I will admit that I didn't watch the entire MNF game between the Falcons and the Saints. However, I saw one play in the first half that showed a chink in the armor of Saints RB Reggie Bush. The play was a run to the left. The result was Bush being swallowed up for a big loss by Falcons LB Keith Brooking and a few of his teammates.
The problem was not that Brooking made an outstanding tackle and thwarted a potential big play. By the time Brooking and Bush met, the play was over, with numerous Falcons closing in and no place for #25 to hide. But, it was Bush who allowed Brooking to make the play. Initially, Brooking was blocked by a WR. Instead of hitting the hole hard, Bush reversed direction and danced back to the right a little bit, then decided that wasn't promising and came back to the left. By that time, Brooking and his mates had shed their blockers and didn't have any trouble corralling Bush.
I'm not saying Bush shouldn't dance. Maybe! his old Trojan teammate Matt Leinart can give him some ballroom lessons in his free time. But, there are times to dance and there are times to hit the hole hard and get as much as you can, and Reggie Bush hasn't figured out the difference. Bush needs to learn that trying to go the distance every time you touch the ball is actually detrimental to the team.
On a related subject, who will the Texans take with the first pick next year: Adrian Peterson or Calvin Johnson (if they come out)? Or, is the David Carr project finally going to come to an end, with the Texans snapping up Brady Quinn (or Dennis Dixon ... you can always use another "great" QB)?
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Beef Up Replay
Replay is a good thing. Rebuilding New Orleans, it's debatable how responsible that is. Replay does not need tweaking. Replay needs to be spelled out in black and white and aided by technology.
The interception return for a TD by Ohio State against Penn State that made it 20-6 (21-6 with the extra point), shouldn't have been a TD (at least according to MW and TK) because the Buckeye spiked the ball before he got to the end zone! It still would have been a one possession (potentially) game if they'd given the ball to the Nittany Lions, as they should have. Would it have mattered? Maybe. Probably not, though ... PSU wasn't exactly marching up and down the field and lighting up the scoreboard.
At this point, I'd love for Roy to chime in. In a fairly recent discussion, we talked about replay and the idea of using multiple camera shots to recreate a 3-D image of the play (is it NBC that shows the replays that aren't actually replays, the ones tha! t look like video game replays?). I don't know how accurate the current system is or what the exact capabilities are, but it is worth looking into. Tennis is using technology to get tough calls right. That's tennis! Football should be able to keep pace. Sure, it's a slightly more intricate matter, but it would be really nice to create a 3-D animation that allows the replay official to scroll around, change his perspective, zoom in and out, etc.
Taking the OU onsides kick play as an example, the model would allow the replay official to determine who touched the ball first. Then, he could look straight down the 45 yard line and determine exactly where OU WR Malcolm Kelly was when he was hit and where the Oregon Duck was when he contacted the ball. Just pause the replay when the Duck touches the ball and then change the angle to look down the line and see that it's short of the 45. It would be simple. And, maybe it's not the best idea to have retired offi! cials in the box. There is a reason they aren't on the field. Is it really smart to have them determining some of the most important calls in a football game? I guess so, especially if you don't care who wins the game.
Anyone can officiate something. It's easy to know the rules and how to apply them. The difficult part is implementing that knowledge at game speed. I'm not going to say that is easy. But, replay slows it down. You don't do it at game speed. It's easy to apply the rules to replays if you know what the rules are.
This leads to my other point ... there should be strict rules on what is reviewable and what isn't. The replay official in the Oklahoma State v. Houston game wrongly overturned a fumble call that gave the Cougars the ball back and allowed them to continue a TD drive. C-USA has suspended the official for screwing up the call. The worst thing is that he overturned the play based on something that is unreviewable. Apparently, forward progress is only reviewable in certain situations, and ! whether or not forward progress is stopped before a fumble isn't reviewable. I don't really understand why it is only reviewable in certain circumstances, but that's the rule.
Players, coaches, officials and fans should have access to a list of the reviewable plays (with descriptions) and plays (and descriptions) that aren't reviewable. If something comes up that isn't on the list, then the game official can make a determination, but that shouldn't happen. This is not difficult. It's actually quite simple. I don't know what the hang-up is.
Tell the replay officials what plays they should be looking at and which ones they can't overturn. Tell them what to look for on each play based on the applicable rules. And, finally, give them the technology to get the looks they need to get it right. Or, I guess conferences can just cut their losses and suspend the officials after the damage is done.
The interception return for a TD by Ohio State against Penn State that made it 20-6 (21-6 with the extra point), shouldn't have been a TD (at least according to MW and TK) because the Buckeye spiked the ball before he got to the end zone! It still would have been a one possession (potentially) game if they'd given the ball to the Nittany Lions, as they should have. Would it have mattered? Maybe. Probably not, though ... PSU wasn't exactly marching up and down the field and lighting up the scoreboard.
At this point, I'd love for Roy to chime in. In a fairly recent discussion, we talked about replay and the idea of using multiple camera shots to recreate a 3-D image of the play (is it NBC that shows the replays that aren't actually replays, the ones tha! t look like video game replays?). I don't know how accurate the current system is or what the exact capabilities are, but it is worth looking into. Tennis is using technology to get tough calls right. That's tennis! Football should be able to keep pace. Sure, it's a slightly more intricate matter, but it would be really nice to create a 3-D animation that allows the replay official to scroll around, change his perspective, zoom in and out, etc.
Taking the OU onsides kick play as an example, the model would allow the replay official to determine who touched the ball first. Then, he could look straight down the 45 yard line and determine exactly where OU WR Malcolm Kelly was when he was hit and where the Oregon Duck was when he contacted the ball. Just pause the replay when the Duck touches the ball and then change the angle to look down the line and see that it's short of the 45. It would be simple. And, maybe it's not the best idea to have retired offi! cials in the box. There is a reason they aren't on the field. Is it really smart to have them determining some of the most important calls in a football game? I guess so, especially if you don't care who wins the game.
Anyone can officiate something. It's easy to know the rules and how to apply them. The difficult part is implementing that knowledge at game speed. I'm not going to say that is easy. But, replay slows it down. You don't do it at game speed. It's easy to apply the rules to replays if you know what the rules are.
This leads to my other point ... there should be strict rules on what is reviewable and what isn't. The replay official in the Oklahoma State v. Houston game wrongly overturned a fumble call that gave the Cougars the ball back and allowed them to continue a TD drive. C-USA has suspended the official for screwing up the call. The worst thing is that he overturned the play based on something that is unreviewable. Apparently, forward progress is only reviewable in certain situations, and ! whether or not forward progress is stopped before a fumble isn't reviewable. I don't really understand why it is only reviewable in certain circumstances, but that's the rule.
Players, coaches, officials and fans should have access to a list of the reviewable plays (with descriptions) and plays (and descriptions) that aren't reviewable. If something comes up that isn't on the list, then the game official can make a determination, but that shouldn't happen. This is not difficult. It's actually quite simple. I don't know what the hang-up is.
Tell the replay officials what plays they should be looking at and which ones they can't overturn. Tell them what to look for on each play based on the applicable rules. And, finally, give them the technology to get the looks they need to get it right. Or, I guess conferences can just cut their losses and suspend the officials after the damage is done.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Shots at OU
Bob Knight is not known for being the most level-headed, thoughtful guy before he opens his mouth. So, it comes as little surprise that he's chiming in on the OU v. UO game, bring up a loss by his TTU Red Raiders that he attributes, at least partially, to the officiating in Norman. Knight, apparently, wanted OU to forfeit the game after replay revealed that the clock had started a little bit late at the start of the possession when OU tied it at the end of regulation; the Sooners won the game in OT.
I'm not sure what Knight is trying to accomplish with these comments. I also don't know the exact specifics of the situation his team was involved in. Was the clock operator affiliated with the University of Oklahoma or the Big 12? I'm almost certain that when the clock started isn't reviewable in college basketball. At that time, I doubt they had replay on anything ... possibly whether or not a player got a shot off before the end of a half. Clock operators a! re notorious for providing a little bit of assistance to the home team. Maybe this bias factored in to the result that day. Maybe it was an honest, split second reaction mistake. I'm sure if you looked at a lot of replays on when the clock started, it would be off a lot of the time. It's much harder to determine, and react, in real-time to when a player first touches the ball (and have the electronics work with you) than it is to figure out who should be awarded an onsides kick. But, even more than that, the onsides kick play was reviewable. I don't think the play Knight is questioning was.
Perhaps Bob Knight knows that there isn't any real basis for his comments and that the situations aren't really that closely related. Non-reviewable calls change the outcomes of many basketball games at the end. Whether or not to call a foul is often a sticky subject in crunch time. The one thing I won't do is go Bill Plascke on TTU and Bob Knight and say that they sh! ould have done more before that point to win the game. The officials may well have cost them the game, but it's much more difficult (according to the Pac-10 commish) to officiate in real-time on the field than in a replay booth. Knight should be lobbying to have those types of plays made reviewable. Then, if he had a complaint about a clock operator and the review of clock operation, he'd have a leg to stand on.
So, assuming Knight realizes his bball story has little to do with what happened in Eugene, there are a few alternative explanations for him talking to the Oklahoman: a) it's been a while since the Red Raiders' last game and the ESPN reality show, Knight School, and Knight thinks he needs to be back in the media spotlight; b) Knight enjoys taking shots at Big 12 South rival Oklahoma; or c) Knight wants to shed light on the problems with officiating/timing in college basketball before the season begins.
One last reason the error in Eugene trumps the error in Norman by a couple orders of magnitude: OU got screwed! over in football. I'm not saying football is more important than basketball. My athletic glory was achieved on the hardwood, not the gridiron. But, because of the idiotic BCS system employed in college football, losses (especially very questionable ones) are much harder to swollow in football than in basketball. In basketball, all 12 Big 12 teams make the conference tournament. The winner of said tournament gets a shot at the national title, although they are one of 64 (or 65, depending on when you actually think the tournament starts) teams. That is a last chance entry. Solid teams from major conferences usually get into the tourney, so one or two losses won't kill you. In football, the winner of the Big 12 South plays in the Big 12 Championship game. Sure, the Oregon loss has no bearing on conference play. However, a few years back OU lost in the Big 12 Championship and still played for the title in the Sugar Bowl. But, this year, winning the Big 12 is no guar! antee for a shot at the championship, especially if the winner has a l oss (which will be the case with Texas, OU, and Nebraska all having losses on their record now, though OU shouldn't). An undefeated Oklahoma team has a much better shot at the national title than a one-loss OU team. Whether Bob Knight's Red Raiders have 10 losses or 11 doesn't matter near that much.
I'm not sure what Knight is trying to accomplish with these comments. I also don't know the exact specifics of the situation his team was involved in. Was the clock operator affiliated with the University of Oklahoma or the Big 12? I'm almost certain that when the clock started isn't reviewable in college basketball. At that time, I doubt they had replay on anything ... possibly whether or not a player got a shot off before the end of a half. Clock operators a! re notorious for providing a little bit of assistance to the home team. Maybe this bias factored in to the result that day. Maybe it was an honest, split second reaction mistake. I'm sure if you looked at a lot of replays on when the clock started, it would be off a lot of the time. It's much harder to determine, and react, in real-time to when a player first touches the ball (and have the electronics work with you) than it is to figure out who should be awarded an onsides kick. But, even more than that, the onsides kick play was reviewable. I don't think the play Knight is questioning was.
Perhaps Bob Knight knows that there isn't any real basis for his comments and that the situations aren't really that closely related. Non-reviewable calls change the outcomes of many basketball games at the end. Whether or not to call a foul is often a sticky subject in crunch time. The one thing I won't do is go Bill Plascke on TTU and Bob Knight and say that they sh! ould have done more before that point to win the game. The officials may well have cost them the game, but it's much more difficult (according to the Pac-10 commish) to officiate in real-time on the field than in a replay booth. Knight should be lobbying to have those types of plays made reviewable. Then, if he had a complaint about a clock operator and the review of clock operation, he'd have a leg to stand on.
So, assuming Knight realizes his bball story has little to do with what happened in Eugene, there are a few alternative explanations for him talking to the Oklahoman: a) it's been a while since the Red Raiders' last game and the ESPN reality show, Knight School, and Knight thinks he needs to be back in the media spotlight; b) Knight enjoys taking shots at Big 12 South rival Oklahoma; or c) Knight wants to shed light on the problems with officiating/timing in college basketball before the season begins.
One last reason the error in Eugene trumps the error in Norman by a couple orders of magnitude: OU got screwed! over in football. I'm not saying football is more important than basketball. My athletic glory was achieved on the hardwood, not the gridiron. But, because of the idiotic BCS system employed in college football, losses (especially very questionable ones) are much harder to swollow in football than in basketball. In basketball, all 12 Big 12 teams make the conference tournament. The winner of said tournament gets a shot at the national title, although they are one of 64 (or 65, depending on when you actually think the tournament starts) teams. That is a last chance entry. Solid teams from major conferences usually get into the tourney, so one or two losses won't kill you. In football, the winner of the Big 12 South plays in the Big 12 Championship game. Sure, the Oregon loss has no bearing on conference play. However, a few years back OU lost in the Big 12 Championship and still played for the title in the Sugar Bowl. But, this year, winning the Big 12 is no guar! antee for a shot at the championship, especially if the winner has a l oss (which will be the case with Texas, OU, and Nebraska all having losses on their record now, though OU shouldn't). An undefeated Oklahoma team has a much better shot at the national title than a one-loss OU team. Whether Bob Knight's Red Raiders have 10 losses or 11 doesn't matter near that much.
Seattle in the Fall? Definitely.
Who wouldn't want to leave Norman, OK in the fall for a weekend in Seattle, WA? Apparently, the Sooners are contemplating trying to opt out of their visit to UW in '08 if the Pac-10 doesn't revise its rules about officials. I don't think it's a good idea to skip out on the game, even as bad as the officiating against Oregon was at the end of the game. Bob Stoops needs to get his team ready to play, go up to Seattle and smack around UW, then not schedule any more games with the Pac-10. OU does not need to play teams from the Pac-10. The Pac-10 isn't the top conference in the nation. Games against quality SEC, Big 10, ACC or Big East schools are just as valuable and you don't have to worry about the officials taking payments from Nike in the replay booth!
It's an emergency, someone get me the precedent!
First, I'm going to hit on something Oregon QB Dennis Dixon said on ESPNEWS: "it's something you always dream of, being a quarterback in that situation, in a hostile environment, especially at home ... I fulfilled the answers towards the end, that's what a great quarterbacks do it in the clutch."
Look closely at that quote, or go to espn.com and listen to the piece yourself. I find a number of things disturbing, just in that small snippet. And, it leaves me wondering "why do they interview people like this?" First, Dixon is referring to himself as a great QB. Didn't Dixon get pulled from the OU game for a bit in favor of Brady "I wish I had Ryan's talent" Leaf? Yep, same guy. If I made a list of great QB's, Dennis Dixon wouldn't even be on the really, really, really, long list. He can't even hold Joey Harrington's jock! Second, use the correct word, even if it's not as catchy a word. "In a hostile environment, especially at home" ... that's a contradict! ion if I've ever heard one. The people in Eugene love their Ducks. Alex Rodriguez confronts hostile environments at home, Dennis Dixon does not. Perhaps he doesn't realize what hostile means. Or, maybe he just likes to throw cliches out there. Finally, "that's what a great quarterbacks do"? Dixon is not a freshman, he's a junior. You'd think that in his first two years in college someone at Oregon would be concerned enough about him academically to turn "that's what a great quarterbacks do" into either a) that's what great quarterbacks do or b) that's what a great quarterback does. No wonder Oregon doesn't rank first in the nation among public universities in national merit scholars per capita!
Now, I'll move on to the precedent issue. Personally, I think OU should be awarded a victory (and Oregon a loss) in response to the hideous officiating. That's my opinion. If you don't agree, I guess that's ok. I might try to convince you to see it my way, or y! ou might be able to convince me to flip sides. However, what I don't understand at all is the people who say "there's no precedent for it." Precedent for what? When was the last time a local replay official blew two obvious calls in the last 75 seconds of a game that led to a win being turned into a loss for the visiting team? Is there precedent for not changing the result? There is never precedent until something happens once. Schools used to be segregated. The first desegregation (way before my time) was met with a lot of resistance from some parties. But, now, the situation is a lot better. I won't turn this into a social commentary on race relations because I'm definitely not an expert in that field. The only liberal arts type classes I had in college were engineering related seminars ... sorry. You get the point though: just because there isn't precedent for something does mean that it shouldn't happen.
What happens if a team uses an ineligible player? They forfeit the game, right? Well, the replay official in the ! OU v. UO game seems to be similar to an ineligible player in that the official gave an unfair advantage to the Ducks, just like using an ineligible player would. I'm not going formulate a conspiracy theory to explain the officiating. The Oregon Ducks may have nothing to do with the official other than the fact that the official gave them a victory. However, sometimes teams don't realize players are ineligible (St. Bonaventure bball team in 2003).
Replay is fairly new, especially in college football. Judging by the reactions to the job done by the replay official in the OU v. UO game, problems with replay in college football are fairly new. Therefore, people need to be proactive in dealing with problems that occur while the replay system is being optimized.
Look closely at that quote, or go to espn.com and listen to the piece yourself. I find a number of things disturbing, just in that small snippet. And, it leaves me wondering "why do they interview people like this?" First, Dixon is referring to himself as a great QB. Didn't Dixon get pulled from the OU game for a bit in favor of Brady "I wish I had Ryan's talent" Leaf? Yep, same guy. If I made a list of great QB's, Dennis Dixon wouldn't even be on the really, really, really, long list. He can't even hold Joey Harrington's jock! Second, use the correct word, even if it's not as catchy a word. "In a hostile environment, especially at home" ... that's a contradict! ion if I've ever heard one. The people in Eugene love their Ducks. Alex Rodriguez confronts hostile environments at home, Dennis Dixon does not. Perhaps he doesn't realize what hostile means. Or, maybe he just likes to throw cliches out there. Finally, "that's what a great quarterbacks do"? Dixon is not a freshman, he's a junior. You'd think that in his first two years in college someone at Oregon would be concerned enough about him academically to turn "that's what a great quarterbacks do" into either a) that's what great quarterbacks do or b) that's what a great quarterback does. No wonder Oregon doesn't rank first in the nation among public universities in national merit scholars per capita!
Now, I'll move on to the precedent issue. Personally, I think OU should be awarded a victory (and Oregon a loss) in response to the hideous officiating. That's my opinion. If you don't agree, I guess that's ok. I might try to convince you to see it my way, or y! ou might be able to convince me to flip sides. However, what I don't understand at all is the people who say "there's no precedent for it." Precedent for what? When was the last time a local replay official blew two obvious calls in the last 75 seconds of a game that led to a win being turned into a loss for the visiting team? Is there precedent for not changing the result? There is never precedent until something happens once. Schools used to be segregated. The first desegregation (way before my time) was met with a lot of resistance from some parties. But, now, the situation is a lot better. I won't turn this into a social commentary on race relations because I'm definitely not an expert in that field. The only liberal arts type classes I had in college were engineering related seminars ... sorry. You get the point though: just because there isn't precedent for something does mean that it shouldn't happen.
What happens if a team uses an ineligible player? They forfeit the game, right? Well, the replay official in the ! OU v. UO game seems to be similar to an ineligible player in that the official gave an unfair advantage to the Ducks, just like using an ineligible player would. I'm not going formulate a conspiracy theory to explain the officiating. The Oregon Ducks may have nothing to do with the official other than the fact that the official gave them a victory. However, sometimes teams don't realize players are ineligible (St. Bonaventure bball team in 2003).
Replay is fairly new, especially in college football. Judging by the reactions to the job done by the replay official in the OU v. UO game, problems with replay in college football are fairly new. Therefore, people need to be proactive in dealing with problems that occur while the replay system is being optimized.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
TK Chimes In
TK and MW debated the Oklahoma/Oregon/Replay official saga during Sportscenter tonight, with respected columnist and on-air personality Tony Kornheiser stating Oregon has a "hollow win" and "I wouldn't penalize Oklahoma for the loss."
Big East Revisited
Last week, I ripped into West Virginia for their non-conference scheduling, noting that because they play in the Big East, they need to find a game against a high-quality opponent for at least one of their five non-conference games. I received feedback, in the form of a comment, that the Big East was better than I was giving it credit for. So, a conference that has Louisville, West Virginia, South Florida, Rutgers, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Syracuse should be one of the BCS conferences?
Last week, West Virginia continued to roll through weak non-conference opponents by drubbing border-rival Maryland. Louisville, the other marquee Big East team steamrolled Miami at home. South Florida beat Central Florida, 24-17, and Rutgers beat MAC juggernaut Ohio (sarcasm again?) 24-7. The problem with the weekend was that Connecticut and Pittsburgh got beat at home by Wake Forest and Michigan State, with the Spartans dismantling the Panthers pretty soundly! after spotting them a 10-0 lead in the first quarter. You can't count Cincinnati losing to Ohio State against the conference, but I'm not putting much stock in the Syracuse win over Illinois either ... someone had to win that one.
Moving back a week, Pittsburgh beat Cincinnati in a week 2 conference game. West Virginia and Louisville throttled Eastern Washington and Temple, respectively. Rutgers shutout Illinois. South Florida eeked one out over Florida International 21-20 at home and Syracuse lost to Iowa at home despite Hawkeye QB Drew Tate sitting out the game with an injury.
In search of anything sound below Louisville and West Virginia, I'll go back to the opening weekend of the season. Pittsburgh beat Virginia, but the Cavaliers lost to Western Michigan and only beat Wyoming by 1 point. Hard to get excited about that. Louisville over Kentucky and West Virginia over Marshall - that's the Marshall team that Big 12 North middle-of-the-pack! Kansas State beat this weekend. Cincinnati beat Eastern Kentucky. T he Colonels beat W. Kentucky and lost to W. Carolina in other action this year. South Florida beat McNeese State. So, the Bulls scheduled McNeese State, Florida International, Central Florida, Kansas, and North Carolina. The 3rd best Big East team has UCF, KU and UNC as their big non-conference games? Maybe for basketball, but that doesn't fly in big-time college football, does it? Kansas is probably about the 8th best team in the Big 12. UConn beat Rhode Island (sounds like a good bball game back when Odom, Mobley, and Wheeler were at URI), Rutgers held on 21-16 against UNC, and Wake Forest beat Syracuse.
So, through three weeks, the only thing that we've found out about the Big East is that they do ok against the ACC. I know it is still early but the league only has one win against the top 25. Louisville has been good for a while. West Virginia looks like a pretty good team. My problem all along is the supporting cast in the Big East and I haven't se! en anything to support them being on par with other power conferences like the Big 10, Pac-10, SEC, and Big 12. I don't know what's going on with FSU and Miami, but the ACC is a deep league up top, even if they are lacking a truly elite team, with VA Tech, FSU, Clemson, BC, and Miami (despite recent struggles). The Big East has two teams, WVU and Louisville, that can contend for the national championship, potentially. That was never in question. But, if those teams don't play strong non-conference schedules, they'll each only have one real test during the season as long as they don't overlook anyone, and that will be the other one. If WVU beats Louisville, they should run the table. If the Cardinals beat the Mountaineers, they should run the table. USC plays ND and Nebraska, as well as top 25 Pac-10 teams California, Arizona State and Oregon.
That may be just the way it is. Maybe Rich Rodriguez has trouble getting people to play West Virginia. I don't kn! ow. Roy mentioned that maybe WVU thought the non-conference teams wou ld be better than they ended up being, but I don't really think that is the case. Marshall and Maryland are mid-level teams, but not in the elites (which includes teams like Miami that are down this year but are usually good) of college football. Eastern Washington, East Carolina and Mississippi State are gimme games. MSU is from the SEC, but they are an SEC bottom feeder. So, the only thing I can hope is that Rich Rodriguez tried to challenge his boys and couldn't get anyone to take the game and had to settle for the lineup he put in front of them to dismantle. They need a Chad Johnson checklist, and other than the Cardinals, they might as well check the boxes now, if they didn't do it this summer.
Last week, West Virginia continued to roll through weak non-conference opponents by drubbing border-rival Maryland. Louisville, the other marquee Big East team steamrolled Miami at home. South Florida beat Central Florida, 24-17, and Rutgers beat MAC juggernaut Ohio (sarcasm again?) 24-7. The problem with the weekend was that Connecticut and Pittsburgh got beat at home by Wake Forest and Michigan State, with the Spartans dismantling the Panthers pretty soundly! after spotting them a 10-0 lead in the first quarter. You can't count Cincinnati losing to Ohio State against the conference, but I'm not putting much stock in the Syracuse win over Illinois either ... someone had to win that one.
Moving back a week, Pittsburgh beat Cincinnati in a week 2 conference game. West Virginia and Louisville throttled Eastern Washington and Temple, respectively. Rutgers shutout Illinois. South Florida eeked one out over Florida International 21-20 at home and Syracuse lost to Iowa at home despite Hawkeye QB Drew Tate sitting out the game with an injury.
In search of anything sound below Louisville and West Virginia, I'll go back to the opening weekend of the season. Pittsburgh beat Virginia, but the Cavaliers lost to Western Michigan and only beat Wyoming by 1 point. Hard to get excited about that. Louisville over Kentucky and West Virginia over Marshall - that's the Marshall team that Big 12 North middle-of-the-pack! Kansas State beat this weekend. Cincinnati beat Eastern Kentucky. T he Colonels beat W. Kentucky and lost to W. Carolina in other action this year. South Florida beat McNeese State. So, the Bulls scheduled McNeese State, Florida International, Central Florida, Kansas, and North Carolina. The 3rd best Big East team has UCF, KU and UNC as their big non-conference games? Maybe for basketball, but that doesn't fly in big-time college football, does it? Kansas is probably about the 8th best team in the Big 12. UConn beat Rhode Island (sounds like a good bball game back when Odom, Mobley, and Wheeler were at URI), Rutgers held on 21-16 against UNC, and Wake Forest beat Syracuse.
So, through three weeks, the only thing that we've found out about the Big East is that they do ok against the ACC. I know it is still early but the league only has one win against the top 25. Louisville has been good for a while. West Virginia looks like a pretty good team. My problem all along is the supporting cast in the Big East and I haven't se! en anything to support them being on par with other power conferences like the Big 10, Pac-10, SEC, and Big 12. I don't know what's going on with FSU and Miami, but the ACC is a deep league up top, even if they are lacking a truly elite team, with VA Tech, FSU, Clemson, BC, and Miami (despite recent struggles). The Big East has two teams, WVU and Louisville, that can contend for the national championship, potentially. That was never in question. But, if those teams don't play strong non-conference schedules, they'll each only have one real test during the season as long as they don't overlook anyone, and that will be the other one. If WVU beats Louisville, they should run the table. If the Cardinals beat the Mountaineers, they should run the table. USC plays ND and Nebraska, as well as top 25 Pac-10 teams California, Arizona State and Oregon.
That may be just the way it is. Maybe Rich Rodriguez has trouble getting people to play West Virginia. I don't kn! ow. Roy mentioned that maybe WVU thought the non-conference teams wou ld be better than they ended up being, but I don't really think that is the case. Marshall and Maryland are mid-level teams, but not in the elites (which includes teams like Miami that are down this year but are usually good) of college football. Eastern Washington, East Carolina and Mississippi State are gimme games. MSU is from the SEC, but they are an SEC bottom feeder. So, the only thing I can hope is that Rich Rodriguez tried to challenge his boys and couldn't get anyone to take the game and had to settle for the lineup he put in front of them to dismantle. They need a Chad Johnson checklist, and other than the Cardinals, they might as well check the boxes now, if they didn't do it this summer.
Monday, September 18, 2006
End of Game Solution
OU President David Boren wrote a letter to the Big 12 Conference calling for the OU v. UO game Saturday to be wiped from the record. I'm going to go one step farther, although Boren is on to something. Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg says "There is no provision under NCAA or conference rules for a game result to be reversed or changed as a result of officiating errors, nor do I believe there should be." That's fine. Unfortunately, he's wrong. There should be. The Oregon players shouldn't be saddled with the burden of losing a game that they didn't get credit for losing. Anything Oregon does will be done with an asterisk, even if the asterisk is just a few of the AP voters putting OU ahead of Oregon in the rankings. Also, Oklahoma shouldn't be jobbed out of a W because the officials decided to magically concoct a scenario to turn it into a loss in the last 75 seconds.
So, my solution is two part, one for end of game situations and one for general replay! . I'll start with the last-minute fix first because it addresses Weiberg. There should be a provision and it should be this: game outcomes can be changed under the following scenarios:
a) the last play of the game is reviewed and it is revealed that a player scored (or didn't score) and
b) a play that would have changed possession and allowed the team that would gain possession to run out the clock by taking a knee is reviewed and it is found that the wrong team was awarded possession
I'm open to suggestions and rewordings, but that is the jist. So, an example of a) would be the OU v. TTU game last year. Red Raider RB Taurean Henderson was said to have scored on the last play of the game, as time expired. Thus, Texas Tech was awarded a win, whereas Oklahoma would have been victorious if Henderson had been stopped. Henderson didn't score, but it wasn't as obvious as the eggregious call this weekend. The Big 12 reviewed the call and said that there wasn'! t conclusive evidence to say the wrong call was made, although given a ll the questionable calls in that game (the phantom 15-yard facemask being one) I'm skeptical of any officiating in Lubbock. A hypothetical would be if Notre Dame is trailing USC by 4 points with 5 seconds left at the USC 40. Brady Quinn throws a hail mary and it is ruled to be caught by ND WR Jeff Samardzija in the end zone, giving Notre Dame the win as time expires. The Irish rejoice. However, the NCAA finds that Samardzija didn't actually catch the ball, that it had hit the ground but they didn't notice, somehow ... maybe the officials didn't have a good angle. Unfortunately, USC would be awarded the win retroactively.
An example of b) would be the play in the OU v. UO game on Saturday. A hypothetical could be the following: in another SEC shoot-out, LSU is leading Georgia 7-3 late in the fourth quarter. Needing a TD, Georgia mounts a drive down to the LSU 15. On 3rd and two with 55 seconds left and no timeouts, Georgia runs a play-action fake and throw! s for the end zone. The LSU DB catches the ball but is ruled to not have possession before going out-of-bounds. On 4th and two, Danny Ware busts one up the middle and Georgia takes the lead, 10-7 with the subsequent extra point. LSU, not surprisingly, is unable to move into field goal range and goes home Saturday night on the short end of a 10-7 decision. However, subsequent review of the incompletion on 3rd and 2 reveals the LSU player had possession of the ball and the correct call was actually an interception. The TD would be wiped off the board and LSU would be awarded a 7-3 victory because they would have just been able to take a knee and run out the clock, with Georgia unable to do anything about it. Sure, it assumes that a team can correctly execute a kneel down, but I think that's pretty fair, especially considering the alternative. If you want, bring the teams back on a bye week and play out the kneel downs, if the Georgia coach demands it, but I doubt he'll! want to go through the trouble.
My issue with replay is th at the replay officials don't have enough at stake to do a good job. What happens if the replay officials give Oregon the game? A suspension for one game ... nice, that seems reasonable (catch that sarcasm?). I don't even know if a year suspension is enough. The people with something at stake are the two teams. So, I want to bring them into the process with the NCAA as the oversight. There will be three votes on each replay, one for each team and one for the officials. Majority rules. The caveat, every voted on play is reviewed by the NCAA. If the officials vote wrong, they are suspended for a year, an entire year, not just the rest of the year. If either of the coaches votes wrong, they receive a five-game suspension or whatever penalty is deemed reasonable. The penalty has to be enough to keep from letting the internal bias cloud judgment about what is actually "right" based on the rules. Would Belotti sacrifice 5 games for the possibility that his team would h! ave a chance to have the ball after the onsides kick? Maybe, but not if he didn't know that the officials were casting their vote to give Oregon the ball. Coaches wouldn't just blindly vote for their team because they'd quickly get buried under suspensions, and if the officials are doing their job, it won't be of any use to them, because they'll be outvoted 2-1 anyway.
So, my solution is two part, one for end of game situations and one for general replay! . I'll start with the last-minute fix first because it addresses Weiberg. There should be a provision and it should be this: game outcomes can be changed under the following scenarios:
a) the last play of the game is reviewed and it is revealed that a player scored (or didn't score) and
b) a play that would have changed possession and allowed the team that would gain possession to run out the clock by taking a knee is reviewed and it is found that the wrong team was awarded possession
I'm open to suggestions and rewordings, but that is the jist. So, an example of a) would be the OU v. TTU game last year. Red Raider RB Taurean Henderson was said to have scored on the last play of the game, as time expired. Thus, Texas Tech was awarded a win, whereas Oklahoma would have been victorious if Henderson had been stopped. Henderson didn't score, but it wasn't as obvious as the eggregious call this weekend. The Big 12 reviewed the call and said that there wasn'! t conclusive evidence to say the wrong call was made, although given a ll the questionable calls in that game (the phantom 15-yard facemask being one) I'm skeptical of any officiating in Lubbock. A hypothetical would be if Notre Dame is trailing USC by 4 points with 5 seconds left at the USC 40. Brady Quinn throws a hail mary and it is ruled to be caught by ND WR Jeff Samardzija in the end zone, giving Notre Dame the win as time expires. The Irish rejoice. However, the NCAA finds that Samardzija didn't actually catch the ball, that it had hit the ground but they didn't notice, somehow ... maybe the officials didn't have a good angle. Unfortunately, USC would be awarded the win retroactively.
An example of b) would be the play in the OU v. UO game on Saturday. A hypothetical could be the following: in another SEC shoot-out, LSU is leading Georgia 7-3 late in the fourth quarter. Needing a TD, Georgia mounts a drive down to the LSU 15. On 3rd and two with 55 seconds left and no timeouts, Georgia runs a play-action fake and throw! s for the end zone. The LSU DB catches the ball but is ruled to not have possession before going out-of-bounds. On 4th and two, Danny Ware busts one up the middle and Georgia takes the lead, 10-7 with the subsequent extra point. LSU, not surprisingly, is unable to move into field goal range and goes home Saturday night on the short end of a 10-7 decision. However, subsequent review of the incompletion on 3rd and 2 reveals the LSU player had possession of the ball and the correct call was actually an interception. The TD would be wiped off the board and LSU would be awarded a 7-3 victory because they would have just been able to take a knee and run out the clock, with Georgia unable to do anything about it. Sure, it assumes that a team can correctly execute a kneel down, but I think that's pretty fair, especially considering the alternative. If you want, bring the teams back on a bye week and play out the kneel downs, if the Georgia coach demands it, but I doubt he'll! want to go through the trouble.
My issue with replay is th at the replay officials don't have enough at stake to do a good job. What happens if the replay officials give Oregon the game? A suspension for one game ... nice, that seems reasonable (catch that sarcasm?). I don't even know if a year suspension is enough. The people with something at stake are the two teams. So, I want to bring them into the process with the NCAA as the oversight. There will be three votes on each replay, one for each team and one for the officials. Majority rules. The caveat, every voted on play is reviewed by the NCAA. If the officials vote wrong, they are suspended for a year, an entire year, not just the rest of the year. If either of the coaches votes wrong, they receive a five-game suspension or whatever penalty is deemed reasonable. The penalty has to be enough to keep from letting the internal bias cloud judgment about what is actually "right" based on the rules. Would Belotti sacrifice 5 games for the possibility that his team would h! ave a chance to have the ball after the onsides kick? Maybe, but not if he didn't know that the officials were casting their vote to give Oregon the ball. Coaches wouldn't just blindly vote for their team because they'd quickly get buried under suspensions, and if the officials are doing their job, it won't be of any use to them, because they'll be outvoted 2-1 anyway.
Pac-10 Cop-out
The Pac-10 confirmed what everyone already knew with their review of the onsides kick play in the OU v. UO game: the ball was illegally touched and should have been awarded to Oklahoma. Also, they confirmed what everyone with at least half a brain saw in the replay, Oklahoma recovered the onsides kick anyway! So, now that it's been confirmed I'll stop ranting about that point. It's settled.
However, a one-game suspension? One game? That's ridiculous. One game can determine whether or not a college football team gets to play for the national championship (not necessarily in this case). Officials need to have more at stake for getting calls right than one game. If replay wasn't in effect and the officials had blown the call, then I'd be fine with th assigned penalty: one game. But, fortunately, that isn't the case. According to Pac-10 Commish Hansen:
However, a one-game suspension? One game? That's ridiculous. One game can determine whether or not a college football team gets to play for the national championship (not necessarily in this case). Officials need to have more at stake for getting calls right than one game. If replay wasn't in effect and the officials had blown the call, then I'd be fine with th assigned penalty: one game. But, fortunately, that isn't the case. According to Pac-10 Commish Hansen:
Officiating on the field is much more difficult than it appears from the stands, and certainly! when watching repeated replays ... Plays occur at a high rate of speed. Decisions on the field must be made instantaneously. The training and experience of officials at this level enable them to work at a high degree of accuracy. Unfortunately, at the critical moment of this game errors were made.Sure, I'll give them that. I don't know how difficult it appears to be from the stands, or how difficult it actually is, but I'll believe the Pac-10 Commish. But, no one really cares if they get it right on the field. Sure, it would be preferable if every call was correct, but replay is in place to correct the errors that are made on the field, if they can be done in a reasonable manner. Reversing the call on the onsides kick definitely qualifies. Thus, I am more concerned with the punishment of the replay and lead game officials than any of the other officials who may not have played a major role in the incident.
Big 12: Weekends biggest loser
According to ESPN, the Big 12 was the biggest loser over the weekend "Thanks mostly to an 0-4 record against the Pac-10 on Saturday." Brad Edwards has a point, it wasn't a good weekend for Big 12 teams. And, I'm not going to carry the flag for the Big 12 as the nation's elite conference. However, a closer analysis of results shows that the weekend shouldn't have been unexpected.
The four Big 12 v. Pac-10 matchups were:
#19 Nebraska v. #4 USC
#15 Oklahoma v. #18 Oregon
#22 Arizona State v. Colorado
Baylor v. Washington State
The results aren't unexpected. The Big 12 (left) and Pac-10 hierarchies are as follows (based on rankings for top 25 teams going into the weekend):
Texas/USC
Oklahoma/Oregon
Nebraska/California
Texas Tech/Arizona State
It looks like Colorado is near the bottom of the lowly Big 12 North, and Baylor probably w! on't be favored in any Big 12 South game this year. So, Arizona State taking care of Colorado, big deal. If WSU went into Boulder and beat the Bufs, I'd give the Pac-10 a little credit for that one. Baylor v. Washington State was a close game in Pullman. If it was played in Waco, the outcome quite possibly would have been reversed. But, do people really care how the 9th or 10th placed team in a conference does? That leaves the marqee matchups, the best Pac-10 team at home against the 3rd or 4th best team in the Big 12. If Nebraska had pulled it out, it might have been the big-time shocker of the year. If the 'Horns had visited USC and been beat, that would have been a bigger knock against the Big 12. If you don't know how I feel about the OU v. UO game, read the previous posts. Officiating like that makes me sick. Oklahoma went into Eugene, where visitors aren't supposed to win, and had the game won until the officials decided Oregon should get the ball on the on! sides kick even though they touched it illegally and didn't end up wit h it at the end of the play. The ball wasn't wrestled away from the Duck, he lost it and it squirted out of the pile where it was picked up by OU reserve RB Allen Patrick. So, overall, the Big 12 v. Pac-10 weekend went much as people would have predicted. How does that make the Big 12 a big loser, exactly?
In other Big 12 action, Big 12 North middleweight KU lost to Toledo on Friday in overtime. I think Toledo was favored in that game. The Jayhawks fought into OT on the road and eventually lost. Again, not a great result, but not a disaster either. Iowa State traveled to Iowa City to take on the #16 Iowa Hawkeyes. I watched that game. It was a close game. Iowa State led at half, the game was tied after three quarters, and the margin was only one TD until late. The result, again, was probably what most people would have picked. The other top 25 battle involving a Big 12 team was #24 Texas Tech losing at #20 TCU 12-3 in a battle of field goals. All I kn! ow about this game is the final score. I was surprised TTU only managed 3 points, but the Red Raiders were on the road against a higher, albeit just slightly, ranked opponent. It would have been nice for the Big 12 if TTU won, but they didn't.
On the other side of the ledger, Kansas State handled Marshall 23-7 in Manhattan. #8 UT dismantled Rice, 52-7. Oklahoma State drubbed an undermanned FAU 48-8. Texas A&M survived a late goal-line situation against Army to win 28-24 and Missouri went to Albuquerque and took care of New Mexico 27-17.
So, in review, the BIg 12 went 5-7. Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State all won games that they probably should have won. The Big 12 was a big loser in the OU v. UO game because the Pac-10 officials screwed up the game. So, if we give that win to the Big 12 (which should happen ... the Pac-10 commish should find egregious error by the officials and nullify everything that happened afte! r the onsides kick, giving Oklahoma a much-deserved 33-27 win ... I'm not holding my breath though). So, the Big 12 should have been .500 for the weekend. Texas Tech, Kansas, and Baylor lost games that were probably predicted to be pretty close. CU did better than expected against ASU. Iowa State played ok in a rivalry game on the road against a higher-ranked opponent. And, the Cornhuskers were the Trojans sacrifice to the football gods this weekend, not unexpected at all. It was a mediocre weekend for the Big 12 if you analyze the matchups and results.
The four Big 12 v. Pac-10 matchups were:
#19 Nebraska v. #4 USC
#15 Oklahoma v. #18 Oregon
#22 Arizona State v. Colorado
Baylor v. Washington State
The results aren't unexpected. The Big 12 (left) and Pac-10 hierarchies are as follows (based on rankings for top 25 teams going into the weekend):
Texas/USC
Oklahoma/Oregon
Nebraska/California
Texas Tech/Arizona State
It looks like Colorado is near the bottom of the lowly Big 12 North, and Baylor probably w! on't be favored in any Big 12 South game this year. So, Arizona State taking care of Colorado, big deal. If WSU went into Boulder and beat the Bufs, I'd give the Pac-10 a little credit for that one. Baylor v. Washington State was a close game in Pullman. If it was played in Waco, the outcome quite possibly would have been reversed. But, do people really care how the 9th or 10th placed team in a conference does? That leaves the marqee matchups, the best Pac-10 team at home against the 3rd or 4th best team in the Big 12. If Nebraska had pulled it out, it might have been the big-time shocker of the year. If the 'Horns had visited USC and been beat, that would have been a bigger knock against the Big 12. If you don't know how I feel about the OU v. UO game, read the previous posts. Officiating like that makes me sick. Oklahoma went into Eugene, where visitors aren't supposed to win, and had the game won until the officials decided Oregon should get the ball on the on! sides kick even though they touched it illegally and didn't end up wit h it at the end of the play. The ball wasn't wrestled away from the Duck, he lost it and it squirted out of the pile where it was picked up by OU reserve RB Allen Patrick. So, overall, the Big 12 v. Pac-10 weekend went much as people would have predicted. How does that make the Big 12 a big loser, exactly?
In other Big 12 action, Big 12 North middleweight KU lost to Toledo on Friday in overtime. I think Toledo was favored in that game. The Jayhawks fought into OT on the road and eventually lost. Again, not a great result, but not a disaster either. Iowa State traveled to Iowa City to take on the #16 Iowa Hawkeyes. I watched that game. It was a close game. Iowa State led at half, the game was tied after three quarters, and the margin was only one TD until late. The result, again, was probably what most people would have picked. The other top 25 battle involving a Big 12 team was #24 Texas Tech losing at #20 TCU 12-3 in a battle of field goals. All I kn! ow about this game is the final score. I was surprised TTU only managed 3 points, but the Red Raiders were on the road against a higher, albeit just slightly, ranked opponent. It would have been nice for the Big 12 if TTU won, but they didn't.
On the other side of the ledger, Kansas State handled Marshall 23-7 in Manhattan. #8 UT dismantled Rice, 52-7. Oklahoma State drubbed an undermanned FAU 48-8. Texas A&M survived a late goal-line situation against Army to win 28-24 and Missouri went to Albuquerque and took care of New Mexico 27-17.
So, in review, the BIg 12 went 5-7. Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State all won games that they probably should have won. The Big 12 was a big loser in the OU v. UO game because the Pac-10 officials screwed up the game. So, if we give that win to the Big 12 (which should happen ... the Pac-10 commish should find egregious error by the officials and nullify everything that happened afte! r the onsides kick, giving Oklahoma a much-deserved 33-27 win ... I'm not holding my breath though). So, the Big 12 should have been .500 for the weekend. Texas Tech, Kansas, and Baylor lost games that were probably predicted to be pretty close. CU did better than expected against ASU. Iowa State played ok in a rivalry game on the road against a higher-ranked opponent. And, the Cornhuskers were the Trojans sacrifice to the football gods this weekend, not unexpected at all. It was a mediocre weekend for the Big 12 if you analyze the matchups and results.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Do the voters watch the games?
In a follow-up to the OU v. UO story, what were the AP voters thinking? Oregon moved up from #18 to #13 and Oklahoma drops from #15 to #17. It was obvious that the only reason the Ducks won was because the refs, somehow, blew the illegal touch call on the onsides kick. Oklahoma went to Eugene and beat Oregon, only to get cheated out of a hard-fought victory. OU drops in the polls. What? Oregon jumps them. What? The voters should pay attention to what is actually going on and vote accordingly, not just look at scores. Put a little thought into it, it helps decide the national champion!
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Fire the Refs!
It's as simple as that. Bob Stoops should try to get the Pac-10 officiating crew (especially the ones in the booth) fired. With just over a minute left and the Oregon Ducks trailing by 6, they did an onsides kick. OU WR Malcolm Kelly moved just inside the 45 yard line, the marker where the ball had to pass before an Oregon player could legally touch the ball. Kelly was less than 10 yards from the 35. Kelly wasn't the first player to touch the ball. An Oregon Duck hit the ball and redirected it, so Kelly couldn't catch it. Thus, obviously, the Oregon player touched the ball before it travelled 10 yards. So, there should have been a penalty for an illegal touch and it should have been OU ball at the 44, where the ball was illegally touched. The analysts and everyone watching the game could see that the play should be overturned. They reviewed the play upstairs. How the hell did they not overturn it? I still can't fathom that. To add insult to injury, they screwed ! up a pass interference and review. OU DE C.J. Ah You tipped a Dennis Dixon pass. Therefore, any contact made by an OU defender on the UO receiver is okay. Unfortunately, the fact that the ball was wobbling like a Duck after it hit Ah You's hand wasn't "indisputable video evidence" to overturn the call, which should have been an incomplete pass anyway ... the play on the ball by the defender didn't warrant pass interference. The refs blew the game. They weren't the only reason OU lost, but they were the reason UO won and it's very unfortunate.
Friday, September 15, 2006
For Pete's Sake!
Pete Carroll may finally get caught with his hand in the cookie jar, courtesy of the indiscretions of Heisman Trophy winning RB Reggie Bush and his family. Unfortunately for Carroll, he's been the anti-Bob Stoops recently. Bob Stoops took the bull by the horns in dismissing starting QB Rhett Bomar (and possibly costing his Oklahoma Sooner a chance at the national championship) and starting OL J.D. Quinn. Carroll has shrugged off assault and battery charges, positive tests for steroids, and the Bush allegations. He said something preposterous about hoping that future players learn from the previous mistakes of current and former Trojans.
I'll admit, I'm smarter than the average USC Trojan football player (I don't know any of them, but I'm willing to subject myself to testing if someone wants to test me on my claim). So, there are certain things I know that some of them might not. An example of this is that finite difference approximations using a weighted Eul! er in time are second order accurate only if equal weight is given to the current and future times. Otherwise, it's first order accurate. But, I bet even the slowest of the Trojans can answer this question correctly: Is it okay to assault women, physically and/or sexually? The answer, obviously, is a resounding "NO!"
I don't know which is more stupid, the USC football players assaulting women or Pete Carroll hoping that future players will learn something from current players getting in trouble for it. I understand people will argue that charges were dropped and this or that. It is unlikely charges would have been brought against Sanchez if something didn't happen, and it's a shame that he, and other Trojans, are getting away with these types of acts because they are college athletes. The only thing worse is that Pete Carroll is choosing victories over shaping quality humans.
I'll admit, I'm smarter than the average USC Trojan football player (I don't know any of them, but I'm willing to subject myself to testing if someone wants to test me on my claim). So, there are certain things I know that some of them might not. An example of this is that finite difference approximations using a weighted Eul! er in time are second order accurate only if equal weight is given to the current and future times. Otherwise, it's first order accurate. But, I bet even the slowest of the Trojans can answer this question correctly: Is it okay to assault women, physically and/or sexually? The answer, obviously, is a resounding "NO!"
I don't know which is more stupid, the USC football players assaulting women or Pete Carroll hoping that future players will learn something from current players getting in trouble for it. I understand people will argue that charges were dropped and this or that. It is unlikely charges would have been brought against Sanchez if something didn't happen, and it's a shame that he, and other Trojans, are getting away with these types of acts because they are college athletes. The only thing worse is that Pete Carroll is choosing victories over shaping quality humans.
Minnesota Twins: Jay's AL World Series "Lock"
Those of you familiar with ESPN's "Around the Horn" will understand the title of the post. For those out there who aren't regular watchers, the Twins were picked as a lock to represent the AL in this year's World Series by one of the panelists. This prediction is undeniably bold (the Yankees would be the obvious pick), but also irrefutably absurd because it is based on a faulty premise, namely that Johan Santana can carry the Twins, almost single-handedly, to the World Series, and ultimately, to the MLB Championship.
The fact that the Twins win almost every game that Santana starts was the foundation of the argument. Santana is now 18-5, with his last loss coming July 9th at Texas. So, he hasn't lost in a little over two months. That span covers 12 starts; Santana has recorded 9 wins and 3 ND's, but the Twins have won all twelve games. Thus, the idea that the Twins are a lock when Santana starts was spawned.
So, the reasoning went, in a 5-game ser! ies, Santana would throw twice, and the Twins would only have to win one of the other three games. Seems possible. Then, in a 7-game series, Santana could throw games 1, 4, and 7. That's three of the four wins the Twins would need to advance to the World Series! Surely, the Twins could scavenge one win in the four games not pitched by Santana. And, by the same reasoning, the Twins would breeze through the NL challenger with wins by Santana in three of the 7 games, right?
Wait just a second, Santana is going to pitch games 1 & 4 of the division series and 1, 4 and 7 of the championship series? With Franciso Liriano healthy, I'd say the Twins would have a great shot at winning the entire thing, but relying on Santana to win every game is tough, especially when he will be continually brought back on short rest because the staff is ravaged with injuries. Santana is winning games pitching every fifth day, with some easy starts against weak line-ups thrown in. ! Should you really count on Santana beating the Yankees three times in seven games when he has to face, essentially, an all-star lineup of Damon, Jeter, Abreu, A-Rod, Giambi, Sheffield, Matsui, Posada and Cano? The Yankees are patient and work the count. Plus, there isn't any part of that line-up that a pitcher can ease up and get cheap outs.
With a healty Francisco Liriano (and a healthy Brad Radke), the Twins would have a quality 4-man rotation (with whoever is going to be the #2 as the #4 under the optimal scenario). They could start things off with Santana and Liriano in the hope of going up 2-0 early. Then, they could throw Radke in game 3, hoping to finish off the first round. If there was a game 4, they could bring Santana back or save him for a game 5, if necessary. If the Twins only had to use Santana and Liriano each once during the first round, they'd be in prime position to throw them games 1 and 2 of the championship series. Hypothetically, they could wait to bring the duo back until games 6 and 7, but more like! ly they'd throw them in games 5 and 6. If they were ready, they could try to close it out in games 4 and 5. I could see a similar thing happening in the World Series, depending on how the AL championship series went and when they could come back in the World Series.
If the Twins win the AL, Johan Santana will probably have a big left hand in it. However, it's not likely and it's definitely not a lock. The Twins might not even make the playoffs, although it seems likely that they will, and I'd put their chances of getting to the World Series at 1/8, if I had to set the line.
The fact that the Twins win almost every game that Santana starts was the foundation of the argument. Santana is now 18-5, with his last loss coming July 9th at Texas. So, he hasn't lost in a little over two months. That span covers 12 starts; Santana has recorded 9 wins and 3 ND's, but the Twins have won all twelve games. Thus, the idea that the Twins are a lock when Santana starts was spawned.
So, the reasoning went, in a 5-game ser! ies, Santana would throw twice, and the Twins would only have to win one of the other three games. Seems possible. Then, in a 7-game series, Santana could throw games 1, 4, and 7. That's three of the four wins the Twins would need to advance to the World Series! Surely, the Twins could scavenge one win in the four games not pitched by Santana. And, by the same reasoning, the Twins would breeze through the NL challenger with wins by Santana in three of the 7 games, right?
Wait just a second, Santana is going to pitch games 1 & 4 of the division series and 1, 4 and 7 of the championship series? With Franciso Liriano healthy, I'd say the Twins would have a great shot at winning the entire thing, but relying on Santana to win every game is tough, especially when he will be continually brought back on short rest because the staff is ravaged with injuries. Santana is winning games pitching every fifth day, with some easy starts against weak line-ups thrown in. ! Should you really count on Santana beating the Yankees three times in seven games when he has to face, essentially, an all-star lineup of Damon, Jeter, Abreu, A-Rod, Giambi, Sheffield, Matsui, Posada and Cano? The Yankees are patient and work the count. Plus, there isn't any part of that line-up that a pitcher can ease up and get cheap outs.
With a healty Francisco Liriano (and a healthy Brad Radke), the Twins would have a quality 4-man rotation (with whoever is going to be the #2 as the #4 under the optimal scenario). They could start things off with Santana and Liriano in the hope of going up 2-0 early. Then, they could throw Radke in game 3, hoping to finish off the first round. If there was a game 4, they could bring Santana back or save him for a game 5, if necessary. If the Twins only had to use Santana and Liriano each once during the first round, they'd be in prime position to throw them games 1 and 2 of the championship series. Hypothetically, they could wait to bring the duo back until games 6 and 7, but more like! ly they'd throw them in games 5 and 6. If they were ready, they could try to close it out in games 4 and 5. I could see a similar thing happening in the World Series, depending on how the AL championship series went and when they could come back in the World Series.
If the Twins win the AL, Johan Santana will probably have a big left hand in it. However, it's not likely and it's definitely not a lock. The Twins might not even make the playoffs, although it seems likely that they will, and I'd put their chances of getting to the World Series at 1/8, if I had to set the line.
Lost in the Top 5
As we approach the best Saturday of the early college football season (with 7 matchups between top 25 teams), #5 West Virginia demolished Maryland and it's troubling. After three weeks, the Mountaineers have racked up three impressive wins against unimpressive opponents, and it doesn't get much better. As one sportscenter anchor pointed out, Steve Slaton ran into the leading in the rushing race in the 1st quarter ... it's Thursday, the first quarter of his game was one more quarter than almost everyone else has played in (although Slaton has received a lot of bench time in the previous blowouts). What is Rich Rodriguez doing scheduling Marshall, Eastern Washington, Maryland, East Carolina and Mississippi State as their 5 game non-conference schedule? He's depriving fans of seeing quality football matchups, apparently.
When you play in a conference that isn't all that strong (only two top 25 teams - WVU and Louisville (#12)), you have to do more. Schedule ACC ! and SEC schools, but hit the top tier, not MS State! Maryland is traditionally competitive and a rivalry game, so that's fine, but why schedule EWU and ECU? Why not Texas Tech, Oregon, Virginia Tech, or Florida? If your conference schedule includes Auburn, LSU, and Florida, then maybe you don't need to take on FSU and Oklahoma to bolster your strength of schedule. That isn't the case with West Virginia. Beating Louisville and a bunch of mediocre teams shouldn't get WVU into the NCAA title game, even if no other team goes undefeated. It would be enough to get them into an 8-team playoff, and will probably be enough to get them into the BCS title game unless two other major conference teams (or ND) go undefeated, but that shouldn't be the case.
The SEC features 5 teams that as good or better than Louisville: Auburn, LSU, Florida, Tennessee and Georgia. The ACC has Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Clemson and Georgia Tech. The Big 12 is! still fairly strong on top with Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas Tech and Texas A&M. The Pac-10 has USC at the top with Cal, Oregon, and Arizona State on the 2nd tier. The Big 10 (or 11) has Ohio State, Michigan, Iowa and Penn State.
Even if you argue that the Big East is close to the level of other major conferences, WVU still falls short. The SEC is probably the best conference in college football, so I'm going to give SEC schools a pass. Ohio State played Texas. Michigan, Penn State, USC and Georgia Tech all have Notre Dame on the schedule. Oklahoma plays Oregon, who also visited Fresno State. Florida State plays Florida. Miami plays Louisville. Nebraska visits USC. Texas Tech plays TCU. Cal visited Tennessee. The Mountaineers don't even come close to this list. Eastern Washington!
Steve Slaton is a quality back, but it looked like he was running against a HS JV girls basketball team! On one TD run by Slaton, #3 on Maryland backed away from Slaton as he got into the end zone rather than stick his nose ! in and knock him out of bounds. On a couple big runs, Slaton wasn't touched. The blocking was good, and Slaton is good, but not THAT good. The Maryland D was just awful and had no idea what hit them until the game was already out-of-hand, and maybe after that ... but I wasn't watching at that point. On WVU's last TD of the 1st half (their 5th), the return man fumbled the ball, picked it back up, then wasn't touched on his jaunt to the end zone. The return wasn't Reggie Bush-like with a number of defenders being juked out of their jocks. Rather, Darius Reynaud merely ran straightforward, made a little cut to go around a blocker, then headed back upfield. He wasn't touched. He didn't run through arm tackles or fake anyone out, he just ran from one end of the field to the other. Maybe they wanted to get a 100-yard dash time on him for future reference? Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for a bowl game to see what Rich Rodriguez can do against a high-quality defense .! .. maybe the whole college football system should be revisited.
When you play in a conference that isn't all that strong (only two top 25 teams - WVU and Louisville (#12)), you have to do more. Schedule ACC ! and SEC schools, but hit the top tier, not MS State! Maryland is traditionally competitive and a rivalry game, so that's fine, but why schedule EWU and ECU? Why not Texas Tech, Oregon, Virginia Tech, or Florida? If your conference schedule includes Auburn, LSU, and Florida, then maybe you don't need to take on FSU and Oklahoma to bolster your strength of schedule. That isn't the case with West Virginia. Beating Louisville and a bunch of mediocre teams shouldn't get WVU into the NCAA title game, even if no other team goes undefeated. It would be enough to get them into an 8-team playoff, and will probably be enough to get them into the BCS title game unless two other major conference teams (or ND) go undefeated, but that shouldn't be the case.
The SEC features 5 teams that as good or better than Louisville: Auburn, LSU, Florida, Tennessee and Georgia. The ACC has Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Clemson and Georgia Tech. The Big 12 is! still fairly strong on top with Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas Tech and Texas A&M. The Pac-10 has USC at the top with Cal, Oregon, and Arizona State on the 2nd tier. The Big 10 (or 11) has Ohio State, Michigan, Iowa and Penn State.
Even if you argue that the Big East is close to the level of other major conferences, WVU still falls short. The SEC is probably the best conference in college football, so I'm going to give SEC schools a pass. Ohio State played Texas. Michigan, Penn State, USC and Georgia Tech all have Notre Dame on the schedule. Oklahoma plays Oregon, who also visited Fresno State. Florida State plays Florida. Miami plays Louisville. Nebraska visits USC. Texas Tech plays TCU. Cal visited Tennessee. The Mountaineers don't even come close to this list. Eastern Washington!
Steve Slaton is a quality back, but it looked like he was running against a HS JV girls basketball team! On one TD run by Slaton, #3 on Maryland backed away from Slaton as he got into the end zone rather than stick his nose ! in and knock him out of bounds. On a couple big runs, Slaton wasn't touched. The blocking was good, and Slaton is good, but not THAT good. The Maryland D was just awful and had no idea what hit them until the game was already out-of-hand, and maybe after that ... but I wasn't watching at that point. On WVU's last TD of the 1st half (their 5th), the return man fumbled the ball, picked it back up, then wasn't touched on his jaunt to the end zone. The return wasn't Reggie Bush-like with a number of defenders being juked out of their jocks. Rather, Darius Reynaud merely ran straightforward, made a little cut to go around a blocker, then headed back upfield. He wasn't touched. He didn't run through arm tackles or fake anyone out, he just ran from one end of the field to the other. Maybe they wanted to get a 100-yard dash time on him for future reference? Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for a bowl game to see what Rich Rodriguez can do against a high-quality defense .! .. maybe the whole college football system should be revisited.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Referees in Review
I know it is the first weekend of the football season, but every game counts in the NFL. You only get 16, and an extra loss can keep you out of the playoffs and an extra win might just cost you Adrian Peterson or Brady Quinn in the upcoming draft. So, the refs need to be at their best. Unfortunately, they weren't. In addition to the atrocious officiating I cited on opening night in the Steelers victory over the Dolphins, here are a few other things I noticed:
- The unnecessary roughness penalty on Washington Redskin S Sean Taylor. Sean Taylor came across and made a legitimate hit to the shoulder of a WR along the sideline to prevent the receiver from making a play on a tipped ball. He didn't spear him in the head or do anything that warranted a penalty. But, he got 15 yards anyway.
- Randy Moss received 15 yards for taunting when he tossed the ball to Charger K Nate Kaeding after he was forced out-of-bounds. Unnecessary, yes, but taunting? He didn't hand the ball to either of the guys he juked to pick up the first down on a simple swing pass into the flat. The flag was unnecessary.
- Speaking of taunting, a 49er WR received a 15 yard penalty in the game against the Cardinals for pointing at a DB after the DB threw him down after they were already out-of-bounds. The WR wasn't taunting, he was merely acting like every other NFL WR who points at the defensive player if he thinks the player deserves a penalty. He was trying to help the ref out. Instead, he got nailed with the yellow flag.
- And, in my personal favorite, Donovin Darius pulled a Rodney Harrison and hit Terrell Owens well after the play was over. Darius was 5 yards away from Owens when he hit the ground. Owens rolled, Darius took another step then dove and put his shoulder right in Owens' back. I don't think it hurt Owens, but that isn't the point. There is no need to hit someone when they are down. If you want to hit TO, tackle him when he's piling up YAC. Dallas S Roy Williams likes to hit people, but I saw him make a conscious effort to avoid hitting a ball carrier who was already on the ground, even though he could have got a shot in and not been penalized. I feel strongly that Darius wanted to hit TO and he should have been penalized for it.
Jacked Up!
How could the hit on Trent Green not make Tom Jackson's "Jacked Up" segment? It was a great hit. Robert Geathers hit him with his shoulder (at least as far as I could tell), not his helmet. It also looked like Geathers was blocked into Green. The fact of the matter is that the incident is unfortunate, but Trent Green started his slide too late and didn't protect himself. I'm wondering if that isn't the kind of hit that could end Green's career. Two of the great QB's of my childhood, Troy Aikman and Steve Young, had their careers ended by concussions; it seems likely that if Green and the Chiefs aren't careful, Green could face the same fate. The problem might be that the Chiefs think they are good enough to make the playoffs, but not with Damon Huard under center. I'm hoping that the league doesn't punish Geathers and that the Chiefs and Green don't let the early season game outcomes dictate when Green comes back.
Monday Night Snoozer
I'll admit, the MNF game between the Raiders and Chargers isn't over yet, but so far it's been pretty bad. I'm not sure which side has been more annoying, the Raiders with their inability to keep the Charger rush off QB Aaron Brooks or the Chargers due to their passive play calling. Early in the game, LaDainian Tomlinson was gashing the Raider defense. In fact, he accumulated more than 100 yards running in the first half. Without the benefit of good field position, and without much fear of the Raiders mounting a comeback, the Chargers have just been pounding LT and it usually isn't that good an idea to run every play if the defense thinks you are going to run every play. LT is averaging a little over 2 yards per carry on his first 9 carries in the 2nd half because they've run on 14 of their last 15 plays. QB Phillip Rivers has made good throws. He's made good decisions. He has weapons on the outside, and out of the backfield with Tomlinson. Open up the offense and p! ut the Raiders away. Maybe you don't need to throw today to win the game, but do you really want Rivers to only throw 10 passes in his first start? The Chargers just ran Michael Turner on 3rd & 8 near the end of the 3rd quarter from their own 20. You have to love Marty ball!
The Raiders have not been able to sustain drives all night because of penalties and sacks allowed. They've had success with short swing passes to Randy Moss, but little else. Almost every time Aaron Brooks drops back deep, he gets sacked or flushed from the pocket ... or at least that is what it seems like. There is another sack for Merriman with 50 seconds left in the 3rd ... the 6th Charger sack tonight. The Raiders haven't had the ball enough for Brooks to be sacked 6 times. Luis Castillo just racked up the 7th sack on the next play. Run a screen! Run a draw! Do something to deter the rush. Run a QB draw. Roll Brooks (who is a great athlete for a QB) out. Or, I guess you coul! d have him take a 5 step drop and get sacked again ... good call!
The Raiders have not been able to sustain drives all night because of penalties and sacks allowed. They've had success with short swing passes to Randy Moss, but little else. Almost every time Aaron Brooks drops back deep, he gets sacked or flushed from the pocket ... or at least that is what it seems like. There is another sack for Merriman with 50 seconds left in the 3rd ... the 6th Charger sack tonight. The Raiders haven't had the ball enough for Brooks to be sacked 6 times. Luis Castillo just racked up the 7th sack on the next play. Run a screen! Run a draw! Do something to deter the rush. Run a QB draw. Roll Brooks (who is a great athlete for a QB) out. Or, I guess you coul! d have him take a 5 step drop and get sacked again ... good call!
Friday, September 08, 2006
Throw it at 'em!
Heath Miller did not make it into the end zone on his long TD reception. The ref right next to the play looked confused and needed help on the call. Nick Saban threw his red challenge flag onto the field, only to have the referees ignore him and allow the Steelers to kick the extra point, thus negating any possible challenge by Miami.
The problem is not that the TD stood. In all likelihood, the Steelers would have been given the ball at the 1 or 2 and pounded it into the end zone shortly thereafter. I'm not sure I would have used my challenge on that play, even if I knew it would be reversed (that leads to another problem with the challenge system, that have a limited number even if you are always right). There might be plays later in the game that would be more important, i.e. a questionable fumble or interception, 3rd down catch, or spot on a 3rd or 4th down conversion attempt.
The problem is that the replay system is in place for the coaches! to challenge questionable officiating calls. If a coach wants to challenge a reviewable play, whether it is smart or not, should be able to challenge as long as he gets his red flag on the field before the snap of the ball to start the next play. Saban did that. The officials have to see the flag and review the play. And, the idea that the flag throw is not reviewable is ridiculous. The officials are allowed to screw up calls and then ignore challenges ... great system!
The problem is not that the TD stood. In all likelihood, the Steelers would have been given the ball at the 1 or 2 and pounded it into the end zone shortly thereafter. I'm not sure I would have used my challenge on that play, even if I knew it would be reversed (that leads to another problem with the challenge system, that have a limited number even if you are always right). There might be plays later in the game that would be more important, i.e. a questionable fumble or interception, 3rd down catch, or spot on a 3rd or 4th down conversion attempt.
The problem is that the replay system is in place for the coaches! to challenge questionable officiating calls. If a coach wants to challenge a reviewable play, whether it is smart or not, should be able to challenge as long as he gets his red flag on the field before the snap of the ball to start the next play. Saban did that. The officials have to see the flag and review the play. And, the idea that the flag throw is not reviewable is ridiculous. The officials are allowed to screw up calls and then ignore challenges ... great system!
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Willie's First First Down
The NFL season started tonight, with the Thursday opener between the Dolphins and Steelers. I'm going to give the refs a pass tonight, although I will mention that the pass interference call when Charlie Batch overthrew Cedric Wilson that led to the TD to make it 14-7 was absolutely ridiculous. Since when did hand-fighting on an uncatchable ball result in PI?
Today, I'm going to address Willie Parker and his inability to just go back to the huddle. The Dolphins did a good job containing him for most of the first half. Then, he caught a little dump off, out ran one defensive lineman to the corner and cut back inside another and picked up a first down. Rather than head for the huddle, he got up and did a little celebration. A subsequent run went for a first down and he did another little celebration. Maybe he learned it from everyone's workman WR Hines Ward, who does mocking celebrations in the end zone and also toots his own horn after routine catches.
I have two questions: 1) why do the Steelers players feel they need to celebrate like this? and 2) why does the league allow it if they don't allow entertaining end zone celebrations? The Steelers are annoying; TO is entertaining. I'm confused.
Today, I'm going to address Willie Parker and his inability to just go back to the huddle. The Dolphins did a good job containing him for most of the first half. Then, he caught a little dump off, out ran one defensive lineman to the corner and cut back inside another and picked up a first down. Rather than head for the huddle, he got up and did a little celebration. A subsequent run went for a first down and he did another little celebration. Maybe he learned it from everyone's workman WR Hines Ward, who does mocking celebrations in the end zone and also toots his own horn after routine catches.
I have two questions: 1) why do the Steelers players feel they need to celebrate like this? and 2) why does the league allow it if they don't allow entertaining end zone celebrations? The Steelers are annoying; TO is entertaining. I'm confused.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
