Showing posts with label nebraska football. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nebraska football. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

5 comments MMQB Review: Super Bowl Preview, But Maybe Not Edition

Peter King was excited that Jay Gruden showed off his leadership abilities by making comments that threw Robert Griffin under the bus in last week's MMQB. He also clarified that while he was picking the Ravens to lose to the Saints, this didn't mean he thought the Ravens weren't the better team. I'm sure that made more sense in Peter's head. This week Peter talks about the Patriots-Packers game being a Super Bowl preview (so this means the Patriots' dynasty ISN'T over?), is giddy that Johnny Manziel made his first appearance in an NFL game, admits to being used as a conduit for a smear campaign, and somehow manages to compare Robert Griffin to Ryan Leaf. No agenda for Peter King though. Not at all.

Three months of the 2014 season down, two to go. Two months from tonight, in Arizona, Super Bowl XLIX will be played. There can’t have been a better Super Bowl preview than the game played in Green Bay between the Patriots and the Packers. So even. So well-played.

The NFL should just stop the season right now and make sure these two teams play in the Super Bowl. That's what the people want and that's what the people should get.

Meeting for the first time. Brady is 37. Rodgers turns 31 tomorrow. AFC meets NFC once every four years. That means, at least in this tableau, we’ll never see this again, unless Brady pulls a George Blanda and plays until he’s 45—or plays somewhere else.

So even if these two teams meet in the Super Bowl it won't be the same because it's not at Lambeau Field.

From late in the second quarter, when the Patriots pulled to within 16-14, I got the feeling this was going to come down to the end.

Peter King with his predictive skills! It's a close game late in the second quarter, perhaps this game will be close all the way until the end. I bet Peter wrote this down in a notebook so he could be sure to mention he thought this would be a close game. Gregg Easterbrook would be proud.

And the longer the game went, I was convinced that’s how it would go. And if we were lucky, maybe we’d get to see it again … two months from now, when the Patriots, if it happened, would play in Glendale for the first time since Tyree Velcro Sunday, when the 18-0 season went up in smoke in the last Super Bowl in Arizona.

Two things:

1. If the Super Bowl isn't played at Lambeau Field then it doesn't matter.

2. I thought the Cardinals were going to be playing in the Super Bowl in their home stadium? You know, Bruce Arians can win a Super Bowl with Drew Stanton. That whole thing. It's a thing that really could have happened. Is Peter giving up on that one so easily?

We’re getting way ahead of ourselves.

Yes, because "we" are writing this column then "we" are most definitely getting ahead of ourselves. Not Peter, "we" are.

We start in Lambeau. Green Bay sprinted to a 13-0 lead. New England got touchdowns from its typical bargain-basement types, Brandon Bolden and Brandon LaFell, to rally to within 16-14. 

Apparently the 3 year contract for $9 million received by LaFell is considered "bargain basement" by Peter King. At this point, he's just ignoring the truth and trying to make the narrative fit how he wants it to fit. LaFell was a great signing, but he's not a "bargain basement" type of player. The narrative says the Patriots always get contributions from unknown players, so Peter has to push this narrative even in the face of it being false.

On fourth-and-18, Belichick—rightly—sent out the field-goal team. Stephen Gostkowski, a worthy heir to Adam Vinatieri, wasn’t worthy here. Wide right.

Gregg Easterbrook would argue the football gods punished Belichick for not going for it in this situation. After all, if he had gone for it then it would have told the Patriots that Belichick was very serious about winning this football game. Alas, the football gods chortled as the kick went wide right when obviously the Patriots should have gone for it on fourth-and-18.

Green Bay ball. One first down was all Rodgers needed. Seemed easy enough, until it got to be third-and-four, with 2:28 left, at the Packer 43. New England was out of timeouts. This was it. Make a play, Rodgers kneels for three snaps and it’s over. Don’t make it, and you give it back to one of the best quarterbacks of our lives, pacing the New England sidelines, dying for one last chance.

Literally dying. Tom Brady passed away because he wanted one last chance. Bill Belichick will refuse to attend the funeral for Brady because he wasn't tough enough to not die during a game and every NFL writer on Twitter will mention "that's so Belichick" as he orders to Patriots players to attend practice rather than Brady's funeral.

Once clear of Hightower, a step or two past him, Rodgers zinged the ball toward Cobb, maybe two yards past the first-down line. Now Devin McCourty came off Adams and joined Ryan in coverage of Cobb. But McCourty was just a split-second too late to break it up.

The picture you are painting, Peter. It makes an Ansel Adams picture look like a nine year old child's drawing created using water colors bought from Michael's.

What do you remember when the ball’s coming toward you?

What kind of question is this, Peter? What's he remember? Cobb probably remembers that he needs to catch the fucking ball because the game will be over if he does.

Were you feeling the coverage on you—physically? Or do you just know they’re there?

Another tough question. I think Cobb felt the coverage more meta-physically. Perhaps 33% literally, 33% ethereally, and 34% from memory. Sort of how Peter feels the presence of Brett Favre wherever he goes. 

“Bleep!’’ Brady said on the New England sideline. Or something to that effect. He said it three times.

Important to know when telling this story.

One team made the play. The plays, actually. The other didn’t.

But that doesn’t mean in two months the same team will make them if they meet again. It was that close Sunday in Green Bay. It was that good.

So Peter means because the Packers made enough plays to win this game, this means if these two teams meet again in the Super Bowl that the Packers won't automatically make all the plays to win that game too? What? This is completely new information to me. I thought because the Packers won on Sunday then Tom Brady and the Patriots would never beat the Packers no matter how many times they played them. 

Five thoughts on the Rice verdict.

I was out of pocket Friday when Judge Barbara Jones issued her ruling that Ray Rice should be reinstated immediately.

We all know that Peter is at his most dangerous when he is out of the pocket, writing columns on the run.

But after I read her 17-page ruling, I was struck by the common sense of it,

"I'm shocked, no I am struck, by the fact there are other human beings who have the same amount of knowledge and common sense that I have. This Barbara Jones must be a special judge to have such common sense. Why haven't we heard of her before?"

1. How could the NFL possibly think that, after giving Rice a two-game ban to start, the continuation of a ban that reached 11 games was in any way fair? We all heard Roger Goodell say he got it wrong when he gave Rice two games back in July. Okay. Two games bad. Six games good. What is the possible justification for extending the ban to 11—and, if Jones hadn’t ruled when she did, maybe longer? The facts are these: Goodell saw the video of Rice dragging the limp body of his fiancĂ©e out of the Atlantic City elevator, then heard from him that she got that way because he made physical contact with her in said elevator. Goodell said he never saw the second video, the one of Rice making contact with Janay Palmer (now his wife).

Don't worry, after getting this story wrong two or three times, Peter is TOTALLY going to get back to figuring out whether Roger Goodell lied about seeing the elevator videotape before making his ruling on Rice's suspension. As soon as Peter gets done being out of pocket, he'll get right on this.

2. Rice’s future.

I spoke to two NFL general managers over the weekend about Rice, neither of whom is interested in signing him but who believe Rice will be in some team’s training camp in 2015...Having said all that, this GM did admit that Adrian Peterson would be different, because Peterson is closer to a premier player now than Rice. For the football advantages, the headaches with Peterson in your locker room would be more palatable than with Rice. I think it’s a long shot that Rice signs with any team before the end of the season, and as I said on NBC last night, there’s a slim chance it would be New Orleans and much less in Indianapolis, the two teams mentioned by Adam Schefter as sniffing around Rice.

Other than the Saints being the perfect location for Rice, I bet Ryan Grigson won't sign Rice simply because the fun of acquiring a running back is giving up a first round draft pick in order to acquire that running back. There's no fun in signing Rice without a first round draft pick being involved.

4. The judge in the Rice case didn’t accuse the league of any wrongdoing, but there was one striking piece of evidence she uncovered that has overtones of the Bountygate investigation. Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk beat me to this over the weekend. Jones said in her report that Goodell called a meeting after the more ominous TMZ video aired in September, “at which they looked back at the notes of the June 16 meeting [with Rice] and ‘made sure all of us had the same recollection,’ ” according to Jones. That reminded me (and Florio) of the league finding fault with New Orleans coach Sean Payton for “instructing assistants to make sure our ducks are in a row.” Those sound like the same thing to me. They sound like each side is trying to get its stories straight.

Roger Goodell is offended that anyone thinks he saw the videotape before making his ruling on a two game suspension for Ray Rice. Goodell can't control EVERYTHING that happens in the league office, well except for those things he insists on having absolute control over like player punishments. But in this case he didn't know about the videotape, so let's all move on and forget about it all. Look! Something shiny! (Peter King runs and looks for that something shiny)

Finally on this topic: I quoted a source in July as saying Janay Rice made a moving case for leniency for Ray Rice during the June 16 meeting. My source was incorrect.

Not to kick Peter while he's down, but I think it was pretty well known back in the summer that Peter's source was wrong. It's probably that same source that gave Peter an indication the Ravens were going to allow Joe Flacco to leave in free agency after winning the Super Bowl.

I think I will kick Peter a little bit while he's down. I have stated in the past that Peter essentially reports what he is told, and seems to be a mouthpiece for whoever is giving him that information. He accepts what he is told at face value and doesn't seem to question much. It seems to me that Peter was clearly used in a smear campaign by the NFL. Peter didn't just quote a source in that July column on the Rice suspension, he essentially explained the reason for the two game suspension was due to Janay Rice begging for leniency and various other statements Janay Rice made to Goodell. Now it turns out that's not true and Peter seems perfectly content being used as a mouthpiece for the purposes of others.

According to Judge Jones’ report, Janay Rice was asked only one question during the hearing—how she felt—and she cried and said, “I’m just ready for it to be over.” I regret the error, and should have vetted the story further before publishing the account of one source.

I don't know, that sort of makes it worse in my mind. Why would Roger Goodell and the NFL have Janay Rice come to the hearing if they were only going to ask her one question in the presence of her husband, who had allegedly struck her? Oh yes, that's right, because Roger Goodell is an idiot who wants complete control over player punishment, but without all that needless bullshit like actually understanding the nuance and personal feelings involved with the crime. He seems to think in a domestic violence situation that the victim will tell the truth about his/her relationship with the accused. Goodell was over his head, but he lied and misled the public about what he knew and when, but that doesn't matter because it's all forgotten now.

Watching the end of the Bengals-Bucs game Sunday, it looked like Cincinnati was on its way to a loss. The Bengals were up 14-13, but with 26 seconds left, Bucs quarterback Josh McCown completed a 21-yard pass to Louis Murphy that advanced the ball to the Cincinnati 20. Now all the Bucs had to do was let the clock run down a few more seconds, spike the ball and summon the kicker, Patrick Murphy, for a 37-yard field goal on a calm weather afternoon in Tampa. The Bucs gathered at the line, and suddenly the red challenge flag flew from the Cincinnati sideline. Coach Marvin Lewis had thrown it. One problem: You can’t throw the challenge flag inside of two minutes of either half.

My first thought: Marvin is on the Competition Committee. Not many people in the game know the rules better. He knows you can’t throw the challenge flag inside the two-minute warning.

Then what could this evil genius be up to then?

The Bucs had had 12 men on the offensive side of the ball on the pass play to Murphy. Oniel Cousins came in as an extra offensive lineman/tight end, and rookie wideout Robert Herron, whom Cousins was replacing, just didn’t leave the field.

Now for the strange thing: Bill Leavy’s officiating crew missed the 12 men.

Is it strange that an NFL officiating crew missed this penalty?

I still find it amazing that the four officials on the field assigned to count bodies before every play didn’t have the Bucs with 12 men on the field—and may not have had them with 12 men on the second play either, if no Bucs player exited or entered the field before the snap of the ball.

Clearly Peter King hasn't watched some of the officiating in the NFL. It's the end of the game here and the officials are probably more worried about other penalties and making sure the ball gets spotted correctly and quickly. Therefore, counting the players on the field didn't seem important to them.

The St. Louis cops are ticked off at the Rams. The Rams hosted 50 business owners and clean-up-crew workers from Ferguson at the 52-0 rout of the Raiders—people who’d had their businesses torched or ruined in the wake of the announcement that officer Darren Wilson would not be indicted in the death of Michael Brown.

But five players touched a nerve before the game, entering the field with their hands raised in the familiar Hands up, don’t shoot mode of Ferguson protesters.

The SLPOA stressed that forensics tests didn’t support the claim that Brown held his hands up. After the game, one of the Rams in the demonstration, wideout Kenny Britt, said the players weren’t taking sides. “Not at all,’’ Britt said. “We just wanted to let the community know we support them.”

Well yeah, that's exactly taking a side since the "Hands up, don't shoot" pose is a form of protest. I wouldn't expect Peter to push the point, especially with a Rams player, since Peter tends to only ask softball questions. It's just that pose is widely seen as a form of protest in support of Michael Brown. If Britt wanted to let the community know he supports them then that's fine. Just own how you are supporting the community and don't act like you aren't taking sides.

The officers said they would demand a “very public apology” from the Rams and the NFL today.

The officers should have much better things to worry about rather than demanding a "very public apology" from athletes for exercising their opinion.

Cleveland’s backup quarterback might not be Cleveland’s backup quarterback after coach Mike Pettine and offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan look at the tape from Buffalo today. They’ll like what they saw on Manziel’s first drive, an eight-play, 80-yard, no-huddle Manziel-being-Manziel touchdown drive. But then Manziel fumbled on the next series under a heavy rush, and overall, his 13 snaps over 12 minutes were a mixed bag. What else would you expect against a front seven that brings constant pressure, after not playing for two months? That’s why I’d be very surprised if Manziel wasn’t given a shot to start Sunday at home against Indianapolis.

What Peter really means here is that he REALLY, REALLY HOPES the Browns choose to start Manziel because it will give him more to write about in MMQB. So Peter thinks Manziel should start, probably based mostly on selfish reasons in order to get a good story.

At 7-5, Cleveland can afford maybe one loss down the stretch. Hoyer, over his last four games, is a 53-percent passer with one touchdown and six interceptions. As good as he was in the first half of the season in solidifying Cleveland’s shaky offense without Josh Gordon, he hasn’t been good enough over the past month, or in the two games since Gordon came back. Manziel should get a shot, and now.

Compare Peter's statements here to his statements just a few weeks ago when he was shocked, SHOCKED, that the Browns had not had contract negotiations with Brian Hoyer since early Summer or late Spring. Peter's opinion changes dramatically in a month's time. One month he is amazed the Browns haven't had contract extension talks with Brian Hoyer, and the next month he's advocating that Brian Hoyer be benched for Johnny Manziel. This is why Peter King is a sportswriter and not running an NFL team. It's his job to react, regardless of a lack of consistency in his reactions.

McCoy will start against the Rams Sunday. “Yeah, yeah,’’ said coach Jay Gruden. “Colt competed. There are some things I wish we would have done differently, play calls and execution-wise, but I feel like he competed and did a nice job out there.’’ McCoy, after a slow start, threw for 392 yards with three touchdowns and no picks. In three games this year, McCoy has completed an eye-opening 75.3 percent of his throws, for a passer rating of 113.5. I still think Washington needs to play Griffin before the end of the year. They either need to see more of him before deciding whether to keep him—or, if they’ve already decided to jettison him, showcase him in a positive light so he can fetch a better return in trade.

Or possibly the Redskins have seen enough of Griffin and don't want to ruin any trade value he may have by putting him back on the field. Once Griffin goes to the Rams, I imagine Peter will like Griffin a lot more and possibly regret comparing him to Ryan Leaf (still to come in this MMQB).

There’s a reason to watch Dolphins-Jets tonight.

Oh, well I guess I watch the game if Peter King says there is a reason to watch.

One: It’s always good to see Cameron Wake play. One of the most underappreciated defensive players in the league.

Yes, if only "we" paid more attention to Cameron Wake then he wouldn't be so under appreciated. Unfortunately, "we" don't talk about Wake enough, so he doesn't get the attention he deserves. Peter thinks someone (but not him, of course, any talk about Wake would take up room normally reserved for drooling over J.J. Watt) should change this.

Then Peter has Luke Tasker, who plays in the CFL, write a little bit about the Grey Cup. To Peter's credit, he is trying to gain attention for the CFL. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the CFL and Tasker's team lost.

Fine Fifteen

1. Green Bay (9-3).
2. New England (9-3).

I'm surprised that Peter didn't have New England above Green Bay because he thought the Patriots were a better team, but it's just that the Packers happened to win this game. That's the sort of reasoning he used last week to pick the Saints to beat the Ravens on "Monday Night Football."

No one quite believes how fast Jordy Nelson is until he buzzes past a very fast corner like Darrelle Revis. That’s one takeaway from Sunday’s deserved 26-21 nail-biter. Another one: Never thought when I walked out of CenturyLink Field on opening night, after the Pack’s 36-16 loss to Seattle, that I’d have Green Bay No. 1 in the Fine Fifteen in Week 13, or in any week this year.

This shows just how reactive and knee-jerk Peter King is in MMQB. After one game, the opening game of the year, he thought there was no way the Packers could ever be the best team in the NFL. Granted, one game had been played in the entire NFL season, but Peter had already written off the Packers as ever being the best team in the NFL during the 2014 season. I'm not sure it gets more knee-jerk then that.

4. Philadelphia (9-3). Best thing about Mark Sanchez’s game on Thursday: one negative play. Zero lost fumbles, zero interceptions, one sack taken. Also liked his 28 rushing yards. Just okay throwing the ball, though.

Really? 20 of 29 for 217 yards and one touchdown is "just okay"? That's a typical game for Peter's hero and guy who he wonders ever feels any pressure, Russell Wilson. I don't think Peter would call Wilson "just okay" when he puts those type of numbers up.

5. Seattle (8-4). Seahawks are on the kind of run-of-schedule that reminds me when I used to cover the Giants for Newsday,and Bill Parcells would say the reason the NFC East teams were always so well-prepared for the playoffs would be the gauntlet they’d have to survive in the regular season... I think they have a good chance to make the kind of noise the Giants made as a 2007 roadie through the playoffs.

The Patriots-Packers game has the chance to be a Super Bowl preview, but Peter also thinks that the Seahawks could make it to the Super Bowl from the NFC. I realize Peter isn't actively making predictions, but it's sort of funny to me that he has the Seahawks making a Super Bowl run on the road like the 2007 Giants in the same column he has the Patriots and Packers meeting again in the Super Bowl.

8. San Diego (8-4). Remember the 37-0 loss in Miami, making the Chargers a feeble 5-4 entering their bye? Remember how we all wrote them off?

Nope, I remember YOU wrote them off, but I don't remember writing the Chargers off. In fact, I remember Peter writing this:

6. I think we can pretty safely say this morning that the Philip Rivers for MVP campaign has gone pffffffffft. It’s over.

And then I wrote this:

This is also an example of where Peter isn't looking at the entirety of the situation. So if Philip Rivers' MVP campaign is over, does that mean his playing outstanding during the last half of the season wouldn't push him right back in the MVP race? Of course not, but Peter is just making a knee-jerk reaction.

Yep. Peter's massive ego and apparently belief that he speaks for everyone who reads MMQB allows him to conclude that because HE wrote the Chargers off every other person wrote the Chargers off too. Peter has Bill Simmons Disease where when he's wrong then "we" were wrong, even though it was Peter making the inaccurate statement.

Well, they continued the tightrope walk back into goodness. They’re in the playoffs if the season was 12 games long.

And if the season were one game and there were no other teams in the NFL other than the Packers and Seahawks, then Seattle would have won back-to-back Super Bowls.

10. Arizona (9-3).Not saying the sky is falling or anything, but Drew Stanton is struggling mightily, and they’ve lost two straight with him playing.

I'm not saying "we" were wrong about the Cardinals, but they can't win a Super Bowl with Stanton as their quarterback. Not now, not ever. I still it is hilarious that Peter let that comment by Bruce Arians go unchallenged. It doesn't even take a hostile follow-up question to ask why Arians seemed so deluded.

T-15. Buffalo (7-5). That defensive front is downright scary. Ask Hoyer and Manziel.

Okay, I will Peter! (goes to look for Brian Hoyer and Johnny Manziel's phone number)

T-15. Baltimore (7-5).Yes, John Harbaugh, that was pass interference, absolutely, on Anthony Levine that led to the crushing winning TD.

By the way, there are 16 teams in the "Fine Fifteen." It's bad enough Peter can't even put one player as the Offensive/Defensive/Special Teams Player of the Week, but he can't even put only 15 teams in his "Fine Fifteen." 

(Still searching for Johnny Manziel and Brian Hoyer's phone number, I know I had it somewhere)

Offensive Players of the Week
 
(With apologies to Ryan Fitzpatrick, who deserves better after throwing six touchdown passes off the bench against Tennessee—but I chose two players here who were huge in big wins for their teams in Week 13.)

(Bengoodfella throws up his hands wondering why this award wouldn't go to one of the best offensive players of the week. That is the name of the award after all.)

Aaron Rodgers, quarterback, Green Bay. He’s had better statistical days. But Rodgers, against a team that won seven straight and allowed less than 20 points per game in the process, had eight significant possessions—possessions when they were trying to score in the 26-21 win over New England at Lambeau Field, in what Mike Florio called Super Bowl 48.5. 

Until the Seahawks make their run to the Super Bowl like the 2007 Giants did.

Defensive Players of the Week
 
J.J. Watt, defensive end, Houston. He could—should—win this every week. (Except, maybe, when Houston has a bye.) Against Tennessee, he had his typical game of greatness: two sacks, six quarterback hits, four quarterback pressures, a forced fumble, a fumble recovery, and a one-yard touchdown reception, when he lined up at tight end and leaked out of the formation. We are watching an amazing career unfold, and we should appreciate it every week.

Yes, "we" should appreciate watching J.J. Watt's career unfold. Why don't "we"? More importantly, I look forward to sportswriters spending the next decade trying to top each other with "How great is J.J. Watt" stories that essentially will become fan-fiction at some point.

Special Teams Players of the Week

Adam Thielen, wide receiver; Jasper Brinkley, linebacker, Minnesota. They blocked two Brad Nortman punts in the first 21 minutes, and both were returned for touchdowns—the first by Thielen himself and the next by Everson Griffen. How amazing is this: Minnesota hadn’t blocked a punt and scored a touchdown on it in 28 years … and the Vikings did it twice in the first quarter and a half Sunday.

Yeah, it's fucking amazing. Consider me impressed. I hate life.

(Continues searching for Johnny Manziel and Brian Hoyer's number, because Peter asked me to ask them a question and it's only polite if I do so)

“Days like today are what I live for. Literally. This is my life.”
 
—J.J. Watt, after another performance we just shake our heads at: two sacks, a touchdown catch, and a bunch of other flora and fauna you already read about in Defensive Players of the Week.

That's pretty sad if you think about it. If J.J. Watt literally lives to play football, then this doesn't bode well for his life after football. I guess I'm supposed to be impressed, but unless Watt is using hyperbole, it sounds like he would be the kind of athlete who gets depressed once he retires.

“Based on what I’ve seen, he would not be my quarterback next year.”
 
—Ron Jaworski, video-aholic, on the Mike & Mike show on ESPN Radio, on Robert Griffin III.

I feel like I can't ever read Ron Jaworski's opinion without remembering that he said Colin Kaepernick had a chance to be the best quarterback ever. It ruins his opinion for me. 

Chip Kelly Wisdom of the Week

The Philadelphia coach, on either the difficulty of preparing for a Thursday game on a short week, or the tradition of Thanksgiving Day football, which the Eagles experienced against Dallas:
 
“Just tell us when we’re going to play. We don’t really read much into it or wax nostalgic. It’s not like we’re going to have a cornucopia and a turkey on the sideline. We’re just going to go play football.”

Brilliance. I can't find Johnny Manziel or Brian Hoyer's number to ask them how scary the Bills defensive front is, but maybe Peter should suggest I give Chip Kelly a call to tell him how brilliant I find him to be. Now if I could just find Chip Kelly's phone number. I'm terrible with phone numbers. Peter should just ask my wife and she will tell him. 



This is one of those statistics that doesn't really mean as much as it sounds like it means. Basically, the correlation between Bruce Miller playing 40% of the snaps and the 49ers winning games is really a correlation between the 49ers running the football (which tends to happen more often when they are winning already and Miller is naturally on the field more as a fullback when the 49ers are running the football more often) and winning football games. 




Pelini was fired by Nebraska after going 9-3 this year. That makes sense, the same way it made sense after Frank Solich went 58-19 at Nebraska and got fired.


Peter's lack of college football knowledge shows through here. Bo Pelini is not comparable to Frank Solich. Solich was 58-19 in six seasons with one Big 12 title, three Big 12 North titles, one National Championship appearance, and was 2-3 in bowl games with appearances in the Rose and Fiesta Bowl. Bo Pelini was 66-27 in seven seasons had zero Big 12 titles, three Big 12 North titles and was 3-3 in bowl games with the most prestigious bowl game he took Nebraska to being the Gator Bowl. This doesn't factor in the instances where Pelini acted like an ass on/off the field or bad mouthed Cornhuskers fans on tape. It sounds crazy to fire Pelini, but there isn't a comparison to firing Solich. Firing Solich may have been a mistake, while firing Pelini is a sign the Nebraska Athletic Director thought the program was stagnant, especially since the football team had lost four games every single year Pelini had been the head coach. 

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think this is what I liked about Week 13:

e. Cameron Jordan, the Saints’ precocious defensive end, with a deflection and interception of Ben Roethlisberger. Tremendous athletic play.

Jordan is 25 years old. Don't call him "precocious." I have a feeling that Peter doesn't even know what this word means. The word means "to exhibit mature qualities at a young age" and Cameron Jordan is an NFL defensive end, which means he isn't too young to be intercepting passes nor too young to deflect passes. If Cameron Jordan were 13 years old, it would be different, but Peter insists on giving Jordan child-like qualities for some reason.

g. Tre Mason, the 75th pick in the draft, playing like the fifth, sprinting 89 yards for a touchdown against Oakland.

The Rams are a team on the rise!

i. Adam Schefter reporting that Ray Rice has drawn interest from four teams about playing this season, including Indianapolis and New Orleans.

I'm not entirely sure why he would like Schefter making this report, but there are so many things about Peter I have given up understanding.

o. Former Steeler Keenan Lewis sniffing out a Pittsburgh flea-flicker and preventing Ben Roethlisberger from hitting an open Antonio Brown for a touchdown.

And I just read something in "Sports Illustrated" about how offensive genius Todd Haley had started cutting out trick plays and going with more basic plays the Steelers could successfully run.

q. The jet-sweep touchdown by Tavon Austin. When the Rams drafted him in 2013, this kind of make-’em-miss sweep is exactly what GM Les Snead had in mind.

The pay-off in making this draft pick is now complete. No further criticism should be warranted.

r. Beautiful interception by Cleveland’s Jim Leonhard (has he played on every team in the league, or is it just me?) off Kyle Orton.

I don't know. I'll call Brian Hoyer or Johnny Manziel and see if they can ask Leonhard.

2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 13:

a. The Cardinals, down 17-0 before Georgia Domians were all in their seats.

A defensive-dependent team with a defense that has suffered several injuries to important players with a ball-control quarterback and no running game...who saw this coming? (raises hand)

k. Why in the world did Andy Dalton, down 10-0, throw a vital ball into double coverage at Tampa?

Yeah, but he was super-clutch and led a comeback. That has to count for something, doesn't it?

3. I think there will be much discussion and little action about playoff reseeding, because owners are too in love with the guaranteed home playoff game for winning a division. But—and this is a significant but—what could change that is a major embarrassment. Such as, let’s say, 12-4 Seattle having to play at 6-10 Atlanta in a Wild Card game. Even the owner most in love with the current system will have to admit this shouldn’t happen.

Playing devi's advocate, what if the Falcons beat the Seahawks in this game? Would that change anyone's mind about playoff reseeding?

4. I think Jemele Hill of ESPN wrote a great story in crafting Janay Rice’s words. Janay Rice comes across as smart and strong. The two things from her piece that were most interesting to me:

On the public perception of her: “I still find it hard to accept being called a ‘victim.’ I know there are so many different opinions out there about me—that I’m weak, that I’m making excuses and covering up abuse—and that some people question my motives for staying with Ray. However, I’m a strong woman and I come from a strong family. Never in my life have I seen abuse, nor have I seen any woman in my family physically abused. I have always been taught to respect myself and to never allow myself to be disrespected, especially by a man. Growing up, my father used to always tell my sister and I, ‘We don’t need a man to make us, if anything it’s the man who needs us.’ ”

It's interesting only in that a woman who was abused or is currently abused by her spouse or boyfriend would be saying these same things. An abused spouse would deny continued abuse is occurring, explain how they are a strong woman (thereby proving it by making the decision to stay with the abusing spouse), and say she would never allow herself to be disrespected. Anyone who has met or worked around abused women know this to be true. Janay Rice's statements are interesting, but not in the way Peter thinks they are.

6. I think I hope I’m wrong about this, because Robert Griffin III seems like a good person. But I can’t help but conjure comparisons to Ryan Leaf.

Yep, you are very wrong about this. Even during his worst season, Griffin has not been as bad as Ryan Leaf was in his best season. But hey, Peter has to make silly, knee-jerk comparisons. It's probably in his contract that he do so.

Griffin has already had more success than Leaf had in his career, but there are a few things that are a little too close for comfort:

Leaf was picked second overall in 1998 after the Chargers traded up to get him. Griffin was picked second overall in 2012 after Washington traded up to get him.

This is more of a coincidence than it is a reflection on how Griffin is like Ryan Leaf on the football field. Peter should be smarter than this.

Leaf labored in the shadow of a perfect Colts quarterback picked one spot before him, Peyton Manning. Griffin labors in the shadow of a perfect Colts quarterback picked one spot before him, Andrew Luck.

Yet again, a coincidence that has nothing to do with Griffin's performance on the field compared to Ryan Leaf's performance on the field. 

Leaf helped get one coach (June Jones) fired, and was on his second (Mike Riley) when San Diego yanked him from the lineup in year three in favor of Moses Moreno, then released him after his third season. Griffin helped get one coach (Mike Shanahan) fired and was on his second (Jay Gruden) when Washington yanked him from the lineup in year three in favor of Colt McCoy. After the season with Griffin, who knows?

Bad teams get head coaches fired. It's not always a reflection on the quarterback. Did Peyton Manning get Jim Mora fired after the 2001 season?

But I want to be fair about this: Griffin, if he never plays another snap, has had a far superior career to Leaf.

"Here's a direct comparison between two players. I want to be fair though, so ignore my direct comparison between these two players because the comparisons are just coincidences."

Griffin was Offensive Rookie of the Year and has won 13 games, with a 90.8 rating. Leaf won four NFL games, with a 50.0 rating.

So stating Griffin "conjures up comparisons to Ryan Leaf" and "there are a few things that are a little too close for comfort" are completely off-base statements as compared to their performance on the field? So basically, they aren't like each other at all and there should be zero comparisons of Robert Griffin to Ryan Leaf made?

7. I think, to answer the questions of many from the other day about three NFC-only games on Thanksgiving, the NFL planned the holiday to be a rivalry day: Bears-Lions, Eagles-Cowboys, Seahawks-49ers. To the many who criticized the nightcap because it’s not a “natural” rivalry like the others (and I got a lot of that on Twitter), I would say there’s a good chance the Niners and Seahawks are the best current rivalry in football. I mean, today.

Oh, so the Seahawks and 49ers aren't the best current rivalry twenty years from now? What about being the best current rivalry 20 years ago? So by "current rivalry" you mean "today." Thanks for clearing that up. How precocious of Peter.

10. I think these are my non-NFL thoughts of the week:

a. Smart column by the great Bob Ryan about what to do on the baseball Hall of Fame ballot with suspected PED users. Some lessons in here for football too.

It was a good column, but there is already a plaque in the Hall of Fame explaining the PED era in baseball. So "what to do" has sort of already been done.

f. Notre Dame … I do not understand.

It seems there are quite a few things you don't understand, Peter. That's okay and thanks for being specific in this instance.

i. Coffeenerdness: Personal record for espresso shots in one day: nine. I set it Sunday. Hey, it’s a long season.

Geez, calm the fuck down, man.

j. Beernerdness: My favorite three beers from the Thanksgiving holiday:

Zoe, an American Amber Ale, by Maine Beer Company. So I’m a sucker for their beer; it’s all so good. I liked the Pale Ale a little more because it’s not as dark, but this Amber has a distinctive wintry taste.

Oh, so the Pale Ale is NOT a dark beer. The name certainly fooled me. I would say the Pale Ale is currently one of the least dark beers. I mean, today. 

Who I Like Tonight

Miami 27, New York Jets 12. Athletes are funny people sometimes. You saw the winless Raiders, in their primetime showcase 11 days ago, legitimately beat the Chiefs, who were playing for something.

It seems Peter has Bill Simmons Syndrome where he uses the word "legitimately" in situations where it isn't necessary. So the Raiders didn't illegitimately beat the Chiefs? It was a totally legit victory?

The Adieu Haiku
You see Belichick? Rodgers-whispering, postgame:
“See you in two months.”


You don't believe Peter that this is what Belichick said? Just ask Belichick, he will tell you.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

11 comments Gene Wojciechowski Seems Frustrated and Confused By the First Amendment

Ron Brown is an assistant coach for the Nebraska football team. He has taken a public stance against homosexuals due to this faith. Gene Wojciechowski takes a stance against Ron Brown due to Brown's stance against homosexuals. Here is the interesting part about Gene's stance against Ron Brown. Gene poses hypothetical questions and suggests the University of Nebraska should fire Ron Brown or force him to change his views as an employee of the institution. Apparently the irony of forcing a person to quit his job or change his views because you don't like this views is lost on Gene. Let's get a few things out of the way before I tackle Gene's semi-hypocritical column.

1. The University of Nebraska is partially publicly funded, so theoretically Brown could be dismissed because of his beliefs by the University of Nebraska...maybe. I don't know if Nebraska is an at-will employment state or not nor do I really understand employment law that well. Th University may have to show cause for his firing. A lawsuit would probably be inevitable though.

2. Ron Brown has espoused his views and not done much else on this subject. He hasn't violated the rights of a Nebraska football player or student at this point. So this isn't a case of him actively persecuting homosexuals during the course of his job. Granted, Brown probably would treat homosexuals differently, but that's pure speculation on my part and I have no information this speculation is true.

3. Suggesting someone should be fired because you don't like their use of free speech, which Gene is essentially suggesting the University of Nebraska should do, is hypocritical when criticizing a person for his personal views. There seems to be something inherently wrong in my mind with saying, "I don't like Ron Brown's opinion, he should be fired." In a few ways, even though she got confused by how the Marlins were within their rights to punish Ozzie Guillen, Jen Engel was correct in that free speech means nothing if we only use it to defend speech we agree with.

Ron Brown isn't the only person who has an issue with homosexuals. The state of North Carolina will vote on Amendment One today. This amendment to the state constitution would define marriage in the state of North Carolina as between a man and a woman. I understand where those who favor the amendment are coming from, but I personally oppose it. Mostly, because I would prefer my state focus on the important things, like the rapidly declining funding for colleges, the unemployment rate, and actual important issues that affect the state rather than taking up time to fight the "moral decay" of our state. The state of North Carolina is a sinking ship financially and those legislators who proposed Amendment One are spending valuable legislative time making sure the deck chairs are arranged perfectly and the ship has a shiny look, rather than working to plug the hole that is causing the ship to sink.

That's just my opinion and this isn't intended to be a political blog. I only espouse my view to give what I am writing a certain perspective. I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't affect me. Two women being married doesn't mean my marriage is a sham and it doesn't make me feel any differently about my personal faith. To propose an amendment which specifically outlaws the marriage of a man and a woman in a state where gay marriage isn't even legal seems a bit cruel and petty to me. I see where Ron Brown is coming from though. His personal faith helps form his opinion of homosexuality and though I may disagree with it, that doesn't mean I am right or he doesn't have the right to espouse his opinion publicly as I just have. There is a separation of church and state, but people still have a right to their beliefs.

Gene Wojciechowski seems to believe Ron Brown doesn't have this right and wants the state of Nebraska or the University of Nebraska to bully Brown into changing his view or otherwise risking the security of his job.

Let's say there is a gay running back on the Nebraska roster. And Ron Brown is his position coach.

Let's say this gay running back probably wouldn't want to play for a position coach he considers to be a homophobe or disapproving of the way he lives his life. Would this player choose to play at Nebraska for Ron Brown?

Think about that for a moment.

Ok, thought about it. The running back would probably look to transfer or go to another college if it bothered him that much. Nebraska would be wise to allow him to transfer without sitting out an entire year. Problem solved.

And then think about Brown's very public stance against homosexuality.

Which he is within his right to have a very public stance on. That damn First Amendment allows this and his employer doesn't seem to want to punish for the stance. Therefore let him have his beliefs.

The Cornhuskers assistant coach recently testified in front of the Omaha (Neb.) City Council that gays, lesbians and transgender people shouldn't receive anti-discrimination protection under a proposed ordinance.

Again, while I disagree with him on this stance, this is his right. It always amazes me when people want others to be more open-minded on issues, but also want to silence or punish others for not being open-minded on these issues. It seems weird to me to try to silence others for not holding the same belief you do. Isn't Gene Wojciechowski questioning whether Ron Brown should be able to keep his job with the University of Nebraska (which is what he is doing, he just doesn't have the balls to come out and say it) because of his personal views a bit closed-minded? This is also example of Gene trying to project his beliefs on others when he is criticizing Brown for this very thing.

None of this would matter if Brown were an ordinary citizen with an extraordinary belief in his interpretation of the Bible's position on homosexuality.

This is very true. Because Ron Brown is a public employee it calls into question how tax dollars are going to pay for the salary of a coach who has a political stance based on personal views. If the University of Nebraska wanted to fire Ron Brown, they probably could do so. Of course by firing Ron Brown the University of Nebraska would be using tax dollars to espouse a political stance as well. So there's that.

But Brown isn't an ordinary citizen. He is a coach at a public university and for a revered football program whose reach stretches from Omaha to Scottsbluff. When he speaks, his words carry more power because of his association with Nebraska football.

You mean sort of like what has happened when University of Nebraska administrators, including the Chancellor, has come out as saying they don't agree with Ron Brown's personal views? Do his words carry more power or as much power as Brown's? I would possibly say so.

And there is no separation of church and state on Brown's Nebraska football office voice message:

"I praise the Lord Jesus Christ for today. I hope you're having a blessed day. Not able to answer my phone right now. Give me a try back and Lord willing, I'll get back to you as soon as possible. Have a great day."

So is Gene Wojciechowski saying that public employees can't espouse personal beliefs in public? I can see where this voicemail can be perceived as pro-Christianity, which apparently Gene finds personally offensive. It seems a bit constricting to not allow public employees from participating in a public discussion on a topic of interest to that employee. To be fair, if this is the position that Gene takes that Brown shouldn't be able to speak out against gay rights, a public employee should also not come out in favor of gay rights or any other "controversial" position like that. To prevent those who disagree with Gene's view from having a voice would also be to prevent those who agree with Gene from having a voice. The Chancellor of the University of Nebraska would not be able to say he favors homosexuals receiving anti-discrimination protection. It has to go both ways.

Brown, as well as Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne, has said that Brown's city council testimony reflected only the assistant coach's personal views. But those views were made by an employee of a public university that receives 42 percent of its funding from the federal government and state appropriations.

So he should he be fired or forced to change his belief to keep his job? In the interview process after Ron Brown gets fired would it be fine if the applicant was asked his opinion on homosexuals and whether they deserve protection from discrimination? Could any applicants who don't agree with homosexuals receiving protection from discrimination be immediately eliminated as a candidate for the job? Or would any candidate who had a personal view that may conflict with popular opinion be forced to stay silent about his beliefs in order to keep his job, even though those in the majority of popular opinion are able to speak their beliefs? I'm pretty sure this is discrimination in and of itself.

And there in that statement, in boldface type, by the way, is this: "It is the policy of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln not to discriminate based upon age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, gender, sex, pregnancy, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, veteran's status, marital status, religion or political affiliation."

Gene is getting confused. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln does not discriminate based upon: "age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, gender, sex, pregnancy, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, veteran's status, marital status, religion or political affiliation." This doesn't mean University of Nebraska-Lincoln employees are held to this standard when they aren't in the course of their job. So as long as Ron Brown isn't representing the University of Nebraska when he comes out against including homosexuals in an anti-discrimination law, I don't see why he should be punished for his view.

The policy of a business, university or institution doesn't necessarily apply to the employees who work at the school and what they believe away from that business, university or institution.

In a March 30 statement, Perlman said he was "personally offended" by Brown's stance relative to gays and lesbians. "Whether intended to do so or not, they reflect poorly on the university, on our athletic programs, and I am certain they cause pain and discomfort among a valued and productive segment of our community."

Then fire him! Silence him because Gene Wojciechowski doesn't agree with him! Agree with the majority or lose your job!

But Perlman added: "Unless and until I have evidence that Coach Brown has engaged in conduct beyond speech that many of us find offensive, I do not intend to do more than seek to assure that he speaks only for himself and to disassociate myself and this university from his position."

If this is how the University has chosen to handle the situation, they are very much within their rights to do so. Just like Ron Brown is within his rights to talk about his personal beliefs outside of his job as a University of Nebraska football assistant coach.

In other words, Brown can continue to call gays and lesbians "sinners," and then report to work the next morning.

Gene is the type of person I absolutely can't stand when he says things like this. Gene believes the anti-discrimination law should only apply to those who agree with the anti-discrimination law. It's not fine to discriminate against homosexuals, but if you hold an opinion Gene doesn't agree with, it is fine to discriminate against you.

Multiple interview requests were made to Brown, who is on the road recruiting. An athletic department spokesperson said Brown wasn't likely to respond to those requests.

Naturally, because Gene is concerned about Ron Brown's views having a public forum, Gene wants to give Ron Brown a public forum to talk about his views.

Actually what Gene wants to do is interview Brown to blow the story up so the story goes more national and Brown will eventually resign or be let go for his views on homosexuality. Gene can't fool me. I know what he is up to.

So Brown would be a willing martyr. And if he continues to confuse faith with a person's fundamental right not to be discriminated against, then Perlman and Osborne should fire him.

Well, I guess Gene does come out and say it. While I do agree with Gene's general position, I don't know if I agree with Gene putting pressure on the University of Nebraska to fire Ron Brown because of a personal belief.

Brown has the absolute right to express his views. But at what point do those views bleed into the workplace?

At the point where Brown's views negatively affect his ability to do his job as an assistant coach for Nebraska or he discriminates against a certain player because his sexuality. That's the point when his views bleed into the workplace. We are already at the point where Gene's views are bleeding over into Brown's right to freedom of speech. If the University of Nebraska wants to fire him, that's their business, but for Gene to want to urge the University to punish Brown for his personal view by causing him to lose his job isn't right in my opinion.

And Nebraska head coach Bo Pelini has said that Brown discusses religion with his players, but, according to the AP, no team member has complained.

But what does that mean exactly? That the players want Brown to continue mixing religion with football, or that they're reluctant to say anything, in fear that it could affect their standing with a coach who controls their place on the depth chart?

Or...it could be the players like to talk to Ron Brown about religion, don't necessarily share every single one of his religious views, but still believe he is a good person with which to discuss religion. At the point a Nebraska player feels he has been demoted by Brown because his personal view that would be the point Brown is infringing on the rights of others and I would have an issue.

And what if there were a gay player on the Nebraska roster? Or what if one of the players Brown is trying to recruit this week is gay, or has a family member or friend who is gay?

Then that player needs to think, "Do I want to play for a team and University which has an employee who espouses the beliefs that Ron Brown has?"

These are not unreasonable scenarios. Would you want to play for a coach who thinks God loves gays less than women or African-Americans?

Probably not. Would I actively try to get the coach fired for merely having this belief? Absolutely not.

Would you want to play for a coach who preaches compassion and love, but is willing to turn his back on a fellow human being because of that person's sexual orientation?

Probably not. Would I write a column about an assistant coach who has a belief I don't agree with and suggest he is fired for having this belief, despite the fact it hasn't bled over into his work life? Absolutely not. Again, the University of Nebraska could theoretically try to fire Ron Brown, but the idea he should be fired merely for holding a belief people don't agree with seems like it is against the principles the United States holds dear.

(starts waving an American flag and chanting U-S-A!)

Discrimination is discrimination. It isn't a buffet line where Brown can pick and choose who can be protected from it. It is repugnant in all forms.

It's repugnant in all forms, unless you are trying to discriminate against a person who holds a belief you don't agree with. In that case, there's nothing wrong with a little discrimination. After all, everyone has to have one universal opinion in Gene Wojciechowski's preferred version of democracy.

Whether he realizes it or not, Brown's supposed private stance has public -- and Nebraska football -- implications.

Whether you realize it or not, you are projecting your own beliefs on Ron Brown and suggesting because he doesn't adhere to the same beliefs you do then he should be punished in the form of losing his job.

(a phone rings)

That's the North Korean government on the phone for you Gene. They want you to be the editor of the state newspaper. Apparently they read this column and were very impressed.

His beliefs find their way back to his players and the message is this: I've got your back -- as long as you're not gay.

Gene, you have made the First Amendment very sad. As long as Ron Brown isn't infringing on the rights of any of his players in the course of his doing his job, leave him alone and accept others have a different point of view than you do.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

7 comments I Guess We Just Be Happy Rick Reilly Isn't Plagerizing His Own Columns Anymore

Rick Reilly isn't a very good writer. He is the sportswriting equivalent of Eddy Curry. He makes a shitload of money, doesn't appear to do anything productive except get a paycheck and seems to enjoy flaunting to the public the fact he is extremely overpaid. I half expect Reilly to gain 100 pounds and just essentially give up doing his job effectively...well, I take that last part back because Rick Reilly has already given up doing his job well. Here's the latest evidence of this. Rick Reilly has written a Big 10 primer for the Nebraska football team in his latest excrement-ridden column posted on ESPN.com.

There are three major problems with this column:

1. Nebraska joined the Big 10 eight months ago. Reilly is just getting around to writing this column? The topic isn't even really relevant at this point since Nebraska joining the Big 10 was a big story eight months or more ago. Sure the college football season is starting very soon, but Nebraska joined the Big 10 over eight months ago. This column feels more relevant if it had been done back in December.

2. Rick Reilly tries to be funny. He isn't. It is sad to read. Needless to say, I will mock him mercilessly for this. He deserves it. The jokes are obvious and not funny. Rick Reilly jokes are like the jokes in an Adam Sandler movie, except more obvious and painful, if that's possible.

3. Rick Reilly wrote it. That's probably the major problem. He has no shame nor does he even pretend to give a shit. This is the best he will do and you as the reader will fucking deal with it.

Hello, Nebraska!

That's how it starts.

Now that you're joining the 12-team Big Ten, nothing is going to make sense anymore. I know it doesn't for me.

The Big 10 has 12 teams! What's up with that? It is funny to point this out because the name of the conference is the Big 10 and there are 12 teams in the conference. What should the Big 10 call itself? The Big 12. That's already taken.

"Why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways? It doesn't make sense."

Growing up as a Colorado Buffs fan, we were taught that if Nebraska was playing Libya, we should be there with a giant poster of Moammar Gaddafi.

As a Nebraska fan, we were taught the Colorado-Nebraska rivalry didn't exist as much anymore. Colorado actually has to win some games to make it a rivalry don't they. Look at all the red.

Because your state gave us Johnny Carson and Larry the Cable Guy. Besides, you kicked our butts to the state line every year and we're frankly glad to see you go.

I just said that.

You are joining one of the great football traditions in America, a fabric woven with sturdy football, passionate fans and the time-honored institution of selling your jerseys for tattoos.

And Nebraska is leaving a conference with a pretty good football tradition, passionate fans and the time-honored tradition of raping women. Of course to Rick Reilly, Colorado players raping women isn't as concerning as the lack of moral decency to sell a jersey for a tattoo. What a morally bankrupt conference that Big 10 is.

You know, stones-glass houses that type of thing? If your favorite school had a scandal over the last decade based primarily around the sexual assault of women, I wouldn't think mocking another school for a player selling a jersey for a tattoo would be something you would do. Of course, Nebraska football players don't exactly have a great history with women either, so them joining a conference where players sold jerseys for tattoos doesn't seem as bad as second degree murder.

Your new rival -- Forget Oklahoma. Now it's Iowa, like it or not. You close out your regular season with the Hawkeyes on the day after Thanksgiving at home. Iowa's a natural for you. Both your states are so flat you can watch a train pull out for three days.

Wow, how not funny was this? Both states are flat so they should naturally play each other in football!

Is there anyone who doesn't think Rick Reilly has given up at this point? I would like to meet you, if so.

Football-wise, Iowa has been better than you lately,

Since 2004, each team's record:

Iowa: 57-31

Nebraska: 56-34

That means Rick Reilly is correct about this. What are the odds he just guessed when he made this statement? 95%?

Rick Reilly doesn't do research on the Internet, he writes columns that evoke emotion (mostly he evokes anger in me). The last thing Rick Reilly looked up on the Internet was probably the Erin Andrews video.

Dress code -- Now that Jim Tressel and The Vest are gone from Ohio State, there is no dress code.

The only dress code in the Big 10 is the code to cover up the body parts where you got free tattoos in exchange for memorabilia!

(Rick Reilly high-fives me for that joke)

Your lunatic screamer of a head coach, Bo Pelini -- the man who could be an entire season of "What Not to Wear" -- is going to fit in nicely.

He wears a sweatshirt during games. I didn't realize he was required to wear a tie and dress shoes. Besides, Taylor Martinez's father complained when Pelini wore dress shoes they fit too well up his son's ass. He prefers the tennis shoes Pelini wears because after Martinez has fumbled for the 9th time that game it doesn't hurt as much when Pelini puts a foot up Martinez's ass.

Your fans aren't exactly ripped from the Armani catalog, either. Oy, that Sea of Red some of you wear: red socks, red overalls, red cowboy hats. Goes nice with your necks, though.

Working class people are stupid, poor dressers, ugly and probably have poor hygiene! This is comedy!

What should Nebraska fans wear? Ed Hardy shirts? Goes nice with your douchetastic writing, though.

Divisions -- The Big Ten is divided into two divisions: Legends and Leaders. Yes, these are incredibly anvil-brained names for divisions, but you should have seen the stuff that lost out:

The new division names in the Big Ten suck. We get it. The Big 10 named their divisions in December. It is now July.

Second -- Princes and Potentates

Third -- Behemoths and Brutes

Fourth -- Cheats and Soon-to-be-caught Cheats

How is selling a jersey to pay for a tattoo cheating again? It had nothing to do with playing the actual game...and that's cheating? I know we don't want facts to get in the way of Rick Reilly trying to make a terrible joke.

The Michigan Man is full of pride in himself and his Michigan degree -- so much so that you're going to want to bring a throw-up bowl along with you.

Sadly, the Michigan Man has had to reduce the volume a little lately, having not beaten The Ohio State Man since the debut of the Edsel.

"The debut of the Edsel." Now there's a reference that is neither funny, accurate nor timely. That's a hard trifecta to achieve when making a joke.

OHIO STATE


You're coming to the Big Ten at a lucky time, Nebraska. Ohio State has been the king, but if the king is not dead, it's on one knee and searching around for its mouthpiece. Buckeyes fans are usually very nice people, but all this vacating of wins has caused them to vacate their manners. They harassed Golden Boy QB and ESPN announcer Kirk Herbstreit into moving to Nashville and they sent death threats to the college newspaper sports editor over Tressel. Remind me, what did those guys sell?

I must have missed the memo that said Ohio State fans were nice before the Terrelle Pryor scandal. I'm pretty sure Herbstreit moved out of Ohio before the wins were vacated. I know, I know...details, who needs them when trying to make a point?

The problem is, Wisconsin has even bigger and stronger linemen than you do. Do you realize that the last lineman you had taken in the first round of the NFL draft was 27 years ago? Dean Steinkuhler?

We all know an NFL player is only considered to be a good player based on where he was drafted and not what kind of player he ended up being in the NFL. I guess guys like Carl Nicks, Russ Hochstein, Dominic Raiola, and Will Shields don't count as successful offensive linemen since they weren't drafted in the 1st round.

The Badgers have had five in that time!

OMG! For realsies?

I'm afraid Wisconsin is you, Nebraska, only with much better parties and more wins.

Well, that and Wisconsin is Nebraska if Nebraska had five less national titles, 212 less wins, 123 more losses, 31 less conference titles, and 31 less consensus All-Americans. All of this in only 76 more games played all-time by the Nebraska football team compared to the Wisconsin football team. But, if Reilly finds it more fun to just call them the same team in order to further the stereotypes of Nebraska and Wisconsin as white people who love planting corn and have red necks that he wants to perpetuate then he should go right ahead.

God knows I shouldn't expect or require Rick Reilly to do any deep thinking or actual research when he can just write words down on a page and cash his huge ESPN checks.

Q: Why do Penn State players wear black shoes?

A: Reportedly, coach Joe Paterno believes it makes his players look slower, which is not true. Bowl games do.


Big 10 teams are slow! I have never heard this joke before! This statement required no research and is intended to be funny! Are you entertained yet? We've heard all of the jokes and criticisms of the Big 10 dozens of times before this column. Yet, Reilly thinks he is making funny jokes or relevant points. He isn't. He is showing just how out of touch with sports he truly is.

Q: How is the health of the 84-year-old Paterno?

A: His ears still hurt a little from The Big Bang.

BECAUSE JOE PATERNO IS OLD! NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER POINTED THIS FACT OUT UNTIL RIGHT NOW!

Q: Where does Rick Reilly spend most of his free time?

A: Up in his own ass.

That wasn't intended to be funny.

NORTHWESTERN


You will see a few people in purple shirts with a stupid cat logo on them. You do NOT have to worry about them. But be nice to their students. A lot of them end up running big media companies. The Wildcats found a really good coach in Pat Fitzgerald, though.

It is so very clear the last time Rick Reilly paid attention to sports was the late 1980's or possibly the middle 90's. Northwestern has made three straight bowl games and have won 9, 8, and 7 games over the last three seasons. That's progress and they really aren't a pushover anymore. But again, it is easier for Rick Reilly to just base his Big 10 knowledge on his memories from 1989.

ILLINOIS


You draw more for your spring game than the Illini do for regular-season ones. I'm not kidding. You drew 66,784 for your spring game this year. The Illini didn't even average that for home games last year.

That's amazing to know. Illinois stadium, Memorial Stadium, has a capacity of 60,200 and the Nebraska Huskers' stadium has a capacity of 81, 607. There's no way the Illini could have drew as many fans as the Huskers spring game. Unless Rick has any ideas on how to fit 6,000 more people into a stadium space that maxes out at 60,000. If so, I would love to hear them.

INDIANA


Just awful. Being a football fan in Indiana is like being a scuba fan in Tibet.

Being a football fan in Indiana is also like selling Kate Spade purses in Ethiopia. See, they are poor in Ethiopia and they can't afford expensive things like Rick Reilly can because he makes a lot of money. In fact, I don't want to startle you, but ESPN.com actually paid him to write this column. It is sad to think about isn't it? Bleacher Report probably would have rejected this column. ESPN.com gives it the front page and then gives Rick Reilly is own show called "Homecoming."

As for you, Nebraska, the Big Ten is really going to take an instant dislike to you. Why? Saves time.

Plus, what conference would want a heralded program like Nebraska that brings enormous revenue, national appeal, a large fan base around the country and instant national recognition like Nebraska does?

Also, those games at Memorial Stadium with the freezing rain and the howling wind and nothing around for 100 miles to hide behind but corn stalks? They're not fun. Put it this way: You're going to have LOTS of visiting team tickets to re-sell.

Which shouldn't be a huge problem for Nebraska considering they have sold out every home game since I can remember. There isn't anything else to do in Nebraska and if any visiting team wants to sell their tickets there are probably going to be tons of takers for those tickets. What a terrible point.

What an idiot. I know Reilly is trying to be cute and funny, but the fact visiting teams won't travel to Nebraska will have a 0% effect on game attendance for Nebraska home games.

You know what might impress them, though? Your bowl record. You're 24-23 all time. You better knock that crap off.

In the Big Ten, that's just showing off.

That's probably because Big 10 teams are slow and can't compete with other conferences in bowl games!

To complete this column, Rick Reilly did zero research while waiting 8 months to write about the topic and he based most of his comments on stereotypes about the Big 10, while he covered the gaps in the stereotypes about the Big 10 he couldn't remember with terrible jokes. Just a typical Reilly column.

Rick Reilly is the 11-time National Sportswriter of the Year.

I didn't even know the Special Olympics had a writing category.

That was rude, I apologize to anyone participating or affiliated with the Special Olympics. I shouldn't drag your name through the mud by associating you in any way with Rick Reilly.