But the MLBPA, and specifically Donald Fehr, will have NOTHING whatsoever to do with that suggestion. Which only goes to show to me that the MLBPA 100% SUPPORTS the use of steroids and other PED's in MLB. Because if they have not been part of the solution, which the Mitchell report says they have not been, then they will be damned if they will let anyone else be part of it.
It is my opinion and contention that MLB and the MLBPA do not WANT to stop steroid and PED abuse, because everyone from the MLB exec's to the owners to the players even down to the concessionaires have benefited from players using drugs. And the reason they have benefited is because as players have "juiced" up, so to have the fans increased. And obviously, more fans, more money. So there is NO incentive for them to stop using PEDs.
UGa Prez calls the Big Ten Obstructionists?!
In one of the most ironic turn of events I have ever witnessed, the University of Georgia President, not only a week ago proposed and supports an 8 team college football playoff to decide the national champion; but now THIS week has the cahones to call out the Big Ten as being obstructionists to a playoff?
Ok, first off, I 100% agree with Dr. Michael Adams, (president of the University of Georgia), about the Big Ten. He is absolutely, 100% correct that the Big Ten does not, and likely will not EVER, support any type of 8 team college football championship. And the reason is very simple. The Rose Bowl.
But for a president of a member school of the SEC conference to even hint that another conference is obstructionist and in essence exclusionist, is laughable if not stupid. The SEC is the biggest reason why we have this BS entity called the "Bowl Championship Series", to begin with. Whether Adams was the UGa president when the SEC voted on creating this debacle, I do not know. But why is it that NONE of those SEC presidents talk about getting OUT of the BCS system and forming a playoff system, except when it is their school that is basically left out? Not only that, but as I just alluded to, it was former SEC commissioner Roy Kramer who proposed, pushed and even bullied the other conferences like the Big Ten to form the BCS to begin with!
And do you see ANY of the SEC schools threatening to walk from the BCS post-season bowl picture if a playoff is not formed? Hardly. The SEC is the single BIGGEST winner every year in the BCS system as it stands today. The SEC, since the institution of the BCS title game to the method of the system, has had two teams playing in BCS bowl games. So do not give that "poor, pitiful me" nonsense Adams.
The SEC has done EVERYTHING it can to block inclusion to BCS games to teams not part of the "big six" conferences, and even suggested that the Big East should lose its automatic bid once Boston College, Miami(FL), and Virginia Tech bolted for the ACC. Luckily, that did not happen, and the Big East has earned its automatic bid by winning every single one of their BCS games since the expansion of the league to its current member configuration.
But as ironic and self-serving as Adams statements are, he is right. The Big Ten and the PAC-10 walk hand-in-hand when it comes to the Rose Bowl. And at no time was that more evident than the 2008 version of the Rose Bowl, when the RB exec's picked a good, but not great, Illinois team to play in the RB, when there where several possibly more deserving teams, (say Missouri for example), who would have been better opponents for the Pac-10 champs, USC. The Big Ten will NEVER give up, what it considers its "birth right" to the Rose Bowl. As a matter of fact, the B-10 and P-10 will literally WITHDRAW from the BCS membership before agreeing to any type of playoff in which they might not get their teams in the Rose Bowl every year.
The point is this, as I have said before, the chances of a true, college football playoff are all but 0%, IMHO, unless the other conferences, not named the Big-10 or PAC-10, create one WITHOUT those two conferences. And what do you really think the chances are that, that will happen?
Ok, first off, I 100% agree with Dr. Michael Adams, (president of the University of Georgia), about the Big Ten. He is absolutely, 100% correct that the Big Ten does not, and likely will not EVER, support any type of 8 team college football championship. And the reason is very simple. The Rose Bowl.
But for a president of a member school of the SEC conference to even hint that another conference is obstructionist and in essence exclusionist, is laughable if not stupid. The SEC is the biggest reason why we have this BS entity called the "Bowl Championship Series", to begin with. Whether Adams was the UGa president when the SEC voted on creating this debacle, I do not know. But why is it that NONE of those SEC presidents talk about getting OUT of the BCS system and forming a playoff system, except when it is their school that is basically left out? Not only that, but as I just alluded to, it was former SEC commissioner Roy Kramer who proposed, pushed and even bullied the other conferences like the Big Ten to form the BCS to begin with!
And do you see ANY of the SEC schools threatening to walk from the BCS post-season bowl picture if a playoff is not formed? Hardly. The SEC is the single BIGGEST winner every year in the BCS system as it stands today. The SEC, since the institution of the BCS title game to the method of the system, has had two teams playing in BCS bowl games. So do not give that "poor, pitiful me" nonsense Adams.
The SEC has done EVERYTHING it can to block inclusion to BCS games to teams not part of the "big six" conferences, and even suggested that the Big East should lose its automatic bid once Boston College, Miami(FL), and Virginia Tech bolted for the ACC. Luckily, that did not happen, and the Big East has earned its automatic bid by winning every single one of their BCS games since the expansion of the league to its current member configuration.
But as ironic and self-serving as Adams statements are, he is right. The Big Ten and the PAC-10 walk hand-in-hand when it comes to the Rose Bowl. And at no time was that more evident than the 2008 version of the Rose Bowl, when the RB exec's picked a good, but not great, Illinois team to play in the RB, when there where several possibly more deserving teams, (say Missouri for example), who would have been better opponents for the Pac-10 champs, USC. The Big Ten will NEVER give up, what it considers its "birth right" to the Rose Bowl. As a matter of fact, the B-10 and P-10 will literally WITHDRAW from the BCS membership before agreeing to any type of playoff in which they might not get their teams in the Rose Bowl every year.
The point is this, as I have said before, the chances of a true, college football playoff are all but 0%, IMHO, unless the other conferences, not named the Big-10 or PAC-10, create one WITHOUT those two conferences. And what do you really think the chances are that, that will happen?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Steroid hearings, Jones verdict, Clemens denial
Today begins the Congressional hearings on the Mitchell report of the use of steroids, HGH and/or other Performance Enhancing Drugs, (PEDs), in MLB.
The first subject of the questioning will be former senator Mitchell who wrote this report. We all know that part of the story.
The bigger part of the story, is what will happen as the questioning turns to the accused in the Mitchell report? We will just have to see.
One thing we need to keep in mind is that this all comes on the heels of last friday's verdict against Marion Jones, who was sentenced to six months in prison and two years in prison for lying about using steroids in her bid for Olympic gold in 2000, as well as lying about knowing that her former coach was part of a check-fraud scam.
Now, consider that for a moment. Marion Jones was NOT, repeat NOT, convicted and sentenced to prison and probation for doing any PEDs, nor for even knowing about what her former coach was doing, but for LYING about it to congressional hearings when asked to appear and answer questions.
The question for me becomes this. Will Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and other MLB players mentioned in the Mitchell report, ALSO be found guilty and sentenced in like manner? Honestly, they should. There should NOT be a "double standard" applied here. And I do not mean that based on gender, but on sports equity. Just because these MLB players are extremely wealthy and play a major revenue sport should NOT mean that they receive anything LESS than what Marion Jones received. In fact the penalty for them should actually be higher, IMHO. They are far more well-known and play far more important a role in mainstream sports fan minds than an Olympic medalist from 4 years ago. I do think it bodes well for a fair and equitable justice system though that Barry Bonds HAS been indicted for lying to congress. So perhaps this will out, we will just have to wait and see.
As to the Roger Clemens innocence or guilt as to the Mitchell report accusation of alleged use of PEDs, I only have this to say right now. I distrust his adamant denials. Why did he wait almost 30 days before addressing this issue? Why when he did, did he and his lawyer play only snippets of a phone conversation between Clemens and his accuser and ex-personal trainer McNamee? Why did Clemens and his lawyer start hedging on whether to appear before congress to answer questions, about the same time that the Marion Jones sentencing came down? Too many questions that look far too much like damage control, and legal gerrymandering, than true, honest proclamations of innocence.
Which brings me to Andy Pettite. The single most interesting and most OVERLOOKED person in the whole sordid issue of PED use. Until the Mitchell report, we had heard literally nothing of any insinuation that Pettite had used any type of PED. And just as shocked as we were about Clemens mention in the report, we were just as much with Pettite's name appearing there. But here is where the comparison ends. Barely more than 3 days after the Mitchell report was release, Pettite came out and announced to the media and the world that he did indeed use steroids. And what was the public and especially the media's reaction to that proclamation?
(crickets chirping)
Right. DEAD silence. There was no outcry of Pettite's "cheating", no demanding of records being expunged, nothing. As a matter of fact it has been almost the complete OPPOSITE of those. Pettite is coming off almost as a "victim" in this issue. At worst, nothing more than a pathetic and pitiable athlete that became caught up in the push to compete and stay on top of his game, while his body grew older and his skill diminished. Something most of us who are growing older can relate to.
This is really the social and cultural part of this affair. Sports fans want to believe that their "icons" are pure as driven snow. Even when we know they are not. We will turn a blind eye and ear to that, UNTIL that athlete gets caught cheating. However, what we as fans want from an athlete when they get caught is NOT for their head on a platter, but true, heartfelt and honest contrition about their actions. We WANT to forgive our athletes. We want them to be bigger than they are, but will understand their humanness, if they will only own up to their actions.
The lesson we are learning in all aspects here, judicially, legally, socially, morally, ethically, and culturally, should be not only that it is unacceptable to use PEDs as a form of cheating, but that if you do and get caught, do NOT lie to the fan base and media about it. We are not stupid, but we actually are pretty forgiving.
A lesson that Pete Rose needed to learn a LONG time ago.
The first subject of the questioning will be former senator Mitchell who wrote this report. We all know that part of the story.
The bigger part of the story, is what will happen as the questioning turns to the accused in the Mitchell report? We will just have to see.
One thing we need to keep in mind is that this all comes on the heels of last friday's verdict against Marion Jones, who was sentenced to six months in prison and two years in prison for lying about using steroids in her bid for Olympic gold in 2000, as well as lying about knowing that her former coach was part of a check-fraud scam.
Now, consider that for a moment. Marion Jones was NOT, repeat NOT, convicted and sentenced to prison and probation for doing any PEDs, nor for even knowing about what her former coach was doing, but for LYING about it to congressional hearings when asked to appear and answer questions.
The question for me becomes this. Will Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and other MLB players mentioned in the Mitchell report, ALSO be found guilty and sentenced in like manner? Honestly, they should. There should NOT be a "double standard" applied here. And I do not mean that based on gender, but on sports equity. Just because these MLB players are extremely wealthy and play a major revenue sport should NOT mean that they receive anything LESS than what Marion Jones received. In fact the penalty for them should actually be higher, IMHO. They are far more well-known and play far more important a role in mainstream sports fan minds than an Olympic medalist from 4 years ago. I do think it bodes well for a fair and equitable justice system though that Barry Bonds HAS been indicted for lying to congress. So perhaps this will out, we will just have to wait and see.
As to the Roger Clemens innocence or guilt as to the Mitchell report accusation of alleged use of PEDs, I only have this to say right now. I distrust his adamant denials. Why did he wait almost 30 days before addressing this issue? Why when he did, did he and his lawyer play only snippets of a phone conversation between Clemens and his accuser and ex-personal trainer McNamee? Why did Clemens and his lawyer start hedging on whether to appear before congress to answer questions, about the same time that the Marion Jones sentencing came down? Too many questions that look far too much like damage control, and legal gerrymandering, than true, honest proclamations of innocence.
Which brings me to Andy Pettite. The single most interesting and most OVERLOOKED person in the whole sordid issue of PED use. Until the Mitchell report, we had heard literally nothing of any insinuation that Pettite had used any type of PED. And just as shocked as we were about Clemens mention in the report, we were just as much with Pettite's name appearing there. But here is where the comparison ends. Barely more than 3 days after the Mitchell report was release, Pettite came out and announced to the media and the world that he did indeed use steroids. And what was the public and especially the media's reaction to that proclamation?
(crickets chirping)
Right. DEAD silence. There was no outcry of Pettite's "cheating", no demanding of records being expunged, nothing. As a matter of fact it has been almost the complete OPPOSITE of those. Pettite is coming off almost as a "victim" in this issue. At worst, nothing more than a pathetic and pitiable athlete that became caught up in the push to compete and stay on top of his game, while his body grew older and his skill diminished. Something most of us who are growing older can relate to.
This is really the social and cultural part of this affair. Sports fans want to believe that their "icons" are pure as driven snow. Even when we know they are not. We will turn a blind eye and ear to that, UNTIL that athlete gets caught cheating. However, what we as fans want from an athlete when they get caught is NOT for their head on a platter, but true, heartfelt and honest contrition about their actions. We WANT to forgive our athletes. We want them to be bigger than they are, but will understand their humanness, if they will only own up to their actions.
The lesson we are learning in all aspects here, judicially, legally, socially, morally, ethically, and culturally, should be not only that it is unacceptable to use PEDs as a form of cheating, but that if you do and get caught, do NOT lie to the fan base and media about it. We are not stupid, but we actually are pretty forgiving.
A lesson that Pete Rose needed to learn a LONG time ago.
Monday, January 14, 2008
ENOUGH with the Pats bashing!
Ok, first off, I am not a New England Patriots fan. I actually am a fan of the Tampa Bay Buc's. But I have to admit I am getting sick and tired of all of the bashing that the Patriots have had handed to them this year, just because they are WINNING.
You may hate the team, but the NE Patriots have now equaled the greatest unbeaten single season team of all time, the Miami Dolphins. And it is time for all of the 'haters' to at least acknowledge just how good this team really is.
Every time the Pats have been challenged they have come out and answered the bell. They have won throwing the ball, playing power football, playing solid defensive, even some timely special teams plays.
If the Pats can win their next two games and become the Super Bowl champs, they will deserve the title of the "greatest team in NFL history", IMHO.
The question is, can they do it? Given their pretty dominating performance against a pretty good Jacksonville team, that had a very good game plan, I think they can. But would it not be fun to see a rematch of the last regular season game played between the Giant and the Pats, who really gave the Pats a SERIOUS challenge and almost ended that streak.
Could be a great super bowl this year. But even if that matchup does not take place, it will be great to be witness to a piece of sporting history if the Pats can win these next two games. Being witness to these events as a fan, does not come often, and we need to stop bashing the team because you dislike them, and appreciate what they have done for the sport.
You may hate the team, but the NE Patriots have now equaled the greatest unbeaten single season team of all time, the Miami Dolphins. And it is time for all of the 'haters' to at least acknowledge just how good this team really is.
Every time the Pats have been challenged they have come out and answered the bell. They have won throwing the ball, playing power football, playing solid defensive, even some timely special teams plays.
If the Pats can win their next two games and become the Super Bowl champs, they will deserve the title of the "greatest team in NFL history", IMHO.
The question is, can they do it? Given their pretty dominating performance against a pretty good Jacksonville team, that had a very good game plan, I think they can. But would it not be fun to see a rematch of the last regular season game played between the Giant and the Pats, who really gave the Pats a SERIOUS challenge and almost ended that streak.
Could be a great super bowl this year. But even if that matchup does not take place, it will be great to be witness to a piece of sporting history if the Pats can win these next two games. Being witness to these events as a fan, does not come often, and we need to stop bashing the team because you dislike them, and appreciate what they have done for the sport.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Tubby & Bobby & Billy & Steve.....
Ok, the title of this post is not a setup line to a bar joke. But it could be. Certainly, a lot of UK basketball and UL football fans feel like a joke has been played on them. And what is interesting is that, the UK Bball and UL Fball fans are sharing being the same brunt of that joke. Now how odd is that?
First, let's rewind the tape a bit to this time last January. UL football was coming off of the greatest single season it had ever had, winning the Orange bowl in football, and just barely missing a shot at the BCS championship, along with a #6 finish in both the AP and ESPN-Coaches poll. Then UL FB was submarined by HC Bobby Petrino who abruptly left UL for the HC job for the NFL Atlanta Falcons. UL AD Jurich immediately went after what was his first choice when John L Smith left UL, and hired Steve Kragthrope, who nearly all UL fandom, on the statements made by Jurich about how good Steve was, believed that Kragthorpe could get UL to that BCS championship game. Not "years" from now, (as we were later told), but in 2007.
Secondly, also at that time Tubby Smith was being pummeled on web sites and call in radio talk shows by UK fans while leading UK basketball to a 22-10 season last year. (I might have the exact record a bit off.) In March/April, Tubby surprising UK fans, abruptly left UK for the basketball wasteland of Minnesota? And after botched efforts by UK AD Barnhardt to land Florida HC Billy Donovan, he plucked HC Billy Gillispie from Tx A&M. Billy fresh off the heels of beating UK's hated rival UL in the NCAA tournament IN Lexington's Rupp Arena. Suddenly, all was goodness and light in UK basketball fandom. Like UL fans, UK fans were led to believe that Billy G would lead them back to national prominence and better showing in the NCAA tournament in 2008. But UK bball fans fared a little better than UL fball fans, because they tempered their expectations knowing that Tubby had not recruited talent enough to lead UK back to the final four.
Fast forward to December. UL fball fans enduring the worst season in 10 years with one of the more talented UL fball teams they have seen, and the first time in 10 years to miss playing in a post-season bowl game. The "savior" HC Steve Kragthorpe was brutalized by UL fans during the season, to the point where the UL media mouthpieces started trying to browbeat and bully UL fans into submission to stop them from voicing their displeasure over the very poor performance on the field, and the lack of information or even acknowledgment of the issues and problems by Kragthorpe. The only solice that UL fball fans had was that they felt justified in vilifying Petrino who did worse to Atlanta Falcons owners and their fans than he ever did to UL by quitting the team with 3 games still remaining the regular NFL season. Still UL fans thought Kragthorpe was too "secretive" and "suspicious" of fans. To the point of being paranoid, and honestly unapproachable by fans who wanted answers to tough questions.
Flip scene to January. UK basketball now begins its SEC conference schedule with a LOSING record under 1st year HC Gillispie. And on the heels of losing to their hated in-state rival, Louisville and the "satan incarnate", (according to UK fans), Rick Pitino. Like UL fball fans, UK fans are beating Billy G up on radio talk shows and the internet, while getting nothing back from Billy G in the way of substantiative answers to questions. Indeed many times Billy acts as if he flat out does not CARE what UK fans think, giving UK fans fodder to call him arrogant and stand-offish. To make matters worse, the former UK HC Tubby, who UK fans horribly blasted, (fairly or unfairly), has the Minnesota Golden Gophers at 11-3 and poised to make the NCAA tournament for first time since 2005. But even beyond that, it was a huge turnaround for a team with a losing record last season. All of that while UK basketball under the "savior" Billy G, is looking more and more like a team that will not even MAKE the NCAA tournament this year, much less have a win in the first round of it.
All of this you already know. So here is my conclusion on this.
It is pretty much consensus knowledge that in the world of college sports, men's basketball and football are games dominated by coaching. A good coach, with the right scheme and that can adapt the scheme to take advantage of the players they have, can build a winning program.
In the case of both 1st year HC's, while one may have had unfairly high expectations heaped on him, and the other a team that was not as talented as believed to be; BOTH of them were handed teams and programs that were and are talented enough to be FAR better than they were and are. UL's fball team may have had unrealistic expectations of getting to the BCS championship game, and I admit, maybe even unrealistic expectation of winning the Big East. But WITHOUT QUESTION, UL's fball team had FAR better talent than a team that just barely reached a .500 record, and not make a post season bowl game. And FAR better talent than to finish 6th place in an 8 team Big East conference.
UK may not have the talent to win two games in the NCAA tournament, but they have FAR and AWAY enough talent to at least get TO the NCAA tournament. Which at this point, and UK sitting @ 6-7 on the season heading into the SEC conference schedule is looking more and more like the ONLY way that UK gets into the NCAA tournament is if they win the SEC conference tournament...and it is NOT a lock that UK makes THAT either!
With both Billy and Steve, it is becoming very obvious that their methods of operation are to try and adapt the players to their scheme. As a result, these two coaches have and are failing miserably given the talent level they were handed. They have completely missed an opportunity that was handed to both of them. And it is now looking like they either were and are completely in over their heads or grossly underestimated how effective they are as leaders, motivators and game-planners.
Add to that is that regardless of their manner and ease with media members, they both are very unapproachable by fans who are less than enthusiastic about their job performance to date. Neither, until recently with Kragthorpe, had shown any type of contrition to accepting responsibility for the results being produced with straight-forward answers and changes to their methodologies.
I will say this in Kragthorpe's defense. The off-season changes he has made in the wholesale clean of the defensive staff, and the resignation of Charlie Stubbs as the Offensive Coordinator, does show that Kragthorpe has gotten the message loud and clear. The changes he has made, and the quality of staff he has brought in, has shown he has the ability to look at his own methods, fairly evaluate them, and make appropriate and decisive changes for the better. While we still do not know how those changes will translate to performance on the field, he has proven that he does have the strength to make tough decisions and make self-evaluations. And with UL football coming off of a very disappointing, if not awful season, the expectations for the 2008 campaign will be drastically less than what they were in 2007, when he was handed a top-6 program with a Heisman candidate QB. The 2008 season was always looked at by UL fans as more of a rebuilding season, so just making a bowl game would show dramatic and positive steps to rebuilding a program that had the foundations kicked out from under it.
The question being asked by UK basketball fans today, and the frustrations they are showing are nearly identical to the ones that UL football fans asked and showed during the middle of their season. The question for Billy G is, can he also make the necessary off-season changes, (in this case upgraded recruiting and buy-in from the players), that Kragthorpe has? That has yet to be determined.
The one thing we can say about both hires is this. Neither of them has lived up to the billing of the hires that the fans were given. Both of them had some major warts that neither AD lessened by trying to damper fan expectations. I can not lay blame for their results solely at their feet. Both the AD's at UL and UK MUST share the blame for the poor performance by not trying harder, or maybe not loudly enough proclaiming, that both coach's will need time to get their programs in place, and that some rough times were ahead for both programs.
First, let's rewind the tape a bit to this time last January. UL football was coming off of the greatest single season it had ever had, winning the Orange bowl in football, and just barely missing a shot at the BCS championship, along with a #6 finish in both the AP and ESPN-Coaches poll. Then UL FB was submarined by HC Bobby Petrino who abruptly left UL for the HC job for the NFL Atlanta Falcons. UL AD Jurich immediately went after what was his first choice when John L Smith left UL, and hired Steve Kragthrope, who nearly all UL fandom, on the statements made by Jurich about how good Steve was, believed that Kragthorpe could get UL to that BCS championship game. Not "years" from now, (as we were later told), but in 2007.
Secondly, also at that time Tubby Smith was being pummeled on web sites and call in radio talk shows by UK fans while leading UK basketball to a 22-10 season last year. (I might have the exact record a bit off.) In March/April, Tubby surprising UK fans, abruptly left UK for the basketball wasteland of Minnesota? And after botched efforts by UK AD Barnhardt to land Florida HC Billy Donovan, he plucked HC Billy Gillispie from Tx A&M. Billy fresh off the heels of beating UK's hated rival UL in the NCAA tournament IN Lexington's Rupp Arena. Suddenly, all was goodness and light in UK basketball fandom. Like UL fans, UK fans were led to believe that Billy G would lead them back to national prominence and better showing in the NCAA tournament in 2008. But UK bball fans fared a little better than UL fball fans, because they tempered their expectations knowing that Tubby had not recruited talent enough to lead UK back to the final four.
Fast forward to December. UL fball fans enduring the worst season in 10 years with one of the more talented UL fball teams they have seen, and the first time in 10 years to miss playing in a post-season bowl game. The "savior" HC Steve Kragthorpe was brutalized by UL fans during the season, to the point where the UL media mouthpieces started trying to browbeat and bully UL fans into submission to stop them from voicing their displeasure over the very poor performance on the field, and the lack of information or even acknowledgment of the issues and problems by Kragthorpe. The only solice that UL fball fans had was that they felt justified in vilifying Petrino who did worse to Atlanta Falcons owners and their fans than he ever did to UL by quitting the team with 3 games still remaining the regular NFL season. Still UL fans thought Kragthorpe was too "secretive" and "suspicious" of fans. To the point of being paranoid, and honestly unapproachable by fans who wanted answers to tough questions.
Flip scene to January. UK basketball now begins its SEC conference schedule with a LOSING record under 1st year HC Gillispie. And on the heels of losing to their hated in-state rival, Louisville and the "satan incarnate", (according to UK fans), Rick Pitino. Like UL fball fans, UK fans are beating Billy G up on radio talk shows and the internet, while getting nothing back from Billy G in the way of substantiative answers to questions. Indeed many times Billy acts as if he flat out does not CARE what UK fans think, giving UK fans fodder to call him arrogant and stand-offish. To make matters worse, the former UK HC Tubby, who UK fans horribly blasted, (fairly or unfairly), has the Minnesota Golden Gophers at 11-3 and poised to make the NCAA tournament for first time since 2005. But even beyond that, it was a huge turnaround for a team with a losing record last season. All of that while UK basketball under the "savior" Billy G, is looking more and more like a team that will not even MAKE the NCAA tournament this year, much less have a win in the first round of it.
All of this you already know. So here is my conclusion on this.
It is pretty much consensus knowledge that in the world of college sports, men's basketball and football are games dominated by coaching. A good coach, with the right scheme and that can adapt the scheme to take advantage of the players they have, can build a winning program.
In the case of both 1st year HC's, while one may have had unfairly high expectations heaped on him, and the other a team that was not as talented as believed to be; BOTH of them were handed teams and programs that were and are talented enough to be FAR better than they were and are. UL's fball team may have had unrealistic expectations of getting to the BCS championship game, and I admit, maybe even unrealistic expectation of winning the Big East. But WITHOUT QUESTION, UL's fball team had FAR better talent than a team that just barely reached a .500 record, and not make a post season bowl game. And FAR better talent than to finish 6th place in an 8 team Big East conference.
UK may not have the talent to win two games in the NCAA tournament, but they have FAR and AWAY enough talent to at least get TO the NCAA tournament. Which at this point, and UK sitting @ 6-7 on the season heading into the SEC conference schedule is looking more and more like the ONLY way that UK gets into the NCAA tournament is if they win the SEC conference tournament...and it is NOT a lock that UK makes THAT either!
With both Billy and Steve, it is becoming very obvious that their methods of operation are to try and adapt the players to their scheme. As a result, these two coaches have and are failing miserably given the talent level they were handed. They have completely missed an opportunity that was handed to both of them. And it is now looking like they either were and are completely in over their heads or grossly underestimated how effective they are as leaders, motivators and game-planners.
Add to that is that regardless of their manner and ease with media members, they both are very unapproachable by fans who are less than enthusiastic about their job performance to date. Neither, until recently with Kragthorpe, had shown any type of contrition to accepting responsibility for the results being produced with straight-forward answers and changes to their methodologies.
I will say this in Kragthorpe's defense. The off-season changes he has made in the wholesale clean of the defensive staff, and the resignation of Charlie Stubbs as the Offensive Coordinator, does show that Kragthorpe has gotten the message loud and clear. The changes he has made, and the quality of staff he has brought in, has shown he has the ability to look at his own methods, fairly evaluate them, and make appropriate and decisive changes for the better. While we still do not know how those changes will translate to performance on the field, he has proven that he does have the strength to make tough decisions and make self-evaluations. And with UL football coming off of a very disappointing, if not awful season, the expectations for the 2008 campaign will be drastically less than what they were in 2007, when he was handed a top-6 program with a Heisman candidate QB. The 2008 season was always looked at by UL fans as more of a rebuilding season, so just making a bowl game would show dramatic and positive steps to rebuilding a program that had the foundations kicked out from under it.
The question being asked by UK basketball fans today, and the frustrations they are showing are nearly identical to the ones that UL football fans asked and showed during the middle of their season. The question for Billy G is, can he also make the necessary off-season changes, (in this case upgraded recruiting and buy-in from the players), that Kragthorpe has? That has yet to be determined.
The one thing we can say about both hires is this. Neither of them has lived up to the billing of the hires that the fans were given. Both of them had some major warts that neither AD lessened by trying to damper fan expectations. I can not lay blame for their results solely at their feet. Both the AD's at UL and UK MUST share the blame for the poor performance by not trying harder, or maybe not loudly enough proclaiming, that both coach's will need time to get their programs in place, and that some rough times were ahead for both programs.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Roger Clemens goes on the offensive....
Roger Clemens, just before going on 60 Minutes to deny all of the charges against him regarding the use of steroids and HGH, Clemens' lawyer filed suit NOT against either the author of the Mitchell report nor against Major League Baseball, but against his former personal trainer McNamee who said he injected Clemens with HGH.
And then we were subjected to a very odd press conference where Clemens played for the nation, a taped phone conversation between McNamee and himself regarding the situation.
First, I applaud Clemens for going on the attack and trying to defend his name as hard as he can. But there are SO many unanswered, or more accurately, UNASKED questions about this situation that it is hard to determine whether to believe Clemens or to think that he is really just trying to cover up his actions.
No, at this point there is NO direct evidence that Clemens has taken steroids or HGH, other than what one witness said he did. But the questions about the situation that have not been asked and answered by Clemens have not led us to any real conclusion other than to scratch our heads and try to figure out what the turn of events really are.
First, why did it take SO long for Clemens to come out and deny these charges? The report was out in early November, and it took nearly two MONTHS before Clemens said or did anything. Why?
Here are questions that have been asked, but answered in ways that make very little sense.
When asked what possible reason did McNamee have to lie about Clemens, but not about Andy Pettite, Clemens answered, "I don't know." Ok, maybe he does not. But he can not even venture a guess? (BTW, lost in all of the media circus surrounding Clemens is the fact that Pettite admitted taking steroids, and yet NO ONE is talking about that? It seems that the media could not care LESS about players admitting taking performance enhancing drugs, as much as they do creating a circus about a player denying taking them.)
Other questions not even asked have been:
Why did you wait so long to address these allegations?
Why when McNamee during the phone call conversation when he asked you, "What do you want me to do?", did you not just say, "Tell the truth." Why did you leave that hanging out there, causing some doubt?
Clemens said that he WILL be at the congressional hearings this month to defend himself and directly address the allegations before him. He better be. But he ALSO better be able to give more articulate and definitive answers than the ones he has so far, because I can assure you that the questions asked of him will not be as easily dismissed with sound bite answers as what he has given us so far.
And then we were subjected to a very odd press conference where Clemens played for the nation, a taped phone conversation between McNamee and himself regarding the situation.
First, I applaud Clemens for going on the attack and trying to defend his name as hard as he can. But there are SO many unanswered, or more accurately, UNASKED questions about this situation that it is hard to determine whether to believe Clemens or to think that he is really just trying to cover up his actions.
No, at this point there is NO direct evidence that Clemens has taken steroids or HGH, other than what one witness said he did. But the questions about the situation that have not been asked and answered by Clemens have not led us to any real conclusion other than to scratch our heads and try to figure out what the turn of events really are.
First, why did it take SO long for Clemens to come out and deny these charges? The report was out in early November, and it took nearly two MONTHS before Clemens said or did anything. Why?
Here are questions that have been asked, but answered in ways that make very little sense.
When asked what possible reason did McNamee have to lie about Clemens, but not about Andy Pettite, Clemens answered, "I don't know." Ok, maybe he does not. But he can not even venture a guess? (BTW, lost in all of the media circus surrounding Clemens is the fact that Pettite admitted taking steroids, and yet NO ONE is talking about that? It seems that the media could not care LESS about players admitting taking performance enhancing drugs, as much as they do creating a circus about a player denying taking them.)
Other questions not even asked have been:
Why did you wait so long to address these allegations?
Why when McNamee during the phone call conversation when he asked you, "What do you want me to do?", did you not just say, "Tell the truth." Why did you leave that hanging out there, causing some doubt?
Clemens said that he WILL be at the congressional hearings this month to defend himself and directly address the allegations before him. He better be. But he ALSO better be able to give more articulate and definitive answers than the ones he has so far, because I can assure you that the questions asked of him will not be as easily dismissed with sound bite answers as what he has given us so far.
Ohio State "Black"eyes and too many bowl games
Every year we get into the debate that is the BCS championship. Where we all sit around and debate why a playoff should be implemented instead of the bowl format we currently have today.
Let's face it, as I pointed out before in another post, there is no way that the university presidents will risk the money that is pulled in by college football today. So, as a result, we will continue to have a bowl format to decide the national champions. But that brings up the a reverse argument. That is the issue of way too many meaningless and unwatched bowl games that result in horribly lopsided losses.
The most obvious one this season was the GMAC bowl, where Tulsa set an almost 50 year old record for the highest winning margin in bowl games ever. Then on the very next night we once again were subjected to an awful BCS championship game played between two teams that maybe or maybe not should have been playing for a championship. Even with that, one of those teams, Ohio State, has for 3 straight years played in the BCS champ game and for the past two has been completely dominated by the opposing team, even though the Buckeyes were the favorite going into that game.
Add in the fact that another 7 games in the post season bowl games were decided by MORE than a double-digit margin and you have the very obvious evidence that MANY of the teams playing in post-season bowl games should never have been there in the first place. But that is NOT the fault of the teams playing in those games. The problem is that there are just WAY too many bowl games to begin with.
If the country is going to be stuck with a bowl game process that is to decide the national championship, then the NCAA needs to DE-sanction all but about 10 post season bowl games. Those 10 should include the current 5 BCS games, (BCS champ, Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta), and about 5 others that have a long standing history, the Cotton, the Liberty, the Sun (which is the longest consecutive running bowl, the Gator, the Champ Sports, and maybe one or two others that have very long histories, like the Peach (which I REFUSE to call the Chick-Fil-A bowl).
So, how would selection go? Well, first, the conference champions of EVERY conference get to go. That means that 11 of the 20-22 or so teams would automatically go to those bowl games, and then selection would go to the ONLY those teams ranked in the top 20 that are not conference champions.
While it may not eliminate blow out bowl games, (like the Sugar this year where Georgia just DOMINATED Hawai'i), it would at least look to minimize that, and make the bowl game we do have that much more interesting to watch.
No, it still does not solve the national championship debate issue, but unless there ever is a playoff, that will never be solved. So, again, if we are stuck with a bowl system, we should at least make it the best bowl system we can.
Let's face it, as I pointed out before in another post, there is no way that the university presidents will risk the money that is pulled in by college football today. So, as a result, we will continue to have a bowl format to decide the national champions. But that brings up the a reverse argument. That is the issue of way too many meaningless and unwatched bowl games that result in horribly lopsided losses.
The most obvious one this season was the GMAC bowl, where Tulsa set an almost 50 year old record for the highest winning margin in bowl games ever. Then on the very next night we once again were subjected to an awful BCS championship game played between two teams that maybe or maybe not should have been playing for a championship. Even with that, one of those teams, Ohio State, has for 3 straight years played in the BCS champ game and for the past two has been completely dominated by the opposing team, even though the Buckeyes were the favorite going into that game.
Add in the fact that another 7 games in the post season bowl games were decided by MORE than a double-digit margin and you have the very obvious evidence that MANY of the teams playing in post-season bowl games should never have been there in the first place. But that is NOT the fault of the teams playing in those games. The problem is that there are just WAY too many bowl games to begin with.
If the country is going to be stuck with a bowl game process that is to decide the national championship, then the NCAA needs to DE-sanction all but about 10 post season bowl games. Those 10 should include the current 5 BCS games, (BCS champ, Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta), and about 5 others that have a long standing history, the Cotton, the Liberty, the Sun (which is the longest consecutive running bowl, the Gator, the Champ Sports, and maybe one or two others that have very long histories, like the Peach (which I REFUSE to call the Chick-Fil-A bowl).
So, how would selection go? Well, first, the conference champions of EVERY conference get to go. That means that 11 of the 20-22 or so teams would automatically go to those bowl games, and then selection would go to the ONLY those teams ranked in the top 20 that are not conference champions.
While it may not eliminate blow out bowl games, (like the Sugar this year where Georgia just DOMINATED Hawai'i), it would at least look to minimize that, and make the bowl game we do have that much more interesting to watch.
No, it still does not solve the national championship debate issue, but unless there ever is a playoff, that will never be solved. So, again, if we are stuck with a bowl system, we should at least make it the best bowl system we can.
Friday, January 4, 2008
The money of college football....
As the BCS title game approaches, once again we hear everyone talking about how a "playoff" system would be better for college football, and even how it would "make more money" than the current bowl and BCS system does for the schools.
Well, since it is that time of year for the debate, one thing that VERY few people ever put together is the facts about the dollars of college football.
I will attempt to do that here, or more accurately, just put in perspective how much money is made in collegiate football programs.
Currently there are 123 Div I-A, (FBS), schools playing football. To truly understand the scope of money we are talking about, take the following statistics:
Div I-A (FBS) football revenue breakdown for all of 2007, (this does NOT include any revenue booked for bowl games played in 2008, only those from 2007, including the BCS title game last season.)
Total Revenue: $1.8 Billions
Total Profit : $721 Millions
Average Revenue per School : $14.6 Millions
Average Profit per School : $5.9 Millions
Let that sink in for a minute. The profit that schools make on college football, on average, is higher than MOST companies in America that are not in the Fortune 500. We are talking "profit" here. That is money that the school athletic departments can then use in whatever way they see fit. And note: almost NONE of that money goes to big coaching salaries, as the vast majority of coaching salaries is determined by a base salary set by the state and then added on to by boosters, sponsors, and other outside dollars.
But remember the dollars in college football are NOT evenly distributed, making that average both of revenues and profits completely artificial and very much misleading.
So who are the big winners in college football...err..dollar wise, I mean.
Top 5 biggest revenue producers
U. of Texas : $63.8 Millions
U. of Georgia : $59.5 Millions
Ohio State U. : $59.1 Millions
U. of Florida : $58.9 Millions
Auburn U. : $46.8 Millions
That is a huge amount of revenue streams. But even with that, how much did they keep?
Top 5 biggest profit winners
U. of Texas : $46.2 Millions
U. of Georgia : $43.1 Millions
U. of Florida : $38.2 Millions
U. of Michigan : $36.2 Millions
Auburn U. : $33.9 Millions
Note the change of OSU for UM in the revenue to profit margins. UMich does not generate as much revenue, but keeps a TON more in pure profit. Apparently OSU's cost structure is even higher than we might think...(although, they did come in at #6).
The point to this is that it is obvious, even for a 6th grader with rudimentary math skills, that the top 10% of revenue producers in college football, keep nearly 80% of the total profits made in this business. And make no mistake, this IS big business.
And what is even odder is that it can be literally MORE profitable to sit home and NOT play in a post-season bowl game, than it is to send your team to play in one.
All of this information is freely available, and I found mine on CNNMoney.
The bottom line, (pardon the pun), is this: no matter what people may want with regard to a Div I-A playoff system for college football, the massive amounts of dollars that football generates under the current system will be nearly impossible to overcome.
Well, since it is that time of year for the debate, one thing that VERY few people ever put together is the facts about the dollars of college football.
I will attempt to do that here, or more accurately, just put in perspective how much money is made in collegiate football programs.
Currently there are 123 Div I-A, (FBS), schools playing football. To truly understand the scope of money we are talking about, take the following statistics:
Div I-A (FBS) football revenue breakdown for all of 2007, (this does NOT include any revenue booked for bowl games played in 2008, only those from 2007, including the BCS title game last season.)
Total Revenue: $1.8 Billions
Total Profit : $721 Millions
Average Revenue per School : $14.6 Millions
Average Profit per School : $5.9 Millions
Let that sink in for a minute. The profit that schools make on college football, on average, is higher than MOST companies in America that are not in the Fortune 500. We are talking "profit" here. That is money that the school athletic departments can then use in whatever way they see fit. And note: almost NONE of that money goes to big coaching salaries, as the vast majority of coaching salaries is determined by a base salary set by the state and then added on to by boosters, sponsors, and other outside dollars.
But remember the dollars in college football are NOT evenly distributed, making that average both of revenues and profits completely artificial and very much misleading.
So who are the big winners in college football...err..dollar wise, I mean.
Top 5 biggest revenue producers
U. of Texas : $63.8 Millions
U. of Georgia : $59.5 Millions
Ohio State U. : $59.1 Millions
U. of Florida : $58.9 Millions
Auburn U. : $46.8 Millions
That is a huge amount of revenue streams. But even with that, how much did they keep?
Top 5 biggest profit winners
U. of Texas : $46.2 Millions
U. of Georgia : $43.1 Millions
U. of Florida : $38.2 Millions
U. of Michigan : $36.2 Millions
Auburn U. : $33.9 Millions
Note the change of OSU for UM in the revenue to profit margins. UMich does not generate as much revenue, but keeps a TON more in pure profit. Apparently OSU's cost structure is even higher than we might think...(although, they did come in at #6).
The point to this is that it is obvious, even for a 6th grader with rudimentary math skills, that the top 10% of revenue producers in college football, keep nearly 80% of the total profits made in this business. And make no mistake, this IS big business.
And what is even odder is that it can be literally MORE profitable to sit home and NOT play in a post-season bowl game, than it is to send your team to play in one.
All of this information is freely available, and I found mine on CNNMoney.
The bottom line, (pardon the pun), is this: no matter what people may want with regard to a Div I-A playoff system for college football, the massive amounts of dollars that football generates under the current system will be nearly impossible to overcome.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
English is right man for UL DC job....
Yesterday Ron English, after the U. of Michigan bowl game knocking off a potent Florida offensive attack, confirmed he was taking the same position of DC at the University of Louisville. But only as a 2-year deal.
It is 100% positive that English will not stay at UL any longer than that, and maybe not even that long, as he has made it 100% clear that he wants and is ready to be a head coach in college football.
However, that is NOT a bad thing for UL football. UL has also hedged its bets by additionally hiring Ted Roof, former HC at Duke, and another long time DC in NCAA Div I-A, (FBS), football, who will without question be waiting in the wings whenever English gets that HC job he so badly wants.
That aside, make no mistake, Ron English the right man, in the right place, at the right time for UL. UL's defense was abyssmal in the 2007 season, and English is not only a solid defensive game planner, but also an outstanding recruiter. Both areas that UL badly needs help in.
The biggest impact though that English will make to UL, will be in two areas, the ability of UL to get pressure on opposing QB's. And the level of talent he will be able to bring in to the football program. The latter part will be the one that UL will need the most.
It is 100% positive that English will not stay at UL any longer than that, and maybe not even that long, as he has made it 100% clear that he wants and is ready to be a head coach in college football.
However, that is NOT a bad thing for UL football. UL has also hedged its bets by additionally hiring Ted Roof, former HC at Duke, and another long time DC in NCAA Div I-A, (FBS), football, who will without question be waiting in the wings whenever English gets that HC job he so badly wants.
That aside, make no mistake, Ron English the right man, in the right place, at the right time for UL. UL's defense was abyssmal in the 2007 season, and English is not only a solid defensive game planner, but also an outstanding recruiter. Both areas that UL badly needs help in.
The biggest impact though that English will make to UL, will be in two areas, the ability of UL to get pressure on opposing QB's. And the level of talent he will be able to bring in to the football program. The latter part will be the one that UL will need the most.
NHL should do it more often....
The NHL on New Year's day did something that I believe they should do EVERY year, and maybe more than just one game.
That is, play the game outdoors.
If you did not see the game, you missed a GREAT spectacle, of a sport born from that roots. The NHL is all but dead as a professional sport in the minds and hearts of America, save for a very small portion of the nation, located almost exclusively in the NE sector of the U.S.
And with the idiocy of the NHL exec offices over the summer of 2007 with regard to their TV deal, they have all but killed any chance of it ever being anything other than an afterthought for most sports fans.
However, the NHL did make a very bold move and scheduled a regular season game between the Pittsburg Penguins and the Buffalo Sabers to be played outdoors at Ralph Wilson Stadium in Buffalo, NY. Home stadium of the NFL's Buffalo Bills.
This was a GREAT idea to try and capture some viewing audiences, and casual sports fans, that would not otherwise even care about hockey. And the weather and the game did not disappoint.
To play hockey outdoors is to return to the true "roots" of where this sport began, AND, to add a new dimension to it that many fans love about other sports like the NFL and even MLB. That weather can and will play a part of the outcome.
I know that the "NHL purists" absolutely HATED this idea. The players hated the ice conditions, the NHL ref's and the players hated the delays for surface prep. But that is EXACTLY why it made the game interesting for those of us who are NOT "hockey purists". Talent is one thing, but the ability to deal with adverse conditions is another. And that SHOULD be part of the game that was originally CREATED by playing outdoors on frozen ponds.
This is an idea which should have been done long ago. And not only should the NHL play one game a year outdoors, but maybe more than one.
That is, play the game outdoors.
If you did not see the game, you missed a GREAT spectacle, of a sport born from that roots. The NHL is all but dead as a professional sport in the minds and hearts of America, save for a very small portion of the nation, located almost exclusively in the NE sector of the U.S.
And with the idiocy of the NHL exec offices over the summer of 2007 with regard to their TV deal, they have all but killed any chance of it ever being anything other than an afterthought for most sports fans.
However, the NHL did make a very bold move and scheduled a regular season game between the Pittsburg Penguins and the Buffalo Sabers to be played outdoors at Ralph Wilson Stadium in Buffalo, NY. Home stadium of the NFL's Buffalo Bills.
This was a GREAT idea to try and capture some viewing audiences, and casual sports fans, that would not otherwise even care about hockey. And the weather and the game did not disappoint.
To play hockey outdoors is to return to the true "roots" of where this sport began, AND, to add a new dimension to it that many fans love about other sports like the NFL and even MLB. That weather can and will play a part of the outcome.
I know that the "NHL purists" absolutely HATED this idea. The players hated the ice conditions, the NHL ref's and the players hated the delays for surface prep. But that is EXACTLY why it made the game interesting for those of us who are NOT "hockey purists". Talent is one thing, but the ability to deal with adverse conditions is another. And that SHOULD be part of the game that was originally CREATED by playing outdoors on frozen ponds.
This is an idea which should have been done long ago. And not only should the NHL play one game a year outdoors, but maybe more than one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)