7 comments I Like These Two Guys But.....Not This

When I am asked to make a list of sportswriters that I like, which happens occasionally since I mostly complain about sportswriters here and sometimes people wonder which ones I do like, I always list Jason Whitlock and Stewart Mandel. I like Whitlock because he believes what he writes and he doesn't seem to have any motives for what he is writing. He is interesting to read because that's how he writes, not because he tries. Sometimes he is wrong when he takes shots at people, like today. I like Stewart Mandel because I find his coverage of college football to be very knowledgeable and informative. He seems to do his homework and know what he is talking about when he is writing his columns. It doesn't mean I don't disagree with them from time and time and feel the need to feature them here...oh no, it's not at all what it means.

Before we get to them, I wanted to display some idiocy in voting for NFL postseason awards. 4 morons voted for Brett Favre as "Comeback Player of the Year" in the NFL this year. Peter King had Favre as Comeback Player of the Year in his mid-season awards, but fortunately he found some brains and voted for Tom Brady by the end of the year. The same can't be said about the 4 other idiots though.

Tom Brady won the award, collecting 19 of the 50 votes. I think either Vince Young or Cadillac Williams made much better comeback stories,

All three are valid winners of this award. Though I know someone could argue a little bit with Young's inclusion. He may have "only" had mental problems, but he was counted out by a good portion of the population who watches football (including myself), so after essentially sitting out last year and playing well this year he has a small claim to be voted for in regard to this award.

Brady got 19 votes, Williams got 14, Young got 7, Cedric Benson got 4, and Brett Favre got 4.

Can someone explain to me exactly what Brett Favre "came back" from? He played last year. He played miserably over the last five games of the season and cost the Jets a playoff spot, but he played.

Exactly. How the hell can someone "comeback" when they played an entire season the year before and started every single one of those games as well? You can't come back if you never left.

Yeah, he also had some arm surgery, but offseason surgery isn't exactly a rarity in the NFL.

There would be a list of players a mile along who would be eligible for this award if the criteria included players who had offseason surgery. Not to mention Favre could have easily had the surgery early in the spring/summer and been back in time for training camp...assuming he cared to join his team for training camp of course.

It's an insult to the real comeback stories that make sports fun to follow. If you're just a jerk, and then you play well, that doesn't qualify as a comeback. It makes you a jerk who's good at sports.

This isn't Brett Favre's fault because he didn't vote for himself, this is the fault of 4 people who seem to think if a player plays an entire year one season and then decides he may or may not want to retire, but ends up playing again...this player actually come back from something. After this the author makes a "Rocky III" comparison but I leave all "Rocky" comparisons for Bill Simmons columns, so I will leave that alone.

-Now onto the NFL Truths that Jason Whitlock wants us to all believe.

There is no more difficult job in sports writing than criticizing Peyton Manning.

He epitomizes what we want in a high-profile athlete. He loves and respects the game. He’s committed and well-prepared. He’s highly skilled, fun to watch and maintains an air of humility. He is easy to like and respect.

Wait for it, here it comes...the twist.

When he retires, he’ll own just about every meaningful career passing record and some experts will argue that Manning is the greatest quarterback of all time.

I can’t go there. Not now. Not without significantly more postseason success.

Exactly, I agree. I think by the end of his career 250+ starts should be completely overshadowed by the 30-something playoff games he will play in during his career. I mean it makes statistical sense really to base him being the greatest quarterback of all-time on his performance in as small of a sample size as possible. So what if Manning was a great regular season quarterback in (what will be) 250+ games, he was only average in the postseason when compared to the other greatest quarterbacks of all-time.

He may not be the best of all-time but he should at least be in the conversation.

Yes, he’s battled a big-game image problem since college, and his lackluster individual performance during the Colts’ 2006 Super Bowl run did little to quiet the critics who question Manning’s ability to execute efficiently when pressure is the highest.

Manning has played in one Super Bowl, his statistics in that one Super Bowl:

25-38 247 yards 1 TD, 1 INT, 81.8 rating.

Not great but also not exactly terrible. This makes Manning a choker and less of a quarterback in Jason Whitlock's eyes. So according to what is being written here, Peyton Manning is not the greatest quarterback of all-time because he hasn't played well in the postseason. Manning's career spans 16 postseason games and we are supposed to be put more weight on those games than the 192 regular season games he has played.

We have already discussed Manning's record in the postseason, so it would be pointless to do it again. Jason Whitlock regurgitates the same numbers over again, while comparing Manning to the same quarterbacks I compared him to, and it would be pointless to go back over this. Yes, Manning doesn't have a great win-loss record in the postseason (He's 8-8), but football is a team game so I really am going to discount that when judging Manning's individual career.

Let's look at the players Whitlock compares Manning to for an entire playoff career with how these players performed in their career in the Super Bowl. You know, the biggest stage where quarterbacks are supposed to "execute efficiently when pressure is the highest" (as quoted by Whitlock above) and see how Manning compares. I know some quarterbacks have larger sample sizes than others and there isn't much I can do about that. Over an entire playoff career he compares favorably with Favre, Marino and a couple others among some of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time. I want to clear Manning's name in his only Super Bowl appearance in the eyes of Jason Whitlock, since he kind of knocked Manning's performance in his only Super Bowl appearance.

Manning compared to other quarterbacks in the Super Bowl:

Peyton Manning (1 game) : 65.7% completion rate, 247.0 yards/game, 1 TD, 1 INT, 81.8 rating.

John Elway (5 games): 50.0% completion rate, 225.6 yards/game, 3 TD, 8 INT, 59.3 rating.

Kurt Warner (3 games): 62.4% completion rate, 385.3 yards/game, 6 TD, 3 INT, 95.9 rating.

Tom Brady (4 games): 64.5% completion rate, 250.3 yards/game, 7 TD, 1 INT, 95.1 rating.

Brett Favre (2 games): 56.5% completion rate, 251.0 yards/game, 5 TD, 1 INT, 97.6 rating.

Dan Marino (1 game): 58.0% completion rate, 318 yards/game, 1 TD, 2 INT, 66.9 rating.

Joe Montana (4 games): 68.0% completion rate, 285.6 yards/game, 11 TD, 0 INT, 127.8 rating.

The first thing I notice is that when people compare Tom Brady to Joe Montana in regards to Super Bowl performances, it is incredibly unfair to Joe Montana. Holy shit, I forgot how good he was in the Super Bowl. 127.8 rating and 11 TD's without an interception. That's some impressive statistics.

The second thing I notice is that yet again Peyton Manning was better than Dan Marino and John Elway in their Super Bowl appearances. Manning had a middle-of-the-road Super Bowl performance compared to the other quarterbacks we compared here. Remember we are comparing Manning in the postseason and in the Super Bowl with some of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time, so these guys are supposed to be the best of the best. This isn't an argument against Manning as not being one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time, since he didn't have a BAD performance in his one appearance, just not a performance that rates among the best quarterbacks of all-time in the Super Bowl. I still think more weight should be given to the regular season statistics of Manning than Whitlock gives him credit for.

My point is that Peyton Manning has had his share of playoff struggles but despite this I still think he should be in the conversation for best quarterback of all-time based on his regular season statistics. Jason Whitlock sees it differently.

Now, let’s take the discussion a step farther. Manning is playing in the QB era, which is somewhat like baseball’s steroid era. The rules of the game so heavily favor the quarterback and the passing game that statistics are being distorted.

I will agree the rules are heavily leaning towards protecting quarterbacks, but it also has to be acknowledged that there are better athletes in today's NFL than there was even 20 years ago. Defenses are also much more complex today than they were in the past. Expansion has diluted the league to some extent, but free agency and the salary cap has also prevented teams from being able to horde talent offensively for extended periods of time. Manning may have more rules protecting him, but he also has better defensive competition (at least athletically) he has to go against. There are trade-offs that could have hampered Manning's performance even knowing the rules of the passing game does favor quarterbacks.

Throwing for 4,000 yards in a season used to be a very big deal. No one did it in 1997. Two guys did it in 2001. This past season, 10 QBs surpassed the 4,000-yard barrier.

It it is true the offenses in the NFL have become more passing oriented, but is this because of the change in rules to help the quarterbacks or is it because of the increase in the usage of multiple receiver sets and the fact passing offenses are becoming more sophisticated? I would argue it's a mixture of both, so we can't discount what Manning has done over his career. I don't know if I would argue quarterbacks have become better at what they do, but passing games have evolved to where offensive schemes teams are spreading the field on the defense and throwing the ball instead of running the ball. An example of this is how the fullback is slowly being phased out of the game in some offenses.

I am not sure the fact Peyton Manning has put up great numbers as a quarterback can completely be attributed to the fact the league has started protecting receivers and quarterbacks more.

In 1990, three quarterbacks -- Jim Kelly, Warren Moon and Joe Montana -- completed more than 60 percent of their passes. Nineteen years later, 21 quarterbacks -- including future career backups David Garrard, Alex Smith and Chad Henne -- connected on at least 60 percent of their throws.

Again, I would also argue that quarterbacks have gotten better over the past 20 years due to what I have stated above about passing offenses becoming more sophisticated, and yes, the fact the NFL has changed some rules to protect the quarterback. I don't know if this should still reflect poorly on Peyton Manning and his accomplishments. I don't think it is easier to be a quarterback today than it used to be 20 years ago because of the sophistication of the defenses and athleticism of the players on the defensive side of the ball.

Also, Chad Henne is not a "future career backup," he actually looks pretty good out there at times for the Dolphins.

No one has benefitted more than Peyton Manning. He’s collected four MVP trophies in seven years by taking advantage of league’s insistence on providing quarterbacks PEDs -- performance-enhancing defenses.

The lone remaining venue where a QB can distinguish himself from the pretenders is the postseason.

This makes absolutely no sense. How has Manning been able to benefit from quarterback PEDs any more than Kurt Warner, Tom Brady, or any other good quarterback during this era? If Jason Whitlock is going to discount Manning's statistics for this reason, he will have to do the same with many of the other quarterbacks currently playing as well. That includes nearly all of the top quarterbacks in the NFL over the last 10 years, because they have played against the same defenses Manning has. So the same argument against Manning can be made for Warner, Brady, Favre, and several other great quarterbacks of the last 10 years.

To say the postseason is where the players set themselves a part is ridiculous. The same rules that quarterbacks and defenses have to obey in the regular season are present in the postseason. There is no difference in the rules for a game in the postseason and in the regular season, so the game isn't different and there shouldn't be a reason the postseason is where the "old school defenses" are allowed to change the rules. The pressure is different but there is no difference in the rules during the regular season and the postseason.

In fact, Manning and his team the Colts played in a game that provided the impetus for some of the rule changes in 2004 when the Colts receivers were manhandled by the Patriots secondary in the AFC Championship Game. The Patriots defenders were strategically being rough with the Colts receivers. The Colts lost that game because they didn't adjust to this, so it's not like he has had smooth sailing at the quarterback position over his entire career. Not to mention Manning hasn't been that bad in the postseason over his career. His numbers have been merely above average and compare favorably to other Hall of Fame quarterbacks.

Manning needs a good showing and a victory on Saturday. If not, he’s a Dan Marino upgrade and a slice below Brett Favre.

Manning would be below Favre and just above Marino in terms of the postseason, which is the smallest sample size next to the Pro Bowl to choose from when evaluating Manning's career.

Manning's numbers on Saturday: 68.2%, 246 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, 87.9 rating.

(Manning also took two sacks that Dan Dierforf gave him credit for taking. Yes, it's gotten to the point Manning is being credited for taking sacks)

That’s not bad company. But it’s not Montana, Elway and Brady. Hell, Manning could fall behind Kurt Warner, if Warner wins another Super Bowl.

So Peyton Manning could potentially be considered below Kurt Warner on the list of "greatest quarterbacks of all-time" if Warner wins another Super Bowl? Again, we are going to take a team award and help it decide an individual award. This makes perfect nonsense. I am not going to deny Warner is a great quarterback in the postseason, but does it really make sense to weight the postseason more than the regular season when comparing the greatness of quarterbacks?

9. The media and fan cry that it’s time to end the Donovan McNabb era just so the Eagles can take a flyer on Kevin Kolb is a bad joke.

I wouldn't call it "taking a flyer" on Kolb, he has shown himself to be a serviceable quarterback when he has had the opportunity. This year his statistics in 3 games are:

64.6 completion rate, 247 yards/game, 4 TD, 3 INT, 88.9 rating.

I don't think Donovan McNabb should be replaced next year, but Kevin Kolb has seemed to present himself as a viable solution at some point in the future. It may take a little bit of time before he turns into a quality quarterback, but I like some of what I have seen from Kolb. Sometimes Whitlock's hating goes a little bit wayward and I think this is an example of that. I don't think replacing McNabb with Kolb in 2 years is that bad of a joke.

But Philly’s offensive line was terrible and Andy Reid’s management of his offense suspect. Legitimate playoff quarterbacks can’t be found on every street corner.

Agreed that McNabb shouldn't be replaced this year or possibly next year, but we really have no idea what Kolb can do in the playoffs so it's a bit unfair to write him off this soon. I think what would help the Eagles a lot is pretending to try and establish a running game of some point.

The Carolina Panthers gave Jake Delhomme a contract extension last season. And people want the Eagles to discard McNabb like he’s spoiled milk?

I am not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove, but that contract extension has cost Carolina $20 million dollars in money they can't get rid of and pretty much assured Delhomme stayed the quarterback long enough to submarine the entire 2009 season for the team. The contract extension also made sure the team has a difficult choice next year since the most successful quarterback in franchise history could potentially be on the roster as a backup because he is too expensive to release. In retrospect, this extension may not have been a good move.

So if Whitlock is suggesting McNabb get a contract extension, the Delhomme comparison is a terrible one because it is actually an argument AGAINST giving McNabb an extension. If he is suggesting Delhomme sucked and got an extension and so should McNabb, it's a bad comparison because Delhomme should never have gotten the extension.

7. There are several holes in all the Green Bay whining about the uncalled facemask penalty on Aaron Rodgers’ game-deciding fumble.

It's not really whining and is instead a potentially valid argument?

The refs miss calls all the time. Rodgers missed Greg Jennings deep on the first play of overtime.

These are two completely different issues and are in no way able to be compared to each other without me laughing at the absurdity of Whitlock saying a ref has a right to miss a call because Aaron Rodgers missed a 50-yard pass to a receiver. I don't know in what world a ref missing a call is fine because a football player didn't throw a complete pass...and these two events are supposed to be comparable.

The fact is, Brett Favre would’ve connected with Jennings. Packers fans know it and that’s why they’re whining about the hit on Rodgers.

I know Jason Whitlock tells it like it is...but would Favre have hit Greg Jennings in this situation? Would the Packers have even be able to comeback in this game with Favre at the quarterback position? It's entirely possible given Favre's performance on Saturday, but it's absurd to make concrete statements that can't be proven in an effort to make a point. I don't think Packers fans are upset by this completely unjustifiable and unprovable idea that Favre would have connected with Jennings, they seem to be upset with the officiating.

I like Rodgers. I like the way he played in that game. He has yet to justify Ted Thompson’s decision to run Favre out of Green Bay.

One last time:

Brett Favre over the last two seasons:

2008: 65.7% completion rate, 217 yards/game, 22 TD, 22 INT, 81.0 rating.
2009: 68.4% completion rate, 262.6 yards/game, 33 TD, 7 INT, 107.0 rating.

He is 40 years old and could retire/unretire at any point over the next couple of years.

Aaron Rodgers over the last two seasons:

2008: 63.6% completion rate, 252.4 yards/game, 28 TD, 13 INT, 93.8 rating.
2009: 64.7% completion rate, 277.1 yards/game, 30 TD, 7 INT, 103.2 rating.

He is 26 years old and would be a free agent after this season if Favre had not gotten traded. What would the Packers plan have been at that point? Favre is going to do the retirement dance this offseason, if he really does it this time, and doesn't come back, the Packers would have Matt Flynn as the projected starter for next year unless they sign or draft a player who doesn't know their offensive system. I talk about this ALL THE TIME, but the Packers made the right move. Yes, it sucks right now since Favre is playing well for a team that is superior on defense to the Packers and therefore a better team, but it will make more sense when Favre retires.

Aaron Rodgers has already justified the decision to trade Brett Favre when Favre wanted to come out of retirement by putting up comparable (better?) numbers over the last 2 seasons and being 14 years younger. Yes, I also know Favre's team beat Rodgers' team twice this year, but that's more of a reflection on each team than each quarterback when I am doing a head-to-head comparison.

Whitlock is wrong about Rodgers not justifying the move yet. It's the end of these two being compared here for two weeks, you have my word.

At the beginning of the year I wrote that we may never see Fearless Tom Brady again. His knee injury would produce timidity in the pocket. That’s exactly what happened against Baltimore. Under duress, Brady made poor throws.

I would love to know what quarterback is able to make great throws to Brady's receiver corp under duress? In the playoffs, any quarterback under duress is going to struggle generally. I don't know if the knee injury was the reason Brady didn't look comfortable in the pocket against the Ravens, I think it was more the fact his offensive line didn't do a great job of blocking for him and he doesn't have a great running game. I would blame it on Welker being injured, but teams have backups for a reason, in case of injury. That injury did play a part as well of course in Brady looking uncomfortable in the pocket. I think the knee injury played a 5% role (at most) in Brady's performance.

Reading and reacting takes time and allows the defense to get to the QB. The Ravens hit Brady early in the game and Brady started thinking about his knee. It’s natural.

I hope that someday I can have the special superpowers that many sportswriters have. It's the superpower that will help me look into an athlete's brain and know EXACTLY what he was thinking about. Somehow my telepathic powers aren't as great as Jason Whitlock. He KNOWS Brady was thinking about his injured knee even though it seems like Brady didn't seem to think about the knee at any other point this year to the point it affected his play.

I usually like Whitlock, but he can do a little better than he did here. He's done better and he can do better again. There is a difference in shooting from the hip and saying things that are debatable in their accuracy.

-Stewart Mandel has a college mailbag up and some of his answers really didn't make sense or please me in the least.

Jim Tressel resigning to begin new career as late-night talk show host ... South Florida to hire Holtz -- Lou Holtz.

Is there anything we wouldn't believe at this point?

Apparently there is a ton of things "we" wouldn't believe at this point because after every coaching hire and resignation there are a bunch of articles written (in shock of course) at how much the latest coach to quit a school or get hired at another school is a weasel and is a bad person for changing schools. "We" are apparently people with short memories that can't remember the Bobby Petrino, Nick Saban, Houston Nutt, or Rich Rodriguez coaching moves where they left their current place of employment for more money somewhere else. Then "we" all freak the hell out when Lane Kiffin leaves Tennessee for USC, because apparently someone didn't expect this to happen. I am not sure who expected Lane Kiffin to be at the University of Tennessee for his entire coaching career or even a decade, but I would love to meet this person. In the shock (and can anyone really be shocked?) curse words are spoken and couches start getting burned that a college's coach of 13 months is no longer with the school. The bond has been broken. Coaches lie and will chase money. It's going to happen continuously, we should all get used to it.

My view is that I understand head coaches are going to continue doing things like skip from one coaching job to the other. I don't get shocked about it, but that doesn't mean I think it is right. It's a part of the sports world that we just have to accept. I feel bad for the student-athletes left behind who may have to wait a year to transfer to another school or be coached by a head coach that didn't recruit them who runs a completely different offense.

SM: The one pertinent thing the NCAA does have control over is its recruiting calendar, which is the single driving factor behind the timing of said coaching changes. The reason Kelly felt he couldn't stick around for Cincinnati's Sugar Bowl appearance was the need to get started on recruiting for Notre Dame (which was only a couple of weeks away from entering a dead period) as quickly as possible.

I don't want to bash Brian Kelly, but it doesn't make it more right that by selfishly leaving Cincinnati before the biggest game in the school's history to be sure he could recruit for his new school, he just so happened to also give Cincinnati more time to recruit before the dead period with a new coach. This was some sort of accidental politeness on Kelly's part and was probably more of a reflection of his concern for keeping the recruits for Notre Dame than making sure Cincinnati was left in a good situation.

The reason USC, and now Tennessee, were put in such a bind was that they lost their coaches just a few weeks before Signing Day (which itself was unavoidable because the NFL -- which created the Carroll ripple -- ends its regular season a month after college).

If the NCAA created an early Signing Day (as some coaches have been pushing for several years now) or moved it later, there wouldn't be so much pressure for schools and coaches to act so quickly.

So this solution would fix the problem by ensuring coaches like Brian Kelly don't leave before the biggest game of the school's football history, but make sure he leaves immediately after the biggest game in the school's history. Moving the Signing Day earlier in the year would mean next year's freshman class really got screwed over by the coach leaving and pushing the Signing Day later would mean these recruits would end up having to possibly visit other schools and open up their recruitment again. It's better, I will admit that, but it's almost like spraying Febreze on dog shit. It covers up the stench just long enough to believe it's not dog shit, but the spray wears off. Basically, either way the head coach is leaving the school.

So let me get this straight. Kelly ditches his kids (who worked so hard all year) prior to the biggest game of their lives versus Florida, without finishing the season or giving advanced notice like REAL professionals do, in order to get started at ND, and that was a great thing. Now, this guy (Kiffin) leaves during the OFFSEASON, and he is chastised for it?
-- Anthony, Baltimore

This is true. Stewart Mandel did write a complimentary article on Brian Kelly and a non-complimentary article on Lane Kiffin. If we are going to rate coaches who did their schools the most wrong, I would actually rate Kelly above Kiffin based on the fact he was at Cincinnati longer and it seems like if he had stayed he could have built Cincinnati into a powerhouse in the Big East, though obviously Mandel and others may disagree. In my mind, Kiffin wasn't at Tennessee long enough and had accomplished so little, his departure shouldn't hurt the school that much. He didn't leave them in terrible recruiting shape (outside of the four 4 star recruits decommitting) and now they have hired a guy, Derek Dooley who actually wants to be there and possibly won't get them sanctioned by the NCAA. It sounds like a long-term win for Tennessee to me.

SM: but it is true that I understand why he did it. I also thought that while Cincinnati players' initial bitterness toward Kelly was understandable, ultimately they and Bearcats' fans should feel far more gratitude toward the guy for transforming their program from an irrelevant International Bowl team into a two-time Big East champ and BCS participant.

I am not going to knock him for taking the Notre Dame job like he did, it's a much more prestigious job than the job at Cincinnati. I have a hard time understanding the justification by Mandel that the fans and players should feel gratitude towards Kelly. While it makes sense from a sentimental point of view, the fans and players would much rather Kelly have stayed and made Cincinnati a BCS participant EVERY YEAR, rather than start over with a new coach. They are happy with what he did for them, but probably would rather he have stuck around to be their permanent head coach. It doesn't feel good to be a stepping stone.

I understand how the fans of Cincinnati feel. My college's head coach, Buzz Peterson, led the men's basketball team to the 2000 NCAA Tournament, then 6 days after one of the player's drowned he took a job with the University of Tulsa...he left Tulsa after one year to go to the University of Tennessee, where he later got fired. It's easy to say, "look at how much he brought the program" when you look at it from the sentimental point of view. The realistic way to look at it is that many times a school like Cincinnati may not ever be at the heights again they were at when Brian Kelly coached there. My college still hasn't been back to the NCAA Tournament since Peterson left (of course he is back at Appalachian State now as head coach). It's not like hiring a new coach guarantees further success.

Kiffin, on the other hand, ditched Tennessee having accomplished almost nothing. He delivered a seven-win season and one great recruiting class.

Right, he really had no time to develop any history with the school so his leaving shouldn't really shake the foundations as much as Brian Kelly leaving Cincinnati after three years and an undefeated season. I don't buy the argument it is worse for Kiffin to ditch Tennessee because he was there less time and accomplished less. There is still talent on the Tennessee team and he didn't exactly turn around the program in one year.

And as strange as it sounds, his timing was far worse than Kelly's due to the ramifications it could have on the Vols' future.

In terms of recruiting this may be true with the four 4 star recruits leaving. Overall, there is still a lot of talent at Tennessee. I don't think this necessarily makes Kiffin's departure worse than Kelly's...or at least not so much different one should be treated noticeably different from the other. I see Kiffin's tenure as head coach as more of a blip on the radar or a one year set back more than one year that will set back the program three years or more.

While Hamilton put on a good face publicly, I have to think the guy was cringing just a little bit every time Kiffin ran his mouth, and especially when he broke NCAA rules.

I know Tennessee is pissed off, but why would they want to keep a guy who is a recruiting violation waiting to happen? Are they that desperate to compete in the SEC? I almost feel like the school should feel like it dodged a future bullet by Kiffin leaving.

I'm not saying the situations are comparable, but Stewart Mandel treated them COMPLETELY DIFFERENT when they aren't as different as he wants to believe. I agree Kelly left the Cincinnati program in better shape than how Kiffin left Tennessee but that doesn't mean leaving the school for Notre Dame was that much different than what Lane Kiffin did. Not to mention Kiffin left for a school that has had more current success in college football and a team with which he had been on the coaching staff previously. He had direct ties to USC, so it shouldn't shock anyone the head coaching job would interest him.

Look at how different Mandel treated each departure:

Mandel's take on Kelly.

Mandel's take on Kiffin.

Is it possible that Pete Carroll saw the writing on the wall regarding potential upcoming sanctions over the Reggie Bush fiasco?
-- Steve, Mayors Income, Tenn.

Absolutely, that was probably 30% of his decision.

SM: Maybe I'm the most gullible person on the planet, but I don't believe the NCAA/Bush situation was a driving factor. As Carroll said, the issue has been hanging over the program for three-and-a-half years now. If it truly scared him, he could have bolted a long time ago.

Except "a long time ago" the NCAA wasn't actively pursuing the violations against USC. Now they are. It is naive to believe the allegations aren't going to be heard soon and sanctions could potentially be upcoming. It doesn't matter how severe the sanctions would have been, it still would have made Carroll look bad. Of course Lane Kiffin has no problem being affiliated with recruiting violations or looking like he treads the line of NCAA infractions.

It's admittedly suspicious timing that the NCAA's letter of allegations finally arrived recently (USC will appear before the Committee on Infractions in February), but from all indications, the Seattle thing came out of nowhere.

I find this to be bullshit. Pete Carroll has been mentioned with other NFL teams as a possible head coaching candidate. I can think of San Francisco, Oakland (very briefly I believe), and a couple other teams that had interest or had mentioned Pete Carroll as a candidate. The Seattle job may have come out of nowhere in that no one expected Mora to be fired, but NFL teams having interest in Carroll as a head coaching candidate didn't come out of nowhere. I find it no coincidence he leaves after USC's "worst" year in a while and the NCAA finally bringing some sort of sanctions on the team. No matter how light the sanctions were going to be, I think this had 30% to do with his decision.

I think Texas' loss to Alabama is the fault of Mack Brown. He should have used those blowout wins during the season to prepare his backup QB for a situation like this instead of padding McCoy's stats to win the Heisman.
-- Vin, St. Paul, Minn.

I don't blame Mack Brown completely for not forseeing the situation that would occur in the BCS Championship Game, but I think a few more snaps in the regular season would have greatly helped Gilbert. It's no coincidence he got much stronger and comfortable as he saw more snaps in the game and was on the field longer. Of course Stewart Mandel disagrees:

SM: It's a fair point, but I don't think a bunch of meaningless fourth-quarter appearances would make a true freshman quarterback any more prepared to enter the national championship game. Nothing could have possibly prepared Garrett Gilbert for that besides actual starts in big games during the season.

I would like nothing more to acknowledge that playing in the BCS National Championship Game is much different from playing in a regular season game, because it is, but I also happen to think if Gilbert was given any more playing time during the regular season it would have helped him prepare more for what he faced. Of course he can't replicate Alabama's defense in a blowout, but I would think that any more time spent on the field in game situations would have prepared him that much more for his sudden insertion into the lineup. So while the meaningless snaps wouldn't have helped Gilbert in the BCS game come out playing incredibly well, it possibly could have decreased the learning curve he faced in the 1st half against the Alabama defense.

Once he calmed down and acclimated himself to the speed of the game in the second half, you could see his abilities, but that first half had to be the most overwhelming experience imaginable.

Exactly, if he was in game situations, blowouts or not, he possibly could have acclimated himself to the speed of the game that much quicker. I find it hard to believe going against Missouri, Oklahoma State, Kansas, or UCF when the game was decided would not have helped Gilbert just a little bit in being slightly more prepared for what he faced.

So after all the hoopla surrounding the Fiesta Bowl with Boise State-TCU, did it live up to what everyone was looking for, a.k.a. the TV rating?

Gene Wojciechowski doesn't think so, but I do.

SM: The game did an 8.2 rating (13.8 million viewers), which put it slightly lower than the Florida-Cincinnati Sugar Bowl (8.5), but well above the Iowa-Georgia Tech Orange Bowl (6.8). It confirmed what I believed from the beginning: that fans would find that matchup more interesting than they would the other feasible options, which had Boise playing Iowa in Glendale and TCU playing Georgia Tech in Miami. Neither of those games would have rated as well. (And no other proposed matchups were realistic given the selection order.)

I will admit the matchup worked out in the end, because it made for an exciting game, but I still wish Boise State or TCU had gotten a shot at a major conference conference winner in a BCS game.

I stated my opinion that I thought the Broncos should have finished ahead of at least Florida, but it's not hard to see how it happened. The Gators (at No. 5) were ahead of the Broncos (at No. 6) in both polls going into the bowl games.

This is why I hate preseason polls. Florida finished at #5 because they were #1 ranked going into the season, so the one loss didn't cause them to fall as much, while if Boise State or TCU had lost during the year they would have fallen out of the Top 10 most likely. Preseason polls have a purpose but I sort of believe teams should be ranked for the first time after 3 weeks into the college football season. I don't know if this is a fix-all, but it may not be a bad idea.

Mandel is saying he would have personally ranked BSU ahead of Florida but he can accept the screwed up system that doesn't allow this to happen. I don't get how he can reconcile this. We will never know if Florida or Boise State is a better team, but Boise State played BCS quality opponents and went undefeated, while Florida had one loss. I would rank BSU over Florida. Preseason polls have too much say in where a team ends up at the end of the year. A team that is ranked high in preseason polls has more leeway to lose one game and still be ranked high at the end of the year. A team like Boise State has to work harder to make it to the top of the polls and then even if it has a better record than another team, STILL may not leapfrog that team.

I am not against the BCS, but I think preseason polls in general are inaccurate by nature (since no games have been played) and gives teams at the top of the polls in the preseason more opportunity based on the perceived strength of the team. I truly believe if Boise State had started the year off at #2 or #3 they may have ended up in the BCS Championship Game, or at least had a chance to be in the National Championship talk based on the teams they beat this year. They didn't start at #2 or #3 so they didn't have the luxury of defending and staying in one of those top spots. I have a slight problem with preseason rankings having an effect like this. I don't think Mandel should be making easy excuses for why Florida being ranked over Boise State when it is clear he doesn't personally agree.

Five reasons you will never be welcome in Texas: 1) You have talked down Texas all year, 2) You have talked down Colt McCoy all year, 3) You are a no-count Yankee, 4) You are a reporter for SI, 5) You are not a very good reporter for SI.
-- Jerry, Standish, Maine

This is one of the reasons I like Stewart Mandel's mailbag...the nut jobs that write in defending their school. "Jerry" is not even living in Texas and he is talking about Mandel never being welcome there. Then he calls him a no-count Yankee, while Jerry from Maine lives in...Maine, which I am pretty sure is in the Northern part of the United States.

One of the reasons I don't like Mandel's mailbag is when he indicates there is a big difference in Brian Kelly and Lane Kiffin's coaching moves. I usually like his mailbags but I think he missed the mark a few times here.