Showing posts with label realignment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label realignment. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

5 comments MMQB Review: Peter King Sets the Trade Market for Sam Bradford Edition

Peter King was shocked by the random and irrational violence of murderers in last week's MMQB. He also previewed the combine, mentioned how many of THE MMQB writers would be at the combine and then seemed confused as to why some people are so combine-nutty. It's almost like the media's focus on the combine has something to do with it. This week Peter talks about the Buccaneers choice at #1 overall, calls Jameis Winston "the most scrutinized draft pick of all-time" which is absolutely ridiculous, tries to drum up a trade market for Sam Bradford (and talks to Jeff Fisher, which is a coincidence both these happen in the same MMQB of course), and finally sheds light on those Duke fans who camp out in line for tickets to basketball games. Why don't these students ever get mentioned by ESPN or any other major sports outlets?

The Most Scrutinized Draft Pick of All Time was on the phone Sunday, a day after the poking and prodding of the NFL combine here, and I asked The Most Scrutinized Draft Pick of All Time if he was ready for the private detectives from multiple teams and intrusive questions and the 30 hours of one-on-one time with one team alone (Tampa Bay GM Jason Licht’s estimate) that he faces in the next 66 days, between now and the first round of the NFL draft.

A couple of things here:

1. Jameis Winston is NOT the most scrutinized draft pick of all-time. Nearly every year there is a draft pick who gets this label. It was Johnny Manziel last year, Tyrann Mathieu and Tim Tebow before him. Even if Peter is joking, it's not funny, because I don't believe Peter is capable of being this self-aware.

2. When asking this question, does Peter think there is any chance that Winston will say, "Nope, I'm not ready at all for all of these questions. Hey Peter, mind if I do some cocaine off a hooker's ass in the back seat of a stolen car?"

“I love it,” Jameis Winston said. “I welcome it. They’re really going to find out the type of person I am. Character is not about what you do when you’re around people. Character is what you show when no one is looking.

Right, so don't judge Winston on stealing crab legs or screaming "Fuck her right in the pussy" while standing on a table, because that was done around other people. That's not what his character is about. His character is about all the shit he does in private when no one is looking. So judge his character on the things you don't know about him because he does them in private and therefore you have absolutely no way of judging his character based on these things.

I'm pretty sure it's "character is what you do when you think no one is looking," but then again, I'm not very good with words. More importantly, those things Winston did that everyone knows about, don't judge him on that. And someone was looking when he was accused of rape, so don't include that either when judging his character. Focus on the things you don't know about Winston in order to judge his character.

I believe if they do a hard, hard investigation into Jameis the person, they will find out that I’m a good guy.”

I already love Jameis Winston by the way. He switches from third person to first person in the same sentence. Bengoodfella loves it when people talk in this type of way. It makes him feel good and that's why I like Jameis Winston.

The answer came back thusly from I’d say about 80 percent of the NFL cognoscenti who had an opinion or some insight on the subject: Tampa’s taking Jameis. 

It’s too early to be so definitive, of course. And I don’t believe the Bucs have a final answer,

It's the very end of February and there have been zero personal workouts or Pro Days for the draft that is two-and-a-half months away. So Peter King is reporting the Buccaneers HAVEN'T decided who they will be drafting in May? I just don't believe it.

But a Saturday breakfast with the formerly invisible Licht, the most influential football man in the league for the next two months, didn’t do anything to disabuse me of the idea.

At breakfast, Licht ate crab legs and made constant jokes about why there wasn't any duck on the menu because, "We all know ducks are assholes in a fight and you never want a duck on your team." Also, Licht wore an Indian headdress and did the Tomahawk Chop when the waiter brought him a new ice water. The signs that the Buccaneers are taking Winston are there, you just have to pay attention to them really hard.

But last week coach Lovie Smith spoke positively of Winston. And at one point Saturday morning Licht mused about the two possibilities of Winston the person. “Bad guy or immaturity?” Licht said. “I’m leaning toward the latter.”

And by the way, as far as being a quarterback in the NFL goes, being immature is nearly as big of a strike as just being a bad guy is. Immaturity can submarine a quarterback's career just as much as being an asshole can.

You can deal with some immaturity. But seven months of off-field mayhem and bitter consequences for the NFL have put an even bigger spotlight on the risks of taking players with pockmarked résumés.

Some immaturity can be dealt with. The problem is that, and I don't dislike Jameis Winston or hold his college stuff against him, things like shoplifting, accusations of rape, and screaming obscenities in a public place aren't all just typical immature things. They are and they aren't. If these were things that ALL happened 2-3 years ago then maybe it's less of an issue.

Just how bad has it been at quarterback for the Bucs? In their 39 seasons, they’ve never had a quarterback last longer than five seasons as the team’s leading passer. Doug Williams, Vinny Testaverde and Trent Dilfer all spent five years as the starter. Amazing to think the Bucs have never had a true, long-term franchise quarterback in four decades.

Tampa Bay has traditionally not been a very good team. They had three winning seasons from 1976-1997 and nine winning seasons since then. That's 12 winning seasons out of 39 seasons. So it's amazing they haven't had a steady quarterback, but it also makes sense seeing how bad they traditionally have been.

Licht said he has scouted Mariota four times over the past two seasons. Ditto Winston. He said he has seen every college game of each player on tape now. I asked Licht if he could pick out a play from both players that he felt typifies them. He said he couldn’t think of just one for Mariota, because there were many that highlighted his athleticism and passing ability. But then he pulled out his smart phone and said, “If I see a good play I want to keep, I put it on my phone,” he said. “Look at this one from Jameis. I was actually at this game.”

I don't think the Buccaneers have made up their mind yet, (since it's two-and-a-half months before the actual draft occurs) but they are totally leaning towards taking Winston. When Licht can't think of one thing that sticks out about Mariota, that's not necessarily a good sign for him as the #1 overall pick.

“I’ve been lucky in this league in my 20 years. I’ve seen some great ones. I was in Miami starting out when Dan Marino was there. I worked for New England and watched Tom Brady grow. And I’ve been around Donovan McNabb and Kurt Warner. 

One of these things are not like the others.

A year ago Johnny Manziel came to the combine and was quite well-rehearsed. He had off-field issues—nightlife stuff mostly, and being sent home ignominiously from the Manning Passing Academy. Manziel had all the answers down pat, explaining how he was a good person and had reasons (maturity ones) for his mess-ups.

And at the time I made sarcastic comments about how Manziel was changed, because immaturity issues and things like that don't just magically go away once an athlete has the opportunity to get paid to play his sport. These issues temporarily go away in order to achieve a short-term goal, but it takes more than the chance to be drafted to relieve a player of his immaturity.

He didn’t try to hide his confidence. As he told the press on Friday: “This is no competition between just me and Mariota, because one thing about me, I plan on winning the Super Bowl next year so it’s going to be me versus Peyton Manning and Jameis versus Tom Brady. I want to be viewed like that.”

This third person talk is just wonderful. It makes Bengoodfella love Jameis that much more. 

There could be one other sticky thing Winston will have to address with teams. He also was Florida State’s baseball closer, and his two agents, Greg Genske and Kenny Felder, primarily represent baseball players. Genske repped Manny Ramirez for five years. While Winston said often over the weekend he is now a full-time football player, he did equivocate when we spoke Sunday. “Right now I am focusing on football,” Winston said.

Asked if he would ever want to play both sports as a pro, he said: “I can’t speak on that. It always has been my dream, but I’m just playing football right now.”

Oh. Doesn't Jameis know that baseball is dying? Baseball is dying Jameis, GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN!

I see a couple of problems that would preclude this. Tampa Bay is not taking Winston number one if he says, “I’d like to play baseball for three months every year.” Or one month, because of the training time it would take away from football.

Russell Wilson joined the Rangers for spring training last year and plans on doing it again this year. Winston could easily do the same thing.

Deion Sanders did it because he was a cornerback, not a quarterback. It’s just too hard to stay on top of being an NFL quarterback to think he could double-dip. Secondly: What team would go down the baseball road—even a team in need of a 95-mph-throwing closer—if the player had to leave the team every year just as the pennant races were heating up?

I don't think this would happen with Winston and it seems like a non-issue. He just said he wanted to play both sports as a dream, but that doesn't mean he plans on doing it right now.

But I don’t see it. Not saying it’s impossible, but I am saying it’s highly unlikely he could, or would, try to play both sports at the same time.

The Rangers drafted Winston in the 15th round coming out of high school. Maybe he and Russell Wilson could attend spring training together and that means zero football writers would care what Winston did because he's with Russell, so what could go wrong?

They’ve left the starting gate, and Winston’s got a couple of lengths on Mariota. Winston got used to playing from behind last year at Florida State. Now he’s got to handle prosperity—and be sure the private eyes don’t find anything.

Jameis, the private eyes are watching you. They do know your every move. Maybe they will judge your character on what they don't see, instead of what they do see.

The announcement that the Raiders and Chargers have bonded to fact-find about a new stadium project in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson is odd enough. But it is driven by the fact that there is a very dangerous game of musical chairs playing in L.A. right now. Three teams for two spots, max. And because the independently wealthy owner of the Rams, Stan Kroenke, already has his own stadium planned in nearby Inglewood, there was pressure on the Chargers and the Raiders to get in the L.A. game, and get in fast.

Extremely wealthy people threatening to move their team only holds my interest in that I feel bad for the fans of the city that may lose their NFL team. Otherwise, wealthy people are going to do what wealthy people are going to do.

But there’s one other question that had a lot of people at the combine buzzing. And that’s the question about two teams from one division partnering on a stadium project—and everything that goes along with that. Three notes on this:

1. If the Raiders and Chargers join forces on this stadium, there would have to be a realignment involving at least two teams. Because Los Angeles is America’s No. 2 television market, it would be impossible for both L.A. teams to be in the same conference. One of these teams would have to move to the NFC so that both Fox and CBS could each have an L.A. franchise in its lineup.

Well, if the Rams move to L.A. then it would make sense for them to just stay where they are in the NFC West. If the Raiders and Chargers move, and the Rams stay where they are, then the NFL should move the Cardinals to the AFC West and either the Raiders or Chargers to the NFC West. Fixed.

2. So who would move? This is all speculation, but I could see Oakland staying in the AFC West and San Diego moving to the NFC West to join a more geographically aligned division. It would be easy for the St. Louis Rams to move to the AFC West because it would mean the Rams and Chiefs would be able to form the kind of cross-state rivalry that could be excellent for both teams, and especially the occasionally attendance-strapped Rams.

Or that could happen. Either way, I feel bad for whichever fan base may lose their NFL team, especially if it ends up being the St. Louis Rams. They would have dealt with mediocrity over the last decade and then get kicked in the balls for not supporting the team enough while Rams' management jerks around without a sense of urgency.

And now, Peter King tries to drum up a trade market for Sam Bradford (who plays for the Rams, who have a connection to Peter in that the son of Peter's agent is the COO of the Rams and Peter shares an agent with Jeff Fisher) in the same way he tried to drum up a free agent market for Alex Mack (who shares an agent with Peter). It's a rumor that came out Friday or Saturday, but how often does Peter address rumors like this in MMQB, especially when neither side has confirmed the rumor?

Could the Rams actually trade star-crossed quarterback Sam Bradford to the desperate Browns? It’s unlikely, and the biggest reason is that Cleveland would almost certainly not want to trade something significant for a quarterback, pay him $14 million in the last year of his rookie contract, and face the prospect of him being a free agent after just one season.

I can't imagine what a team would offer for Bradford that would be enough for the Rams to part ways with him. I think the Rams absolutely need to bring in another starting quarterback option (this was true two years ago also), but would a 5th round pick really be enough to trade Bradford if I'm the Rams? Absolutely not and why would a team give up a 3rd round pick for one season of an injury-prone quarterback making $14 million? I don't see the trade market unless a team gets crazy and dangles a 1st or 2nd round pick. The combination of Bradford being expensive and a starting option for the Rams with the fact he's a free agent after this year makes me think there isn't a market for his services. Of course, that won't stop Peter from trying.

But everything besides that in this story does make sense.

Does it though? Really, does it? It seems like a situation where Bradford is more valuable to the Rams than another team who would try Bradford out for a season and give up a draft pick to do so. Of course, it's not a good draft for quarterbacks. So that probably plays a part too.

The trade could look something like this: The Browns send St. Louis a 2016 draft choice or choices that would be based on how durable Bradford is or how well he plays in 2015, or both.

Much like what happened in the Alex Mack situation where Peter laid out specifically that Marvin Demoff had a way for the Browns to not match any offer sheet a team signed Alex Mack to, this is the part where Peter relays the information from the Rams organization on what it would require to acquire Sam Bradford. If you haven't noticed, I'm very jaded and believe Peter is being used to set the market for Bradford's services.

For example, the Browns could trade a third-round pick that would become a second-round pick if Bradford had 14 starts or more, and would become a first-round pick if Bradford reached certain performance benchmarks. The Rams are almost certainly taking a quarterback high in this draft anyway and could be looking at the last year of Bradford as a Ram.

So, NFL teams, here is the outline of what the Rams would want for Sam Bradford. Straight from Peter King, which came straight from the Rams organization if my cynical mind is correct. 

Given all that, however, Bradford does represent St. Louis’ best chance to win in 2015, so Cleveland would have to pony up a very serious offer for the Rams to even think of it.

This is fucking laughable. Really, Peter is setting the market for Bradford in a way that I don't know he does often for athletes that aren't connected to him in some third-party way. Peter is making it clear the Rams DO NOT want to trade Sam Bradford, so come at them with your highest possible offer and they will think about it. Again, I can't help but think Peter is being used as a mouthpiece to set the market once again. He's communicating to NFL teams on behalf of a player or other NFL team through his MMQB column. That's how it seems to me.

But I can tell you that the Rams would listen if the Browns were serious.

Peter can tell you this because the Rams said to him, "We are serious if other teams want to make offers" while dictating the terms they wanted Peter to get out in the open. Peter has discussed the trade market for other football players in MMQB, but I can't think of another time he has not only:

1. Discussed the trade market with a specific player going to a specific team as a response to an unconfirmed rumor that team may be interested in the player.

2. Set out the specific terms required to acquire said player.

3. Indicated that player's current team doesn't want to trade the player, while indicating the offer must be serious.

4. Then stating that player's current team would listen to the trade offer if it were serious.

Peter is, again, doing leg work for a player or organization has ties to his agent. It's absolutely shameless. It seems this way to me.

I just don’t think the Browns would be unless they had some assurance about Bradford being in Cleveland well into the future if he does play well in 2015.

Which is absolutely the reason they would not do this trade necessarily. It's a rumor and I would be surprised Peter addressed it in this way, but given the overall circumstances it shouldn't surprise me. He's done this shit before. 

The most interesting development recently concerning the 2015 free-agency class is the acknowledgment in Denver that there’s a legitimate chance the Broncos don’t want to pay tight end Julius Thomas fair market value for his services. Thomas’ agent, veteran contract negotiator Frank Bauer, told the Denver Post on Friday that he felt the Broncos were “pushing him away” after Thomas declined the team’s offer of five years and $40 million. I’m not eager to defend or attack the offer, but want to address the effect of what this will mean if the Broncos choose to let Thomas walk.

It means the Broncos may realize that Peyton Manning can make another tight end who doesn't have Thomas' skill look good?

Peyton Manning loves Julius Thomas. I thought that Thomas’ high-ankle sprain midway through the season really helped doom the Denver offensive attack because it took away Manning’s most significant weapon in the intermediate part of the field. Thomas had 24 touchdown catches over the past two seasons. Losing that kind of security blanket for a quarterback, especially one with an arm showing signs of decline, would be a huge blow.

Here's the issue that was discussed a little bit in last week's MMQB regarding Manning taking a pay cut...the Broncos have to do what is right for the Broncos' organization next year and five years from now. Allowing Peyton Manning to dictate which players they keep and don't keep is not a smart policy because Manning may not be in Denver next year or the year after that. Life goes on in Denver after Manning retires. Contracts don't just get ripped up.

Just think: Two of the most important people over Manning’s past two prolific seasons have been offensive coordinator Adam Gase and Julius Thomas. Now both could be gone. Manning hates change. And if Julius Thomas does not return, I can tell you Manning is going to hate that.

Yes, it would suck if the Broncos don't get to re-sign Julius Thomas because they are too busy paying up for one of Manning's other favorite targets, Demaryius Thomas. The issue is really that the Broncos have done a great job surrounding Manning with great offensive weapons and the reality is they can't just keep these players around forever simply because Manning may put on a sad face that he has to work with new players. The Broncos can't pay for Pro Bowl talent at every offensive skill position simply so Peyton Manning doesn't have to deal with a little change.

The Broncos have been very quiet about whatever negotiations are happening to try to convince Manning to take a little less than the $19 million he is scheduled to earn in 2015. I wonder if part of Elway’s sales pitch to Manning will be that if Manning took a little less, then Elway could offer Julius Thomas a little more.

That would be the main point of my sales pitch if I were John Elway. Manning doesn't want change? Make it easier for the Broncos to affect less change.

Three questions with a coach.
Jeff Fisher of the Rams is the co-chairman of the league’s competition committee, which has several major rules issues to take up this winter.

Ah yes, my boy. I would like three questions with Jeff Fisher and I'm sure he wouldn't like the three questions I had to ask him.

What is the best argument against coaches being able to use replay on every type of play, as some coaches, including Bill Belichick, have suggested?
Fisher: “Well, we have a lot of work to do to evaluate that. For the whole game?

HEY! Peter will be the one asking the questions here, buddy. Shut up and just answer the questions. Here's a question Peter has, what do you want Peter to say about Bradford's injury? He needs to add something about Bradford making "good time with his rehab" or something like that if he's going to pump up the trade market for Bradford.

Yes.

Fisher: “So if someone throws a touchdown pass against us to win the game, I’m going to throw the challenge flag. Somebody [committed a holding penalty] out there. Somebody did something. You start there and then go … I mean, I don’t know.

It seems Fisher has a firm grasp over what Peter means, but "I mean, I don't know" isn't exactly a great answer so far to the question. I mean, you know?

Replay was designed to overturn obvious errors. It was never designed to include penalties.

But...it could be designed to include penalties. That's the point of the question Peter is asking. The rules can be changed, or at least consideration to changing the rules can happen, especially from someone with the title "co-chairman of the league's competition committee."

The game is hard to officiate. We’re making strides in that area. If I challenged a holding call and a false start in the first half, I’ve used all my challenges.”

Oh, so every penalty shouldn't be open to being challenged because the officials miss so many damn calls that the head coaches would run out of challenges? Great, that makes sense then.

And more importantly, a head coach would have to strategically consider what calls he wants to challenge as opposed to just blindly challenging every call he thinks is wrong. So "I've used all my challenges in the first half" isn't a good reason to not consider every call as having the opportunity to be challenged.

So the co-chair of the rules committee sounds like he thinks it will be tough to make a change in what everyone was screaming about after the Dez Bryant non-catch in the playoffs. I asked Fisher about the chance of calling a catch a catch as soon as the player possesses the ball with two feet on the ground—without the so-called “making a football move” to finish the process of a catch. “Then,” he said, “you’d be eliminating the defenseless player aspect of the whole thing.”

What? That explanation doesn't make sense to me. What does making a football move have to do with the defenseless player aspect of the whole thing? Defensive players can still tackle opposing offensive players without tackling them by their neck or head.

Jameis Winston was a better quarterback in the second half of games than the first in 2014 at Florida State. You knew that. But although he told me Sunday, “All my interceptions came in the first half of games,” (he was exaggerating, but you get his point) it’s not quite as stark as I’d thought.



Yards Pct. Yards/att. TD-Int
2014: First and Second Quarters 1,926 .628 7.7 14-13
2014: After Halftime 1,981 .682 9.1 11-5

The problem is that in the NFL Winston won't be on a team that has superior talent to nearly every other NFL team, so if he throws all of his interceptions in the first half then he won't have a chance to lead a comeback, because his team will be losing by too many points. Obviously ever throwing an interception isn't ideal, but throwing interceptions in the first half can put his team in a hole.

This Week’s Sign That The Footballpocalypse Is Upon Us:

The number of media members covering the combine has risen 5,300% in the past 15 years.
The math: Approximately 15 to 20 reporters covered the combine in 2000. This weekend, the NFL credentialed 1,071 media members—and turned away quite a few (mostly college media people, who formerly were credentialed) because of space restrictions. Meaning this: For every one reporter who covered the combine in 2000, there were 53 this year.

I still don't understand Peter's fascination with reporting about how popular the combine is when he is the head of a football site that sends nearly their entire staff to the combine and he writes his MMQB about players and how they performed at the combine. Perhaps the combine is more popular in 2015 than it was in 2000 because more media organizations are sending more reporters to cover the combine, so therefore the general public pays more attention to it. It's weird to me that Peter refers to the number of media members covering the combine as the "Footballpocalypse" when he sent most of the MMQB staff to cover the combine. 

My friend Jack Bowers had a bout with the same cancer that killed Stuart Scott, cancer of the appendix, a few years back. After several surgeries, Jack is in a good place and on track to live a long time. But a byproduct of having a brush with a very serious illness was he stopped putting off things he loved to do. He just started doing them. I have been a partner in crime with Jack for a couple of them, including a World Series trip to San Francisco, and he told me a few months ago he wanted to go back to Duke, where he attended school in the ’70s, and see this year’s Duke-North Carolina basketball game at Cameron Indoor Stadium.

It was snowing hard as I walked through Krzyzewskiville, the tent city outside Cameron where students camp out for the privilege of going to this game.

Finally, someone has the guts to discuss Krzyzewskiville and the students who camp out prior to important games in order to attend that game. Why hasn't any other media organization focused on these students? At no point during any telecast of a Duke game does the crowd at Cameron get mentioned, nor does anyone mention the tent city that is Krzyzewskiville. Thank goodness Peter is here to shine a light on a heretofore undocumented group of college students. 

There are byzantine rules about how many people need to stay in the tent, and for how long, and for how many overnights, to keep one’s place in line, and for all 10 people in Tent Three to qualify to get into the game. Suffice to say Fuchs had to sleep outside for 15 overnights in order to get a good standing-room position for a two-hour basketball game.

I talked to Fuchs after the game. He and his friends, upon being admitted to the arena an hour or so before tipoff, chose the front row of the student section across from the North Carolina bench.

The part that doesn't always get talked about is how anyone in the way of students trying to get a place to stand during the game could be bowled over in the mad dash the students make to get in the door and then find the perfect place to watch the game. It's nerve-wracking to watch and I feel like there could be more order to this part of the process.

“Does it bother you at all that you might have done better on these tests if you’d been in the library those nights you were sleeping outside?” I asked.
His answer was perfect, I thought.
Said Fuchs: “It doesn’t bother me nearly as much as it would have if being in the library would have made me miss the game.”

Thank goodness someone has focused on the Cameron Crazies. God knows ESPN certainly didn't do enough of this.




The national baseball reporter, on the hand-written Alex Rodriguez apology for his PED use. Which, it seems, no one was buying. 

Nobody has to buy the apology. If A-Rod didn't make the apology then writers like Jon Heyman would have called for A-Rod to AT LEAST apologize for his actions.




Thank you, Michael. Thank you.

And yet, though 40-yard dash times are overrated Peter still sends his employees to the combine to watch the 40-yard dash times.

On the flip side of this Tweet, the five slowest wide receivers at last year's combine were Christopher Boyd, Jarvis Landry, Josh Stewart, Cody Hoffman, and Ryan Grant.

The five fastest wide receivers at last year's combine were Brandon Cooks, John Brown, Donte Moncrief, Paul Richardson, and Martavis Bryant.

Notice that four of those receivers contributed to their team in their rookie year, but only Jarvis Landy contributed to his team in his rookie year from the slow class. Speed isn't everything, but to continuously throw Anquan Boldin out as the reason why the 40-yard dash is overrated ignores other information that there is some semblance of correlation between a receiver running a faster 40-yard dash and contributing in the NFL. I wouldn't say this correlation is true every year. Still, Kelvin Benjamin and Allen Robinson are the only receivers in the bottom-10 of 40-yard dash times from last year that contributed to their team. Odell Beckham and Sammy Watkins were in the top-10 of 40-yard dash times as well during last year's combine. So a receiver showing speed in the 40-yard dash does have some meaning.

Ten Things I Think I Think

2. I think the most important workout on the horizon is an early one. Marcus Mariota’s pro day is March 12 in Eugene, and I talked to a couple of teams at the combine who will be watching to see how he does the kind of mundane things he didn’t do much in college. 

Mundane things like doing dishes, fixing his own dinner and paying bills?

Notably, dropping back, staying in the pocket and throwing from a stationary position. One of the other things Mariota’s been working on is the simple calling of plays in the huddle. In college Mariota didn’t huddle much, didn’t take the snap under center much and didn’t have a lot of power to change things at the line. All that is about to change, and how quickly he adapts will be vital to his early success as a pro.

Quite a few college quarterbacks are coming out of college not having a lot of experience doing these things. It doesn't mean they can't learn, but taking a snap under center and huddling are two really important parts of being an NFL quarterback.

4. I think teams that pick after six in the first round but like Mariota could finally give Washington a lucky personnel break. Washington, of course, traded half the western world to move up four spots in 2011 to get Robert Griffin III,

And this trade is the one that, of course, propelled the Rams to the heights that team is now seeing.

But now Washington picks five, and if Mariota generates the kind of interest he should, maybe St. Louis (picking 10th), Cleveland (12th) or even Chip Kelly’s Eagles (20th) would move up for him. God knows Kelly would want the quarterback he recruited to Oregon. If Washington could recoup an extra first-round pick, or a high two at least, new GM Scot McCloughan would be smart to consider moving down five spots or so.

Yes, I guess he would be smart to do that. I don't know if Peter is trying to set up the compensation the Rams would offer to move up and get Mariota by stating it would require an extra first or second round pick to move up five spots (which is what the Rams would have to do), but I definitely think it would require more than that to get the Redskins to move back 15 spots in order to allow Chip Kelly the chance to get Mariota. It would take more than another first round pick to get me to move back 15 spots personally.

5. I think the Pro Football Hall of Fame is not inclined to rewrite its bylaws to include a morals clause, which could get some attention this year with Darren Sharper (accused of being a serial rapist) being eligible for the Hall for the first time. As I suspected, the Hall thinks the slope is too slippery to begin judging players on acts that happened off the field, and after their careers ended.

I do agree that the slope is a little slippery and there should be a Pro Football Hall of Fame vote system based solely on a player's production on the field. Still, Peter's "I'm going to quit voting if Darren Sharper isn't considered" stance seems very, very strong to me regardless of what Peter thinks the Hall of Fame is or is not inclined to do. I'm still not over the way he caped up for Sharper like that. The rules are the rules, but to say he would quit? That seems drastic to me.

8. I think I love Dorial Green-Beckham or Todd Gurley to Seattle at number 31 in the first round. Green-Beckham’s the receiver who got kicked off Missouri’s team for marijuana violations, and Gurley is coming back from the ACL tear. Seattle can afford to take chances because of the bedrock of talent on the roster.

Me from last week's MMQB: 

Also, I think the Seahawks will probably be linked to Green-Beckham too, because after all (says the media) they dealt with Marshawn Lynch so Green-Beckham wouldn't be so hard to deal with. Pete Carroll is a player's coach, he'll get through to Green-Beckham.

The predictability of the media, specifically Peter King in this case, is absolutely laughable. They link "problem players" to teams that are successful because those teams have so much talent and such a strong coaching staff. Because a guy like Percy Harvin worked so well in Seattle, I can see how Dorial Green-Beckham would work out as well. I can't wait for Peter to link Green-Beckham to possibly the Cardinals, Ravens (though he would be surprised if they had interest since they just got done with the Ray Rice issue), Patriots and Colts. Those teams can handle a talent like Green-Beckham, because they are successful and success cures everything.

Peter is so predictable.

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

b. Tremendous job by Academy Award winner Julianne Moore (as the victim) and Kristen Stewart (as her wiseass daughter and, ultimately, savior) in “Still Alice,” the movie about a brilliant college professor and early-onset Alzheimer’s patient...I never saw any of those vampire movies that Stewart was in, but she is one great performer.

They were called "Twilight" and it would have taken five seconds to look this up as opposed to referring to them as "those vampire movies that Stewart was in." For a guy who tells his readers to "Google that" from time-to-time when discussing something he doesn't think his readers will understand, Peter sure doesn't like to take his own advice. Speaking of not taking his own advice...

And I haven’t seen enough of the nominated movies to know if Moore deserved the Oscar for best actress,

Which means Peter King is about to make a comment indicating that Julianne Moore deserved the Oscar for best actress. Once Peter says he doesn't know if he can do something, rest assured the next thing he will do is that something he said that he wasn't sure he could do.

but if someone beats her it’ll have to be with the acting job of a lifetime.

There we go. And by the way, usually when someone gets an Oscar nomination then they are getting that nomination for the acting job of a lifetime. So if someone had beaten Moore, then winning the Oscar over Moore would have been a victory indicating that actress had performed the acting job of a lifetime.

c. Coffeenerdness: Too many Starbucks are careless with the milk in the Flat White, I’m finding. It’s whole milk, not 2 percent.

God, you are the worst. I wish Peter King had to work as a barista for a month just to see what a pain in the ass it is to deal with people like himself. Yes, "getting careless with the milk" as if using whole milk and not 2% milk is a mistake that will result in the death of thousands. By the way, the guy who accuses baristas of getting careless with the milk is someone who used a source this past summer that was 100% wrong about what happened in the room when Goodell interviewed Ray Rice about his domestic violence incident. Peter apologized and moved on, but I find it interesting that Peter is going to accuse anyone of being careless in their job for the next 10 years.

Only a true coffeenerd would understand the difference.

Only a true coffeenerd haughty, self-important dipshit would understand the difference. There, it's fixed.

d. Beernerdness: While in Durham, we dined at a local place with only one beer: Torch Pilsner, of Foothills Brewing in Winston-Salem. What a terrific beer. Much more bite and flavor than a usual pilsner. Highly recommended.

(Bengoodfella checks the rating he gave this beer on Untapped...dammit, we agree!)

f. Haven’t been as cold as I was Friday and Saturday mornings at the combine. It was so cold that you didn’t stop and talk to anyone on the street. Just exchanged quick hellos.

Only in New York. Wait, this didn't happen in New York, but happened in Indianapolis? Peter's world is spinning.

g. Stopped in the Nike Suite at the combine. Big companies that serve players and agents and coaches have these big areas with food and drink and perks for Combinees. Now here’s something I never saw before: The Nike Suite had two barbers cutting hair (not mine) and pampering people. That was cool.

Peter has never seen barbers cutting hair and pampering people? Doesn't Peter visit Sports Clips? I feel like he was the target market when they invented the MVP Experience.

Adieu Haiku
Combine ends today. Indy’s pub owners are sad.
Football folks can drink.


Well done! This haiku is amazingly less interesting and even more pointless than the one Peter created last week. 

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

10 comments Jim Bowden Has Some Realignment Ideas To Share With Us

Every baseball season MLB starts to float the idea of realignment as sort of a testing the waters and saying, "Hey, does anyone have any feedback they'd like to give about this," while providing few specifics on what type of realignment would exactly occur. Baseball writers, even guys like me, start to jump on this idea. Without specifics, this leaves baseball writers with the idea of creating the new divisions and realignment themselves, which is always a dangerous situation. You never know what these suggestions will entail and which teams will be moved around, but there are two general rules I have noticed:

1. The Red Sox-Yankees will still be in the same division. Always.
2. The realignment usually evens out to 15 teams in the National and American League.

Jim Bowden has some ideas about realignment which not surprisingly stays true to these two rules, but he adds his own geographic twist to it as well. All together, a geographic realignment isn't the worst idea I have read, but I'm not sure how I like the fact the divisions are put together purely for rivalry reasons while breaking up other minor rivalries. Thanks to Martin for putting the link to this article in the comments. I felt like I had to cover the entire blog post/article by Bowden.

With Major League Baseball and the Players Association considering some form of realignment,

This happens nearly every baseball season, the owners and players considering realignment. I feel similar to this situation as I feel about the NFL lockout. Update me when you actually have an idea, rather than using the press as a way to float the possibility of an idea. In this article linked by Jim Bowden, here are the quotes that show both sides are considering realignment.

According to a highly ranked executive, one consideration that has been raised in ownership committee meetings is eliminating the divisions altogether, so that 15 AL and 15 NL teams would vie for five playoff spots within each league.

I'm not completely sure I would be against this. It is an interesting idea and depending on how MLB decided to design the season schedule I think this idea could work. If the schedule involves 20 Mets-Phillies games, compared to 10 Mets-Padres games then I may not like this idea as much. The schedule has to be balanced in some fashion.

A source who has been briefed on the specifics of the labor discussions says that the players' union has indicated that it is open to the idea of two 15-team leagues, but that the whole plan still hasn't been talked through or presented to the owners.

Sources say the talks are serious,

How can we call any talks serious until the idea has officially been presented to the owners? No idea will go through without the approval of the owners, so nothing can be serious until they have at least officially heard the idea.

and while one executive believes the odds of change are less than 50-50, another says this is the type of discussion that can gather momentum and become a reality.

So in summation (and this is why I wish we as a public would get updated when there is an actual idea):

1. There may be realignment.
2. There are serious talks about realigning the National and American League.
3. The owners haven't officially heard the proposal for realignment yet.
4. The odds are against there being realignment...but there could be at some point in the future...but not now probably...but it could happen.

So there's no real idea, even if there was an idea it hasn't been presented to the owners yet, even if it had been presented to the owners it probably wouldn't pass, but it could pass in the distant-not-too-distant future..................so you're telling me there's a chance?

A sticking point involves interleague play. Because of the odd number of teams in each league, it is possible that a team in contention late in the season will have to be playing its final games in interleague play.

That would be terrible! How could this happen? We wouldn't want a division winner to be decided based on two teams from different leagues playing each other during the final games of the season. Deciding which team gets homefield advantage in the World Series based on an exhibition game is perfectly fine of course. That makes sense...but having the final games of a season be interleague games is just unimaginable.

"There are still a lot of details that would have to be discussed," one source said.

Which is why this is the typical summer realignment discussion that doesn't ever appear to go anywhere. When it may actually end up happening, notify me then.

So that's the background on why Jim Bowden wrote his realignment idea blog post. It goes slightly downhill from here when it gets to Bowden's playoff structure idea, where he fails to realize an odd number of teams moving to the second round could create problems.

I would suggest geographic realignment, with six divisions of five teams each.

Geographic realignment? Sounds like a great idea then and it doesn't at all sound random. What happens if the Florida Marlins move to Los Angeles or Nebraska? What happens if two big rivals aren't in the same geographic area? For example, the Reds and Cardinals are in different divisions in Bowden's realignment suggestion. They don't get to be rivals anymore?

This, of course, would include the eradication of the American and National Leagues, as we know them, as well as the designated hitter rule.

So why would it get rid of the designated hitter rule again? Couldn't this realignment idea just as well have the designated hitter rule instituted throughout the majors? I don't like the DH that much, but I don't get why this realignment means the DH automatically goes away. There is still a National and American Lea---check that "Conference," (because apparently leaving the word "League" wouldn't represent enough change and there would now be a "National Conference" and an "American Conference"...which would ensure both leagues sound like they are just large business meetings) so why would the DH go away?

In "old school" terms, I realize my proposal would be considered radical, but here are my recommendations:

AMERICAN CONFERENCE NATIONAL CONFERENCE

Eastern Division

Boston Red Sox

Southeast Division

Atlanta Braves
New York Mets Baltimore Orioles
New York Yankees Florida Marlins
Philadelphia Phillies Tampa Bay Rays
Toronto Blue Jays Washington Nationals

Central Division

Western Division

Cincinnati Reds

Arizona Diamondbacks
Cleveland Indians Colorado Rockies
Detroit Tigers Houston Astros
Minnesota Twins Seattle Mariners
Pittsburgh Pirates Texas Rangers

Midwest Division

California Division

Chicago White Sox

Los Angeles Dodgers
Kansas City Royals Oakland Athletics
Milwaukee Brewers San Diego Padres
St. Louis Cardinals San Francisco Giants

My first observation is about these division names...are these serious?

The "California Division?"

"Southeast Division" with a team in Baltimore and Washington? I know the names of divisions aren't ever going to properly represent the location of the teams in that division, but if the entire point of the geographic realignment is to put teams in the same area together, shouldn't the name of that division also accurately reflect where those teams are located?

What the hell is the difference in the "Midwest Division" and the "Central Division?" Shouldn't we put Toronto in the "Canada Division?"

Here are my nit-picky problems with this realignment division by division:

Eastern Division: We are going to put the Phillies, Yankees and Red Sox in the same division? I know there has to be long-term thought put into this, so long-term these may not be three of the most dominant teams in baseball, but this seems like an overloaded division. I would imagine Toronto wouldn't be pleased at having four of the highest spending teams in their division. Also, other than the Yankees, why would it make sense to take the Mets away from all of their rivals? I enjoy watching the Phillies and Braves play the Mets.

Central Division: Pittsburgh is not "central" geographically. Not even close.

Midwest Division: Other than the separation of the Cardinals and White Sox from their current rivals, it doesn't seem so bad. This sort of gets to the heart of what geographic alignment is about. It is about essentially fostering local rivalries more than anything else, even at the expense of rivalries that are more regional than necessarily local (i.e. White Sox v. Tigers). I feel like this geographic realignment focuses too much on certain rivalries and just hopes other teams in the division will develop rivalries based on the fact they are located close to each other.

Southeast Division: Other than the fact my Braves team would be losing nearly all of their current rivals to the "American Conference," (Mets, Phillies) I am still concerned about Baltimore and Washington being in the Southeast. If we are going to do this geographically, at least change the name of the divisions to reflect this accurately. I'm sorry, as a Braves fan I don't want to be in a division with the Orioles, Rays, Marlins and Nationals. No fucking thank you. Another interesting part of the way this division is aligned is the subject of attendance at games. This division contains the teams that are 15th, 21st, 25th, 29th, and 30th in home attendance. That doesn't bode well when no team in the division seems to be a draw.

Western Division: This isn't the "California Division," of course. The teams in that division are all in California. These are teams that are solidly in the West, like the Houston Astros and Texas Rangers. This division is essentially put together just so the Rangers and Astros can have rivalry games. Which apparently is all that matters because adding Seattle to this division to play the Diamondbacks, Astros and Rockies doesn't make sense because the Mariners don't have much of a rivalry with these teams since they aren't located in geographic proximity to them nor are they even currently in the same league as these three National League teams.

California Division: See, these teams are all in California. That's why it is called the California Division. Other than the name, I don't have a huge issue with this realignment. Maybe some of these teams wouldn't leave the state of California for an entire month while Seattle will have to travel to Texas to play, but this realignment is all about geography so the amount of travel isn't something Jim Bowden is worried about.

Geographic rivalries would increase attendance, revenue and excitement in the region where each team is located.

It would increase those things in divisions where there are geographic rivalries and between the teams that are rivals. I guarantee you in certain divisions revenue and excitement would be decreased. I am thinking selfishly of the Southeast Division where the Braves are in the same division as three teams that have been in their respective cities for less than two decades. I can't speak for all Braves fans, but I would hate being in this division.

For example, the following series -- Reds-Indians,

I'll give you Reds-Indians, but what about Indians-Pirates, Tigers-Reds, Reds-Twins? Are those big draws?

Orioles-Nationals,

We already have Braves-Nationals/Marlins and those are not well-attended games. How about Orioles-Rays, Braves-Rays? You get my point. Would they be well-attended? I just don't know if well-attended interleague games are a reason to change the divisions around. We could be trading one well-attended series for other series that are question marks.

That's all nitpicking, here is the REAL problem with Bowden's expansion idea. He has an idea on how to do the playoffs as well.

Along with geographic realignment, my proposal would call for expanded playoffs that would increase the number of teams making the postseason from eight to 12.

Would every round, including the World Series, be a one-game playoff? Would the 12 teams that made the playoffs be shuffled around to play each other, not based on each team's record, but geographic area? We could be guaranteed a Yankees-Red Sox playoff nearly every year! Is there anything better than that?

In each conference, the three division winners and the three teams with the next-best records would be postseason-bound.

A playoff system where the three winners of the previous series move on to the next round. What could go wrong? Other than it is impossible, outside of a round robin tournament, for three teams to play and determine which of those teams make the World Series. One team would have to have a bye in the second round of the playoffs. That's not good.

The division winner with the conference's best record, the No. 1 seed, would play the No. 6 seed; the team with the second-best record, the No. 2 seed, would play the No. 5 seed, etc. The first round of the playoffs would be a best-of-five series.

Right now, this doesn't sound terrible. Outside of the whole "how are three teams going to advance to the next round problem," of which I eagerly await a resolution.

Spoiler alert: I won't get a solution. Nothing is given. These are the people ESPN hires to discuss baseball on their web site.

The next rounds would be best-of-seven series.

Revolutionary.

The regular season would begin around March 24, which would shorten spring training. During the first few weeks of the regular season, the games would be played in the National Conference,

I'm sorry, did we ever decide which hotel we were having this National Conference at? What are some of the available programs available at the National Conference?

where the weather is normally dryer and warmer, resulting in fewer rainouts and postponements.

I'm glad Jim Bowden is working hard to resolve the huge issue we have been having with snow postponements and rain-outs. I thought there would never be a person bold enough to investigate this non-issue, but I guess I underestimated Jim Bowden. I've always argued doubleheaders and snow are not ruining baseball, it's good to see someone willing to adjust the entire playing schedule to fix a non-issue like this.

Basketball and hockey have 16 playoff teams, so there is no reason Major League Baseball can’t increase its postseason teams from eight to 12.

Good point other than the basketball and hockey playoffs are fucking interminable and I am ready for them to end in late May, but they don't. Other than the fact I feel this way, this is a great idea. Maybe I have a short attention span, but I don't need the MLB playoffs to be too much longer. It's unavoidable if another layer of the playoffs is added, so I will have to accept this.

This would create more pennant races and more excitement in more cities come September.

I'm not a traditionalist when it comes to baseball. I am also not closed-minded enough to think more pennant races is a bad thing. Still, for some reason I have an issue with creating more playoffs teams, not because there are still qualified teams who get left out, but because it will create excitement in more cities during September. It is like a band writing two slow songs on their album just because it will cause their album to sell better. If the slow songs (teams) are good enough to make the album (playoffs) that's fine, but don't put them on the album (playoffs) unless they are really good enough. Otherwise you are forsaking quality for mass appeal.

It probably is true if the playoffs were expanding there would be more interest in cities during September, but I don't know if this would result in better ratings on television or during the playoffs. I am not sure I like the idea of the inclusion of more teams just to appeal to more people in more cities. The NFL has 12 playoff teams and that seems to work out well for them, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad. I am opposed to a playoff solution that results in playoff games that aren't competitive and any more than 12 teams would probably go that direction in my mind.

Baseball’s present proposal is to increase the playoff teams from eight to 10, by adding a second wild-card team. The problem with that concept is that the division winners would have to sit and wait for the wild-card series to end.

Because first round byes are just stupid? How the hell can Jim Bowden explain his 6 team playoff idea where there are 3 teams that move on to the next round? So a second round bye is perfectly fine, but a first round bye creates a problem?

In baseball, timing is important, and sitting and waiting is a detriment for both hitters and pitchers.

YOU, JIM BOWDEN, HAVE CREATED A PLAYOFF SYSTEM WHERE THERE ARE THREE TEAMS IN EACH CONFERENCE ADVANCING! HOW WILL ONE OF THESE TEAMS NOT GET A BYE?

Is it okay to sit and wait during the second round, but not the first round?

The other problem with the current proposal is that the wild-card series would either be a single game or a best-of-three, lessening the chances of the best team moving on.

Agreed when it comes to a one game playoff, but disagree when it comes to a three game playoff. I that would be a somewhat fair system, especially if the "best team" gets homefield advantage in all three games or something similar to this.

And if it takes the weekend before the end of the regular season to clinch a playoff spot, a team's rotation might not be set up to give it a legitimate chance to win a short series.

Who gives a shit? Baseball is a team game. One of my biggest problems with the MLB playoffs is there is too much time between games. Some teams don't even have to use their 4th starter if they don't want to. I don't care if a team's rotation is "set up" or not. This is a time when a manager actually does some managing in order to decide how he wants his pitching staff used. He has to do this during the regular season due to injuries and other variables like that, why can't he do it during the postseason too?

If the Cardinals use Chris Carpenter to clinch a playoff berth then that was their decision. If it results in Jake Westbrook or Kyle Lohse having to start Game 1 then that is the decision that was made by Tony LaRussa. It is a decision that would need to be made by the manager. I just don't either care or have sympathy for teams that would whine they used their best pitchers to win the division so they need more time to "set" their rotation.

The time has come for baseball to go beyond moving just one team to a new league and to discuss a realignment plan that makes sense geographically

Or somewhat makes sense geographically. Maybe I am the only one who thinks Pittsburgh shouldn't be in the Central division under a "geographically correct" alignment plan. Yes, I realize the Pirates are currently in the Central, but the current divisional alignments don't make sense geographically. It is also impossible to do an entire alignment plan that makes sense geographically and not put Seattle with any of the California teams.

and is in sync with the plan to expand the playoffs.

How about this playoff plan, one that isn't overly complicated:

Move one National League team to the American League. Put the Houston Astros in the AL West. They can compete in a rivalry with the Rangers, so they will have a rival since that appears to be hugely important. The regular season will go on as it currently does or be cut to 154 games, which I wouldn't be opposed to.

Expand the playoffs to 12 teams with a three game playoff between the #3 and #6 teams and #4 and #5 teams in each league. The three game playoff will begin with a one day rest after the regular season and then the series will start with the teams having zero off days and all three games will take place at the higher ranked teams field (it can go 1-1-1, but no off days still).

That way the #1 and #2 seeds can set their rotation (since this is important and they have earned it), which they deserved to be able to do based on their record over the 162 game season, and they don't get a long time off to prevent them from forgetting how to play baseball. This apparently is a problem because teams need rest, but not too much rest to get rust. It seems like it is a delicate balance.

The winner of the three game playoff series goes on to play the #1 and #2 seeds. The #1 seed will play the lower ranked team that advances and the #2 seed will play the higher ranked seed team that advances. This is a five game series.

The next two rounds (ALCS/NLCS and World Series) will be seven game series. Great, sounds good.

I look forward to your thoughts and opinions.

Here's a thought. How are you going to resolve three teams moving on to the next round? Give one of the teams a bye? Didn't Jim Bowden just say teams shouldn't get a first round by because it messes up their timing? Shouldn't this pertain to the second round as well?

Here's an opinion. I don't hate the geographic realignment idea, but I don't think it should be done purely to cultivate the rivalries that already exist. Part of what makes the rivalries exist and makes them exciting is some of these teams don't play 20 games against each other during the year. If the Rangers-Astros played each other 20 times there is no guarantee it would turn into a Red Sox-Yankees type rivalry. I don't dislike the way the divisions are aligned now and I think if a more geographic alignment were done it would tear apart some current rivalries and try to force current interleague rivalries that may end up not existing (Marlins-Rays). I am in favor of realignment, but I don't know if teams need to be moved around in the divisions drastically.

Friday, April 23, 2010

17 comments Jay Mariotti Hates Baseball and I Don't Like Him

Ok, so my mock draft started out well and then became a complete disaster. I know it is currently the middle of the NFL Draft, or at least the first day after the first day of the draft, so the NFL is on our minds, but let's talk a little baseball today. Once all the picks are in I feel like I can talk the NFL Draft a little bit more. Since it takes an entire 3 day weekend to get through the NFL Draft now, we have to wait to make decisions on how teams do. So the draft is broken up and I can't just give my impressions of the draft because it takes three damn days for the thing to end. Don't worry (though you aren't), I will give my impressions of the draft, I just like for it to end first.

Today, Jay Mariotti decides that he hates baseball and so he imagines problems for baseball that aren't exclusive to that sport.

First, I wanted to thank Joe Sheehan. Thank you. He has written an article that should shut up all the realignment talk in MLB that has pervaded the world of late. I saw the article and thought I was going to have to take on Sheehan since I assumed he (like many others) would be in favor of realignment, but fortunately he has written beautifully and correctly against realignment. Not to pat myself on the back, but what he says sounds a little similar to what I wrote last week.

What I'm describing is what the MLB playoff picture would look like if baseball was like the NFL, with 16 games in a season and 12 postseason berths. (The NFL advanced six teams per conference in a three-division structure with 28, then 30, teams from 1990 through 2002, before moving to the current four-division-per-conference setup.) Every team in baseball has played 13, 14 or 15 games, putting us at a comparable point to Week 16 of the NFL season, with two games left. And as is often the case in the NFL, there's little separation among them at this point.

I made the very nearly same point in my post last Tuesday about why realignment is stupid and the whining about the competitive balance of baseball being way off. It's simply not true.

From Selig's injection of the term into collective bargaining to the cries of media who have never grasped the economics of sports to the relentless praise of the NFL by its partners, competitive balance has been cited as one of pro football's biggest advantages over baseball. Every team has a chance to win in football, every season allows more teams to contend, no teams start the season without "hope and faith," and rarely are teams locked into postseason berths when camps break.

I wish I had written this exact article last Tuesday now. It's simply a case of small sample sizes making the NFL look a lot better than it truly should look in terms of competitive balance. If the NFL played 32 games, think of how far ahead the Saints, Cardinals, and Colts would have been from their nearest rival in their own division. They probably would have blown the nearest team away in the standings. That's three of the eight divisions that would have been blowouts.

That balance, however, is merely an illusion created by the structure of the two leagues. The NFL never has baseball's September, never sees half the league playing out the string over the final sixth of the schedule, because when you play 16 games, you simply cannot get that kind of separation.

This is absolutely true. It's boring to agree with writers, I realize this, so forgive me. It's a numbers game in the NFL though. There aren't enough games for the division races to get that wide open, like what happens in baseball. I don't see it as a fault of baseball, but more an advantage/disadvantage of the NFL 16 game schedule.

Here's the disadvantage of the NFL and it's "parity." One injury to a player or an ineffective player can effectively ruin an entire team's season. A three game losing streak can ruin a team's season. It's what makes the NFL exciting, but it also is a disadvantage in that the true "best" teams don't always make the playoffs every year. The NFL schedule also plays a big part in whether a team is successful or not, because a quality team with an easier schedule will make the playoffs (most likely) over a quality team with a tougher schedule. Why does one team get a tougher schedule? Because they dared to be a good team the year before or played a tougher AFC/NFC division than the team with the easier schedule because of how the division rotations work in the NFL scheduling.

I am not saying this is a terrible thing, but in the NFL a team has a smaller window to win so teams that start off well or start off poorly can have their season decided merely because of that. I am not saying this is all bad, I just wanted to show there is some downside to the NFL "parity," in that teams don't have much room for injury or failure. That also makes the NFL exciting.

Last year the Cincinnati Bengals outscored their opponents by just 14 points in total, but by winning three early games by a field goal each, two of them road games over divisional rivals, they set the stage for a 10-6 campaign and a division title. No one injury or brief stretch of good fortune can impact a baseball team's record in quite the same way.

Good teams prove themselves as good teams in MLB because they have longer to do so.

More teams do have a chance to compete in the NFL, but that's simply because "compete" has been defined as "stay around .500 for 14 games."

Burn!

It's not that one league's structure is better than the other. It's that the two aren't comparable in any meaningful way. MLB plays 10 times the games that the NFL does and has a postseason that is more exclusive by a third. MLB has significant in-season roster turnover, both from a minor-league system and via trading; the NFL has virtually none.

In a discussion on scheduling parity and overall competitive balance in each league, I don't think they are comparable because of the difference in schedules. I just don't believe a fair comparison can be done.

For too long now, MLB has tried to be like the NFL, emphasizing the postseason at the expense of the regular season while embracing the idea that every team should be competitive every year. It was a ridiculous notion in 1994, when MLB realigned and foisted a new round of postseason play on us, and it's a ridiculous notion now.

Somewhere people who favor every team being competitive every year are taking major offense to this statement. It would be nice to have every team be competitive, but it is also incredibly unrealistic. Pittsburgh and teams like that are such poorly run teams they have no chance at being competitive...and as long as the team is poorly run it should stay that way. It is harsh, but true.

MLB and its leaders should stand up and brag about the differences that make its game great. It should note the math of the issue, that the NFL's competitive balance is the natural consequence of a short regular season and a larger postseason, and that MLB's competitive balance, considered in the context of its own sport, is good.

100% agreed. Just last year there was a one game playoff in the AL Central because the teams had the exact same record after 162 games. That's good balance in the division to have teams end up with the exact same record after 162 games. There were other divisions decided by 3 games, 6 games, and 7.5 games after 162 games. That's not bad competition in each division.

Sure, the NFL had closer division races, but three of the divisions were decided by 4 games or more. That's over a 16 game schedule. How far apart would these teams be if they played 10 times this many games like MLB does? MLB has good competitive balance as long as you recognize how many games MLB teams play.

Joe Sheehan was right and I hope others who complain about the competitive balance of baseball read his article. The competitive balance problem isn't a baseball issue, but an issue caused by the large amount of games played.

-Before I get to the Mariotti article, there has been a marriage of Joe Morgan and Dusty Baker. Morgan will be working with the Reds in a front office-ish capacity, which ensures the Reds will sign no base-cloggers for the foreseeable future. It's always good to see two guys behind the times helping to work with a team that should be on the rise. It does also lead me to wonder if Morgan is working for the Reds, how can he call Sunday Night Baseball games for ESPN? Isn't that a conflict in that he may learn information in production meetings he can use in his role with the Reds? Does this matter? Shouldn't this matter?

Onto the king of annoying sportswriting...Jay Mariotti thinks baseball is "doozing into oblivion." I disagree. I know there are people who can't stand baseball or don't enjoy the sport, and that is fine, but I don't believe it is an overall trend. Last year baseball ended the season with the 5th highest attendance ever. This year, depending on who you want to believe, baseball attendance is either rising or declining. I think it is safe to say as a compromise it is holding steady. Most of the examples of poor attendance used in those articles are for Toronto, which isn't a good team so probably wouldn't have good attendance this year anyway. Mariotti doesn't see it that way.

There are times, such as just the other night, when an old man's game known as baseball sneaks up and reminds us that it still can be relevant. In the space of mere hours, Colorado's Ubaldo Jimenez became the first pitcher whose name begins with a "U'' to throw a no-hitter, a walk-encrusted treat followed by 18 scoreless innings -- did you spazz, too, when the screen flashed NY 0, STL 0 17th? -- that left Cardinals manager Tony La Russa again looking like a wacky professor who thinks himself into conundrums ... and 20-inning losses.

So the only way baseball can be relevant is to have baseball records broken every night? Why isn't this standard held to other sports like the NBA or the NFL? Baseball isn't so boring that an all-time record has to be broken to make it interesting. Records aren't broken in those leagues every night, yet those sports are seen as relevant, so why does it have to happen in baseball? Fans of baseball find the sport exciting even during normal games.

It's OK, Tony -- really -- to disrupt your rotation in mid-April and use a starting pitcher in the seventh hour of a game. Certainly, it's a smarter option than trotting out utilitymen Felipe Lopez and Joe Mather to pitch the final three innings.

No, Jay--really--it's not fine to disrupt the rotation to win one game. The season is a marathon not a sprint, and it is currently April. If La Russa didn't want to disrupt his rotation, he shouldn't have to do that. He's the manager and at that point, winning one game isn't worth it to him compared to getting his rotation out of whack. The Cardinals are in the middle of a stretch of 25 games in 26 days. Sure, the rotation could have gotten out of order, but there is a bigger picture managers have to look at.

"The outcome was disappointing, but the heart the club showed was amazing," La Russa said. "I give them a standing ovation."

If so, the manager should be booed to the Illinois side of the Mississippi River. And thanked, in a perverse way, for giving us something to argue about.

One thing I hate about sports today is that the mere playing of a game isn't good enough for the media. There always has to be "something to talk about" or an angle on the season or game to make it worth talking about. The competition of a game is no longer sufficient to entertain the media...at least it feels that way.

Not until Saturday night did I even know the regular season had started -- what with Duke vs. Butler, the Tiger Woods debacle, Phil Loves Amy, the beginning of the NBA and NHL playoffs and this week's primetime debut of the NFL Draft.

And of course because Jay Mariotti didn't know the regular season had started means no one else was paying attention to the MLB season. Mariotti has his pulse right on the nation when it comes to knowing what they do or don't care about...as can be seen by the fact nobody fucking likes him or even other sports journalists think he has not one bit of credibility as a sports journalist.

I swear, it could be weeks before the masses pay much attention to baseball, as evidenced by stunning sections of empty seats in one-time hotbeds with formerly packed parks -- Baltimore,

They aren't very good.

Cleveland

They are terrible.

Toronto --

Also not a very good team. Maybe the fact these teams aren't very good contribute to the fan's apathy towards attending games in those cities, rather than are indicative of a trend towards more fan apathy towards baseball in general. Really, that's too far for Mariotti to look. He prefers to make snap judgments based on initial impressions to seeing or hearing data.

The first weekend of Fox's game coverage was down 16 percent from last year's ratings and down 27 percent from 2008.

I am sure this had nothing to do with the fact these games were competing directly against the Masters and Tiger Woods comeback there. There is no correlation there, right? Two different sporting events on at the exact same time, one a normal baseball game, the other the 3rd round of the most prestigious golf tournament where the best golfer in the world is in the running for the lead after taking a break because of a huge scandal...should baseball beat the Masters out in the ratings in this instance?

If not for the usual high demand in stadiums where the home team either is adored (Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, Wrigley Field, Dodger Stadium, Citizens Bank Park) or breaking in a new crib (Target Field in Minnesota), baseball would be a niche attraction.

Summing up what Mariotti says here..."If not for all the cities where baseball is hugely popular, baseball may not be popular at all."

I think this could go for almost every sport. We don't use the empty seats at Jacksonville to show that the NFL is declining in fan interest do we? How can we just rule out these six cities where baseball is popular and act like they are the outliers of fan interest when there is interest in other MLB cities as well? Jay uses three cities that have terrible teams as proof baseball is declining in fan interest, but doesn't think the six cities he lists that have a huge interest in baseball prove this wrong. Something is wrong with believing this. I think even staying at the same attendance level as last year or the year before is impressive given the state of the economy.

"It's definitely different. I was here in the glory years, or whatever you want to call it, when it was packed every night. It's kind of a shame to see it the way it is now," mourned Blue Jays manager Cito Gaston, who now sees crowds of four figures at Rogers Centre in hockey-mad Toronto.

Again, Toronto is used as an example of why MLB-wide fan interest has dived. In the glory years all the fair-weather fans will be out, so attendance will be good. No one is going to pay money to go see a crappy team play. That's pretty much been proven in every sport every single year. This lack of attendance in Toronto is a result of the Blue Jays not being a good team, not because fan interest has declined overall. If the Blue Jays were good, fans would be there. I truly believe this.

"I didn't hear anything -- just quiet," Orioles third baseman Miguel Tejada told reporters last week in Baltimore after a game attended by an announced 9,129 fans, the smallest crowd in Camden Yards history.

The Orioles aren't a good team. Also, the unemployment rate in Washington D.C. is 11.6% , 7.7% for Maryland, 9.5% in West Virginia and 7.4% in Virginia. That's most of the Orioles fan base right there.

For the game to resonate in the future, the fuddy-duddies in charge must recognize the importance of making the product faster, younger, sexier and more streamlined.

Because Jay Mariotti is the type of person who likes to bitch about problems and not actually fix them, he provides no examples or suggestions for how MLB can do this. He thinks they should just do it...somehow.

Football, more popular than ever, doesn't have those problems. Basketball, now the No. 2 sport nationally, doesn't have those problems.

No, what the NFL has is a huge labor problem that could hurt the sport tremendously and the NBA has massive financial problems with many teams. I think MLB wouldn't trade their problems for the NBA's financial problems at this point. MLB isn't a perfect sport, but neither is the NBA or the NFL.

Nor are the powers-that-be investing their time in the right places when they pull stunts such as banning the hoodie of a rare character, Tampa Bay Rays manager Joe Maddon, because the pullover sweatshirt he wore last weekend in cold, rainy Boston wasn't OK'd by the league.

Are the powers-that-be in the NFL investing their time in the right places when they fine players thousands of dollars for violating the incredibly strict dress code players must follow? The dress code in the NFL is as strict, if not more so, than the dress code in MLB. Just Wednesday Mariotti wrote an article about how Tim Tebow needs to save the NFL from hoodlums and yet here he is acting like the NFL has their shit all together, even when they do the same thing to their players and coaches MLB did to Joe Madden...strictly enforcing the dress code. On Wednesday, MLB relaxed the dress code and said Madden could wear his hoodie, you don't see the NFL relaxing the dress code too often.

I think most of the dress code violations players, coaches and managers get fined for are stupid, but this happens in the NFL and MLB.

Keep wearing the hoodie, Joe. Let them come and tear it off you. It'll be the most fun we've seen in baseball this month.

This is strange coming from the guy who earlier in this column claimed he didn't know the MLB season had started. It's amazing that a guy who hasn't been paying any attention to the sport can somehow know exactly how fun has been seen in baseball games during the month. Only in a Jay Mariotti article can you read about how a sportswriter hasn't been paying attention to a sport, but then he also claims to know everything that has happened in that sport so far.

Meanwhile, too many games still run much too long. That's why I applauded Joe West, the veteran umpire, when he trashed the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox for turning what should be baseball's best ongoing attraction into unwatchable TV.

This happened in early April. So the whole "I haven't been paying attention thing" was hyperbole or just a lie to try and act like Mariotti had a point?

"They're the two clubs that don't try to pick up the pace," West said. "They're two of the best teams in baseball. Why are they playing the slowest? It's pathetic and embarrassing. They take too long to play.

As I have stated previously, if Joe West wants to pick up the pace of the game while he is the home plate umpire, he has every right in the rulebook to speed up the game...but he doesn't take advantage of it. Lay down the law as the home plate umpire or shut up about the speed of the game.

Naturally, Selig toes the line, refusing to order the sport's two most powerful teams to quicken their act. "It isn't the time of the game, it's the pace of the game," he said.

I agree the Yankees and Red Sox need to speed up their games, but they aren't going to do so until the current rules, the same rules on the books, are enforced by the umpire. If the hitter is taking his sweet time getting back in the batter's box, the home plate umpire can warn him and then call an automatic strike. The home plate umpire can do this again and again until the game is sped up. The rules are on the books, they just need to be enforced. No team is going to listen if there aren't repercussions for not listening.

The best executive order would be to make umpires consistently enforce the pitch/hit count that already is in place -- if a pitcher or hitter violates the rules, he is penalized with a ball or strike.

For the third time...for the hitter this rule is already on the books. I am sure there isn't a way a sportswriter should know this rule, it is not like it is his job to cover sports or anything.

And forget about the grandest idea of all: shortening the regular season to 140 games. That's 22 games in lost revenue per team. The owners are in it for greed, remember, not to satisfy the paying customers.

This is a separate paragraph. This is all Mariotti mentions about this. He just says it is a grand idea, but doesn't explain why it is a grand idea or what it will fix. He just throws this idea out for no particular reason and proclaims it "the grandest idea of all." Like I said earlier, Jay Mariotti is a man who spots problems, but has no realistic ideas.

The fast start of the Yankees suggests a repeat championship in the Bronx, not a healthy happening for those -- namely, Selig -- who think the game has competitive balance.

See the Joe Sheehan column above.

The Steinbrenners are subsidizing too many teams as it is in a revenue-sharing climate, and when the Yankees keep winning titles in spite of it, it almost causes a plantation effect that doesn't inspire hope in the vast majority of cities.

One title since 2000. The Spurs are more of a dynasty in the NBA than the Yankees over the last decade and the Steelers are more of a dynasty in the NFL than the Yankees in that span too.

And when we aren't lamenting lopsided economics,

Which is true, but is more of a result of one team (the Yankees) being the lopsided one, and not an effect of 5-6 teams that spend way more than any other team. Also, there is no viable solution to this.

slow games,

Can be fixed by umpires following the rules on the books.

nose-diving attendance

Which probably isn't true, but if it is true, "nose-diving" is a huge overstatement. The economy can be blamed partially for this.

and low TV ratings, there is the issue of race.

Here we go with this issue. I sometimes feel like some sportswriters and critics of MLB's diversity think MLB intentionally leads minorities in a direction to play a different sport. MLB has done a lot to try and increase the amount of minority players currently playing. MLB is the most racially diverse major sport in the United States if you pay attention to how many different countries are represented, but that's not good enough.

The best young, black athletes aren't playing baseball anymore, which makes Jackie Robinson Day a bittersweet experience and leads some African-American players to publicly ask if franchises are participating in racism by not signing black players in the twilight of their careers, such as Jermaine Dye and Gary Sheffield.

The idea MLB is blackballing these two players is madness. I am sure if these players had reasonable salary demands for their age they would be playing right now. Where's the cry for John Smoltz or Pedro Martinez to get sympathy for being blackballed? MLB has tried to get minorities involved with the sport, but it is easier to play football or basketball growing up because you don't need as much gear or space to play. You need a glove, bat, ball for baseball and you pretty much just need a ball for football. Plus, baseball isn't as sexy of a sport as football or basketball.

The most important player for the sport's future, it can be argued, is Jason Heyward (right), the Atlanta Braves rookie slugger who looks like the next great player and has embraced trying to promote baseball in the inner city.

Yet, for as dynamic as Heyward is, does America know anything about him?

I would say we know more about Jason Heyward than has ever been known about a 20 year old rookie in MLB history. He has been profiled everywhere, including in a huge Sports Illustrated spread two weeks ago. He is 20 years old and now overexposed already.

The season will plod along, ebb and flow as always into October, but by then, the only people who will care are fans of the teams still playing.

This is absolutely not true. Fans of baseball will be watching these games.

Be sure one will be the Yankees, and that their games will extend close to four hours and well past midnight.

Of course one team will be the Yankees, they have made one World Series since 2001 compared to the Cardinals, Red Sox, and Phillies two World Series appearances during that time. The Yankees are just a shoo-in to make it aren't they?

But, hey, at least Joe Maddon isn't allowed to wear that darned hoodie anymore.

Baseball has problems, just like other sports have problems. I don't think baseball's problems are any worse than any other major sport's. There are people who hate baseball and that is fine, but there are also people who hate football and basketball. It doesn't mean any of these sports are declining. Oh, and Joe Maddon can wear that darned hoodie still.

Major League Baseball isn't America's Pastime anymore, but I also don't believe it is "nose-diving" when it comes to fan interest.

Feel free to talk the NFL Draft down below in the comments.