15 comments Gregg Easterbrook Comes Back Worse Than Ever After His Bye Week

Last week in TMQ...well there was no TMQ last week and the shock waves from the lack of Gregg Easterbrook's NFL musings reverberated loudly throughout the journalistic community. Actually, I completely forgot Gregg wasn't writing last week and woke up this past Monday worried I had missed writing a TMQ post for this week. So TMQ was missed only in that I forgot to miss it.

This week Gregg thinks we should celebrate Notre Dame's academic standards, doesn't realize college football is about athletics and not about academics, and tells us (sniffles a little bit) that Pulaski Academy lost this past week. I'm sure the reason they lost was not because Kevin Kelley failed to go for it on fourth down, thereby signifying to his players he was really super-serious about winning the game. It was probably a fluke they lost...or else they faced another quality high school football team in the state semifinals instead of facing another team outside of a Top 30 ranking in the state (which is all they had faced in the playoffs up until that point).

There is general excitement that Notre Dame will play for the BCS title. Tuesday Morning Quarterback certainly is on the bandwagon. The mix of Notre Dame's place in football lore, its standing as an academic institution and its Irish traditions has broad appeal, including to those who are not Irish. Don't take this personally, SEC, but much of the nation, if not much of the world, will be rooting against you on Jan. 7.

I'm not entirely sure Gregg Easterbrook has his finger on the pulse of the nation. There are a lot of Notre Dame haters out in the world who will be cheering for the SEC (even Nick Saban) just to watch Notre Dame lose. I don't know how Gregg thinks Notre Dame has such broad appeal to where much of the world will be cheering for them, but I'm cheering for whichever SEC team makes it. I don't like the SEC and really, really don't like Alabama, but I'm not sure I can cheer for Notre Dame this year...even if they are obviously the morally, ethically, athletically, academically, and most godly team in the history of college football.

There's an important aspect of the Notre Dame season that is being overlooked. Taking into account the latest NCAA graduation stats, last week Notre Dame became the first college football team to be ranked No. 1 in the polls and No. 1 in graduation success. 

This has been completely overlooked! I didn't know Notre Dame had high academic standards. It's not like Sports Illustrated did an entire article about Notre Dame this past week or NBC ever focuses on Notre Dame or have a page called Notre Dame Central. There's even an article up about how magical the season is and mentions the academic standards of Notre Dame. Notre Dame has relatively strict academic standards and that's good for them. Being #1 in graduation success and in the BCS polls is an achievement, but Notre Dame's academic standards are rarely overlooked.

Hearty congratulations are due to coach Brian Kelly, Notre Dame president John Jenkins, and the Fighting Irish team.

Absolutely there are hearty congratulations due. Did we ever figure out which current Notre Dame player it was that Lizzy Seeberg accused of rape prior to killing herself?

I'm being snide. And yes, I am not naive. I know those scandals can occur at almost any college with any college football player. I'm not picking on Notre Dame, but picking on the hearty congratulations Gregg Easterbrook is giving Notre Dame. It's one player, one allegation and no one is guilty because of that accusation. It's just there is this perception of perfection that irritates me and Gregg is feeding into it. It's not really the perception given by the school, but by the media towards Notre Dame. Cheering for Notre Dame is like cheering for the Cowboys (much of the superiority about the program is based on achievements from nearly 20 years ago), combined with cheering for Duke (the whole program is seen as so fucking perfect and can do no wrong), and the Yankees (it's a popular bandwagon team) all in one. That's why quite a few people will be cheering for the evil they know (the SEC) rather than the evil they are afraid will rise up (Notre Dame).

Me? If I had to name the college football programs I hated the most, Notre Dame wouldn't crack the Top 10. Quite a few people I know seem to hate the Fighting Irish more than I do though, so I think Gregg is a little off in thinking Notre Dame is the fan's overwhelming favorite.

The NCAA ought to be intensely proud of Notre Dame's achievement. Instead, so far it has said nothing. The "network partners" of the NCAA -- ABC, CBS, ESPN, Fox and NBC -- ought to be intensely proud, rolling the drums for the double-first.

Dear Gregg,

College football is not about academics. If you think it is about academics, then that makes you stupid and naive.

Sincerely,
Ben

One can't help thinking the NCAA and its network partners hesitate to draw attention to any big-college football program that does well in the classroom. That only sets the bar high for everyone else, and the NCAA, plus several of the big-money conferences, benefit from keeping the bar low.

Yes, I am sure that is the reason the NCAA hasn't highlighted this. You got them. Busted.

When Stanford and Virginia Tech met in the 2010 Orange Bowl, that contest featured the highest combined football graduation rates in BCS annals. So far as I am aware, only TMQ highlighted this.

Of course to be aware of anyone else who highlighted this Gregg would have to do an Internet search. Gregg refuses to do research and prefers to base his facts on assumptions he makes. I did an Internet search and ten seconds later I found this column. I also found this column. But in his mind, Gregg is the only one who dared to write about these two teams and mention academics. It's funny how he doesn't do any research so he just assumes he is the only one to highlight the graduation rates of these two teams. It makes him feel right and that's all that matters to him. He wants to feel like he is the only one who highlighted the academics of these two schools, so he doesn't pursue any knowledge that would tell him otherwise.

The very first stop for potential recruits on official visits to Virginia Tech, for example, is an hour with an academic counselor. That happens before the young man meets any coach, or sees the stadium and its NFL-caliber facilities. Set the bar high, and athletes will respond--

Some of these athletes will respond by choosing to commit to another college.

because they are competitive by nature. Make excuses, and the graduation rate will be low. 

While I don't disagree if a college makes excuses for athletes in regard to academics then they can find the graduation rate being low, college athletes are competitive by nature on the field, not necessarily in the classroom. Anyone who has spent any time tutoring certain college athletes knows this to be true. Challenge that player to understand a concept or get an answer right in the academic world and you don't automatically see the competitive juices that show up on the field. I don't know where Gregg lives. Perhaps not in a world where some college athletes go to school in order to become professional athletes.

Obviously this isn't true for every college athlete, but the competitive fire you see on the field doesn't necessarily extend to the classroom.

In other football news, Chicago leading Minnesota 16-3, the Bears lined up for a PAT kick -- then holder Adam Podlesh kept the ball and ran untouched for two points. On tries, why are NFL coaches so reluctant to go for two from kick formation? In the rare instances when this play is used, it's devastating.

Because the more NFL teams go for two from a PAT formation the more opposing teams will be prepared for this to happen. Not to mention, if a team wants to go for 2 points then it makes more sense to have a team's best offensive personnel on the field rather than have the holder (assuming he isn't the starting quarterback) try to run the ball in the end zone or throw a pass to covert the two point conversion. If a team is going for two, it makes much more sense to have that team's best offensive personnel on the field.

Last season in the NFL, 1,255 of 1,262 singleton tries succeeded. Because PAT kicks are nearly automatic, NFL defenses tend to snooze through them. Defenders take a step in the direction of the kicker, but otherwise pay little attention. So line up in PAT kick formation, then run a play!

Then after seeing teams do this a few times opposing defenses will start not attempting to block the extra point and this trick will no longer work for a while.

This seems to make coaches think, "If only 50 percent of two-point tries succeed, compared to 99 percent of PAT kicks, just take one since you'd come out the same in the end if you always went for two anyway."

But most NFL deuce tries are expected! The first-string offense stays on the field, giving the defense ample warning. Tuesday Morning Quarterback wants unexpected deuce tries, from kicking formation. 

Because this strategy has worked a couple of times doesn't mean it would work if used more often. In fact, because this strategy isn't used often probably can be attributed to the current success of going for two from the PAT formation. It's not difficult for opposing defenses to start to defend this play. So unexpected deuce tries would soon become expected deuce tries.

Surprise deuce tries should work:

FOR A LITTLE WHILE ONLY! This isn't a permanent "trick" a team can use because NFL defenses aren't fucktards and will eventually just leave a couple players back from attempting to block the PAT to defend against this trick.

NFL coaches rarely go for two from PAT kick formation for the same reason they rarely go for the first on fourth-and-short -- fear of criticism. Do the "safe" thing, kick and lose later, the players will be blamed.

I don't think a coach would be blamed for going for two from the PAT formation if he did this once, but yes, a head coach would get criticism and deserve it when going for two from the PAT formation on a regular basis. It's not fear of this criticism that would cause a coach to stop going for two from the PAT formation, but fear of using a surprise strategy when the strategy is no longer a surprise.

Stats of the Week No. 3: Since the beginning of the 2010 season, the Bears are 27-9 with Jay Cutler at quarterback, 1-8 with anyone else.

Yes, but he didn't say "hello" to the cameraman upon entering the stadium on Sunday. May he burn in Hell!

Stats of the Week No. 10: On Thanksgiving Day, the Jets gained 405 yards on offense at home, and lost; the Cowboys gained 458 yards on offense at home, and lost; the Lions gained 525 yards on offense at home, and lost.

Well, two of those teams (the Cowboys and Jets) were playing catch-up for the entire second half. So their yardage is a bit misleading since it came against defenses that weren't being overly aggressive and the Jets/Cowboys were having to pass the ball a lot.

Jersey/A leading Green Bay 17-7, the host Giants faced third-and-6 on the Packers' 9. Jersey/A came out "three by one," one of the year's popular looks -- trips on one side, a single receiver opposite. Green Bay showed a funky defensive front, with all 11 men standing and everyone tight to the line of scrimmage, the deepest safety only four yards off.

This safety who is four yards off the line of scrimmage wasn't really tight to the line of scrimmage then was he? I don't know why I continually insist on ruining Gregg's points with meaningless facts that show the basis upon which he makes his points is a bit faulty.

Dallas leading 3-0 in the second quarter, the Redskins faced fourth-and-15 on their 32. Washington is among NFL teams showing pistol backfields -- usually one running back behind the quarterback, another to his side. The Skins came out in in a pistol-flavored version of the full house, with a tailback and two fullbacks in the backfield. So it must be a power-rush! Instead it was a play-fake, 68-yard touchdown pass to Aldrick Robinson, first of four touchdown passes on the day for RG3.

Two receivers went down the field, yet Robinson was able to get behind the Cowboys' secondary. Cornerback Brandon Carr simply let Robinson blow past him, as if he was in a short zone with deep help. The safety on that side, Danny McCray, also ignored Robinson.

Troy Aikman made a point of showing an overhead shot of this play and explaining what happened. Yet Gregg still inexplicably writes that Brandon Carr let Robinson blow by him "as if he was in a short zone with deep help." I say "inexplicably" because this is exactly what happened. Carr thought he would have safety help, but McCray bit on the play action fake and Carr's help was no longer available. This touchdown was not on Brandon Carr, but on the safety who was supposed to be helping Carr out. So Carr wasn't playing "as if" he had deep help, he really was supposed to have deep help.

The ATS is zoomy, handles like Europe's best and offers quality fit-and-finish. General Motors was supposed to go out of business; you'd never know if from this car. And there is incredible reverse snob appeal in saying, "Hey, want a ride in my brand-new stick-shift Cadillac?"

Actually, there is douche appeal in saying this. 

After Baltimore's fourth-and-29 conversion at San Diego, zebras reviewed the down for seven minutes before deciding the ball was spotted correctly all along. Decisions on the field are supposed to be overturned only if there is clear evidence the call was wrong. If the referee is watching the replay over and over and over, then the evidence is not clear and the call on the field must stand.

Referees should get to see the replay twice, then the viewer and the headphones should be turned off. If you've seen the play live once and replayed twice and you're still not certain what happened, the call on the field should stand. 

There are two issues with this I see:

1. There is more than one angle the referee sees the replay from, so if there are three angles then it doesn't make sense to only allow him to see two of those angles.

2. Gregg is a terrible, terrible writer who makes too many assumptions. Why can the referee only see it replayed twice? Perhaps the referee didn't see the play live (which is very possible), so the replay is only his first chance at seeing what happened, and he only gets two chances to make a determination? Why not give the referee three shots to view the replay? Why have the arbitrary number of replays at two?

Gregg doesn't think before he writes. He doesn't think that perhaps there is more than one angle to view the replay from, nor does he think perhaps the referee didn't see the play live.

Wacky Food of the Week: This food critic reports he is "weary" of eating. 

Fucking shit. That is not what the food critic said. Not at all. Gregg has such balls to misquote a person and then provide a link to exactly what the person wrote. Here is what the critic wrote:

Yes, food trends beg to be quibbled over. We grow weary of cupcakes, of meatballs, of the overwhelming ubiquity of bacon. And yet it’s hard to find fault with the recent ascendancy of Asian dumplings on a lot of city menus, in part because it’s hard to snicker at the simple, plump lovability of this globe-spanning culinary trope:

Find me where the food critic says anything related to "weary" in regard to "eating." You can't because he didn't write it. He said "we grow weary" of certain foods, but was not talking about growing weary of eating overall. I can't fathom how ESPN lets Gregg Easterbrook write this column when he so blatantly lies about what other people say or do. These isn't a common mistakes that Gregg makes. He read the article and then stated the author claimed he was weary of eating when that wasn't at all what was said. It's terrible journalism to misconstrue so obviously what a person writes.

It's like if I read the TMQ where Gregg stated he would no longer be doing the "Cheerleader of the Week" feature while wondering where the shirtless men in magazines had gone to, then I stated that Gregg reported he was tired of seeing women half-dressed and now is more attracted to men who are half-dressed.

Tedford Deserved the Ax: Many touts were surprised last week when Cal fired head coach Jeff Tedford, who guided the Golden Bears to nine winning records and eight bowl appearances in 11 years, plus developed future NFL star Aaron Rodgers. 

Not really. If Gregg followed college football writers on Twitter he would find not very many were surprised. Tedford has also put Marshawn Lynch, Kyle Boller, Jahvid Best, and Desean Jackson (plus others) in the NFL. So Tedford has had success with putting players in the NFL outside of Aaron Rodgers.

The Big [TK] offers about $7 million more annually in football television revenue than the current conferences of UMD and Rutgers. Since Maryland's ACC agreement includes a $50 million exit fee, spending $50 million for an extra $7 million suggests the Terrapins may not come out ahead for years, if ever. Perhaps the plan is to stiff Maryland taxpayers with the ACC exit fee. Or perhaps, subtract that amount from academics by cutting classes and professors to free up more funds for football coaches and stadium upgrades. The University of Maryland already charges all students a $398 annual fee to support the athletic department. 

This is a lie. Find me where $398 is charged to support the athletic department. There is $67.30 that goes to athletics but more money goes to "Recreation Building" and "Stamp Union" fees. Nearly every college charges an "activity fee" that encompasses more than just helping out the sports team. The University of Maryland is nice enough to break this fee down to show that Gregg is misleading his readers...again.

UMD president Wallace Loh declared with a straight face the reason was not football money or TV marketing clout -- but that joining whatever-it's-called will improve Maryland's academic standing, by creating an affiliation with Northwestern and the University of Michigan. Those are fine colleges. But leaving the ACC means Maryland loses its affiliation with Duke University, notably superior to Northwestern and Michigan in academic standing.

Wouldn't an affiliation with two fine colleges be better than an affiliation with one fine college?

Maryland has an open-meetings law that requires meetings of the university-system regents to be open to the public. Yet UMD regents met in secret to approve the conference shift, raising their middle fingers to state law. The regents claimed exemption from the open-meeting law because football conference discussions were an "emergency." An "emergency," though the change does not take effect until 2014.

We all know Gregg has a fundamental misunderstanding of time. I don't know if this was an emergency or not, but Maryland had to make a decision to join the Big 10 once the offer was extended and probably didn't have until 2014 to make this decision.

In my Oct. 23 column, I praised Andy Ashkar of Camillus, N.Y., who "was revealed to have won $5 million in a lottery six years ago, and to have waited till the last possible moment to claim the prize." According to the Syracuse Post-Standard, Ashkar feared the huge sum "would negatively influence his life." He claimed the money only after deciding to split it with his brother Nayel.

Many readers, including Michael Dietrich of Bethlehem, Pa., noted that follow-up stories show Ashkar has been charged with grand larceny.

What Gregg doesn't tell his readers who don't click on the link is that the lottery money didn't "negatively influence" his life to where he committed grand larceny after he won, he got the winning lottery ticket because he had committed grand larceny. This isn't a case of money ruining him, this guy was already an asshole criminal before he falsely won the lottery. In fact, he won the lottery because he is an asshole criminal.

Last season, Pulaski punted once and won the state title. This season, the Bruins did not punt at all, and reached the state semifinals. Pulaski won its playoff game held during the TMQ bye week, going for it five times on fourth down and converting four. Friday, Pulaski was defeated in the Arkansas semis.

Pulaski won their first playoff game 77-35 without punting, running the ball 25 times and throwing the ball 55 times. Does that sound like somewhat bully coach behavior to you?

Then Pulaski ran into the 12th ranked team in the state and lost. Pulaski ran for -13 yards and threw the ball 40 times. Gregg would normally criticize them for being a pass-wacky team but he has an agenda to make them sound like no-punting heroes so he doesn't do that. Gregg also doesn't detail how well Pulaski did on fourth down against a team that was ranked as highly as they were. I can only assume (based on his history of leaving information out that doesn't support his view) this is because Pulaski didn't convert many fourth downs in the game.

The Bruins ended their 2012 campaign at 11-3; they converted 35 of 75 fourth downs. A 47 percent conversion rate is lower than might be expected; the New Orleans Saints this season are 55 percent on fourth downs, for instance. But Pulaski goes on fourth-and-long as well as fourth-and-short. A conversion on fourth-and-15 is a game-changer play.

I'm sorry, all I am reading are excuses for why Pulaski converted at a lower percentage than the Saints, even though the level of talent between Pulaski and their competition is wider than the level of talent between the Saints and other NFL teams. I am not against never punting, but Pulaski's low percentage even when going against competition they had a clear talent advantage over (at times) leads me to believe occasional punting isn't a bad thing in terms of being a competitive football team.

Pulaski had several big-margin wins this season, including 56-0 and 77-35. Asked if not punting in the fourth quarter, once attaining an insurmountable lead, is running up the score,

It sort of is.

Kelley gave this answer:

"The very people who say I am wrong for not punting, because it will cause us to lose, also say that not punting runs up the score. They can't have it both ways -- not punting can't be a bad strategy and unstoppable at the same time.

I see Kevin Kelley subscribes to the "Gregg Easterbrook of Faulty Logic." Kevin Kelley is creating two polar opposite points of view with no middle ground in an effort to prove his point. This isn't a black-and-white issue where one side says punting causes you to lose games and the other side says not punting is unstoppable. There is a middle ground. The "punting isn't bad" crowd just doesn't think a team should blindly go for it on every fourth down. So therefore, once Pulaski is up 40-0, not punting can be seen as running up the score. It's been shown Pulaski is superior to their opponent at that point. So Kelley's logic fails in that the critics aren't saying punting will cause a team to lose if they are up 40-0, they are saying in a 14-13 game blindly going for it on fourth-and-10 could cause them to lose the game.  Once a team is up 40-0 is it clear they are the superior team, so continuing to not punt can be seen as running up the score. Once Pulaski's offense has proven to be unstoppable, then not punting becomes unstoppable.

Thus the kind of running up the score behavior that is objectionable in high school and college is not at the NFL level. But it's stupid! Leaving starters in the game at risk of injury, when holding an insurmountable late lead, is really dumb. Why does Bill Belichick, seemingly a master, expose starters to risk when there is nothing to be gained? 

As has been pointed out several times over the last week, most NFL teams don't have backup PAT blockers and use starters in those spots. It's very normal for an NFL team to do this and injuries rarely occur on a PAT.

In 2011, the Whizzies used the sixth pick of the draft on Jan Vesely, whom Washington general manager Ernie Grunfeld said was "a scoring machine." Vesely averaged five points per game in Europe, and has been rippling the nets for a 2.6-point average in the NBA. In one recent Wizards contest, the scoring machine recorded zero points, assists or steals -- but four personal fouls.

This one game sample when Vesely is 22 years old proves he will suck forever.

Hidden Play of the Week: Hidden plays are ones that never make highlight reels, but stop or sustain drives. Seattle leading 14-7 in the fourth quarter at Miami, the Marine Mammals had possession on the Bluish Men Group 7, and threw an interception. Seattle safety Earl Thomas was called for roughing the passer. Regaining the ball, Miami scored a touchdown on the next snap, and went on to win by three points. 

I'm not doing my typical, "Because a play doesn't appear in a 60 second highlight doesn't mean it wasn't important" rant. It's just common sense at this point anyway. This play ended up being the difference in the game since the Dolphins scored a touchdown on this drive, they later won by three points and this was a fairly controversial call in that Earl Thomas didn't necessarily rough the passer. I don't think it was hidden at all. 

This year's big trend in college football continues to be putting the best athletes on offense for pass-wacky scoring. The Oklahoma-Oklahoma State contest ended 51-48 with the teams combining for 801 passing yards versus 307 rushing yards. Calling plays at the line in quick tempo, Oklahoma snapped 101 times in regulation; Sunday against the Packers, the Giants snapped 62 times. The University of Tennessee finished its season averaging 36 points per game, and with a losing record. In today's college football, 36 points a game just is not enough!

This from a guy who just got done fawning over a high school coach whose team scored 56 and 77 points and just had -13 yards rushing in a game, simply because he refuses to punt the football. It seems Gregg pick and chooses when he comments on a team for being too "pass-wacky."

Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far: San Diego appeared to have Baltimore beaten, trailing and facing fourth-and-29 as the clock ticks down. Ray Rice takes the flare pass, is hemmed in by multiple Bolts defenders -- Demorrio Williams, Corey Lynch, Takeo Spikes, Marcus Gilchrist among them. None makes much of an effort to tackle Rice, acting as though the game was already over.

Doesn't Gregg mean "highly paid glory boy" Ray Rice is the one who got the first down?

Next Week: TMQ uses ELF to warn the submarine on "Last Resort" to rise to periscope depth and check Twitter. 

Just hilarious. I wish every week was a bye week for TMQ. 

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.

2 comments Gene Wojciechowski Thinks Charlie Weis Should Not Be Fired Because Notre Dame Is Like Every Other School

Sorry for the confusing title but I just wanted to get you ready for a confusing article. I am still in disbelief at the conclusion Gene W has reached about Charlie Weis and whether he should be fired or not. I don't want to ruin it so just try and read along. He may be competing with Jemele Hill for the worst reasoning on ESPN's Page 2. It is a tight race. I have never met two people who can read facts that point one way and then come to a bizarrely different conclusion. It has me talking not of sense right now.

Charlie Weis sucks...but let's keep him.

I personally don't care if Weis gets fired, but you can't list reasons why he sucks as a coach and then say Notre Dame should keep him because of some vague and stupid reason. You will all see.

Charlie Weis and his football program are under siege, which is as much Notre Dame's fault as it is his.

Good strong introduction sentence. I love it. It is Notre Dame's fault for hiring Charlie Weis, I completely agree. What usually happens then? The coach gets fired and Notre Dame would then fix their mistake by hiring a good coach. Pretty standard in the real world.

Not in Gene's world though. Gene's world consists of lollipops, poor reasoning, and a cuddly panda bear that hands out fruit to young children and takes grown ups in hot air balloon rides around the sun.

Charlie Weis can't fire Notre Dame and he certainly is not going to quit, so to fix this mistake, there is but one conclusion. Fire Weis. There is a problem, the coach is the problem, Notre Dame needs its "mystique" back, the coach will not do that, so we fire the coach. Seems easy to me.

If Notre Dame football were a blood-pressure reading, the nurse would jot down 40 over 20 -- barely a pulse.

If you have to explain the joke at the end...the joke bombed/never should have been included. Gene is trying to appeal to the all important RN/Doctor market with his jokes now.

"Sounds to me like Notre Dame is circling the drain."

The recent defeat to eight-loss Syracuse (a Notre Dame first) only intensifies the scrutiny of Weis, whose record during the past two seasons is the worst in Notre Dame history.

I am not a Notre Dame fan but this all seems to head to the same conclusion. Can the coach. Or in Charlie Weis' case, barrel the coach...see, because he is fat and can't fit in a can, you would have to use a barrel...because he is fat.

It won't get any better this Saturday, when the Fighting Irish lose their seventh consecutive game against longtime rival USC and finish the regular season at a forgettable 6-6.

6-6 is better than last year and everyone loses to USC, these are not very relevant points in a discussion as to why Weis should be fired. For Notre Dame 6-6 does stink though.

That's another thing. Notre Dame followers are now conditioned to lose to USC. They expect the annual beatdown, which makes sense, I guess. Since Weis' arrival in 2005, the USC margin of victory has grown from three points to 20 to 38 to who knows how much this time as the Trojans try to earn style points for the ridiculous BCS beauty pageant.

I am currently conditioned to have my favorite teams lose to some other teams. It doesn't make it right and it does piss me off but there is not a whole lot you can do about it until the team that is getting its ass kicked decides this is going to stop. Notre Dame sort of decided to have the ass kicking continue by keeping Charlie Weis.

It also happens Notre Dame's downfall has come at the same time as the rise of USC football, so I would expect the margin of victory to get bigger and bigger...until Notre Dame gets a better team/coach.

The sense of doom reveals much about the state of Weis' program. But mostly it reveals why Notre Dame is no different than other football factories.

If this column was a car, Gene was currently driving 65mph on the highway until this point and just now threw the car in reverse. In other words, this was a rapid change of subject.

In a bizarre bit of symmetry, the very reason for Weis' hiring -- Tyrone Willingham's firing after just three seasons -- is why Fighting Irish fans, boosters, power brokers and maybe even school officials now feel empowered to call for Weis' dismissal.

Only symmetry in the fact both coaches had bad records as the head coach of Notre Dame's football team. It is actually a very similar situation when two coaches suck at a different school, in most cases the university would feel the need to fire both coaches for the same reasons. It actually makes sense, even if that sentence I just wrote sort of did not.

It's why Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick had to recently issue a vote of confidence for a head coach he didn't hire.

What the hell is he going to do? Call up the old athletic director and ask him his opinion on Charlie Weis and whether he should get a vote of confidence?

(Jack Swarbrick) "Hey Bob, it's Jack here at Notre Dame, the guy who replaced you as AD. Can you give me a vote of confidence for Charlie Weis?"

(Bob- fictional ex-Notre Dame AD) "You backstabbed me and got hired for the position. Go fuck yourself. I am glad I got you in a shit position."

(Jack) "Traditionally, Notre Dame people don't act like this. Just give him a vote of confidence."

(Bob hanging up the phone)

(Jack) "I guess I will give the vote of confidence, but I don't want to confuse Gene Wojciechowski."

By ridding themselves of Willingham, who just happened to be the school's first African-American head coach, Jenkins & Co. ended the very thing that differentiated Notre Dame from everyone else: a five-year commitment to its coach.

This "commitment" is pretty short sighted. If you have a crappy coach what is the point of wasting everyone's time, money, and college eligibility keeping that coach around? This "commitment" is pretty easy to commit to you when you have a coach that is actually good at his job. When you find a shitty coach, lose the commitment, and change the direction of the program.

That commitment represented the very best of Notre Dame.

It also represented the fact it is easy to do this when the pre-Daffy Duck Lou Holtz is your coach.

It was a mistake to fire him then, just as it would be a mistake to fire Weis now.

Why is it a mistake if both coaches were not meeting the Notre Dame standard and getting their ass kicked by USC? Gene just spent the first half of the column indicating Weis had to go because of all the trouble the program was having with winning. Now he is saying don't fire Weis because of some stupid ass "commitment" to a five year contract.

Good journalism meet Gene Wojciechowski. (Gene pushes good journalism out of the cuddly panda's hot air balloon into the sun.)

Money isn't the issue.

Then fire Weis.

And if they did, the school would soon have its fifth different coach (Bob Davie, O'Leary, Willingham, Weis, the new guy) in the past nine years. You expect that out of Alabama, not Notre Dame.

Gosh, changing coaches a lot seemed to work out really well for Alabama, huh? They are the #1 ranked team in the country and barring an upset-ish game in the SEC Championship, will be playing for the National Championship. Sure it is embarrassing to change coaches every few years but when your team is suddenly good again, it is pretty easy to get over this embarrassment.

Weis is responsible for much of his own discomfort. Those nine losses last season were the most in Notre Dame history. His record after his first three years was almost exactly the same as Willingham's. His celebrated recruiting classes haven't translated to the field yet.

I fucking give up. This is like staying with your girlfriend who is a real pain in the ass because it is embarrassing to be single. Gene lists three great reasons to fire Charlie Weis here but does not want to because of some mythical standard Notre Dame held when they were actually good at football.

So it's amusing to hear the criticism four years later. What made Weis endearing in 2005 makes him unbearable in 2008? Funny how that works.

This happens with everyone and everything. It all depends on the result. When Lou Pinella's teams are winning and he is throwing bases and acting like a five year old, he is just firing up the team. When the team is losing, he is acting like a child.

When Marvin Harrison is quiet and reserved it is because he is a private person who just wants to play football. When Marvin Harrison is quiet and reserved, but has allegedly shot someone, he is secretive and manipulative.

When my favorite football team runs the ball three straight downs and gets first downs, I don't want to have the scattershot QB throw the ball, when they don't get first downs running the ball, I call the coach too conservative and start texting the two friends I have in the world to complain.

People can handle other people's shit when things are going well, but not when things are bad. Consider this a life lesson for Gene.

The worst thing a school can do to a coach is hang him on the clothesline and let him flap in the wind. Vote of confidence or no vote, that's what has happened to Weis.

If they go ahead and fire him, they would have no one to coach this week's game and the bowl game they will be invited to participate in. This will create more instability, it is better to have candidates in mind and fire Weis once the year is over once there are no more football games to be played.

Weis has alienated his share of people at and outside Notre Dame.

So why should he not be fired for this?

He deserves much of the criticism leveled against him, but he doesn't deserve to be fired. Not for this.

Here is a list of things Gene W thinks Charlie Weis should not be fired for:

1. Having a bad football team every year.
2. Losing to USC every year.
3. The team has gotten worse since he started coaching.
4. Having the same record as the coach before him had...who got fired.
5. Recruiting Top 10 recruiting classes and still losing games.
6. Being an asshole to the people at Notre Dame.
7. Being an asshole to the people not at Notre Dame.

Notre Dame lost its football DNA and its inner self when it dismissed Willingham four years ago. It compromised a belief.

Here is a reasons why Gene W thinks Charlie Weis should not be fired:

1. Notre Dame made a mistake in firing its last coach before he could coach one more year, which at that point they probably would have fired him...so they should not repeat this "mistake" and let Weis coach one more year and then fire him.

Win or lose Saturday, it's time for Jenkins and Swarbrick to end the speculation and say Weis will return in 2009 for his fifth season.

How can Gene make a list of great legitimate reasons why Charlie Weis should be fired and then say Weis should not be fired because Notre Dame has traditionally given coaches five years to get a good team? Sure, give someone five years if there is continued progress by the team, but Weis' Notre Dame team has gone from great to horrible back to average with great recruiting classes. What's to stop them from going back to horrible?

Good Catholic people are throwing snowballs at the team for God's sake. Can it get worse?

You say it because it's not only the right thing to do, but because it used to be the Notre Dame thing to do.

Incorrect. You can't do it because it is something Notre Dame used to do when they actually had good coaches. If the Oklahoma offense starts struggling you don't go back to the wishbone offense because that is what used to work back when Barry Switzer coached the team.

So Notre Dame should keep Weis for one more year and then fire him because it is the "Notre Dame thing to do?" You know what else used to be the "Notre Dame thing to do?" WIN FUCKING FOOTBALL GAMES.

Maybe they should fire Charlie Weis and start doing that.