The BCS is moving towards a four team playoff in 2014. I am in favor of a four team playoff, though I probably would prefer an eight team playoff more, but baby steps is all I can ask for at this point. I could survive if there was not a college football playoff at all, though I think that four team playoff setup is going to result in more a exciting college football bowl season. Drew Sharp is not a fan of the BCS four game playoff. It's not that he doesn't like the playoff, it is just that he likes to see chaos and mayhem. Some people just like to watch the world burn and it appears Drew Sharp is one of these people. He likes uncertainty and imperfection, especially in situations where perfection or certainty can be attained.
Drew wrote this column before Oregon, Alabama, and Kansas State lost and we knew the national title game would be Notre Dame v. Alabama, which makes his opinion on a bowl system even less persuasive in my mind. There is a one loss team in the BCS Championship Game and why can't Oregon, Florida or Kansas State have a chance to prove they can compete with Notre Dame or Alabama head-to-head?
Chaos gets a bad rap, especially in college football.
Probably because sports fans tend to prefer champions of a certain sport to be decided on the field in a set format that allows everyone to know who is the ultimate winner of that sports' season. Many sports fans like to know the winners and losers of a certain sport and knowing exactly who won and lost is appealing in order to determine who the best and worst teams are. Many sports fans like certainty, and while uncertainty is good for debate, I think a four game playoff will make college football bowl season more exciting by making it more certain.
Not to mention, a college football playoff isn't like the one game Wild Card playoff in MLB. This isn't a contrived setup in order to create more drama in the sport. There is a reason the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament is so exciting and looked forward to. That reason is college sports tend to work well within a playoff format. I have a feeling the four team playoff or (in my dreams) an eight game playoff would be as well-received, if not more well-received, then the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament...perhaps not immediately, but over a five year span.
Turmoil isn't toxic in this sport. If anything, it's a rejuvenating elixir.
Not really, unless you are one of those people who enjoys the stories and drama surrounding a game more than you enjoy the actual game or sporting event yourself (cough, cough Bill Simmons). Turmoil in itself isn't toxic in sports, but when determining the "winner" of a certain sport then turmoil can often be anything other than a rejuvenating elixir. In the case of college football, turmoil doesn't ruin the sport, but I think it takes a little bit away from the National Championship Game. There is always the idea or perception another team should have been given a shot to participate in the title game. No, the controversies over who should be in the National Championship game doesn't ruin college football, but if given the chance to see which team is the best in a playoff format then I see why it is an attractive option to do so.
It's a sport in which conviction becomes as important as competition. The argument is often more fun than the final score.
And there will still be arguments. If there was a 32 team playoff there would be arguments over which teams deserved to be in that playoff. The NCAA Tournament has 68 teams and the talking heads still discuss "snubs" and teams that don't deserve to be in the tournament. There were always be conviction and argument over the participants in the college football playoff. The only difference is the argument won't potentially (hopefully) be about an unbeaten team who gets no chance to prove they belong in the National Championship Game. The arguments now will be about which teams are #3 or #4 in the nation, as opposed to which teams are #1 or #2 in the nation.
And we've got a doozy of a quarrel coming in another three weeks --
potentially four unbeaten teams squeezing into two spots for the BCS
championship game.
Actually there were five unbeaten teams when he wrote this (Louisville, Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, Kansas State and Notre Dame), but since Drew Sharp loves uncertainty and chaos I am guessing he isn't considered with such trivial matters as "research" or "accuracy" when writing his columns.
Four unbeaten teams would be fine and chaotic. I would prefer with there being four (actually five) unbeaten teams we have a determination which of these teams is the best team that doesn't involve a computer or "Six Degrees of Team A" where we say "Team A lost to Team B, but beat Team C, who lost to Team B, but beat Team E in a blowout," to determine if Team A deserves a shot in the National Championship game. Under the four team BCS playoff all of these teams would be in (as long as they stayed unbeaten) and there wouldn't be a debate over which team got "screwed..." except there would be still be a debate. I guarantee if Louisville stayed unbeaten and Georgia only lost one game then there would be those arguing with conviction that Georgia deserves that BCS playoff spot. In fact, if Georgia had beaten another one loss team they would have probably ended up in the BCS title game against Notre Dame. Why can't Oregon or Florida get a shot since they only have one loss? The argument will never end.
A competition between the one loss teams would be a nice thing in my mind, as opposed to relying on BCS rankings to tell us Alabama will end up playing Notre Dame. I think a four team playoff of Alabama-Florida and Notre Dame-Oregon would have been fun to watch.
I'm rooting for chaos, but not for the reasons you might think.
Well I think it is mostly because you either (a) are a contrarian or (b) you simply don't like change in sports.
I'm not a playoff guy, never have been. I'm not for the same reason that
I'm not an advocate for limitless, all-intrusive instant replay in all
sports.
That's pretty much the reason I thought. You hate change in sports. All change in sports is bad change, and even though the BCS was a change to the old bowl format, that doesn't matter at all because the new change to the old change is your enemy. I would think an old school guy like Drew Sharp would want the best team decided on the field, not by a computer.
I find it interesting Drew Sharp throws instant replay into his discussion here. There is a big difference to me in a college football playoff and instant replay. Instant replay, at least to me, is about the integrity of the game and ensuring the human factor does not affect the outcome of a sporting event. Instant replay, at least to me, is about making sure sporting events are officiated in the most fair way possible to determine the winner of the matchup. The college football playoff is meant to ensure the best team in college football is decided on the field...or at least with teams worthy of a shot in the National Championship game having a chance to prove their worthiness.
There's something charming, dramatic and, yes, often enraging about imperfection.
In sports, I would guess that most people like definitive answers. Some people don't find it exciting to watch an entire season's worth of college football only to not know for sure which team is the best team in the country. There is nothing wrong with imperfection, but if college football can enliven the fan experience while also giving more definitive answers as to which team is the best team in college football, I think it is worth exploring.
Why mess with that?
Why must everything fit nicely?
Why must everything not fit nicely? Why must there be chaos?
I'm hoping that Alabama, Oregon, Kansas State and Notre Dame complete
the regular season with unblemished records, each with a compelling
argument for a berth in the national championship game. But two won't
make it.
Or three won't make it. Or we could have it like last year where LSU was undefeated and Oklahoma State and Alabama had one loss, so Alabama naturally got a shot at the national title since they had lost previously to LSU. They had proven they couldn't beat LSU on their home field in November, but they got another shot at LSU because Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State, which apparently was an inexcusable loss.
Chaos is not great. Why shouldn't one loss Oregon, Florida or Kansas State get a shot to prove they can beat one loss Alabama and end up in the BCS Championship Game? Oregon loses to Top 10 BCS team and they aren't in the BCS Championship Game anymore, but Alabama loses to a comparatively worse BCS team and they move up into the BCS Championship Game because Oregon lost. Why not decide which of these two teams is superior on the field, as opposed to seeing what happened on the field and then speculate in the rankings on which team may be better?
And those two relegated to the outside will complain about the unfairness of their fate.
What if we lived in a world where these two teams with no losses weren't complaining about their fate, so there is a larger pool of "deserving teams," but some of the 1 or 2 loss teams left out of a 4 or 8 game playoff were complaining about the unfairness of their fate? Is that not preferable because there isn't enough chaos?
If it's Notre Dame, the Irish will argue that they shouldn't suffer a
penalty because of the overall poor quality of the Big Ten this season.
Wow. This tells you all you need to know about Drew Sharp and his knowledge on the subject he is discussing. Notre Dame is an independent in football. They are not a Big 10 team in football. Again, I'm sure Drew Sharp is perfectly fine attempting to form an opinion on a subject he doesn't have a complete grasp on because that shows he is imperfect. Journalism is all about not doing research and making mistakes with your information, isn't it? Imperfection and chaos in sports journalism is good.
If it's Kansas State, the Wildcats will gripe they were wrongly victimized for not having an easily identifiable football brand.
Or they would complain they beat every team they played this year, but one team (just like Oregon/LSU/Alabama/Georgia) and still didn't get a shot to prove they were the best team in college football? This is an understandable gripe in my opinion.
If
it's Oregon, the Ducks will tout conspiracy theories from fashion
consultants who think their hideous uniform ensembles should be
convicted of third-degree eye-slaughter.
Cue sad trombone.
But incessant whining is a big part of this sport's immense national popularity.
No, it really is not. A big part of this sport's immense popularity has to do with football being a very popular sport, tailgating is fun, and fans can cheer for their alma mater against other schools. College football is popular despite the incessant whining about which team gets snubbed and the popularity is most likely about the fact football is very, very popular.
The four-team playoff might seem like the perfect solution this season,
but pushing college football closer to the NFL in how it crowns its
champion will only hurt the sport long-term.
Be prepared now for a shaky bit of reasoning on the part of Drew Sharp. He will now tell us how making college football like the NFL will only hurt the sport in the long-term. I hate to break it to Drew, but the NFL doesn't have an straight playoff system, so it is still different from college football. The NFL divides its teams into NFC and AFC playoffs, which is different from picking the 12 best teams in the NFL and having a playoff, which is what college football is prepared to do with the four team playoff.
It'll spawn even more aggressive cheating among those teams that already don't care about the NCAA rulebook.
Two things:
1. Traditionally, when making a statement like this a writer would explain exactly what the hell he means by this statement. Drew Sharp hates tradition. He never explains what he means by this. I can't imagine what a four team playoff would do to spawn more aggressive cheating. In fact, shouldn't there be more aggressive cheating under the current bowl system since only two teams can make the National Championship Game? If there are only two spots in the title game and the purpose of this aggressive cheating is to ensure a team gets to participate in the title game, wouldn't there be more aggressive cheating when fewer spots are available?
2. BUT DREW, I THOUGHT YOU LIKED CHAOS!
This is chaos at its finest. Who is cheating, who isn't? Which teams are playing fair and which teams are breaking the NCAA rules? It's imperfection and chaos at it's finest.
It'll create an even wider gulf between the few national programs that
consistently dominate and those lesser lights hopeful for that rare,
special season when the spotlight hits them at the right angle.
Again, I don't see how this would be true. If anything a more open playoff system would allow teams like TCU, Boise State, and any other team with one loss or no losses to participate. If Drew Sharp believes the BCS conferences will collude to keep these type of mid-major conference teams out of the four team BCS playoff, then rest assured they are keeping them out of the BCS Championship Game under the current system as well.
Some think pollsters will give a 12-0 Notre Dame an edge over an
unbeaten Oregon or Kansas State, if only for the sake of nostalgia and
the possibility of an Alabama-Notre Dame championship game
And of course this system is preferable to a four team playoff because if the National Championship matchup can't be decided solely by nostalgia and the possibility of two high profile teams being in the game, then this is not a championship game that even needs to be played.
I would argue this sentence is the very reason a four team playoff is necessary. The four team playoff prevents two teams being put in the National Championship game based not on their resume during the season, but based on factors that have very little to do with each team's 2012 season performance.
They would be livid in Eugene, Ore., and Manhattan, Kan.
And that's your imperfect system at work. Sorry Kansas State and Oregon, you don't make us feel nostalgic nor is the profile of your program enough of a draw. Great season, too bad your participation in the BCS Championship game couldn't be decided based on that season's performance. Thanks and goodnight.
For some, disarray only strengthens the case for what's coming in 2014.
No muss. No fuss. No fun. Everything would fit perfectly.
It's not about fitting perfectly, but is about many fans wanting to know which team is the best team in college football. It is about trying to improve the product and getting a definitive outcome on the college football season.
But college football, at its best, always was meant for imperfection.
College football will still be imperfect. There will be arguments over which team(s) are the 3rd or 4th best teams in the country. In a situation like this year where there are quite a few one loss teams, in a four team playoff, someone is getting left behind. Imperfection isn't going away, but simply moving from "Why didn't Team C get a chance to be in the national title game" to "We know Teams A, B, C got in the four game playoff, but why didn't Team E make it?" There is still imperfection, just with slightly less uncertainty at the top.
Showing posts with label the bcs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the bcs. Show all posts
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
4 comments Gregg Easterbrook Has Had Enough of These Powerful Offenses
Last week in TMQ, Gregg Easterbrook had perhaps his worst criticism of the season when he criticized the Philadelphia Eagles for not chasing after the Cardinals' James Sanders after he recovered a Mike Vick fumble on the Cardinals six yard line and ran down the field to score a touchdown. Sanders had 5-6 Cardinal defenders escorting him and there were only a couple of Eagles who were in the frame after he had picked the football up, yet Gregg expected the Eagles to chase Sanders down by running at a superhuman speed, get past the 5-6 Cardinal players escorting Sanders and prevent the touchdown from occurring? I'm sure Gregg can't be so stupidly critical this week...can he?
This week Gregg updates us on Pulaski Academy and also says the NCAA needs to do something about all these offenses that are out of control. Gregg bases his position on watching the Baylor v. West Virginia game and noticing there were other high scoring NFL and college games this past weekend while happily ignoring the 23-16, 20-13, 19-13, 19-17, and 24-11 games that were played in the NFL this weekend. He also happily ignores prominent college football games that had scores of 17-16 (Ohio State v. Michigan State), 21-16 (Missouri v. Central Florida), 27-24 (Cincinnati v. Virginia Tech), 27-17 (Arizona State v. California), and 24-13 (Texas Tech v. Iowa State). Yes, I can't argue NCAA football has excessively low-scoring games, but I don't think it is an issue which affects the quality of the games. Of course Gregg needs something to discuss, so why not create an issue where there may not be one?
Baylor and West Virginia combined for 133 points and 1,507 yards of offense. New England and Buffalo combined for 1,018 yards of offense. Two players had at least 300 yards receiving in the Baylor-WVU contest, four players at least 100 yards of offense for New England. A quarter of NFL teams are averaging at least 400 yards of offense per game. NCAA and NFL scoring are at record highs.
There are also low scoring games being played as well. The Super Bowl has tended to be a fairly low scoring affair over the past decade. No team has scored more than 32 points in the Super Bowl since 2004 and since 2004 four winners of the Super Bowl have scored 25 or less points in the game. The BCS National Championship Game has had high scoring affairs and low scoring affairs since 2007. Offenses are dominating defenses in college football, but there are teams who play really good defense and play close, relatively low scoring games. Both West Virginia and Baylor have weak defenses and strong offenses and the same seems to go for the Buffalo Bills and New England Patriots. So scoring is up, but I don't see it as a huge issue.
Way back in the mists of history -- a few years ago -- defense won championships. After the 2011 season, the top playoff slots went to New England and Green Bay, the league's 31st- and 32nd-ranked defenses.
Right, and the Green Bay Packers lost their first playoff game to the New York Giants, who went on to beat the Patriots in a Super Bowl that wasn't high scoring. The score was 21-17 in that game. So the best teams still tend to play good defense against each other.
For a generation, the football establishment has been tweaking rules to favor offense. Maybe the pendulum has swung too far and it's time to tweak rules to favor defense.
The NFL wants to crack down on hard hits which could cause concussions and maintain standing as the most popular sport in the United States...good luck getting the NFL to tweak rules in favor of the defense and run the risk of taking any of the excitement out of the game or allowing defenders more leniency in getting more physical with offensive players.
The big rules changes were the 5-yard chuck rule, instituted in 1978 and made more strict in 2004; end of the head slap by defenders; allowing offensive linemen to use their hands; and making most contact with the quarterback illegal. These changes were designed to increase scoring, and had the intended impact.
The changes to making most contact with the quarterback illegal was also designed to protect quarterbacks who often are in a defenseless position when throwing the football. Quarterbacks are the big celebrities in the NFL and protecting these players is important to the NFL.
Rules evolution in college football roughly mirrors the NFL, and has the same purpose: to increase scoring. College adds the style-points dynamic.
Another part of the evolution of college football is that offenses are far ahead of defenses right now. It is a matter of the spread offense in college presenting problems that many defensive coordinators haven't been able to solve yet. It is also important to remember there is generally a wider gap in talent between two teams in college football. I would guess scoring would decrease as conference play begins and the defenses start catching up with the offenses.
In fact, Gregg used this exact same reasoning last year during Week 1 and Week 2 when discussing how NFL offenses are going to regress because NFL defenses will eventually catch up to the NFL offenses. So the idea college and NFL offenses are going to have their scoring per game slightly decreased as the season goes along isn't a new argument to Gregg since he made this exact same argument last year.
The pros have no polls; a 16-13 victory is as good as a 45-3 win. In college, the high-scoring win is what impresses pollsters. In the NFL, there are no boosters;
It seems Gregg is claiming NFL teams don't try to score as many points as possible in a game. That's an interesting theory.
Alabama, LSU, Ohio State and a few others still line up their best athletes on defense. But putting the best athletes on offense is popular across the college scene.
So basically the teams that win National Championships are the ones who put good athletes on defense as well as offense.
The occasional high-scoring game is fun, but do we really want football to become basketball on grass, with almost every possession resulting in a score and whoever has the ball last winning?
Obviously we don't, but as I have already stated, the teams that win National Champions play good defense as well. Defenses may not completely catch up with the offenses, but I don't think football is at the point where the last team to have the ball wins the game. Even in the Baylor-West Virginia game the Mountaineers were pretty solidly in the lead for the entire game. They were usually a touchdown ahead of Baylor when having possession of the football.
Relax the chuck rule (and also call it the Charles rule, which is more dignified) to allow contact with a receiver up to 10 yards downfield.
As somewhat discussed in the Chuck Klosterman post from a few days ago, I'm not sure this is the direction football will end up going. To me, allowing contact with receivers up to 10 yards downfield, which would include a receiver going over the middle on a crossing route could run contrary to the intent to decrease concussions.
Make offensive holding an officiating "point of emphasis." Right now an offensive lineman has to wrap both arms around a defender to be called. Any grabbing of jersey or arm should be a flag.
So how is an offensive lineman expected to block if he can't grab any jersey or the defensive player's arm? I'm not saying the offensive lineman should be able to tackle the defensive player to the ground, but part of blocking is grabbing a player's arm. Even the NFL rules seem to allow an offensive player to use his hands to grab the opponent's arm as long as he isn't restricting him.
I'm all for whatever makes the NFL better, but defensive players are so athletic that offensive linemen have to be able to block them by grabbing jersey or an arm as long as they aren't restricting their motion in some way.
Just as the NBA allows traveling so long as you dunk, the NFL allows illegal motion so long as the result is more offense.
Clearly Gregg watches a lot of NBA basketball. In the NBA, a player can sometimes travel even if he isn't dunking, though the NBA has tried to crackdown on players taking extra steps in going for a layup or dunk. This isn't necessarily comparable to the NFL's role of illegal motion either way.
Whether Gregg wants to change these rules or not I don't see the NFL stopping the rise of the offense as long as the fans enjoy seeing offense.
Trailing Seattle 7-3 and facing fourth-and-goal on the Bluish Men Group 2 at the end of the first half, St. Louis did the expected, sending in the field goal team. No Seahawk noticed Danny Amendola flanked wide, almost on the sideline. Holder Johnny Hekker threw to him for a touchdown -- sweet! Extra-sweet was that because Amendola had been on the field the previous down, he was not required to be inside the hashmarks before this snap, as is a substitute entering the game. The play design is that if the receiver isn't noticed, throw; if he is noticed, just go ahead and kick the field goal.
This is how smart Gregg Easterbrook is. He knows exactly how this play was designed by the Rams' special teams coordinator. Despite not being on the Rams' coaching staff, he knows if Amendola was going to be noticed then the Rams were going to go for the field goal. Sure, in reality it might make sense to assume the audible on this play to just kick the field goal, but how does Gregg know for sure this is the play design? He seems pretty sure this was the exact play design. I don't see him cite any quotes to back up this contention and I haven't read anything that supports this. It sounds like nitpicking, but this is typical of Gregg. He just writes things and hopes his readers believe them to be true.
Arizona coaches kept an extra blocker back and sent Andre Roberts on an out-and-up. Dolphins corner Richard Marshall bit hard, while the safety on that side, Chris Clemons, jumped a short route -- leaving no one between Robert and the end zone. Sour for Miami, whose coaches began the season by trading away their best defensive back, Vontae Davis, in order to bank future draft choices.
How dare the rebuilding Miami Dolphins trade away their "best" defensive back, who was so much considered the best cornerback on the Dolphins roster that he was their third-string cornerback, in exchange for a second round pick which will probably be in the late 30's or early 40's of the 2013 NFL Draft. It's just so stupid for a rebuilding team to trade underachieving players for second round draft choices in an effort to build a good team for the future. The Dolphins traded Davis fully knowing they would eventually give up a touchdown pass later in the year. What terrible management. Clearly Vontae Davis would have prevented this touchdown pass from being thrown.
Now Atlanta has the ball on its 1 with 59 seconds remaining and no timeouts. Where oh where might the pass go? Maybe up the field? Yet the Panthers put eight defenders "in the box" as if expecting a power rush, then fell for a play fake. The Falcons had no choice but to throw deep. Yet Carolina stacked against the run and then fell for a play fake.
Gregg now criticizes Carolina for giving up the long pass to Roddy White that essentially lost the game for them. I don't feel like reliving that play again, but I will say while one player did seem to go for the play fake (it also appears he was running a delayed blitz, so it didn't affect his coverage), Carolina was not playing eight men in the box as Gregg contends they did.
Carolina was simply running man-to-man defense and were close to the Falcons players on the line of scrimmage. If Carolina had run a soft defense, which Gregg criticizes them for doing two plays after this one, Gregg would have criticized this as well. The defense didn't really fall for the play fake and there weren't eight men in the box. The entire issue on this play wasn't a lack of soft coverage or the man coverage but the fact the two Panthers safeties didn't protect well enough against the deep pass.
TMQ is following the fourth-down results at Pulaski Academy in Little Rock, Ark., where head coach Kevin Kelley has eschewed the punt for years.
Last season, Pulaski punted once and won the state title. So far this season the Bruins are 3-2 and have gone for it on fourth down 34 times, converting 16.
For the record, against good competition where the games were close Pulaski Academy has converted fourth down 4 times, out of 14 possible chances. I feel like this is important because it very well could show when the talent difference between two teams is smaller fourth down conversions won't happen as frequently.
Fourth-down results by the backups:
Fourth-and-2 on opponent's 38: converted. Fourth-and-10 on own 35: pass, incomplete.
This is my main problem with using a talented high school team going against a clearly inferior opponent as proof NFL and college teams need to go for it on fourth down. Pulaski faced two fourth downs the entire game. Clearly, they were the better team in this game. I don't see how a very good high school team which has better talent than most teams it faces on a weekly basis tells us whether going for it on fourth down is smart or not. I think the talent difference in Pulaski and their opponents is too great to accurately project how going for it on fourth on every possession would work in the NFL.
At kickoff in Philadelphia for a night game it was a nippy 62 degrees with temperatures falling. Eagles cheerleaders showed professionalism by wearing their bikini-beach summer outfits, and this appeased the football gods, who smiled on the home team.
Gregg must be a real peach to work with around the office.
"Show some professionalism Linda, show us some more leg, and get shorter skirts. Let the Gods of journalism have a chance to shine on you (high fives the other 10 nerdy white guys who work in the office and are sexually repressed like Gregg)."
Game scoreless, Philadelphia faced third-and-9 on the Jersey/A 19 just inside the two-minute warning of the first half. The Giants blitzed seven; the Eagles went max-protect, keeping eight back to block; despite Jersey/A having four in the secondary to guard two receivers, DeSean Jackson got open on a combo pattern for a touchdown; the hosts went on to win 19-17. How four men can fail to guard two is anyone's guess. But why the all-out blitz? Since the play began on the Jersey/A 19, a sack would have left Philadelphia in field goal range. An incompletion, not a sack, was what Jersey/A needed.
Yes, but with an incompletion the Eagles would still be in field goal range. So the Giants were being aggressive in trying to make the Eagles attempt a more difficult field goal. Doesn't fortune favor the bold? Gregg has no point here. He's basically saying the Giants shouldn't have gone for a sack because the best that could happen is the Eagles stay in field goal range, but then he says the Giants shouldn't have been aggressive and tried to get an incompletion...which still would have kept the Eagles in field goal range. In fact, the Eagles would have had a closer field goal attempt after an incompletion than after a sack. The result aside, how is the decision to go for an incompletion better than the decision to go for a sack? Either way, the Eagles are going for a field goal.
Yet research shows that U.S. alcohol consumption has remained relatively stable. This 2010 Gallup study found that U.S. alcohol consumption peaked in 1978 and is mainly down since. This year, Gallup's Wellbeing arm found that college-aged Americans report 5.4 drinks per week, hardly Dionysian, that only one-third in the college-aged group say they "sometimes drink too much."
I'm not sure you can entirely trust a survey based on the opinion of college-aged kids as to whether they "sometimes drink too much" or not. It's all about perspective. I never thought I drank too much in college, but looking back, I certainly did drink a lot. I don't know if you can trust a survey based on college-aged kids giving a relative judgment about their drinking habits. There is nothing wrong with the perspective of the college kids, but "drinking too much" is a subjective question which a 21 year old views differently from a 31 year old. What was once the amount of alcohol I drank BEFORE going out to drink is now the amount of alcohol I drink when I go out to drink. It's all about perspective and whose perspective we are looking at the question from. So I don't take a lot of stock in one-third of college students saying they "sometimes drink too much" because it depends completely on what your opinion of "drinking too much" may be.
I don't know where the hell they did this survey either, but 5.4 drinks per week isn't even close to the amount of alcohol college-aged kids I knew drank in college over a week. Maybe double that and it could be more accurate...or perhaps my friends and I were just raging alcoholics.
Gallup also found young men prefer beer while young women prefer wine; liquor is a low priority to the college-aged.
What a revelation! We need a survey to figure out liquor is expensive and Busch Beer or Milwaukee's Best is cheap.
Three snaps after the fumble, Drew Brees threw an 80-yard touchdown pass to Joseph Morgan. Green Bay corner Sam Shields was making the high school mistake of looking into the backfield, trying to guess what Brees would do,
Doesn't Gregg mean "undrafted and lowly-paid, but extremely hard-working" Green Bay corner Sam Shields? As usual, Gregg leaves a player's draft position out when it isn't convenient or it goes against the narrative he wants to preach.
As "Taken 2" premieres, forget that Liam Neeson once was an actor. Forget that at age 60, he is depicted as effortlessly beating up gangsters half his age. Forget that not once, not twice, but three times in "Taken," Neeson's character walked into a situation unarmed and within seconds had killed half a dozen men who had guns.
"Taken" isn't a realistic movie and "Taken 2" probably won't be either. They are fun movies where you get to watch Liam Neeson say threatening things and kick people's ass. It's not intended to be indicative of reality. For God's sake, Maggie Grace plays a teenager and she is almost 30 years old in real life.
The Packers, Redskins and other teams are showing the Pistol, pioneered at Nevada by Chris Ault, college football's least appreciated coach. In a Pistol, the quarterback is in the shotgun but it's a short shotgun closer to the center than a true shotgun,
Clearly Gregg is giving us the extremely technical definition of the Pistol.
"See what happens here in the shotgun is the quarterback takes the snap but stands further back away from the center's ass. It's a long snap, but it is shorter than a long snap for a punt or field goal so the long snapper isn't in the game. So in the shotgun, the center snaps the ball longer than he would normally do because the quarterback isn't behind him, but he doesn't snap it so far as to actually perform a 'long snap' but it is more of an intermediate snap. Now let me explain the option-read offense to you. The running back is behind the quarterback and rather than immediately hand the ball off to the running back, the quarterback starts running in a certain direction and then may or may not throw the ball to the running back, but isn't like a forward pass because most of the time it is backwards except when it is forward..."
Bill Belichick keeps his offense fresh by constantly adding new formations and actions. Harbaugh/West is doing the same.
So no other NFL coaches add new personnel groupings or formations in during the season? You would think other coaches would try to keep the offense constantly fresh, but what I've learned from Gregg is they don't. Only the really good coaches keep the offense fresh by constantly adding new formations and actions. I learn so many questionably fact-based new things when reading TMQ.
So why does the penny endure? The zinc lobby profits from the penny. The zinc lobby is not exactly the oil lobby or the Hollywood lobby. But it's a lobby, and in modern American politics, every lobby seems to get whatever it asks, the public be damned.
Those damn zinc lobbyists! If only the wood lobbyists had as much pull as the zinc lobbyists we would still have wooden nickels.
I'm starting to get suspicious of all this discussion in the public about safe-sex and using a condom to prevent disease and pregnancy. I have a feeling safe-sex isn't really important, it is just the latex lobbyists trying to further their own agenda.
Speaking of sex, Gregg has suddenly become incredibly sexually-liberated over the past year or so. In parts of TMQ he has started railing on the 1960's "free love" hippies who he now considers to be hypocrites for writing articles about the scandalous nature of sex. There is a lot of generalizations in his statements, but it is funny to read coming from him. I'm not sure when Gregg turned into becoming a leader of the sexual revolution, but it appears he is headed in that direction. Maybe he is just fighting for his right to ogle cheerleaders who are almost a third of his age.
All news organizations, including ESPN, sometimes publish ill-thought-through articles.
Like this one...every single week.
What's compelling about this one is the sociological change reflected. When they were young, the Baby Boomers who now run big news organizations extolled free love and mocked the older generation's conventional expectations about sexuality. Now that the Boomers have aged and are not getting any themselves, they evince shock that younger people are fooling around.
Yeah, they are just jealous they are getting any right now. Good point, Gregg!
Also, who is this "they" that Gregg keeps referring to Baby Boomers as? Baby Boomers are individuals born between 1946-1964 and Gregg was born in 1953. He is a Baby Boomer, so all the "they" references need to be changed to "we" because Gregg is one of the very Baby Boomers he seems so desperate to separate himself from.
When Buffalo used its first draft selection on big cornerback Stephon Gilmore, the Bills' brain trust said the reason was to match up with Gronkowski. How'd that work out for you? Gronkowski had a 41-yard reception on New England's first possession and went on to a 100-plus-yard afternoon that included a touchdown reception on which he simply ran up the field uncovered by anyone.
This was part of the reason the Bills drafted Gilmore, not the entire reason, though I am sure the difference doesn't matter to Gregg because his point stands.
The second half, in which New England had a 45-7 scoring streak, was like watching Itzhak Perlman give a violin lesson to a child.
Clearly this analogy was meant for the same Baby Boomer crowd that Gregg apparently doesn't consider himself to be a part of, yet expects his jokes to relate to them.
Going into the contest, the Patriots were on a 16-1 streak versus the Bills, and a 53-15 streak in the division. So what was star C.J. Spiller doing playing injured? Spiller separated his shoulder the week before, and belonged in a sweatsuit. Buffalo leading 14-7 with goal-to-go, Spiller carried up the middle against an overstack, lowered his shoulder, was hit on his shoulder and fumbled.
Of course if Spiller didn't play then Gregg would have criticized him for being a highly-paid first round pick glory boy who doesn't want to be a part of the ass whipping the Patriots gave the Bills. So either way Spiller loses. He tries to play through an injury and Gregg criticizes him, yet Gregg won't give him credit for being a highly-paid glory boy who doesn't fit his narrative-definition of a lazy first round pick who only cares about his own performance and not how the team performs.
As Toby Harshaw notes at Bloomberg View, the numbers actually are positive, because they reflect ever-rising participation in college board testing by minorities, immigrants and ESL kids. Once the SATs were taken only by whites from affluent backgrounds; then by whites from all backgrounds; increasingly they are taken by everybody.
I mean naturally we should expect SAT scores to fall once minorities, immigrants and ESL kids start taking it, since they are not as smart as white kids? I read the article and get the author's point and how he comes to his conclusion, but it is one of those conclusions I sort of shake my head upon hearing. It just sounds mean.
Having almost everyone in high school aspire to college is much more important to society than small score declines, which don't translate to much anyway.
I understand, but to say, "well we have immigrants taking the test now, so the scores are going to be lower" sounds mean, even if it is true.
Now it's Minnesota by 20-6, Detroit facing fourth-and-goal on the Vikings' 5 in the fourth quarter. Minnesota blitzed seven against seven Detroit blockers. No Detroit player even made contact with edge rusher Everson Griffen, who came through unblocked for the sack.
Sure, NOW blitzing is a good idea. Notice Gregg doesn't mention the blitz worked in this situation. It doesn't fit his narrative that blitzing in situations like this is always bad strategy.
The Lions have a mélange of big-bucks, high-drafted players who seem more interested in strutting and boasting than performing.
That's some expert analysis right there. Why doesn't Gregg has his own "NFL Matchup" type show on ESPN?
TMQ noted in my preseason preview that the Browns were going nowhere until Greg Little stops dropping the ball.
Plus they will go somewhere once they get better overall talent on both sides of the ball and a better quarterback...but mostly it is Greg Little's fault.
Regarding the Seattle-Green Bay ending, many readers including Ginny Kimmelman of Portland, Ore., noted, "You often say that on fourth down or a Hail Mary, the rule is 'fourth down knock it down.' Yet M.D. Jennings played for an interception. Why did you not chide him for making a catch?" The rule indeed is "Fourth Down, Knock It Down." But the day before, Tennessee's defensive backs tried to knock down Detroit's Hail Mary and succeeded only in tipping the ball to the Lions for a touchdown. My guess is this was fresh in the minds of Green Bay players that night.
Or Jennings thought the ball was coming right to him and he decided to just catch the ball. I doubt in the time the football was in the air, M.D. Jennings had time to think of the Lions players who unsuccessfully tried to knock a ball down the previous day and decided to catch the ball instead of knocking it down. Of course I can't read players' minds like Gregg can.
Davidson was the first elite college to adopt a no-loan philosophy -- students who qualify for financial aid receive their aid as grants and campus jobs, so they graduate without debt. No-loan aid is wonderful for the middle class, but offered mainly by highly selective colleges that are hard to get into.
Plus these highly selective colleges need two other things most college don't have...
1. A large enough current and continuing endowment to hand out large scholarships and grants to students without reducing the overall size of the endowment.
2. Students who can afford to pay cash for the balance they owe the school after scholarships and grants have been received.
Davidson is expensive, so they need students who are qualified enough to pay a large sum of cash each year to go to the college without having to take out loans.
Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far:
Houston leading 14-7, the Texans' Danieal Manning intercepted a Flaming Thumbtacks pass. As he commenced a cutback return, several Tennessee players merely jogged in his general direction. Tennessee's Chris Johnson, who boasts of being the fastest player in the league, quit on a play when Manning was still at the Tennessee 35-yard line and Johnson was not far behind. Johnson simply came to a halt and watched Manning run for a pick-six.
Upon watching the replay of this interception, I'm not entirely sure Chris Johnson could have caught Manning. Gregg seems to struggle sometimes with understanding how one NFL player just can't catch up with another NFL player. Much like last week when he couldn't understand how the Eagles couldn't catch James Sanders. NFL players are all very athletic and even if Chris Johnson can run a 4.24 40-yard dash it doesn't mean he could have caught Manning. Johnson was on the other side of the field when Manning cut left to score the touchdown.
This week Gregg updates us on Pulaski Academy and also says the NCAA needs to do something about all these offenses that are out of control. Gregg bases his position on watching the Baylor v. West Virginia game and noticing there were other high scoring NFL and college games this past weekend while happily ignoring the 23-16, 20-13, 19-13, 19-17, and 24-11 games that were played in the NFL this weekend. He also happily ignores prominent college football games that had scores of 17-16 (Ohio State v. Michigan State), 21-16 (Missouri v. Central Florida), 27-24 (Cincinnati v. Virginia Tech), 27-17 (Arizona State v. California), and 24-13 (Texas Tech v. Iowa State). Yes, I can't argue NCAA football has excessively low-scoring games, but I don't think it is an issue which affects the quality of the games. Of course Gregg needs something to discuss, so why not create an issue where there may not be one?
Baylor and West Virginia combined for 133 points and 1,507 yards of offense. New England and Buffalo combined for 1,018 yards of offense. Two players had at least 300 yards receiving in the Baylor-WVU contest, four players at least 100 yards of offense for New England. A quarter of NFL teams are averaging at least 400 yards of offense per game. NCAA and NFL scoring are at record highs.
There are also low scoring games being played as well. The Super Bowl has tended to be a fairly low scoring affair over the past decade. No team has scored more than 32 points in the Super Bowl since 2004 and since 2004 four winners of the Super Bowl have scored 25 or less points in the game. The BCS National Championship Game has had high scoring affairs and low scoring affairs since 2007. Offenses are dominating defenses in college football, but there are teams who play really good defense and play close, relatively low scoring games. Both West Virginia and Baylor have weak defenses and strong offenses and the same seems to go for the Buffalo Bills and New England Patriots. So scoring is up, but I don't see it as a huge issue.
Way back in the mists of history -- a few years ago -- defense won championships. After the 2011 season, the top playoff slots went to New England and Green Bay, the league's 31st- and 32nd-ranked defenses.
Right, and the Green Bay Packers lost their first playoff game to the New York Giants, who went on to beat the Patriots in a Super Bowl that wasn't high scoring. The score was 21-17 in that game. So the best teams still tend to play good defense against each other.
For a generation, the football establishment has been tweaking rules to favor offense. Maybe the pendulum has swung too far and it's time to tweak rules to favor defense.
The NFL wants to crack down on hard hits which could cause concussions and maintain standing as the most popular sport in the United States...good luck getting the NFL to tweak rules in favor of the defense and run the risk of taking any of the excitement out of the game or allowing defenders more leniency in getting more physical with offensive players.
The big rules changes were the 5-yard chuck rule, instituted in 1978 and made more strict in 2004; end of the head slap by defenders; allowing offensive linemen to use their hands; and making most contact with the quarterback illegal. These changes were designed to increase scoring, and had the intended impact.
The changes to making most contact with the quarterback illegal was also designed to protect quarterbacks who often are in a defenseless position when throwing the football. Quarterbacks are the big celebrities in the NFL and protecting these players is important to the NFL.
Rules evolution in college football roughly mirrors the NFL, and has the same purpose: to increase scoring. College adds the style-points dynamic.
Another part of the evolution of college football is that offenses are far ahead of defenses right now. It is a matter of the spread offense in college presenting problems that many defensive coordinators haven't been able to solve yet. It is also important to remember there is generally a wider gap in talent between two teams in college football. I would guess scoring would decrease as conference play begins and the defenses start catching up with the offenses.
In fact, Gregg used this exact same reasoning last year during Week 1 and Week 2 when discussing how NFL offenses are going to regress because NFL defenses will eventually catch up to the NFL offenses. So the idea college and NFL offenses are going to have their scoring per game slightly decreased as the season goes along isn't a new argument to Gregg since he made this exact same argument last year.
The pros have no polls; a 16-13 victory is as good as a 45-3 win. In college, the high-scoring win is what impresses pollsters. In the NFL, there are no boosters;
It seems Gregg is claiming NFL teams don't try to score as many points as possible in a game. That's an interesting theory.
Alabama, LSU, Ohio State and a few others still line up their best athletes on defense. But putting the best athletes on offense is popular across the college scene.
So basically the teams that win National Championships are the ones who put good athletes on defense as well as offense.
The occasional high-scoring game is fun, but do we really want football to become basketball on grass, with almost every possession resulting in a score and whoever has the ball last winning?
Obviously we don't, but as I have already stated, the teams that win National Champions play good defense as well. Defenses may not completely catch up with the offenses, but I don't think football is at the point where the last team to have the ball wins the game. Even in the Baylor-West Virginia game the Mountaineers were pretty solidly in the lead for the entire game. They were usually a touchdown ahead of Baylor when having possession of the football.
Relax the chuck rule (and also call it the Charles rule, which is more dignified) to allow contact with a receiver up to 10 yards downfield.
As somewhat discussed in the Chuck Klosterman post from a few days ago, I'm not sure this is the direction football will end up going. To me, allowing contact with receivers up to 10 yards downfield, which would include a receiver going over the middle on a crossing route could run contrary to the intent to decrease concussions.
Make offensive holding an officiating "point of emphasis." Right now an offensive lineman has to wrap both arms around a defender to be called. Any grabbing of jersey or arm should be a flag.
So how is an offensive lineman expected to block if he can't grab any jersey or the defensive player's arm? I'm not saying the offensive lineman should be able to tackle the defensive player to the ground, but part of blocking is grabbing a player's arm. Even the NFL rules seem to allow an offensive player to use his hands to grab the opponent's arm as long as he isn't restricting him.
I'm all for whatever makes the NFL better, but defensive players are so athletic that offensive linemen have to be able to block them by grabbing jersey or an arm as long as they aren't restricting their motion in some way.
Just as the NBA allows traveling so long as you dunk, the NFL allows illegal motion so long as the result is more offense.
Clearly Gregg watches a lot of NBA basketball. In the NBA, a player can sometimes travel even if he isn't dunking, though the NBA has tried to crackdown on players taking extra steps in going for a layup or dunk. This isn't necessarily comparable to the NFL's role of illegal motion either way.
Whether Gregg wants to change these rules or not I don't see the NFL stopping the rise of the offense as long as the fans enjoy seeing offense.
Trailing Seattle 7-3 and facing fourth-and-goal on the Bluish Men Group 2 at the end of the first half, St. Louis did the expected, sending in the field goal team. No Seahawk noticed Danny Amendola flanked wide, almost on the sideline. Holder Johnny Hekker threw to him for a touchdown -- sweet! Extra-sweet was that because Amendola had been on the field the previous down, he was not required to be inside the hashmarks before this snap, as is a substitute entering the game. The play design is that if the receiver isn't noticed, throw; if he is noticed, just go ahead and kick the field goal.
This is how smart Gregg Easterbrook is. He knows exactly how this play was designed by the Rams' special teams coordinator. Despite not being on the Rams' coaching staff, he knows if Amendola was going to be noticed then the Rams were going to go for the field goal. Sure, in reality it might make sense to assume the audible on this play to just kick the field goal, but how does Gregg know for sure this is the play design? He seems pretty sure this was the exact play design. I don't see him cite any quotes to back up this contention and I haven't read anything that supports this. It sounds like nitpicking, but this is typical of Gregg. He just writes things and hopes his readers believe them to be true.
Arizona coaches kept an extra blocker back and sent Andre Roberts on an out-and-up. Dolphins corner Richard Marshall bit hard, while the safety on that side, Chris Clemons, jumped a short route -- leaving no one between Robert and the end zone. Sour for Miami, whose coaches began the season by trading away their best defensive back, Vontae Davis, in order to bank future draft choices.
How dare the rebuilding Miami Dolphins trade away their "best" defensive back, who was so much considered the best cornerback on the Dolphins roster that he was their third-string cornerback, in exchange for a second round pick which will probably be in the late 30's or early 40's of the 2013 NFL Draft. It's just so stupid for a rebuilding team to trade underachieving players for second round draft choices in an effort to build a good team for the future. The Dolphins traded Davis fully knowing they would eventually give up a touchdown pass later in the year. What terrible management. Clearly Vontae Davis would have prevented this touchdown pass from being thrown.
Now Atlanta has the ball on its 1 with 59 seconds remaining and no timeouts. Where oh where might the pass go? Maybe up the field? Yet the Panthers put eight defenders "in the box" as if expecting a power rush, then fell for a play fake. The Falcons had no choice but to throw deep. Yet Carolina stacked against the run and then fell for a play fake.
Gregg now criticizes Carolina for giving up the long pass to Roddy White that essentially lost the game for them. I don't feel like reliving that play again, but I will say while one player did seem to go for the play fake (it also appears he was running a delayed blitz, so it didn't affect his coverage), Carolina was not playing eight men in the box as Gregg contends they did.
Carolina was simply running man-to-man defense and were close to the Falcons players on the line of scrimmage. If Carolina had run a soft defense, which Gregg criticizes them for doing two plays after this one, Gregg would have criticized this as well. The defense didn't really fall for the play fake and there weren't eight men in the box. The entire issue on this play wasn't a lack of soft coverage or the man coverage but the fact the two Panthers safeties didn't protect well enough against the deep pass.
TMQ is following the fourth-down results at Pulaski Academy in Little Rock, Ark., where head coach Kevin Kelley has eschewed the punt for years.
Last season, Pulaski punted once and won the state title. So far this season the Bruins are 3-2 and have gone for it on fourth down 34 times, converting 16.
For the record, against good competition where the games were close Pulaski Academy has converted fourth down 4 times, out of 14 possible chances. I feel like this is important because it very well could show when the talent difference between two teams is smaller fourth down conversions won't happen as frequently.
Fourth-down results by the backups:
Fourth-and-2 on opponent's 38: converted. Fourth-and-10 on own 35: pass, incomplete.
This is my main problem with using a talented high school team going against a clearly inferior opponent as proof NFL and college teams need to go for it on fourth down. Pulaski faced two fourth downs the entire game. Clearly, they were the better team in this game. I don't see how a very good high school team which has better talent than most teams it faces on a weekly basis tells us whether going for it on fourth down is smart or not. I think the talent difference in Pulaski and their opponents is too great to accurately project how going for it on fourth on every possession would work in the NFL.
At kickoff in Philadelphia for a night game it was a nippy 62 degrees with temperatures falling. Eagles cheerleaders showed professionalism by wearing their bikini-beach summer outfits, and this appeased the football gods, who smiled on the home team.
Gregg must be a real peach to work with around the office.
"Show some professionalism Linda, show us some more leg, and get shorter skirts. Let the Gods of journalism have a chance to shine on you (high fives the other 10 nerdy white guys who work in the office and are sexually repressed like Gregg)."
Game scoreless, Philadelphia faced third-and-9 on the Jersey/A 19 just inside the two-minute warning of the first half. The Giants blitzed seven; the Eagles went max-protect, keeping eight back to block; despite Jersey/A having four in the secondary to guard two receivers, DeSean Jackson got open on a combo pattern for a touchdown; the hosts went on to win 19-17. How four men can fail to guard two is anyone's guess. But why the all-out blitz? Since the play began on the Jersey/A 19, a sack would have left Philadelphia in field goal range. An incompletion, not a sack, was what Jersey/A needed.
Yes, but with an incompletion the Eagles would still be in field goal range. So the Giants were being aggressive in trying to make the Eagles attempt a more difficult field goal. Doesn't fortune favor the bold? Gregg has no point here. He's basically saying the Giants shouldn't have gone for a sack because the best that could happen is the Eagles stay in field goal range, but then he says the Giants shouldn't have been aggressive and tried to get an incompletion...which still would have kept the Eagles in field goal range. In fact, the Eagles would have had a closer field goal attempt after an incompletion than after a sack. The result aside, how is the decision to go for an incompletion better than the decision to go for a sack? Either way, the Eagles are going for a field goal.
Yet research shows that U.S. alcohol consumption has remained relatively stable. This 2010 Gallup study found that U.S. alcohol consumption peaked in 1978 and is mainly down since. This year, Gallup's Wellbeing arm found that college-aged Americans report 5.4 drinks per week, hardly Dionysian, that only one-third in the college-aged group say they "sometimes drink too much."
I'm not sure you can entirely trust a survey based on the opinion of college-aged kids as to whether they "sometimes drink too much" or not. It's all about perspective. I never thought I drank too much in college, but looking back, I certainly did drink a lot. I don't know if you can trust a survey based on college-aged kids giving a relative judgment about their drinking habits. There is nothing wrong with the perspective of the college kids, but "drinking too much" is a subjective question which a 21 year old views differently from a 31 year old. What was once the amount of alcohol I drank BEFORE going out to drink is now the amount of alcohol I drink when I go out to drink. It's all about perspective and whose perspective we are looking at the question from. So I don't take a lot of stock in one-third of college students saying they "sometimes drink too much" because it depends completely on what your opinion of "drinking too much" may be.
I don't know where the hell they did this survey either, but 5.4 drinks per week isn't even close to the amount of alcohol college-aged kids I knew drank in college over a week. Maybe double that and it could be more accurate...or perhaps my friends and I were just raging alcoholics.
Gallup also found young men prefer beer while young women prefer wine; liquor is a low priority to the college-aged.
What a revelation! We need a survey to figure out liquor is expensive and Busch Beer or Milwaukee's Best is cheap.
Three snaps after the fumble, Drew Brees threw an 80-yard touchdown pass to Joseph Morgan. Green Bay corner Sam Shields was making the high school mistake of looking into the backfield, trying to guess what Brees would do,
Doesn't Gregg mean "undrafted and lowly-paid, but extremely hard-working" Green Bay corner Sam Shields? As usual, Gregg leaves a player's draft position out when it isn't convenient or it goes against the narrative he wants to preach.
As "Taken 2" premieres, forget that Liam Neeson once was an actor. Forget that at age 60, he is depicted as effortlessly beating up gangsters half his age. Forget that not once, not twice, but three times in "Taken," Neeson's character walked into a situation unarmed and within seconds had killed half a dozen men who had guns.
"Taken" isn't a realistic movie and "Taken 2" probably won't be either. They are fun movies where you get to watch Liam Neeson say threatening things and kick people's ass. It's not intended to be indicative of reality. For God's sake, Maggie Grace plays a teenager and she is almost 30 years old in real life.
The Packers, Redskins and other teams are showing the Pistol, pioneered at Nevada by Chris Ault, college football's least appreciated coach. In a Pistol, the quarterback is in the shotgun but it's a short shotgun closer to the center than a true shotgun,
Clearly Gregg is giving us the extremely technical definition of the Pistol.
"See what happens here in the shotgun is the quarterback takes the snap but stands further back away from the center's ass. It's a long snap, but it is shorter than a long snap for a punt or field goal so the long snapper isn't in the game. So in the shotgun, the center snaps the ball longer than he would normally do because the quarterback isn't behind him, but he doesn't snap it so far as to actually perform a 'long snap' but it is more of an intermediate snap. Now let me explain the option-read offense to you. The running back is behind the quarterback and rather than immediately hand the ball off to the running back, the quarterback starts running in a certain direction and then may or may not throw the ball to the running back, but isn't like a forward pass because most of the time it is backwards except when it is forward..."
Bill Belichick keeps his offense fresh by constantly adding new formations and actions. Harbaugh/West is doing the same.
So no other NFL coaches add new personnel groupings or formations in during the season? You would think other coaches would try to keep the offense constantly fresh, but what I've learned from Gregg is they don't. Only the really good coaches keep the offense fresh by constantly adding new formations and actions. I learn so many questionably fact-based new things when reading TMQ.
So why does the penny endure? The zinc lobby profits from the penny. The zinc lobby is not exactly the oil lobby or the Hollywood lobby. But it's a lobby, and in modern American politics, every lobby seems to get whatever it asks, the public be damned.
Those damn zinc lobbyists! If only the wood lobbyists had as much pull as the zinc lobbyists we would still have wooden nickels.
I'm starting to get suspicious of all this discussion in the public about safe-sex and using a condom to prevent disease and pregnancy. I have a feeling safe-sex isn't really important, it is just the latex lobbyists trying to further their own agenda.
Speaking of sex, Gregg has suddenly become incredibly sexually-liberated over the past year or so. In parts of TMQ he has started railing on the 1960's "free love" hippies who he now considers to be hypocrites for writing articles about the scandalous nature of sex. There is a lot of generalizations in his statements, but it is funny to read coming from him. I'm not sure when Gregg turned into becoming a leader of the sexual revolution, but it appears he is headed in that direction. Maybe he is just fighting for his right to ogle cheerleaders who are almost a third of his age.
All news organizations, including ESPN, sometimes publish ill-thought-through articles.
Like this one...every single week.
What's compelling about this one is the sociological change reflected. When they were young, the Baby Boomers who now run big news organizations extolled free love and mocked the older generation's conventional expectations about sexuality. Now that the Boomers have aged and are not getting any themselves, they evince shock that younger people are fooling around.
Yeah, they are just jealous they are getting any right now. Good point, Gregg!
Also, who is this "they" that Gregg keeps referring to Baby Boomers as? Baby Boomers are individuals born between 1946-1964 and Gregg was born in 1953. He is a Baby Boomer, so all the "they" references need to be changed to "we" because Gregg is one of the very Baby Boomers he seems so desperate to separate himself from.
When Buffalo used its first draft selection on big cornerback Stephon Gilmore, the Bills' brain trust said the reason was to match up with Gronkowski. How'd that work out for you? Gronkowski had a 41-yard reception on New England's first possession and went on to a 100-plus-yard afternoon that included a touchdown reception on which he simply ran up the field uncovered by anyone.
This was part of the reason the Bills drafted Gilmore, not the entire reason, though I am sure the difference doesn't matter to Gregg because his point stands.
The second half, in which New England had a 45-7 scoring streak, was like watching Itzhak Perlman give a violin lesson to a child.
Clearly this analogy was meant for the same Baby Boomer crowd that Gregg apparently doesn't consider himself to be a part of, yet expects his jokes to relate to them.
Going into the contest, the Patriots were on a 16-1 streak versus the Bills, and a 53-15 streak in the division. So what was star C.J. Spiller doing playing injured? Spiller separated his shoulder the week before, and belonged in a sweatsuit. Buffalo leading 14-7 with goal-to-go, Spiller carried up the middle against an overstack, lowered his shoulder, was hit on his shoulder and fumbled.
Of course if Spiller didn't play then Gregg would have criticized him for being a highly-paid first round pick glory boy who doesn't want to be a part of the ass whipping the Patriots gave the Bills. So either way Spiller loses. He tries to play through an injury and Gregg criticizes him, yet Gregg won't give him credit for being a highly-paid glory boy who doesn't fit his narrative-definition of a lazy first round pick who only cares about his own performance and not how the team performs.
As Toby Harshaw notes at Bloomberg View, the numbers actually are positive, because they reflect ever-rising participation in college board testing by minorities, immigrants and ESL kids. Once the SATs were taken only by whites from affluent backgrounds; then by whites from all backgrounds; increasingly they are taken by everybody.
I mean naturally we should expect SAT scores to fall once minorities, immigrants and ESL kids start taking it, since they are not as smart as white kids? I read the article and get the author's point and how he comes to his conclusion, but it is one of those conclusions I sort of shake my head upon hearing. It just sounds mean.
Having almost everyone in high school aspire to college is much more important to society than small score declines, which don't translate to much anyway.
I understand, but to say, "well we have immigrants taking the test now, so the scores are going to be lower" sounds mean, even if it is true.
Now it's Minnesota by 20-6, Detroit facing fourth-and-goal on the Vikings' 5 in the fourth quarter. Minnesota blitzed seven against seven Detroit blockers. No Detroit player even made contact with edge rusher Everson Griffen, who came through unblocked for the sack.
Sure, NOW blitzing is a good idea. Notice Gregg doesn't mention the blitz worked in this situation. It doesn't fit his narrative that blitzing in situations like this is always bad strategy.
The Lions have a mélange of big-bucks, high-drafted players who seem more interested in strutting and boasting than performing.
That's some expert analysis right there. Why doesn't Gregg has his own "NFL Matchup" type show on ESPN?
TMQ noted in my preseason preview that the Browns were going nowhere until Greg Little stops dropping the ball.
Plus they will go somewhere once they get better overall talent on both sides of the ball and a better quarterback...but mostly it is Greg Little's fault.
Regarding the Seattle-Green Bay ending, many readers including Ginny Kimmelman of Portland, Ore., noted, "You often say that on fourth down or a Hail Mary, the rule is 'fourth down knock it down.' Yet M.D. Jennings played for an interception. Why did you not chide him for making a catch?" The rule indeed is "Fourth Down, Knock It Down." But the day before, Tennessee's defensive backs tried to knock down Detroit's Hail Mary and succeeded only in tipping the ball to the Lions for a touchdown. My guess is this was fresh in the minds of Green Bay players that night.
Or Jennings thought the ball was coming right to him and he decided to just catch the ball. I doubt in the time the football was in the air, M.D. Jennings had time to think of the Lions players who unsuccessfully tried to knock a ball down the previous day and decided to catch the ball instead of knocking it down. Of course I can't read players' minds like Gregg can.
Davidson was the first elite college to adopt a no-loan philosophy -- students who qualify for financial aid receive their aid as grants and campus jobs, so they graduate without debt. No-loan aid is wonderful for the middle class, but offered mainly by highly selective colleges that are hard to get into.
Plus these highly selective colleges need two other things most college don't have...
1. A large enough current and continuing endowment to hand out large scholarships and grants to students without reducing the overall size of the endowment.
2. Students who can afford to pay cash for the balance they owe the school after scholarships and grants have been received.
Davidson is expensive, so they need students who are qualified enough to pay a large sum of cash each year to go to the college without having to take out loans.
Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far:
Houston leading 14-7, the Texans' Danieal Manning intercepted a Flaming Thumbtacks pass. As he commenced a cutback return, several Tennessee players merely jogged in his general direction. Tennessee's Chris Johnson, who boasts of being the fastest player in the league, quit on a play when Manning was still at the Tennessee 35-yard line and Johnson was not far behind. Johnson simply came to a halt and watched Manning run for a pick-six.
Upon watching the replay of this interception, I'm not entirely sure Chris Johnson could have caught Manning. Gregg seems to struggle sometimes with understanding how one NFL player just can't catch up with another NFL player. Much like last week when he couldn't understand how the Eagles couldn't catch James Sanders. NFL players are all very athletic and even if Chris Johnson can run a 4.24 40-yard dash it doesn't mean he could have caught Manning. Johnson was on the other side of the field when Manning cut left to score the touchdown.
Friday, March 30, 2012
5 comments No, College Football Postseason Is Not Better Than College Basketball's Postseason
Leave it to a Bleacher Report columnist to believe the NCAA college football postseason is better than the NCAA college basketball postseason. I would bet even the most diehard college football fan would agree the NCAA Tournament is more exciting than the BCS bowl. I don't believe this to be true at all. Leave it to a Bleacher Report writer to get together 50 reasons why college football's bowls (there is no real postseason) are better than college basketball's NCAA Tournament. I don't even see how there is a debate on this issue.
The reasons given by the author are incomprehensibly bad and also noted by me in bold italics.
Let's start the slideshow!
I love both college basketball and football to death, but something about the BCS and all of the bowl games gets me more excited.
I love both college basketball and football to death, but NOTHING about the BCS and all of the bowl games gets me more excited.
There. It's fixed.
but here are my 50 reasons as to why March Madness does not hold a candle to college football's postseason.
I warn you, they are terrible. Maybe college football is better than college basketball during the regular season, but the college football bowl system is the biggest letdown and disappointment among all sports in terms of how the postseason is run. We wait almost a month and a half for two teams to battle for the BCS Championship and along the way there are bowl games, only half of which are even somewhat interesting to me. No offense to the 10 bowl games that featured teams who won 6 games or less prior to making a bowl game (meaning these teams were just above .500 or below .500 like UCLA before the bowl game), but I prefer the competition of the NCAA Tournament where one team at or under .500 in the field is the exception.
Cash Money
You can't argue with someone who considers cash money received by the schools and networks to be a reason one postseason is better than the other.
From 2009 through 2011, an average of 28.3 million people watched the BCS Championship. During that same span, an average of only 20.4 million watched the NCAA Tournament's title game.
I never knew people are considered monetary amounts. I'm going to go purchase a hamburger and pay Burger King with 1.5 people and see how that works. What he means to talk about is ad revenue. In reality, the ad revenue of the NCAA Tournament is third behind the Final Four and the World Series at $170 million. Where did I get this information? From the exact same article this idiot just selectively chose his information from.
For one, there's a lot more money at stake in college football than there is in basketball. The Final Four pulled in nearly $170 in ad revenue last year, behind only the Super Bowl ($228 million) and World Series ($269 million).
So while more people watch the BCS championship game and the networks have larger contracts for the BCS games, the Final Four pulls in more money for advertisers.
Officials
Officiating in college basketball does suck. I'll give everyone that.
If you paid any attention to the tournament, many of these games are being decided in the final minute with a questionable call (or so it seems).
I love the way your over-generalized statement proves your point.
We don’t see that in football and we never see a fluke game reversed in football unless it is for the better and correct call (it is called review).
The reasons given by the author are incomprehensibly bad and also noted by me in bold italics.
Let's start the slideshow!
I love both college basketball and football to death, but something about the BCS and all of the bowl games gets me more excited.
I love both college basketball and football to death, but NOTHING about the BCS and all of the bowl games gets me more excited.
There. It's fixed.
but here are my 50 reasons as to why March Madness does not hold a candle to college football's postseason.
I warn you, they are terrible. Maybe college football is better than college basketball during the regular season, but the college football bowl system is the biggest letdown and disappointment among all sports in terms of how the postseason is run. We wait almost a month and a half for two teams to battle for the BCS Championship and along the way there are bowl games, only half of which are even somewhat interesting to me. No offense to the 10 bowl games that featured teams who won 6 games or less prior to making a bowl game (meaning these teams were just above .500 or below .500 like UCLA before the bowl game), but I prefer the competition of the NCAA Tournament where one team at or under .500 in the field is the exception.
Cash Money
You can't argue with someone who considers cash money received by the schools and networks to be a reason one postseason is better than the other.
From 2009 through 2011, an average of 28.3 million people watched the BCS Championship. During that same span, an average of only 20.4 million watched the NCAA Tournament's title game.
I never knew people are considered monetary amounts. I'm going to go purchase a hamburger and pay Burger King with 1.5 people and see how that works. What he means to talk about is ad revenue. In reality, the ad revenue of the NCAA Tournament is third behind the Final Four and the World Series at $170 million. Where did I get this information? From the exact same article this idiot just selectively chose his information from.
For one, there's a lot more money at stake in college football than there is in basketball. The Final Four pulled in nearly $170 in ad revenue last year, behind only the Super Bowl ($228 million) and World Series ($269 million).
So while more people watch the BCS championship game and the networks have larger contracts for the BCS games, the Final Four pulls in more money for advertisers.
Officials
Officiating in college basketball does suck. I'll give everyone that.
If you paid any attention to the tournament, many of these games are being decided in the final minute with a questionable call (or so it seems).
I love the way your over-generalized statement proves your point.
We don’t see that in football and we never see a fluke game reversed in football unless it is for the better and correct call (it is called review).
Some of it actually is where the officials do not make the right call, but that is never the issue in college football (especially in bowl games).
Really? The 2002 BCS Championship Game argues differently. Also, in college basketball the officials are required to make more judgment calls without the benefit of instant replay. There are fewer judgment calls to be made in college football (other than where to spot the ball) during a game. I wouldn't say bad calls are NEVER an issue though.
Timeouts
There is nothing more annoying than having longer and extended timeouts in the NCAA Tournament. It allows the underdog to stay in the game longer and gives them more hope to believe.
This has absolutely no meaning in the real world. This author really, really, really likes to generalize. What's wrong with the underdog having more hope to believe? How do timeouts give the underdog more hope again?
There is nothing wrong with that, but college football keeps it at a level playing field.
I fail to see how timeouts cause an uneven playing field.
Maybe there is not an edge given in terms of how long the timeouts are,
"Maybe everything I've just said is all bullshit."
The bottom line is a college basketball game is two hours long and a college football is three hours long. Regardless of timeouts, it takes longer to play a college football game and the halftime of a BCS game is at least 30 minutes long. So there may be more timeouts in college basketball, but BCS games take longer overall.
Final Four in Football is Always Better
The top two bowl games (national title being one of them, obviously) every season are always memorable, period. I wish I could say the same for college basketball.
ANOTHER generalization. There have been memorable college basketball and college football games. We all remember Vince Young's drive that won the game for Texas in the 2005 National Championship Game, but we also remember Gordon Heyward's halfcourt shot that almost won the NCAA Tournament for Butler.
I'm not sure what anyone finds memorable about the BCS Championship Games over the last five years, other than who won of course. Even the "best" game in that time wasn't the most exciting championship game (2011 BCS Championship Game) and is mostly known for Oregon's inability to properly ensure Michael Dyer was down, allowing him to rush for more yardage on a running play. I feel like the BCS Championship Game is usually a letdown after a month and a half long wait. That's just my opinion though and I don't have any over-generalized statements to support my opinion.
College Basketball's Regular Season
I cannot say I have too many friends or family members who even bother watching any of the regular season games.
Perhaps you shouldn't use your friends and family as the sample size from which you chose to derive your conclusion.
Well, they are essentially meaningless due to the fact that you are not rewarded much by dominating in the regular season.
So what exactly was LSU rewarded for dominating the regular season this year in college football? A chance to play Alabama, a team they had already beaten during the regular season? That's some reward, the chance to beat Alabama, a they had already beaten at Alabama. At least college basketball has a tournament which allows the best teams to go head-to-head, which is something college football probably needs.
Outside of earning a one-seed, you might be matched up with a giant killing mid-major or perhaps one hell of a squad in the second (now called third round).
That's the breaks and what makes the college basketball postseason so much fun. You have to constantly prove you are one of the best teams in the country to advance. What makes college football's postseason so tedious is fans have to sit through 20+ irrelevant bowl games just to get to a bowl game that "matters" in that they don't really matter since the winner only gets pride, a trophy and a gift bag for participating.
College football's Regular Season
We are already stretching these reasons to get to 50.
It leads us to a tremendous postseason where we see the best of the best compete against one another.
No we don't. We see teams chosen for a bowl game based on predicted attendance for that game, ability for the bowl to turn the highest amount of profit, and conference affiliation.
And this news might shock you, but they reward teams for what they accomplished in the regular season!
Ask Boise State and Oklahoma State if they feel they were rewarded for what they accomplished during the regular season. The odds aren't they don't feel very rewarded. Houston lost their conference championship game and was rewarded by playing by going to the TicketCity Bowl, without a chance to play against other teams who only have one loss.
College football takes the two "best" teams and pits them against each other and all the other teams are shit out of luck.
Pageantry
In the first few rounds, some teams just get a feel for their competition. In bowl games, this is it.
Wasn't it just a few minutes ago the author said the college basketball postseason stunk because a team isn't rewarded for a strong regular season? Didn't the author say a team could run into "a giant-killing mid-major" or "one hell of a squad?" But now, teams are just feeling their way through games? You can't have it both ways. Either elite college basketball teams are challenged by a "giant-killing mid-major" or they can feel their way through games. You can't argue both ways and be persuasive.
Jump Balls
There is one jump ball per game. So jump balls are bad?
It is like a turnover, if your team does not have the possession arrow, then it just flat out stinks.
So the possession arrow stinks AND jump balls stink?
I do not agree with Dick Vitale on everything, but this rule must change (he has stated it many times). They need to jump it up like the NBA because this kills the tournament.
WHAT? So jump balls are bad, but college basketball should have more jump balls? I hate to ask this question, but if jump balls are so damn bad, then WHY DO YOU WANT MORE OF THEM?
This article reads like it was dictated to the author by a 5 year old.
Tiring
Bowl season allows you time to actually get some sleep and be able to come back ready to go for every game.
Unfortunately for the first two weeks of the bowl games are you rested and ready to watch irrelevant bowl games and by the time good bowl games come around they start at 8:45pm It's hard to watch the whole thing if you live on the East Coast.
Entertainment
The momentum never dies in college football’s postseason, and we are almost never let down in the main events (BCS bowls).
The momentum never dies in college football's postseason because there is never any momentum. Once the bowl games matchups are decided it takes a month for some of the matchups to even take place. There is no momentum for BCS bowls. All momentum is destroyed by the long wait for the BCS bowl games and the fact the games are played at 8:30pm on a weeknight. While the NCAA Tournament is an event, the BCS bowls are a welcome sign that bowl season is finally ending.
Getting Jobbed
Outside of getting jobbed by officials in the final minutes (Butler-Pitt, among hundreds of games),
This is among hundreds of games, not wait, thousands of games, no wait, millions of games where one team has gotten "jobbed" by the officials. In fact, there are so many games where a team has gotten "jobbed" by the officials the author doesn't even bother to list them. In fact, there are so many numerous games the author doesn't even have time to list a game from this very college basketball season where the officials "jobbed" a team. So he lists a Butler-Pitt NCAA Tournament game where the officials didn't screw up, but called two legitimate fouls, one on each team. So neither team got "jobbed" since Butler and Pitt had a ticky-tack foul called on them at the end of the game. What a poor example to prove another over-generalized reason.
Basketball is about a game of runs, but one poor shooting night and it all evaporates in front of you.
Timeouts
There is nothing more annoying than having longer and extended timeouts in the NCAA Tournament. It allows the underdog to stay in the game longer and gives them more hope to believe.
This has absolutely no meaning in the real world. This author really, really, really likes to generalize. What's wrong with the underdog having more hope to believe? How do timeouts give the underdog more hope again?
There is nothing wrong with that, but college football keeps it at a level playing field.
I fail to see how timeouts cause an uneven playing field.
Maybe there is not an edge given in terms of how long the timeouts are,
"Maybe everything I've just said is all bullshit."
The bottom line is a college basketball game is two hours long and a college football is three hours long. Regardless of timeouts, it takes longer to play a college football game and the halftime of a BCS game is at least 30 minutes long. So there may be more timeouts in college basketball, but BCS games take longer overall.
Final Four in Football is Always Better
The top two bowl games (national title being one of them, obviously) every season are always memorable, period. I wish I could say the same for college basketball.
ANOTHER generalization. There have been memorable college basketball and college football games. We all remember Vince Young's drive that won the game for Texas in the 2005 National Championship Game, but we also remember Gordon Heyward's halfcourt shot that almost won the NCAA Tournament for Butler.
I'm not sure what anyone finds memorable about the BCS Championship Games over the last five years, other than who won of course. Even the "best" game in that time wasn't the most exciting championship game (2011 BCS Championship Game) and is mostly known for Oregon's inability to properly ensure Michael Dyer was down, allowing him to rush for more yardage on a running play. I feel like the BCS Championship Game is usually a letdown after a month and a half long wait. That's just my opinion though and I don't have any over-generalized statements to support my opinion.
College Basketball's Regular Season
I cannot say I have too many friends or family members who even bother watching any of the regular season games.
Perhaps you shouldn't use your friends and family as the sample size from which you chose to derive your conclusion.
Well, they are essentially meaningless due to the fact that you are not rewarded much by dominating in the regular season.
So what exactly was LSU rewarded for dominating the regular season this year in college football? A chance to play Alabama, a team they had already beaten during the regular season? That's some reward, the chance to beat Alabama, a they had already beaten at Alabama. At least college basketball has a tournament which allows the best teams to go head-to-head, which is something college football probably needs.
Outside of earning a one-seed, you might be matched up with a giant killing mid-major or perhaps one hell of a squad in the second (now called third round).
That's the breaks and what makes the college basketball postseason so much fun. You have to constantly prove you are one of the best teams in the country to advance. What makes college football's postseason so tedious is fans have to sit through 20+ irrelevant bowl games just to get to a bowl game that "matters" in that they don't really matter since the winner only gets pride, a trophy and a gift bag for participating.
College football's Regular Season
We are already stretching these reasons to get to 50.
It leads us to a tremendous postseason where we see the best of the best compete against one another.
No we don't. We see teams chosen for a bowl game based on predicted attendance for that game, ability for the bowl to turn the highest amount of profit, and conference affiliation.
And this news might shock you, but they reward teams for what they accomplished in the regular season!
Ask Boise State and Oklahoma State if they feel they were rewarded for what they accomplished during the regular season. The odds aren't they don't feel very rewarded. Houston lost their conference championship game and was rewarded by playing by going to the TicketCity Bowl, without a chance to play against other teams who only have one loss.
College football takes the two "best" teams and pits them against each other and all the other teams are shit out of luck.
Pageantry
In the first few rounds, some teams just get a feel for their competition. In bowl games, this is it.
Wasn't it just a few minutes ago the author said the college basketball postseason stunk because a team isn't rewarded for a strong regular season? Didn't the author say a team could run into "a giant-killing mid-major" or "one hell of a squad?" But now, teams are just feeling their way through games? You can't have it both ways. Either elite college basketball teams are challenged by a "giant-killing mid-major" or they can feel their way through games. You can't argue both ways and be persuasive.
Jump Balls
There is one jump ball per game. So jump balls are bad?
It is like a turnover, if your team does not have the possession arrow, then it just flat out stinks.
So the possession arrow stinks AND jump balls stink?
I do not agree with Dick Vitale on everything, but this rule must change (he has stated it many times). They need to jump it up like the NBA because this kills the tournament.
WHAT? So jump balls are bad, but college basketball should have more jump balls? I hate to ask this question, but if jump balls are so damn bad, then WHY DO YOU WANT MORE OF THEM?
This article reads like it was dictated to the author by a 5 year old.
Tiring
Bowl season allows you time to actually get some sleep and be able to come back ready to go for every game.
Unfortunately for the first two weeks of the bowl games are you rested and ready to watch irrelevant bowl games and by the time good bowl games come around they start at 8:45pm It's hard to watch the whole thing if you live on the East Coast.
Entertainment
The momentum never dies in college football’s postseason, and we are almost never let down in the main events (BCS bowls).
The momentum never dies in college football's postseason because there is never any momentum. Once the bowl games matchups are decided it takes a month for some of the matchups to even take place. There is no momentum for BCS bowls. All momentum is destroyed by the long wait for the BCS bowl games and the fact the games are played at 8:30pm on a weeknight. While the NCAA Tournament is an event, the BCS bowls are a welcome sign that bowl season is finally ending.
Getting Jobbed
Outside of getting jobbed by officials in the final minutes (Butler-Pitt, among hundreds of games),
This is among hundreds of games, not wait, thousands of games, no wait, millions of games where one team has gotten "jobbed" by the officials. In fact, there are so many games where a team has gotten "jobbed" by the officials the author doesn't even bother to list them. In fact, there are so many numerous games the author doesn't even have time to list a game from this very college basketball season where the officials "jobbed" a team. So he lists a Butler-Pitt NCAA Tournament game where the officials didn't screw up, but called two legitimate fouls, one on each team. So neither team got "jobbed" since Butler and Pitt had a ticky-tack foul called on them at the end of the game. What a poor example to prove another over-generalized reason.
Basketball is about a game of runs, but one poor shooting night and it all evaporates in front of you.
It is tough for a running team to get bottled up in a bowl game when they have two All-Americans paving the way.
So because the NCAA Tournament is more unpredictable, it isn't as exciting as the bowl games? Crazy me, I always thought excitement was good during sporting events.
Forget the major upsets in college football because the two juggernauts competing with one another are more than likely close in talent to begin with.
Who can forget the juggernaut West Virginia team playing the juggernaut Clemson team in a bowl game this year? The same game where West Virginia ran up 70 points on the juggernaut Clemson team. How about that National Championship game this year where the juggernaut LSU team couldn't get past mid-field?
No Jamar Samuels
Never in my lifetime have I ever heard of or even pondered such an awful thought. Jamar Samuel was Kansas State's second-leading scorer and leading rebounder who suspended approximately 20 minutes before tip-off this past weekend against Syracuse.
The timing was the abysmal part of this whole thing, and for that reason I must put the NCAA Tournament and college basketball in the timeout circle.
We all know college football would never have problems like this. Players would never get suspended for selling a game-worn jersey or selling memorabilia for tattoos. That stuff never happens in college football.
Sloppy Play
We hardly see sloppy play in the bowl games—and that is with a month off.
I thought Clemson did a great job of not tackling after being given a month off. They only gave up 70 points in a BCS bowl game. Who can forget LSU's precision offense that couldn't get a first down in the BCS Championship Game? It was memorable to watch Jordan Jefferson and the LSU offense make your local high school team look like the 2007 New England Patriots offense.
The preparation put in is remarkable to witness,
You are an idiot and you clearly don't watch the bowl games. Sometimes teams play like they don't even want to be there, which in many cases the teams don't. This is especially true if that team believes they deserved a better bowl bid which they didn't receive because a bowl choose a lesser-talented team which would bring the bowl more attendance and therefore more income. One more reason bowls suck. Bowls are about money and attendance, not putting the best matchups on the field.
The teams get a minimum of three days off (most teams get full week), but it is amazing to watch teams throw bricks up at the rim.
I want to be a sportswriter! I write for Bleacher Report! I write over-generalized statements! All teams throw up bricks in the NCAA Tournament! Fuck facts, I have my opinion! Every white player tries hard, most fat people are lazy and if you see a group of minorities together they are probably committing a crime! I write for Bleacher Report and refuse to write like a mentally competent human being would!
Outside of a few bowl games every season, every game is hard fought heading into the fourth quarter.
"Most" bowl games are fought hard? There is no proof of this given by the author, instead he just makes blanket and over-generalized statements in an effort to prove his point. This is embarrassing even for Bleacher Report and please remember Bleacher Report will sometimes print nearly anything that is written in English and the author is able to throw more than two sentences together to form a paragraph.
No Frustration
How many of your friends—and yourself included—just hate shredding that bracket up on the first day?
Forget the major upsets in college football because the two juggernauts competing with one another are more than likely close in talent to begin with.
Who can forget the juggernaut West Virginia team playing the juggernaut Clemson team in a bowl game this year? The same game where West Virginia ran up 70 points on the juggernaut Clemson team. How about that National Championship game this year where the juggernaut LSU team couldn't get past mid-field?
No Jamar Samuels
Never in my lifetime have I ever heard of or even pondered such an awful thought. Jamar Samuel was Kansas State's second-leading scorer and leading rebounder who suspended approximately 20 minutes before tip-off this past weekend against Syracuse.
The timing was the abysmal part of this whole thing, and for that reason I must put the NCAA Tournament and college basketball in the timeout circle.
We all know college football would never have problems like this. Players would never get suspended for selling a game-worn jersey or selling memorabilia for tattoos. That stuff never happens in college football.
Sloppy Play
We hardly see sloppy play in the bowl games—and that is with a month off.
I thought Clemson did a great job of not tackling after being given a month off. They only gave up 70 points in a BCS bowl game. Who can forget LSU's precision offense that couldn't get a first down in the BCS Championship Game? It was memorable to watch Jordan Jefferson and the LSU offense make your local high school team look like the 2007 New England Patriots offense.
The preparation put in is remarkable to witness,
You are an idiot and you clearly don't watch the bowl games. Sometimes teams play like they don't even want to be there, which in many cases the teams don't. This is especially true if that team believes they deserved a better bowl bid which they didn't receive because a bowl choose a lesser-talented team which would bring the bowl more attendance and therefore more income. One more reason bowls suck. Bowls are about money and attendance, not putting the best matchups on the field.
The teams get a minimum of three days off (most teams get full week), but it is amazing to watch teams throw bricks up at the rim.
I want to be a sportswriter! I write for Bleacher Report! I write over-generalized statements! All teams throw up bricks in the NCAA Tournament! Fuck facts, I have my opinion! Every white player tries hard, most fat people are lazy and if you see a group of minorities together they are probably committing a crime! I write for Bleacher Report and refuse to write like a mentally competent human being would!
Outside of a few bowl games every season, every game is hard fought heading into the fourth quarter.
"Most" bowl games are fought hard? There is no proof of this given by the author, instead he just makes blanket and over-generalized statements in an effort to prove his point. This is embarrassing even for Bleacher Report and please remember Bleacher Report will sometimes print nearly anything that is written in English and the author is able to throw more than two sentences together to form a paragraph.
No Frustration
How many of your friends—and yourself included—just hate shredding that bracket up on the first day?
Bowlmania does not do that to you, so that has to be a bit more enjoyable.
It isn't more enjoyable. Unpredictability is fun in sports.
No Need To Skip Work
However, the postseason in college football allows you to still be productive with your non-college football life.
This is simply an outright lie. Here are the bowl games that were played this year when people were at work (this doesn't include people who work on the weekend and remember the United States does have a West Coast, so games starting at 5pm take place when they are at work):
Gildan New Mexico
AdvoCare V100 Independence
Little Caesars Bowl
Military Bowl Presented By Northrop Grumman
Bridgepoint Education Holiday
Champs Sports
Bell Helicopter Armed Forces
New Era Pinstripe
Franklin American Mortgage Music City
TicketCity
Outback
Capital One
Taxslayer.com Gator Bowl
Rose
The NCAA Tournament can set you back if you get addicted by watching every single game (all 67 of them).
The Thursday and Friday of the first weekend of the tournament is the only time a person who gets off work at 5pm on either coast can't watch an entire game. Every other game is during the evening after 7pm or on a weekend. What a terrible point.
I'm going with one sentence pithy replies from here on out...
College Gameday
It feels like your team wins a dramatic game and then the next day the season is done with. That is the way it goes in college basketball, but that doesn’t mean it is cool or fair.
No, no, no, this is EXACTLY why bowl games suck, because after a bowl game the season is over the team that wins the bowl game never plays another team.
NIT is for the Weak
The NIT isn't considered the NCAA Tournament, but nice try.
Rivalries are Made
You could argue the NCAA Tournament gives us matchups we would never see in any other sport.
No Need To Skip Work
However, the postseason in college football allows you to still be productive with your non-college football life.
This is simply an outright lie. Here are the bowl games that were played this year when people were at work (this doesn't include people who work on the weekend and remember the United States does have a West Coast, so games starting at 5pm take place when they are at work):
Gildan New Mexico
AdvoCare V100 Independence
Little Caesars Bowl
Military Bowl Presented By Northrop Grumman
Bridgepoint Education Holiday
Champs Sports
Bell Helicopter Armed Forces
New Era Pinstripe
Franklin American Mortgage Music City
TicketCity
Outback
Capital One
Taxslayer.com Gator Bowl
Rose
The NCAA Tournament can set you back if you get addicted by watching every single game (all 67 of them).
The Thursday and Friday of the first weekend of the tournament is the only time a person who gets off work at 5pm on either coast can't watch an entire game. Every other game is during the evening after 7pm or on a weekend. What a terrible point.
I'm going with one sentence pithy replies from here on out...
College Gameday
It feels like your team wins a dramatic game and then the next day the season is done with. That is the way it goes in college basketball, but that doesn’t mean it is cool or fair.
No, no, no, this is EXACTLY why bowl games suck, because after a bowl game the season is over the team that wins the bowl game never plays another team.
NIT is for the Weak
The NIT isn't considered the NCAA Tournament, but nice try.
Rivalries are Made
You could argue the NCAA Tournament gives us matchups we would never see in any other sport.
The real point is seeing Goliath’s battle it out on the gridiron, which gets me more excited than seeing a Cinderella eventually break their slipper.
I've never heard the argument that because the NCAA Tournament is more competitive and features never-before-seen matchups, this makes it inferior to college football...a simply amazing line of thought.
Five Fouls
In a game that matters the most, we often see All-American players perform like scrubs.
"Often" see All-American players perform like scrubs, yet All-American Kemba Walker led UConn to the NCAA Championship last year, just like All-American Jon Scheyer did the year before, just like All-American Tyler Hansbrough did the year before that.
In a fluky one-game playoff, anything can occur.
Like anything could happen in the one-game playoff that is a bowl game?
Excitement
He's just looking in the dictionary and naming words he sees at this point. I would use the Will Ferrell "George W. Bush" voice to read what's written in bold if I were you. It makes it more exciting to read.
Many of the first-round games are extremely boring because we see these teams come out flat.
Completely untrue and we see the author's continuous use of "many," "most," "often," or "all" to compensate for a lack of research and a convincing argument.
Relaxation
I love the NCAA Tournament like nobody’s business, but the postseason for college football is more relaxing.
Exactly, the NCAA Tournament is more exciting and more unpredictable. It is better.
Lehigh
However, some argue that Lehigh never deserved that shot against Duke in the first place, right?
Wrong, I haven't heard anyone argue this point of view until I just read it in this slideshow.
The underdog hangs around and finds a way to pull off the shocking upset in a first-round game when a top notch shooting team cannot hit the backside of a barn. Many argue that is bad for the game, not good.
There is absolutely no way this is bad for college basketball.
Prove Yourself
A top-five team has to continue to win game after game despite doing so for the previous four months.
This is clearly less preferable to basing who plays in the BCS Championship game based on a poll.
I understand that is how the game works, but that is weak sauce
This is relevant modern terminology "the kids" use!
No Complaining
While you could throw the same at me for the BCS since there are haters (though I won’t complain), the NCAA Tournament often has way too much boring negativity.
(Bengoodfella is speechless) You realize the majority of people hate the entire bowl system, right? Like the entire format and everything about it?
Consistency
Strategery.
In the BCS we would never get a chance to see two mediocre teams plays for it all because college football is just better in terms of rewarding their best.
It's just tough for college football to figure out which teams are the "best."
Entertainment
He's now used "entertainment" twice as a reason.
The Best of the Best
Every season college football rewards you with the best two teams on the planet. In my eyes, no other sport in America can come close to giving you the same.
Then you need to go to an eye doctor if that's what your eyes tell you.
The Super Bowl has legit teams normally, but in a one-game playoff, anything can happen. That is not the case in college football.
The argument that unpredictability is bad, and this is why the NCAA Tournament is bad, just absolutely astounds me.
The Best
Not to be confused with "The Best of the Best" of course.
I want to watch the best at all times possible. I am the biggest underdog guy out there,
You are also confused and lack the ability to understand your own self since you just wrote this:
The Final Four isn't always must watch if VCU is playing Butler. George Mason and those Cinderella stories are amazing to follow, but it is really getting old right now.
Yeah, you are a big underdog guy, as long as the underdog isn't the underdog and instead is an elite team from a major conference.
One-Game Playoff
I do not honestly know what I would do if a random non-AQ team such as Nevada had an opportunity to play Ohio State with a chance to compete for the BCS title.
If they earned it by defeating other teams in a tournament, then what the hell is the problem?
That is what we see in college basketball, and when it happens, it really does stink to witness.
He's a big underdog guy you know.
Holidays
Maybe you get a spring vacation or break, but on New Year’s day college football is king.
There were zero games on New Year's Day this year...damn facts getting in the way of trying to prove a point!
No Wait
Really, "no wait" a reason for why the BCS is better than the NCAA Tournament coming from a guy who likes the system that waits over an entire month for two teams to play for the BCS title?
The weekends are great to watch the NCAA Tournament, but Monday-Wednesday is atrocious without anything going on.
You know, other than the four First Four games that take place on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Happy New Year!
Still, celebrating the New Year’s with the ones you love will always be better for me.
Five Fouls
In a game that matters the most, we often see All-American players perform like scrubs.
"Often" see All-American players perform like scrubs, yet All-American Kemba Walker led UConn to the NCAA Championship last year, just like All-American Jon Scheyer did the year before, just like All-American Tyler Hansbrough did the year before that.
In a fluky one-game playoff, anything can occur.
Like anything could happen in the one-game playoff that is a bowl game?
Excitement
He's just looking in the dictionary and naming words he sees at this point. I would use the Will Ferrell "George W. Bush" voice to read what's written in bold if I were you. It makes it more exciting to read.
Many of the first-round games are extremely boring because we see these teams come out flat.
Completely untrue and we see the author's continuous use of "many," "most," "often," or "all" to compensate for a lack of research and a convincing argument.
Relaxation
I love the NCAA Tournament like nobody’s business, but the postseason for college football is more relaxing.
Exactly, the NCAA Tournament is more exciting and more unpredictable. It is better.
Lehigh
However, some argue that Lehigh never deserved that shot against Duke in the first place, right?
Wrong, I haven't heard anyone argue this point of view until I just read it in this slideshow.
The underdog hangs around and finds a way to pull off the shocking upset in a first-round game when a top notch shooting team cannot hit the backside of a barn. Many argue that is bad for the game, not good.
There is absolutely no way this is bad for college basketball.
Prove Yourself
A top-five team has to continue to win game after game despite doing so for the previous four months.
This is clearly less preferable to basing who plays in the BCS Championship game based on a poll.
I understand that is how the game works, but that is weak sauce
This is relevant modern terminology "the kids" use!
No Complaining
While you could throw the same at me for the BCS since there are haters (though I won’t complain), the NCAA Tournament often has way too much boring negativity.
(Bengoodfella is speechless) You realize the majority of people hate the entire bowl system, right? Like the entire format and everything about it?
Consistency
Strategery.
In the BCS we would never get a chance to see two mediocre teams plays for it all because college football is just better in terms of rewarding their best.
It's just tough for college football to figure out which teams are the "best."
Entertainment
He's now used "entertainment" twice as a reason.
The Best of the Best
Every season college football rewards you with the best two teams on the planet. In my eyes, no other sport in America can come close to giving you the same.
Then you need to go to an eye doctor if that's what your eyes tell you.
The Super Bowl has legit teams normally, but in a one-game playoff, anything can happen. That is not the case in college football.
The argument that unpredictability is bad, and this is why the NCAA Tournament is bad, just absolutely astounds me.
The Best
Not to be confused with "The Best of the Best" of course.
I want to watch the best at all times possible. I am the biggest underdog guy out there,
You are also confused and lack the ability to understand your own self since you just wrote this:
The Final Four isn't always must watch if VCU is playing Butler. George Mason and those Cinderella stories are amazing to follow, but it is really getting old right now.
Yeah, you are a big underdog guy, as long as the underdog isn't the underdog and instead is an elite team from a major conference.
One-Game Playoff
I do not honestly know what I would do if a random non-AQ team such as Nevada had an opportunity to play Ohio State with a chance to compete for the BCS title.
If they earned it by defeating other teams in a tournament, then what the hell is the problem?
That is what we see in college basketball, and when it happens, it really does stink to witness.
He's a big underdog guy you know.
Holidays
Maybe you get a spring vacation or break, but on New Year’s day college football is king.
There were zero games on New Year's Day this year...damn facts getting in the way of trying to prove a point!
No Wait
Really, "no wait" a reason for why the BCS is better than the NCAA Tournament coming from a guy who likes the system that waits over an entire month for two teams to play for the BCS title?
The weekends are great to watch the NCAA Tournament, but Monday-Wednesday is atrocious without anything going on.
You know, other than the four First Four games that take place on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Happy New Year!
Still, celebrating the New Year’s with the ones you love will always be better for me.
Waking up on New Year's Day is probably more exciting than Christmas was as a child nowadays.
Wait, does this have to do with the NCAA Tournament???????????
The Best of the Bunch
Again, not to be confused with "The Best" or "The Best of the Best."
BCS Matchups
In college football we always see dream matchups every January.
As long as you aren't a fan of Boise State or any other team that doesn't get a chance to play in the BCS games because they weren't chosen high enough in the polls.
Every Single Game Matters Leading Into Postseason
Except for the Alabama-LSU game played in November of this year, which apparently didn't count since the game was played again for the BCS Championship.
Every weekend during the regular season of college football, there are thrilling games filled with more pageantry than any other sport.
Then it ends with a huge thud when the bowl pairings are announced because the momentum slows down and the college football postseason competes directly against the end of the NFL season.
If you truly are the best team on the planet, then losing a game should never happen.
Which explains why since 1998 we have only had eight teams win the BCS Championship Game as an undefeated team. So nearly half the time, the BCS Champion has lost a game...but this should never happen of course. So explain how an undefeated team can still not get a chance to play in the BCS Championship Game? The system works! Maybe if we keep saying it then it will eventually come true for every single season!
The best two teams have played each other nearly every single season. In college basketball, that rarely happens.
This is true unless you think Oklahoma State (or Stanford) deserved a shot at the BCS Championship Game.
There is no way the BCS bowls are better than the NCAA Tournament. No over-generalized and poorly executed slideshow can convince me differently.
The Best of the Bunch
Again, not to be confused with "The Best" or "The Best of the Best."
BCS Matchups
In college football we always see dream matchups every January.
As long as you aren't a fan of Boise State or any other team that doesn't get a chance to play in the BCS games because they weren't chosen high enough in the polls.
Every Single Game Matters Leading Into Postseason
Except for the Alabama-LSU game played in November of this year, which apparently didn't count since the game was played again for the BCS Championship.
Every weekend during the regular season of college football, there are thrilling games filled with more pageantry than any other sport.
Then it ends with a huge thud when the bowl pairings are announced because the momentum slows down and the college football postseason competes directly against the end of the NFL season.
If you truly are the best team on the planet, then losing a game should never happen.
Which explains why since 1998 we have only had eight teams win the BCS Championship Game as an undefeated team. So nearly half the time, the BCS Champion has lost a game...but this should never happen of course. So explain how an undefeated team can still not get a chance to play in the BCS Championship Game? The system works! Maybe if we keep saying it then it will eventually come true for every single season!
The best two teams have played each other nearly every single season. In college basketball, that rarely happens.
This is true unless you think Oklahoma State (or Stanford) deserved a shot at the BCS Championship Game.
There is no way the BCS bowls are better than the NCAA Tournament. No over-generalized and poorly executed slideshow can convince me differently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)