It ain't easy havin' pals. - Casey Siemaszko, "Young Guns"
If I ever do become a professional writer whose primary arena is sports, I will have many friends and family members to thank. In particular amongst my friends, it will be several fans of the Los Angeles Dodgers, Dallas Cowboys, Boston Red Sox, and New York Yankees (sorry, no one in Northern California likes Notre Dame). These gentlemen and ladies helped me change my evil, partisan ways.
They forced me to soften the edges of dislike I have for all of the above, to look at the teams objectively.
These are smart people who I would argue with and that posed a problem. If I ever took an unreasonable stance (let's be honest, take - I still can be unreasonable) or malicious tack, they'd call me on it and keep me honest. They'd shred my argument, I'd feel foolish, and lesson learned.
I can just imagine the thoughts that are going through some Cowboy fans' minds right now.
I figure a bunch of you have read some of my work because I'm in the Top Five for the Cowboys' Bleacher Report Community. That means it's no secret I've written several articles about how I think Tony Romo is overrated (first, second, and third). I've written an article about the shadow of doom Terrell Owens always casts. And I've written an article warning about the hype-machine that drives Dallas' reputation as well as its current effects.
Of course, I'm not saying I was unfair or unreasonable in any of those articles.
But let's face it, they don't smack of a deep and abiding love for the Star. Quite obviously, I'm not a fan. The San Francisco 49ers carry my allegiance as a distraction between the real Giants' season starts every April (and is over by June lately). That means I've got several quivers full of bitter barbs as residue from the 1990s and the days when the 'pokes would routinely dispatch my Niners from the playoffs.
But if I'm being fair (and if I want to stay on Dallas' front page), I'd better write something positive because the Cowboys are one of the elite teams in the National Football League. I've been talking about them like they're the Minnesota Vikings.
Whoa, that introduction got away from me.
Anyway, yes, I think the Dallas Cowboys are going to the postseason...next year.
Just kidding.
This year. I know they have a brutal stretch and don't control their own destiny at the moment. But Dallas is one of the best teams in the league. It gives me no pleasure saying that, but it's the truth. It was the truth before they got Roy Williams.
And they got Roy Williams.
Believe me, I'm not falling prey to the illusion of dominance that the Cowboys created against my Ninnies and the Seattle Seahawks.
As I see it, the National Football Conference East is still the best conference in football. I know the NFC South is stronger by virtue of record. But both the NFC East and South teams face their NFC West counterparts. However, while the NFC East squares off against the rugged American Football Conference North, the NFC South gets a pleasant little romp through the AFC West (better than the NFC version, but not by much).
In my opinion, though Dallas looks up at the second and third place teams from the NFC South, the Cowboys are better.
Of course, Dallas doesn't play anyone it can catch in the standings so that doesn't matter, right? Not necessarily. It still matters because everything is relative.
The Pittsburgh Steelers, New York Giants, Baltimore Ravens, and Philadelphia Eagles conspire for a brutal home stretch. Dallas must navigate it well in order to qualify for the postseason, but the 'pokes are capable of running that schedule.
It probably won't happen because Dallas faces its toughest remaining test (Steelers in Pittsburgh) this weekend without Marion Barber. Still, 3-1 is well within reach.
The Giants and Baltimore must come into Dallas and the 'boys will be desperate. The football Giants will not have all that much to play for except keeping Dallas out of the playoffs. When desperation to get yourself in meets preference to keep someone else out, I'll take the former.
Meanwhile, the Ravens will have a rookie quarterback playing the role of Billy Tyne, steering his ship through a perfect storm of NFL adversity - a desperate team, a formidable defense, a panicked home crowd in full throat, and fatigue from a longer-than-usual season. After that, a roadie against an eliminated Eagles team shouldn't be too much to ask even though it's a divisional rival.
I expect Dallas to finish 11-5. Again, everything is relative.
Like I said, Dallas final four is brutal. I also said Dallas is better than the teams it's chasing, specifically the Atlanta Falcons.
The Cowboys are probably better than the Carolina Panthers and are definitely better than the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (beat them without Romo). Those teams are 9-3, though. The Falcons are 8-4 and facing a rabid New Orleans Saints team in the Big Easy. That's a rough place to play and it's essentially an elimination game for the 'aints.
Not only that, the ATL features a rookie QB of its own.
The Falcons also face a home date with Tampa and a roadie against the Vikings before finishing with a split-squad in Hotlanta that the St. Louis Rams will be attending.
Unquestionably, that's an easier schedule. But the same team is not playing those eight games. All things being equal, Dallas would be done. All things are not equal though. Dallas is a better team so its tougher road only makes it a fairer fight.
One that I think Dallas will win.
Romo is better than I thought. So is the defense. DeMarcus Ware is a monstrosity and Pacman Jones could be trouble for the other team if he finally gets his act together (and he should be shot if he doesn't; put him and his family out of their misery). Plus, they can pair the aforementioned Roy Williams opposite T.O.
That's a scary tandem if you can keep them happy. Something that may not be possible.
The key though is Tony Romo.
I still say the guy isn't the Most Valuable Player of the NFL until he puts up some wins in the next few weeks. And I still say he's overrated until he wins some meaningful games (again, something he's got the chance to do in the very near future). But he is far more important to that team than I thought.
The Cowboys are still good in his absence; they did post their most impressive victory while he was shelved.
It's just that Dallas is calm when he's taking snaps. And a calm, quieter Dallas is a very dangerous Dallas. For whatever reason, Romo absorbs all the detritus coming from Owens and Pacman and Jerry Jones and all the other nightmares in Big D. Yet, he spews none of his own.
He's like one of those fish you get for fishtanks that eats all the green sludge that builds up on the glass without adding to the mess itself.
And he's more elusive than I thought. In my defense, the offensive line didn't really require it of him until this year (someone explain that, by the way).
So yeah, I think Dallas greases its way into the playoffs. I think the Cowboys probably lose this weekend and then win out. I think Romo learns how to use Williams off of Owens and vice versa. I think that's very bad news. I think Barber comes back strong and Jason Whitten continues to disregard his body at his own peril. I think desperation will carry the day when New York comes calling. I think they beat Baltimore and Philly isn't up to the task of covering both those receivers.
I think someone from the NFC South stumbles, probably Atlanta.
I think that's trouble because, once the Dallas Cowboys are in the playoff door, they're gonna be tough to kick out.
And I think I'm gonna be sick.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
Tony Romo Is NOT the MVP and Dallas Is NOT Ready for the Giants...Yet
"I am terrified by the eternal silence of these infinite spaces." - Blaise Pascal
Although Bleacher Report's reach is not quite as extensive as the universal boundaries that so moved Pascal, it is my own sports universe so its silence will do. I'm referring to an article I wrote within the last couple weeks about the Dallas Cowboys. The response was virtually nil.
That's odd for any article that is suspicious of the 'pokes.
But odd isn't necessarily scary. I've written lots of stuff that's been largely ignored and, due to my own delusional arrogance, I always think that's odd. The significant thing is that, not only was my warning ignored, anyone of larger influence in the sports world (read: any at all), who sounded the same alarm, was also ignored.
Because, sure enough, after demolishing two National Football League bottom-feeders - the San Francisco 49ers and Seattle Seahawks - the hype-machine is whirring along.
I've read how the Cowboys are the only team with a shot to dethrone the defending champs, the 11-1 New York Giants. I've read how the offense is officially fixed. Most recently, I've read that Tony Romo is the NFL's real Most Valuable Player. And it's all ridiculously premature.
Before everyone in the Lone Star State flips out, I'm not saying it won't happen or even that any of it is improbable.
But let's look at this objectively.
There's no conclusive argument one way or the other with regard to Dallas' chances against NY. Ditto the offense. Dallas has looked great recently, which would support both assertions. However, the competition has been so abysmal that I'd argue you can draw almost no conclusion other than the 'boys are no longer a trainwreck.
So let's look take the Tony Romo/MVP issue and pretend it's representative of the runaway hyperbole being showered on Dallas.
Again, I'm not saying Romo won't BE the MVP. I'm saying he is NOT CURRENTLY the MVP.
I'd argue that Brett Favre is. Compare the two quarterbacks statistically and Romo gets the nod, especially considering he missed three games:
Romo - QB rating = 102.3; completion % = 64.0; total yds = 2559; TDs = 21; INTs = 8
Favre - QB rating = 90.4; completion % = 68.7; total yds = 2708; TDs = 20; INTs = 14
Of course, those totals are probably misleading to a degree. I watched the Niners game and I saw Romo throw several decent passes that Terrell Owens turned into touchdowns. I saw the same in several other highlights. Maybe Laverneus Coles, Jericho Cotchery, et alia are doing the same for Favre, but something tells me most QBs would rather throw to Dallas' playmakers.
Regardless, Romo's got a leg up on Favre, statistically speaking.
However, despite the growing sentiment to the contrary thanks to the rise in popularity of fantasy sports, statistics are not the true measure of value in any sport. Especially football. Contribution to winning is the only true measure of value; statistics help approximate this, but they are insufficient in a vacuum. Especially in the NFL.
So let's look at that aspect of each QB's resume:
Romo - his team is 8-4; he piloted wins over the Cleveland Browns, Cincinnati Bengals, Philadelphia Eagles, Green Bay Packers, Niners, Seahawks, and Washington Redskins; he took the snaps in losses to the Arizona Cardinals and Washington Redskins while playing very well in both; Dallas is in second place in a tough division, but sits outside the postseason at the moment and still faces a brutal home stretch.
Favre - his team is also 8-4; he piloted wins over the Miami Dolphins, Cardinals, Bengals, Kansas City Chiefs, Buffalo Bills, St. Louis Rams, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans; he took snaps in losses to the Pats, the San Diego Chargers, the Oakland Raiders, and the Denver Broncos while playing terribly in each case; New York is in first place in a tough division and, though not promised the postseason, sits in good shape with an easy schedule remaining.
By that measure, which is the more important according to most football people, Brett's got Tony dusted.
He played extremely well against the stiffest competition, leading his teams to wins over the 7-5 Pats, the 11-1 Titans, the 7-5 Cardinals, the 7-5 Dolphins, and the 6-6 Bills back when they were good (arguably, the Jets could be credited for knocking the wheels off Buffalo's wagon since that win was in Buffalo). He also played very poorly in the Jets' losses.
Meanwhile, Romo's only beaten one team that's over .500 (the 7-5 'skins) and he played terribly in that game. He's posted awesome numbers against terrible teams and played terrifically in the two losses Dallas suffered with him behind center.
That tells me the Jets ride-or-die with Bert. Not so for Dallas and Romo.
Then there's the issue of durability and the games Romo missed.
Some argue that this weighs in Romo's favor because Dallas struggled so mightily in his absence. I'd tend to agree with that, but I wouldn't give it as much weight. Consider that the offense was awful, but Dallas still posted its most impressive win of the season (over the 9-3, division-leading Tampa Bay Buccaneers) in his absence. Also consider the two losses were to the Rams in Brad Johnson's first game and to the Giants in New York.
Yes, Romo probably wins that game against St. Louis, but I don't believe for a second it's a given he wins in New York. In fact, I'd argue that it's much closer to a given that Dallas would've lost, just by a narrower margin.
Furthermore, absence is analogous to playing poorly. In both instances, you could say the real player is missing. From that angle, Favre looks more valuable because the Jets have yet to survive his "absence" against a good team. Meanwhile, Romo was "absent" for Dallas' two most impressive wins.
Finally, doesn't Favre get credit for playing all 12 games to date? The injury was not Romo's fault, but he still missed three of 16 games.
Don't get me wrong. None of this proves Brett Favre is the MVP. Angel Navedo, who is a Jets fan on B/R who I greatly respect, doesn't even think he's the MVP of the team. And there are tons of other worthy candidates.
Additionally, Romo has a chance to win the award in the next four games against some very stiff competition, especially defensively. He may very well do it. I'm beginning to come around on the guy because I think I've overestimated the offensive line and, consequently, underestimated his elusiveness.
I've also greatly underestimated his value as a person. That homeless guy/movie story was tremendously impressive. I consider myself the salt-of-the-earth and I'd never even consider doing that. Still wouldn't.
On the other hand, I am not a fan of Ol' Bert.
I think he handled his exit from GB like a punk diva instead of the grizzled vet he's supposed to be, he chucked a young kid under the bus in the process, and he delivered far too much pain on my Niners in the '90s.
But fair is fair.
At this point in the season, Brett Favre has been far more valuable than Tony Romo. And yet the hype that propels all things emblazoned with a Star is pushing that very idea as if there isn't even a doubt about it.
Along with the idea that Dallas is suddenly ready to challenge the Giants.
And it's all lunacy. This weekend's game against Pittsburgh will give us an idea of the degree.
If Romo plays well and Dallas wins on the road, THEN all this talk will take on some meaning and credibility.
Right now though, it's all just hot air and wishful thinking.
Although Bleacher Report's reach is not quite as extensive as the universal boundaries that so moved Pascal, it is my own sports universe so its silence will do. I'm referring to an article I wrote within the last couple weeks about the Dallas Cowboys. The response was virtually nil.
That's odd for any article that is suspicious of the 'pokes.
But odd isn't necessarily scary. I've written lots of stuff that's been largely ignored and, due to my own delusional arrogance, I always think that's odd. The significant thing is that, not only was my warning ignored, anyone of larger influence in the sports world (read: any at all), who sounded the same alarm, was also ignored.
Because, sure enough, after demolishing two National Football League bottom-feeders - the San Francisco 49ers and Seattle Seahawks - the hype-machine is whirring along.
I've read how the Cowboys are the only team with a shot to dethrone the defending champs, the 11-1 New York Giants. I've read how the offense is officially fixed. Most recently, I've read that Tony Romo is the NFL's real Most Valuable Player. And it's all ridiculously premature.
Before everyone in the Lone Star State flips out, I'm not saying it won't happen or even that any of it is improbable.
But let's look at this objectively.
There's no conclusive argument one way or the other with regard to Dallas' chances against NY. Ditto the offense. Dallas has looked great recently, which would support both assertions. However, the competition has been so abysmal that I'd argue you can draw almost no conclusion other than the 'boys are no longer a trainwreck.
So let's look take the Tony Romo/MVP issue and pretend it's representative of the runaway hyperbole being showered on Dallas.
Again, I'm not saying Romo won't BE the MVP. I'm saying he is NOT CURRENTLY the MVP.
I'd argue that Brett Favre is. Compare the two quarterbacks statistically and Romo gets the nod, especially considering he missed three games:
Romo - QB rating = 102.3; completion % = 64.0; total yds = 2559; TDs = 21; INTs = 8
Favre - QB rating = 90.4; completion % = 68.7; total yds = 2708; TDs = 20; INTs = 14
Of course, those totals are probably misleading to a degree. I watched the Niners game and I saw Romo throw several decent passes that Terrell Owens turned into touchdowns. I saw the same in several other highlights. Maybe Laverneus Coles, Jericho Cotchery, et alia are doing the same for Favre, but something tells me most QBs would rather throw to Dallas' playmakers.
Regardless, Romo's got a leg up on Favre, statistically speaking.
However, despite the growing sentiment to the contrary thanks to the rise in popularity of fantasy sports, statistics are not the true measure of value in any sport. Especially football. Contribution to winning is the only true measure of value; statistics help approximate this, but they are insufficient in a vacuum. Especially in the NFL.
So let's look at that aspect of each QB's resume:
Romo - his team is 8-4; he piloted wins over the Cleveland Browns, Cincinnati Bengals, Philadelphia Eagles, Green Bay Packers, Niners, Seahawks, and Washington Redskins; he took the snaps in losses to the Arizona Cardinals and Washington Redskins while playing very well in both; Dallas is in second place in a tough division, but sits outside the postseason at the moment and still faces a brutal home stretch.
Favre - his team is also 8-4; he piloted wins over the Miami Dolphins, Cardinals, Bengals, Kansas City Chiefs, Buffalo Bills, St. Louis Rams, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans; he took snaps in losses to the Pats, the San Diego Chargers, the Oakland Raiders, and the Denver Broncos while playing terribly in each case; New York is in first place in a tough division and, though not promised the postseason, sits in good shape with an easy schedule remaining.
By that measure, which is the more important according to most football people, Brett's got Tony dusted.
He played extremely well against the stiffest competition, leading his teams to wins over the 7-5 Pats, the 11-1 Titans, the 7-5 Cardinals, the 7-5 Dolphins, and the 6-6 Bills back when they were good (arguably, the Jets could be credited for knocking the wheels off Buffalo's wagon since that win was in Buffalo). He also played very poorly in the Jets' losses.
Meanwhile, Romo's only beaten one team that's over .500 (the 7-5 'skins) and he played terribly in that game. He's posted awesome numbers against terrible teams and played terrifically in the two losses Dallas suffered with him behind center.
That tells me the Jets ride-or-die with Bert. Not so for Dallas and Romo.
Then there's the issue of durability and the games Romo missed.
Some argue that this weighs in Romo's favor because Dallas struggled so mightily in his absence. I'd tend to agree with that, but I wouldn't give it as much weight. Consider that the offense was awful, but Dallas still posted its most impressive win of the season (over the 9-3, division-leading Tampa Bay Buccaneers) in his absence. Also consider the two losses were to the Rams in Brad Johnson's first game and to the Giants in New York.
Yes, Romo probably wins that game against St. Louis, but I don't believe for a second it's a given he wins in New York. In fact, I'd argue that it's much closer to a given that Dallas would've lost, just by a narrower margin.
Furthermore, absence is analogous to playing poorly. In both instances, you could say the real player is missing. From that angle, Favre looks more valuable because the Jets have yet to survive his "absence" against a good team. Meanwhile, Romo was "absent" for Dallas' two most impressive wins.
Finally, doesn't Favre get credit for playing all 12 games to date? The injury was not Romo's fault, but he still missed three of 16 games.
Don't get me wrong. None of this proves Brett Favre is the MVP. Angel Navedo, who is a Jets fan on B/R who I greatly respect, doesn't even think he's the MVP of the team. And there are tons of other worthy candidates.
Additionally, Romo has a chance to win the award in the next four games against some very stiff competition, especially defensively. He may very well do it. I'm beginning to come around on the guy because I think I've overestimated the offensive line and, consequently, underestimated his elusiveness.
I've also greatly underestimated his value as a person. That homeless guy/movie story was tremendously impressive. I consider myself the salt-of-the-earth and I'd never even consider doing that. Still wouldn't.
On the other hand, I am not a fan of Ol' Bert.
I think he handled his exit from GB like a punk diva instead of the grizzled vet he's supposed to be, he chucked a young kid under the bus in the process, and he delivered far too much pain on my Niners in the '90s.
But fair is fair.
At this point in the season, Brett Favre has been far more valuable than Tony Romo. And yet the hype that propels all things emblazoned with a Star is pushing that very idea as if there isn't even a doubt about it.
Along with the idea that Dallas is suddenly ready to challenge the Giants.
And it's all lunacy. This weekend's game against Pittsburgh will give us an idea of the degree.
If Romo plays well and Dallas wins on the road, THEN all this talk will take on some meaning and credibility.
Right now though, it's all just hot air and wishful thinking.
San Francisco Giants Fans Should Be Rooting for the New York Yankees
"Sure, a lot o' rich people are a**holes, but believe me, a lot o' poor people are a**holes, too. And an a**hole with money can at least pay for his own drinks. - Tom Robbins, "Jitterbug Perfume"
According to Ken Rosenthal, the New York Yankees have offered C.C. Sabathia a six-year contract worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $140 million. The two sides are apparently meeting for a tete-a-tete in the very near future. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Rosenthal's info is usually dead-on even if his style isn't my cup o' tea. It's pretty much gospel.
I really hope that meeting goes well and results in some ink on paper.
But there is still reason to worry. Sabathia has openly and repeatedly professed a desire to play in his golden home State. As a Northern Cali product myself, I'd say there's a decent chance that someone who loves California (particularly the northern part) isn't too stoked on the idea of playing in NYC. Nothing against the Big Apple, but it's a different pace and approach to the daily grind - not better, not worse.
There's also the issue of the lumber.
The big fella has also made his penchant for gripping and ripping no secret. Obviously, he's hoping for more at-bats than is offered by an American League's interleague slate.
Of course, an offer of over $23 million a year for six years can be very persuasive.
As San Francisco Giants fans, we should hope so.
I wrote yesterday that one reason the Edgar Renteria move scared me a bit was because Rosenthal linked it to Sabathia. Not directly, but he mentioned the two in the same breath. And it makes sense. Offense is SF's biggest concern and Renteria isn't exactly a juggernaut in that regard. It makes sense that the signing could be a prelude to a bigger splash.
One would hope the splash would land in the batter's box rather than the mound, but the most persistent rumors have been about Sabathia.
That begs the question: WHY?
Any casual follower of Major League Baseball either knows nothing about the Giants or they know about the young staff, specifically Tim Lincecum. More serious fans have heard ad nauseam how lousy San Francisco's lineup is. Giants' die-hards woke up each morning from April to October thinking, "Benjie freakin' Molina as the most dangerous power threat?"
Seriously, John Bowker almost led the team in homeruns and he barely saw the field for the last month and a half.
Then there's the issue of payroll - SF is in a huge market yet it doesn't spend that way. We can argue the equity of that 'til we're blue in the face, but it's the bottom-line. With that in mind, look at the money guaranteed to some key players next year:
Barry Zito - $18.5 million
Edgar Renteria - $9.25 million
Aaron Rowand - $8 million
Randy Winn - $8.25 million
Dave Roberts - $6.5 million (seriously?)
Benjie Molina - $6 million
By my math, that's $56.5 million devoted to six players who, as a collective, are not very good as a foundation on which to build. Now consider throwing Sabathia's enormous contract on top of that heap. Even with a hometown discount, you gotta figure he's gonna command at least $20 million per year considering the Yankees set the bar three million higher.
That would bump the number up to $76.5 million. Realistically, the Giants aren't gonna go over $100 million. Probably won't go too near it.
So signing Sabathia would leave SF with seven players eating up most of the payroll, a virtually unimproved offense, and less than $25 million to work with. Much less because the other guys use around $15 million between the likes of Matt Cain, Noah Lowry, Bobby Howry, Jeremy Affeldt, and the rest of the bench.
San Francisco's payroll would be up over $90 million with Sabathia on board. Who out there thinks the Orange and Black would add more payroll after that?
Not me. I think we'd be looking at Cain being shipped for offense or another futile, impotent year from the team's offense.
I don't like either of those scenarios. I don't like the idea of the rich getting richer either, but it's the least of all evils this time.
So cross your fingers with me San Fran, let's hope we see Sabathia in pinstripes sooner rather than later.
According to Ken Rosenthal, the New York Yankees have offered C.C. Sabathia a six-year contract worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $140 million. The two sides are apparently meeting for a tete-a-tete in the very near future. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Rosenthal's info is usually dead-on even if his style isn't my cup o' tea. It's pretty much gospel.
I really hope that meeting goes well and results in some ink on paper.
But there is still reason to worry. Sabathia has openly and repeatedly professed a desire to play in his golden home State. As a Northern Cali product myself, I'd say there's a decent chance that someone who loves California (particularly the northern part) isn't too stoked on the idea of playing in NYC. Nothing against the Big Apple, but it's a different pace and approach to the daily grind - not better, not worse.
There's also the issue of the lumber.
The big fella has also made his penchant for gripping and ripping no secret. Obviously, he's hoping for more at-bats than is offered by an American League's interleague slate.
Of course, an offer of over $23 million a year for six years can be very persuasive.
As San Francisco Giants fans, we should hope so.
I wrote yesterday that one reason the Edgar Renteria move scared me a bit was because Rosenthal linked it to Sabathia. Not directly, but he mentioned the two in the same breath. And it makes sense. Offense is SF's biggest concern and Renteria isn't exactly a juggernaut in that regard. It makes sense that the signing could be a prelude to a bigger splash.
One would hope the splash would land in the batter's box rather than the mound, but the most persistent rumors have been about Sabathia.
That begs the question: WHY?
Any casual follower of Major League Baseball either knows nothing about the Giants or they know about the young staff, specifically Tim Lincecum. More serious fans have heard ad nauseam how lousy San Francisco's lineup is. Giants' die-hards woke up each morning from April to October thinking, "Benjie freakin' Molina as the most dangerous power threat?"
Seriously, John Bowker almost led the team in homeruns and he barely saw the field for the last month and a half.
Then there's the issue of payroll - SF is in a huge market yet it doesn't spend that way. We can argue the equity of that 'til we're blue in the face, but it's the bottom-line. With that in mind, look at the money guaranteed to some key players next year:
Barry Zito - $18.5 million
Edgar Renteria - $9.25 million
Aaron Rowand - $8 million
Randy Winn - $8.25 million
Dave Roberts - $6.5 million (seriously?)
Benjie Molina - $6 million
By my math, that's $56.5 million devoted to six players who, as a collective, are not very good as a foundation on which to build. Now consider throwing Sabathia's enormous contract on top of that heap. Even with a hometown discount, you gotta figure he's gonna command at least $20 million per year considering the Yankees set the bar three million higher.
That would bump the number up to $76.5 million. Realistically, the Giants aren't gonna go over $100 million. Probably won't go too near it.
So signing Sabathia would leave SF with seven players eating up most of the payroll, a virtually unimproved offense, and less than $25 million to work with. Much less because the other guys use around $15 million between the likes of Matt Cain, Noah Lowry, Bobby Howry, Jeremy Affeldt, and the rest of the bench.
San Francisco's payroll would be up over $90 million with Sabathia on board. Who out there thinks the Orange and Black would add more payroll after that?
Not me. I think we'd be looking at Cain being shipped for offense or another futile, impotent year from the team's offense.
I don't like either of those scenarios. I don't like the idea of the rich getting richer either, but it's the least of all evils this time.
So cross your fingers with me San Fran, let's hope we see Sabathia in pinstripes sooner rather than later.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
San Francisco Giants' Offseason Takes a Step Back, But It's a Small One
I was all set to write an article about how Edgar Renteria might not be a great idea for the San Francisco Giants, even at the relatively-cheap price of $9 million per year for two years. The reason was because of Ken Rosenthal's latest installment concerning the Major League Baseball offseason rumors. Well, Rosenthall now reports the Giants have signed Edgar for two years and $18.5 million.
Now, I'm generally not a fan of Rosenthal's writing.
But I am nothing if not fair and the man usually gets reliable, accurate inside information. Ol' Kenny has great access and does an excellent job of passing it along. So when he quotes an anonymous general manager questioning why so many teams are interested in Edgar, it gives me reason for pause.
When Rosenthal mentions a low OPS, the pause gets longer.
Renteria played for the Detroit Tigers last year. That's an easier hitter's park (despite what new-fangled ballpark stats may say) and a far more formidable lineup. I don't see how Renteria's OPS will improve in the Gents' weaker lineup and offense-swallowing home yard, especially if the pitching in the National League West continues on its upward arc.
That means his defense must be very good, otherwise he's arguably not an upgrade over Omar Vizquel (who gave you no power, but excellent defense at a cheaper price).
My pause turns slightly towards revulsion.
Because Ken also points out that Renteria's defense is a major concern, specifically his ability to move to his right for balls in the hole. That's unsettling for two reasons. The first being that, if this is true, Renteria will not be very good defensively and SF just wasted money. The second being the constitution of the as-assembled 2009 San Francisco Giants. With young pitchers and a weak-though-improving offense, defense will be at a premium.
And covering the hole may be an issue because neither Kevin Frandsen nor Pablo Sandoval have seen a lot of time at MLB's version of the hot corner.
Even worse, in the first Rosenthal piece, he links the signing of Renteria with C.C. Sabathia.
Oh no. Oh, oh, oh NO!
I've said it before, but I like Sabathia. Who wouldn't like a guy who takes the whenever asked, usually gets you to the eighth before you even think of stirring the bullpen, and may launch one for good measure? But at $22 million a year?!?
For a team stacked in pitching - young, cheap pitching - and a staff that already contains an enormously bloated contract? Even with a hometown discount, that's going to be more than Barry Zito's albatross. And, as I've written before, there is reason to be scared by the prospect of signing C.C. and then losing him.
Renteria, even if the deal goes sideways, won't be too crippling. If his offense improves (or even just persists) and his defensive woes are overstated, he'd be a pretty valuable and efficient signing. I don't think the latter is likely, but I see the worst-case scenario as only a slight regression.
Signing Sabathia would be a major regression.
It would make the pitching staff ridiculous and make either Jonathan Sanchez, Noah Lowry, or Matt Cain. I'd guess Cain since he'd have the most value on the open market and will demand the highest price to keep when that day comes. But the staff already looks pretty impressive and I love Matt Cain. I'd rather have him than Sabathia.
I think he's remarkably similar to Sabathia (though younger and backed by a pathetic offense) except he's a homegrown product. And I love his heart, his mental toughness. Those are the intangibles that make good talents great players.
Only time will tell if a metaphorical seismic shift is in the future for the Orange and Black.
But the last, literal one wasn't too kind to San Francisco. I don't think the metaphorical version would be any better.
Now, I'm generally not a fan of Rosenthal's writing.
But I am nothing if not fair and the man usually gets reliable, accurate inside information. Ol' Kenny has great access and does an excellent job of passing it along. So when he quotes an anonymous general manager questioning why so many teams are interested in Edgar, it gives me reason for pause.
When Rosenthal mentions a low OPS, the pause gets longer.
Renteria played for the Detroit Tigers last year. That's an easier hitter's park (despite what new-fangled ballpark stats may say) and a far more formidable lineup. I don't see how Renteria's OPS will improve in the Gents' weaker lineup and offense-swallowing home yard, especially if the pitching in the National League West continues on its upward arc.
That means his defense must be very good, otherwise he's arguably not an upgrade over Omar Vizquel (who gave you no power, but excellent defense at a cheaper price).
My pause turns slightly towards revulsion.
Because Ken also points out that Renteria's defense is a major concern, specifically his ability to move to his right for balls in the hole. That's unsettling for two reasons. The first being that, if this is true, Renteria will not be very good defensively and SF just wasted money. The second being the constitution of the as-assembled 2009 San Francisco Giants. With young pitchers and a weak-though-improving offense, defense will be at a premium.
And covering the hole may be an issue because neither Kevin Frandsen nor Pablo Sandoval have seen a lot of time at MLB's version of the hot corner.
Even worse, in the first Rosenthal piece, he links the signing of Renteria with C.C. Sabathia.
Oh no. Oh, oh, oh NO!
I've said it before, but I like Sabathia. Who wouldn't like a guy who takes the whenever asked, usually gets you to the eighth before you even think of stirring the bullpen, and may launch one for good measure? But at $22 million a year?!?
For a team stacked in pitching - young, cheap pitching - and a staff that already contains an enormously bloated contract? Even with a hometown discount, that's going to be more than Barry Zito's albatross. And, as I've written before, there is reason to be scared by the prospect of signing C.C. and then losing him.
Renteria, even if the deal goes sideways, won't be too crippling. If his offense improves (or even just persists) and his defensive woes are overstated, he'd be a pretty valuable and efficient signing. I don't think the latter is likely, but I see the worst-case scenario as only a slight regression.
Signing Sabathia would be a major regression.
It would make the pitching staff ridiculous and make either Jonathan Sanchez, Noah Lowry, or Matt Cain. I'd guess Cain since he'd have the most value on the open market and will demand the highest price to keep when that day comes. But the staff already looks pretty impressive and I love Matt Cain. I'd rather have him than Sabathia.
I think he's remarkably similar to Sabathia (though younger and backed by a pathetic offense) except he's a homegrown product. And I love his heart, his mental toughness. Those are the intangibles that make good talents great players.
Only time will tell if a metaphorical seismic shift is in the future for the Orange and Black.
But the last, literal one wasn't too kind to San Francisco. I don't think the metaphorical version would be any better.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Notre Dame: The Definition of Painted Into a Corner
Notre Dame football is in big trouble. I mean HUGE trouble. And the program has done it to itself. The administration took a risk by firing Bob Davie, who was admittedly not setting the world afire. However, he was delivering in the classroom and had the squad playing well, if inconsistently. That wasn't enough though, so the school stepped into the abyss.
And that first step was a doozy.
The hiring of George O'Leary didn't go well. On the bright side, it was probably the most entertaining five-day coaching stint in the history of college football. Let's move on.
ND threatened to pull out of the steepening nosedive by hiring the first African-American head football coach in the school's long and illustrious history. Tyrone Willingham was also young and on the rise, coming off a successful stint at Stanford. After a white-hot start, the bloom came off the rose in a HURRY.
It became obvious that, while TW possibly had the coaching acumen to guide a perceived national contender, he lacked the same necessary to recruit the requisite talent. Without that talent, the superpowers of the CFB landscape began to maul the Golden-Domers. After three years and a 21-15 record that included a number of lopsided and embarrassing losses, Willingham got the word.
Exit stage left.
Enter the considerable girth and ego of Charlie Weis. The Great Weis Hype floated into town all bluster and boasts. Coaching this, strategy that. Professional offense this, never lose to that. Notre Dame had found the answer to Tyrone - a great coaching mind who had the work ethic and credentials to recruit.
Apparently, they got it half-right. And apparently that half was worth a 10-year, multimillion-dollar contract extension.
Now, they're stuck in the spotlight with nowhere to go.
Look at Tyrone Willingham's record, warts and all. TW went 21-15 in three years. In 2002, ND went 10-3 and got killed in the Gator Bowl by NC State. Along the way, the Irish beat four Top-25 schools and got rolled by USC. In 2003, the program went 5-7 and suffered four humiliating defeats. In 2004, ND went 6-6 and lost to Oregon State in the Insight Bowl. That year saw the Irish beat a Top-10 Michigan squad for the second time in three years, but suffer another series of horrible face-plants.
Now look at Charlie Weis' record of 28-21 through four years.
In 2005, ND went 9-3 and got stomped out by Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. The Irish beat three Top-25 schools on the road without suffering any awful losses. In 2006, the program went 10-3 and got annihilated by LSU in the Sugar Bowl. ND beat a Top-25 Penn State squad, but got blitzed by both Michigan and USC in its other regular season challenges. Weis was extended along the way.
Last year (2007) probably doesn't need much recap - 3-9, lost to Navy at home, six blowout losses, shutout by both USC and Michigan, and set school records for consecutive losses to open a season AND total losses. This year hasn't been much better. The Irish are 6-6 in 2008 and destined for a bowl game. But they haven't beaten anyone very good, got shutout by Boston College, lost to Pittsburgh and Syracuse in South Bend, and managed only a field goal against USC after going almost three quarter without a first down.
It's not over. I would bet that Notre Dame will accept an invitation to a bowl it has no business being in, against an opponent that is far superior, and you'll see another lopsided loss hung on the Golden Dome.
Now, compare the two coaches side-by-side. This is where the trouble starts.
For all of Charlie Weis' supposed recruiting and offensive genius, the results are almost identical. Both coaches averaged about a 7-5 record per year. TW's winning percentage is actually higher. Both went to two bowl games; Weis went to BCS games, but got embarrassed twice. Both had their greatest success with the previous coach's recruits. Both had their share of big wins and vomitous losses. Both have seen the program reach new depths.
And yet Weis got that huge, long extension plus another vote of confidence today while Willingham's contract was bought out. Despite seemingly identical results. However, the real problem is this: what else was Notre Dame gonna do?
They couldn't get rid of the guy. Unless CW resigned, they would have eaten a huge financial hit in a failing economy. It would have also been an obvious admission that they made another colossal administrative blunder on the heels of Davie, O'Leary, and Willingham. And it would have chucked a beloved alumnus under the bus, labeling him a failure in his first solo gig.
Not to mention that keeping him can't backfire.
The Irish 2009 schedule is as follows: Nevada at home, Michigan on the road, Michigan State at home, Purdue on the road, Washington at home, USC at home, BC at home, Washington State in San Antonio, Navy at home, Pittsburgh on the road, Connecticut at home, and Stanford in Palo Alto. Charlie could pretty much sleep through the year and Notre Dame's faith would still be vindicated.
So the Notre Dame powers-that-be finally made the correct call, right?
Wrong.
Look more closely at that schedule. It is weak. WEAK. Notre Dame will have a bunch of matured upperclassmen who have had plenty of time in the system to learn it. And remember, these are all blue-chippers because that is, by definition, all Charlie Weis gets. Heading into 2009, everyone will ink down nine wins. The only question marks will be Michigan State at home, USC at home, and Boston College at home.
You see what I'm driving at?
The expectation of nine easy wins plus three challenges in South Bend will have a lot of people thinking 10 or 11 wins is realistic. Notre Dame has just delivered Charlie Weis' head to the media on a silver platter. Or rather golden.
He has no margin for error. If ND loses more than three games, dear GOD!
What should scare Charlie is that Nevada, at Michigan, at Purdue, at Pittsburgh, and at Stanford will not be gimmes. Unfortunately for him, try selling that to a rabid fanbase and media. So what happens if the Irish stagger under these expectations?
Look at that picture. The comparison of TW to CW will no longer be so similar. CW's resume will look inferior and the extension will look even worse. Not only that, the scene will include a vote of confidence that looked foolish at the time and looks infinitely more so in hindsight.
Even if the school goes 9-3 or better, it'll probably be back in a BCS game and getting slaughtered by a truly elite program.
Notre Dame has given itself no out by indulging its fanbase's lunacy, its delusion that the program can still be a national power. Never again will Notre Dame compete with the likes of USC. Yet it continues to operate and schedule as if those days are just the right tweak away. As long as the school adheres to its elevated academic standards, they are not.
College football is no longer a place where a squad of student-athletes can excel on an annual basis. There are simply too many programs treating their kids like professional athletes who must deal with hideous little annoyances like classwork and professors. How can you expect young kids to navigate considerable academic course loads while working hard enough to compete with kids who can focus almost exclusively on athletic improvement?
You can't.
No one seems to think so except Notre Dame. Nobody is stunned when smaller schools that pride themselves on education can't compete with the bigguns. Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, the Ivies, Vanderbilt, etc. don't expect to hang with the elite every year. If everything comes together and they catch lightning in a bottle, great. But the goal is to stay competitive, maybe finish with a winning record and go to a bowl game.
Notre Dame belongs in that club, is in that club except its alumni and fans don't realize it or won't accept it. And that's the problem.
There is a disturbing trend developing in South Bend. Since Bob Davie, two coaches have come in and had their greatest successes with the previous guy's players. Davie reigned over ND football during the period of CFB that saw academics take a back seat (of the bus) to competitive performance. He was the first to pay the price of that shift and the resolute expectations of fans and alumni.
TW came in and got off to a good start, but wore down. Ditto for Weis although he's getting more of a chance to persevere. But if a coaching genius and star recruiter can't get the job down with all that leash, can any coach succeed?
I say no. And if no coach can deliver on what's expected of the program, the expectation must be the problem. Yet Notre Dame continues to indulge the fallacy.
So look out, folks. This should get a lot more fun.
And that first step was a doozy.
The hiring of George O'Leary didn't go well. On the bright side, it was probably the most entertaining five-day coaching stint in the history of college football. Let's move on.
ND threatened to pull out of the steepening nosedive by hiring the first African-American head football coach in the school's long and illustrious history. Tyrone Willingham was also young and on the rise, coming off a successful stint at Stanford. After a white-hot start, the bloom came off the rose in a HURRY.
It became obvious that, while TW possibly had the coaching acumen to guide a perceived national contender, he lacked the same necessary to recruit the requisite talent. Without that talent, the superpowers of the CFB landscape began to maul the Golden-Domers. After three years and a 21-15 record that included a number of lopsided and embarrassing losses, Willingham got the word.
Exit stage left.
Enter the considerable girth and ego of Charlie Weis. The Great Weis Hype floated into town all bluster and boasts. Coaching this, strategy that. Professional offense this, never lose to that. Notre Dame had found the answer to Tyrone - a great coaching mind who had the work ethic and credentials to recruit.
Apparently, they got it half-right. And apparently that half was worth a 10-year, multimillion-dollar contract extension.
Now, they're stuck in the spotlight with nowhere to go.
Look at Tyrone Willingham's record, warts and all. TW went 21-15 in three years. In 2002, ND went 10-3 and got killed in the Gator Bowl by NC State. Along the way, the Irish beat four Top-25 schools and got rolled by USC. In 2003, the program went 5-7 and suffered four humiliating defeats. In 2004, ND went 6-6 and lost to Oregon State in the Insight Bowl. That year saw the Irish beat a Top-10 Michigan squad for the second time in three years, but suffer another series of horrible face-plants.
Now look at Charlie Weis' record of 28-21 through four years.
In 2005, ND went 9-3 and got stomped out by Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. The Irish beat three Top-25 schools on the road without suffering any awful losses. In 2006, the program went 10-3 and got annihilated by LSU in the Sugar Bowl. ND beat a Top-25 Penn State squad, but got blitzed by both Michigan and USC in its other regular season challenges. Weis was extended along the way.
Last year (2007) probably doesn't need much recap - 3-9, lost to Navy at home, six blowout losses, shutout by both USC and Michigan, and set school records for consecutive losses to open a season AND total losses. This year hasn't been much better. The Irish are 6-6 in 2008 and destined for a bowl game. But they haven't beaten anyone very good, got shutout by Boston College, lost to Pittsburgh and Syracuse in South Bend, and managed only a field goal against USC after going almost three quarter without a first down.
It's not over. I would bet that Notre Dame will accept an invitation to a bowl it has no business being in, against an opponent that is far superior, and you'll see another lopsided loss hung on the Golden Dome.
Now, compare the two coaches side-by-side. This is where the trouble starts.
For all of Charlie Weis' supposed recruiting and offensive genius, the results are almost identical. Both coaches averaged about a 7-5 record per year. TW's winning percentage is actually higher. Both went to two bowl games; Weis went to BCS games, but got embarrassed twice. Both had their greatest success with the previous coach's recruits. Both had their share of big wins and vomitous losses. Both have seen the program reach new depths.
And yet Weis got that huge, long extension plus another vote of confidence today while Willingham's contract was bought out. Despite seemingly identical results. However, the real problem is this: what else was Notre Dame gonna do?
They couldn't get rid of the guy. Unless CW resigned, they would have eaten a huge financial hit in a failing economy. It would have also been an obvious admission that they made another colossal administrative blunder on the heels of Davie, O'Leary, and Willingham. And it would have chucked a beloved alumnus under the bus, labeling him a failure in his first solo gig.
Not to mention that keeping him can't backfire.
The Irish 2009 schedule is as follows: Nevada at home, Michigan on the road, Michigan State at home, Purdue on the road, Washington at home, USC at home, BC at home, Washington State in San Antonio, Navy at home, Pittsburgh on the road, Connecticut at home, and Stanford in Palo Alto. Charlie could pretty much sleep through the year and Notre Dame's faith would still be vindicated.
So the Notre Dame powers-that-be finally made the correct call, right?
Wrong.
Look more closely at that schedule. It is weak. WEAK. Notre Dame will have a bunch of matured upperclassmen who have had plenty of time in the system to learn it. And remember, these are all blue-chippers because that is, by definition, all Charlie Weis gets. Heading into 2009, everyone will ink down nine wins. The only question marks will be Michigan State at home, USC at home, and Boston College at home.
You see what I'm driving at?
The expectation of nine easy wins plus three challenges in South Bend will have a lot of people thinking 10 or 11 wins is realistic. Notre Dame has just delivered Charlie Weis' head to the media on a silver platter. Or rather golden.
He has no margin for error. If ND loses more than three games, dear GOD!
What should scare Charlie is that Nevada, at Michigan, at Purdue, at Pittsburgh, and at Stanford will not be gimmes. Unfortunately for him, try selling that to a rabid fanbase and media. So what happens if the Irish stagger under these expectations?
Look at that picture. The comparison of TW to CW will no longer be so similar. CW's resume will look inferior and the extension will look even worse. Not only that, the scene will include a vote of confidence that looked foolish at the time and looks infinitely more so in hindsight.
Even if the school goes 9-3 or better, it'll probably be back in a BCS game and getting slaughtered by a truly elite program.
Notre Dame has given itself no out by indulging its fanbase's lunacy, its delusion that the program can still be a national power. Never again will Notre Dame compete with the likes of USC. Yet it continues to operate and schedule as if those days are just the right tweak away. As long as the school adheres to its elevated academic standards, they are not.
College football is no longer a place where a squad of student-athletes can excel on an annual basis. There are simply too many programs treating their kids like professional athletes who must deal with hideous little annoyances like classwork and professors. How can you expect young kids to navigate considerable academic course loads while working hard enough to compete with kids who can focus almost exclusively on athletic improvement?
You can't.
No one seems to think so except Notre Dame. Nobody is stunned when smaller schools that pride themselves on education can't compete with the bigguns. Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, the Ivies, Vanderbilt, etc. don't expect to hang with the elite every year. If everything comes together and they catch lightning in a bottle, great. But the goal is to stay competitive, maybe finish with a winning record and go to a bowl game.
Notre Dame belongs in that club, is in that club except its alumni and fans don't realize it or won't accept it. And that's the problem.
There is a disturbing trend developing in South Bend. Since Bob Davie, two coaches have come in and had their greatest successes with the previous guy's players. Davie reigned over ND football during the period of CFB that saw academics take a back seat (of the bus) to competitive performance. He was the first to pay the price of that shift and the resolute expectations of fans and alumni.
TW came in and got off to a good start, but wore down. Ditto for Weis although he's getting more of a chance to persevere. But if a coaching genius and star recruiter can't get the job down with all that leash, can any coach succeed?
I say no. And if no coach can deliver on what's expected of the program, the expectation must be the problem. Yet Notre Dame continues to indulge the fallacy.
So look out, folks. This should get a lot more fun.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The Perfect Playoff Proposal for College Football
After writing a piece about the extensive failures of the BCS, I was stunned to find several fans willing to defend the system. Or rather they seemed to find deeper fault with a playoff system. The surprising part was not that they disagreed with the article, but rather that they thought a playoff format would create more controversy than it would solve.
To me, that just doesn't make sense.
This year is the perfect illustration because it's pretty much a worst-case-scenario as far as determining who the country's best football program is. There are the three undefeated schools from smaller conferences. There is the cluster-fornication in the Big 12 where A beat B who beat C who beat A and the other opponents of consequence are the same. There is Florida running roughshod over everyone in its path except a good-not-great Ole Miss squad in the Swamp. There is USC doing the same except for Oregon State on the road. Ditto Penn State and Iowa.
It seems reasonable that, if a playoff system would produce more favorable results this year, it would do so in every other year as well. Presumably, they would be clearer pictures with which to begin the task.
So let's see what kind of picture two easy steps would produce. First, the steps:
1. Trim a regular season, non-conference game off the schedule and add a title game to the conferences without one.
Look at the schedules of six representative schools from the BCS conferences (either champs or going to the conference title game). Florida, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech each play four out-of-conference games and 13 total regular season games. West Virginia plays five OOC games and 12 total. Ohio State plays four and 12 while USC plays three and 12.
Neither the Pac-10, the Big 10, nor the Big East have conference title games. Add one to bring their totals up to 13.
Almost everyone on the list plays two weak, nonconference opponents so almost nothing is lost trimming that single game. You could even replace an additional OOC game from the SEC, Big 12, and ACC schedules with another conference one to decrease the chances of an unbalanced schedule creating controversy.
Regardless, the total regular season games played by each school would now be 12.
2. Create an eight team playoff format while keeping the bowl games for those who don't qualify.
The eight schools that qualified for the playoffs would be promised an extra postseason game. The same would be true of all those invited to bowls. Those who played in conference championships would be looking at a 13th game while those who did not would be looking at a 12th.
For the playoff losers and the bowl invitees, that would be the last game while those who fail to qualify for either would finish after their 11th tilt.
Those in the playoff format who advanced to the semifinal round of four would be looking at either a 13th or 14th game. The two schools in the championship would face a 14th or 15th game.
That's it. You wouldn't even have to ditch the polls, just tweak their significance.
You could require a top 10 finish based on some amalgamation of the polls in order to qualify for the playoffs. The rest could be used to determine the bowl match-ups as well as which eight teams should receive playoff seeds.
In an imaginary world, where college football has taken those two steps, we'd have an eight team playoff consisting of Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Alabama, Penn State, Utah, and Boise State (probably seeded accordingly).
That's a pretty picture, but is it perfect?
First, to the matter of competitive gripes. Both Texas Tech and Ohio State would probably complain the loudest, and with some reason. But Tech got pasted in its only road challenge, barely answered its biggest home challenge, and played nobody outside the Big 12. Meanwhile, Ohio State got scrambled by USC and lost to Penn State. The Buckeyes got two shots at the national scene and blew them both.
In other words, both schools would have very unsympathetic arguments.
Ball State would also complain and rightfully so. But it gets squeezed by circumstance. Such is life.
Yes, the bowl games would lose a ton of revenue. Yes, the vast majority of schools would play one less game a year while a few would see the same workload and two would see an extra game.
But that playoff format would generate quite a bit of extra cash. Spread it around to the schools and sponsors. Allow the elite programs that see the extra games some measure of financial reward, but spread some of that around as well.
I'm sure there are other problems that I'm not considering.
Of course, these costs are cheap when they buy a national champion, crowned beyond a reasonable argument. For opening up the regular season to better nonconference match-ups. For giving the Davids from Utah and Boise State a real chance to slay the Goliaths with the Crystal Football at stake. For removing another reason to run up obscene scores against inferior opponents.
So is it perfect? No. But the title "The As-Perfect-As-Possible Playoff Proposal for College Football" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
And I sincerely believe that's what such a playoff system could be:
As close to perfect as college football is ever going to get.
To me, that just doesn't make sense.
This year is the perfect illustration because it's pretty much a worst-case-scenario as far as determining who the country's best football program is. There are the three undefeated schools from smaller conferences. There is the cluster-fornication in the Big 12 where A beat B who beat C who beat A and the other opponents of consequence are the same. There is Florida running roughshod over everyone in its path except a good-not-great Ole Miss squad in the Swamp. There is USC doing the same except for Oregon State on the road. Ditto Penn State and Iowa.
It seems reasonable that, if a playoff system would produce more favorable results this year, it would do so in every other year as well. Presumably, they would be clearer pictures with which to begin the task.
So let's see what kind of picture two easy steps would produce. First, the steps:
1. Trim a regular season, non-conference game off the schedule and add a title game to the conferences without one.
Look at the schedules of six representative schools from the BCS conferences (either champs or going to the conference title game). Florida, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech each play four out-of-conference games and 13 total regular season games. West Virginia plays five OOC games and 12 total. Ohio State plays four and 12 while USC plays three and 12.
Neither the Pac-10, the Big 10, nor the Big East have conference title games. Add one to bring their totals up to 13.
Almost everyone on the list plays two weak, nonconference opponents so almost nothing is lost trimming that single game. You could even replace an additional OOC game from the SEC, Big 12, and ACC schedules with another conference one to decrease the chances of an unbalanced schedule creating controversy.
Regardless, the total regular season games played by each school would now be 12.
2. Create an eight team playoff format while keeping the bowl games for those who don't qualify.
The eight schools that qualified for the playoffs would be promised an extra postseason game. The same would be true of all those invited to bowls. Those who played in conference championships would be looking at a 13th game while those who did not would be looking at a 12th.
For the playoff losers and the bowl invitees, that would be the last game while those who fail to qualify for either would finish after their 11th tilt.
Those in the playoff format who advanced to the semifinal round of four would be looking at either a 13th or 14th game. The two schools in the championship would face a 14th or 15th game.
That's it. You wouldn't even have to ditch the polls, just tweak their significance.
You could require a top 10 finish based on some amalgamation of the polls in order to qualify for the playoffs. The rest could be used to determine the bowl match-ups as well as which eight teams should receive playoff seeds.
In an imaginary world, where college football has taken those two steps, we'd have an eight team playoff consisting of Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Alabama, Penn State, Utah, and Boise State (probably seeded accordingly).
That's a pretty picture, but is it perfect?
First, to the matter of competitive gripes. Both Texas Tech and Ohio State would probably complain the loudest, and with some reason. But Tech got pasted in its only road challenge, barely answered its biggest home challenge, and played nobody outside the Big 12. Meanwhile, Ohio State got scrambled by USC and lost to Penn State. The Buckeyes got two shots at the national scene and blew them both.
In other words, both schools would have very unsympathetic arguments.
Ball State would also complain and rightfully so. But it gets squeezed by circumstance. Such is life.
Yes, the bowl games would lose a ton of revenue. Yes, the vast majority of schools would play one less game a year while a few would see the same workload and two would see an extra game.
But that playoff format would generate quite a bit of extra cash. Spread it around to the schools and sponsors. Allow the elite programs that see the extra games some measure of financial reward, but spread some of that around as well.
I'm sure there are other problems that I'm not considering.
Of course, these costs are cheap when they buy a national champion, crowned beyond a reasonable argument. For opening up the regular season to better nonconference match-ups. For giving the Davids from Utah and Boise State a real chance to slay the Goliaths with the Crystal Football at stake. For removing another reason to run up obscene scores against inferior opponents.
So is it perfect? No. But the title "The As-Perfect-As-Possible Playoff Proposal for College Football" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
And I sincerely believe that's what such a playoff system could be:
As close to perfect as college football is ever going to get.
Monday, December 1, 2008
BCS: Beyond Crap, Seriously
The last time I wrote an article about the Bowl Championship Series, someone correctly pointed out that attacking it was beating a dead horse. Everyone knows that the BCS is garbage and fails most spectacularly in the exact situations it was supposedly designed to handle. The problem is that, as long as lunacy rules college football, those of us who fancy ourselves fans have no other option.
As long as the BCS exists, we must try to destroy it because the alternative is to develop a callous to its effects that could swell to total disinterest following the wrong chain of events.
For instance, how bitter would you be if you're a Missouri fan and Texas somehow ends up winning the BCS-part of the National Championship? Without even playing in the Big 12 Championship game. If Mizzu and Alabama both win their respective conference title games, it could happen.
It's highly unlikely, bumping right up against impossible. But it could happen.
Or what if Alabama loses a close game to Florida this weekend while Mizzu beats Oklahoma? Presumably Texas goes to the BCS "championship" over a one-loss Crimson Tide. Maybe they don't, but we can be pretty sure that 'bama won't be going since we can't have rematches in a BCS game.
I digress.
The abject failure of the BCS in that regard is old news. So I'm going to point out some deeper problems that get lost in the glare of that supernova o' failure:
1. The rules governing the other BCS games are almost as miserable.
Each year brings the problem of crowning a national champ. What gets lost in the maelstrom that rightly accompanies that usual disaster is the other games. Those invite schools based on criteria that are almost as asinine. This year is no different.
This will not go over well in Columbus, but it's disgusting that a two-loss Ohio State team seems destined for a BCS game while two undefeated schools get rerouted to lesser games. Lesser games with lesser exposure and lesser paydays.
Maybe OSU is better than Boise State, but that's not the reason the BCS will tab the Buckeyes. Nope, that's all 'bout the Benjamins.
By now, most people know that a non-BCS conference champ is eligible for a BCS game by finishing in the top 10 of the BCS rankings. But eligibility only becomes a guarantee when there is only one such school. This year there are two such schools in the top 10 and they are both undefeated (Utah and Boise State).
But there is a third protagonist. Ball State sits with its undefeated record and magical quarterback, Nate Davis, outside the top 10. They aren't even eligible for a BCS game.
It's just plain wrong.
Both States will almost certainly get screwed out of a reward that both schools richly deserve. Boise and Ball defeated every and any school they could convince to play them this year. Until a school can force another to play it, the kids don't deserve to be penalized because the big boys are too scared to schedule them.
2. The BCS promotes and rewards cowardice in the strongest programs.
If you are a legitimate national title contender from a BCS conference, it makes absolutely no sense to schedule a rough, nonconference game. None. Ohio State gets hammered as the perfect example of this because they've ridden the strategy to humiliations in the title game.
That's a bit unfair because the Buckeyes are not the only school employing it, they've just been successful.
Check out the seven schools from BCS conferences in the BCS top 10. Only USC and Ohio State played each other and that loss did wonders to derail the latter's season. Other than those two schools, only Oklahoma and Penn State played anyone of consequence outside conference.
Furthermore, TCU, Cincinnati, and Oregon State aren't exactly going to intimidate you with history and tradition.
The other schools all played cupcakes and one or two mediocre schools from power conferences. That makes perfect sense, especially considering the unbalanced schedules and lack of title games in some BCS conferences. All you really have to do is navigate your power conference and you're promised a pot of BCS gold at the end of the conference schedule rainbow.
Some years, you don't even have to play the most dangerous schools in the conference.
So why in the hell would you ever risk an Appalachian State? Why would you invite Utah or BYU or Ball State or Boise State or some other legitimate threat into your home? And going there? Out of the question. It makes no sense to do so in the BCS system.
There is only risk and no reward since the ultimate prize doesn't require the risk.
3. The BCS virtually locks out the non-power conferences.
We all know that it's virtually impossible for a non-BCS conference champ to sneak into the title game. Point 1 shows how the rules for the other BCS games work to ensure that a maximum of one school (if any) from a non-power conference will appear per year. And point 2 shows how the BCS system rewards the champs for denying the challengers their shots.
Really, point 2 does all the work.
By allowing the BCS schools easy access to the ultimate prize without forcing them to venture outside their conferences, the BCS virtually tells them not to schedule the up-and-comers. By denying the rising programs access to the very opponents that will allow them entry into the top 10, the BCS essentially caps their upward mobility.
They basically have to go undefeated to get into the top 10 and, even then, there is no chance of ever playing for the Crystal Football.
And it's only gonna get worse.
As more schools figure out there's no upside to scheduling the Utahs of the college football world, an undefeated season from a non-BCS conference champ will carry even less water. Plus, there will be more clutter atop the power conferences and, consequently, more power-clutter atop the BCS rankings.
That means no room for the little guys.
4. The BCS is completely at odds with the "mission" of the NCAA.
The premium placed on education by the NCAA is one of the ugliest and most obvious lies ever told. According to that fatuous association, education is paramount and sports exist as a means to further that education. It's all about the kids, nurturing their intellectual development and maturation.
Those piles and piles of tax-free dollars are just a nice little ancillary benefit.
Except they dictate who gets to play where and when and against whom in the BCS. It's got nothing to do with competition or the kids or furthering anything but bank accounts. That's why Notre Dame gets to go every year they're eligible. That's why Ohio State gets to go this year rather than Boise State. That's why we won't see Alabama against Florida, even if they are the two best teams in the country.
Furthermore, who gets the better education: the kid playing for Ball State or the man-child playing for Florida?
If any program is going to stay true to the NCAA's empty mission statement, it is one with kids who are far less likely to play on Sundays. It is not a program like Florida or Ohio State or Oklahoma, programs that are more NFL factories than academic institutions. It is one like Ball State or Utah or Boise State, programs where the kids have to find something other than football on which to stake their livelihood.
And these are the very schools that the Bowl Championship Series has frozen out of its club.
A playoff system solves all these problems. It replaces the exclusive money-grab of BCS games that decide nothing with one attached to meaningful games. It allows sexier non-conference scheduling because a loss or two is no longer as fatal. It brings smaller conferences into the fold and realigns (kind of) college football with its supposed goal.
Most of all, it settles the matter of the National Champion ON THE FIELD.
I'll close with that, one last good kick to the dead horse.
As long as the BCS exists, we must try to destroy it because the alternative is to develop a callous to its effects that could swell to total disinterest following the wrong chain of events.
For instance, how bitter would you be if you're a Missouri fan and Texas somehow ends up winning the BCS-part of the National Championship? Without even playing in the Big 12 Championship game. If Mizzu and Alabama both win their respective conference title games, it could happen.
It's highly unlikely, bumping right up against impossible. But it could happen.
Or what if Alabama loses a close game to Florida this weekend while Mizzu beats Oklahoma? Presumably Texas goes to the BCS "championship" over a one-loss Crimson Tide. Maybe they don't, but we can be pretty sure that 'bama won't be going since we can't have rematches in a BCS game.
I digress.
The abject failure of the BCS in that regard is old news. So I'm going to point out some deeper problems that get lost in the glare of that supernova o' failure:
1. The rules governing the other BCS games are almost as miserable.
Each year brings the problem of crowning a national champ. What gets lost in the maelstrom that rightly accompanies that usual disaster is the other games. Those invite schools based on criteria that are almost as asinine. This year is no different.
This will not go over well in Columbus, but it's disgusting that a two-loss Ohio State team seems destined for a BCS game while two undefeated schools get rerouted to lesser games. Lesser games with lesser exposure and lesser paydays.
Maybe OSU is better than Boise State, but that's not the reason the BCS will tab the Buckeyes. Nope, that's all 'bout the Benjamins.
By now, most people know that a non-BCS conference champ is eligible for a BCS game by finishing in the top 10 of the BCS rankings. But eligibility only becomes a guarantee when there is only one such school. This year there are two such schools in the top 10 and they are both undefeated (Utah and Boise State).
But there is a third protagonist. Ball State sits with its undefeated record and magical quarterback, Nate Davis, outside the top 10. They aren't even eligible for a BCS game.
It's just plain wrong.
Both States will almost certainly get screwed out of a reward that both schools richly deserve. Boise and Ball defeated every and any school they could convince to play them this year. Until a school can force another to play it, the kids don't deserve to be penalized because the big boys are too scared to schedule them.
2. The BCS promotes and rewards cowardice in the strongest programs.
If you are a legitimate national title contender from a BCS conference, it makes absolutely no sense to schedule a rough, nonconference game. None. Ohio State gets hammered as the perfect example of this because they've ridden the strategy to humiliations in the title game.
That's a bit unfair because the Buckeyes are not the only school employing it, they've just been successful.
Check out the seven schools from BCS conferences in the BCS top 10. Only USC and Ohio State played each other and that loss did wonders to derail the latter's season. Other than those two schools, only Oklahoma and Penn State played anyone of consequence outside conference.
Furthermore, TCU, Cincinnati, and Oregon State aren't exactly going to intimidate you with history and tradition.
The other schools all played cupcakes and one or two mediocre schools from power conferences. That makes perfect sense, especially considering the unbalanced schedules and lack of title games in some BCS conferences. All you really have to do is navigate your power conference and you're promised a pot of BCS gold at the end of the conference schedule rainbow.
Some years, you don't even have to play the most dangerous schools in the conference.
So why in the hell would you ever risk an Appalachian State? Why would you invite Utah or BYU or Ball State or Boise State or some other legitimate threat into your home? And going there? Out of the question. It makes no sense to do so in the BCS system.
There is only risk and no reward since the ultimate prize doesn't require the risk.
3. The BCS virtually locks out the non-power conferences.
We all know that it's virtually impossible for a non-BCS conference champ to sneak into the title game. Point 1 shows how the rules for the other BCS games work to ensure that a maximum of one school (if any) from a non-power conference will appear per year. And point 2 shows how the BCS system rewards the champs for denying the challengers their shots.
Really, point 2 does all the work.
By allowing the BCS schools easy access to the ultimate prize without forcing them to venture outside their conferences, the BCS virtually tells them not to schedule the up-and-comers. By denying the rising programs access to the very opponents that will allow them entry into the top 10, the BCS essentially caps their upward mobility.
They basically have to go undefeated to get into the top 10 and, even then, there is no chance of ever playing for the Crystal Football.
And it's only gonna get worse.
As more schools figure out there's no upside to scheduling the Utahs of the college football world, an undefeated season from a non-BCS conference champ will carry even less water. Plus, there will be more clutter atop the power conferences and, consequently, more power-clutter atop the BCS rankings.
That means no room for the little guys.
4. The BCS is completely at odds with the "mission" of the NCAA.
The premium placed on education by the NCAA is one of the ugliest and most obvious lies ever told. According to that fatuous association, education is paramount and sports exist as a means to further that education. It's all about the kids, nurturing their intellectual development and maturation.
Those piles and piles of tax-free dollars are just a nice little ancillary benefit.
Except they dictate who gets to play where and when and against whom in the BCS. It's got nothing to do with competition or the kids or furthering anything but bank accounts. That's why Notre Dame gets to go every year they're eligible. That's why Ohio State gets to go this year rather than Boise State. That's why we won't see Alabama against Florida, even if they are the two best teams in the country.
Furthermore, who gets the better education: the kid playing for Ball State or the man-child playing for Florida?
If any program is going to stay true to the NCAA's empty mission statement, it is one with kids who are far less likely to play on Sundays. It is not a program like Florida or Ohio State or Oklahoma, programs that are more NFL factories than academic institutions. It is one like Ball State or Utah or Boise State, programs where the kids have to find something other than football on which to stake their livelihood.
And these are the very schools that the Bowl Championship Series has frozen out of its club.
A playoff system solves all these problems. It replaces the exclusive money-grab of BCS games that decide nothing with one attached to meaningful games. It allows sexier non-conference scheduling because a loss or two is no longer as fatal. It brings smaller conferences into the fold and realigns (kind of) college football with its supposed goal.
Most of all, it settles the matter of the National Champion ON THE FIELD.
I'll close with that, one last good kick to the dead horse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)