I'm all for second chances, but Miami was the college team that gave Willie Williams a second chance. It didn't work out at Miami and no other university should have picked him up to play football. If he is good enough to play pro football, he should enter the NFL when he's able to. If he's not and wants to go to college, more power to him. However, he doesn't seem committed to playing football, doing classwork and staying out of trouble.
While we're on the topic of people who have lapses in judgement, let's move on to the finish of the Clemson v. Duke game. The clock is sacred at the end of games. That's why the officials review the plays and change the time on the clock. But, they need to get it right. Sometimes, clock operators screw up. They don't start the clock on time or start it too soon for whatever reason. The review process is in place to control these errors. The officials determined that 0.6 seconds is all it took for the Clemson player to catch the ball off the awful McRoberts pass, shoot a 3-pointer and have the ball go in. Don't you need at least 0.3 seconds to catch and shoot the ball? The ball is definitely in the air for more than 0.3 seconds. There is no way Duke should have had 4.4 seconds when they inbounded the ball. The game was tied and Clemson did a horrible job of defending on the last play. But, that's not the point. The point is that the refs did an awful job in a very cut and dry situation. All they had to do was determine how long it took from when the Clemson player touched the ball to when it went through the basket. A 10-year-old can operate a stop watch!
Even with Duke getting help from the officials once in a while, many people believe college basketball is better than pro basketball. Personally, they are both less than optimal, for different reasons. The NBA has the best athletes and the most skilled players in the world. One problem is only a few of the players combine the best of both worlds. The officials too loosely apply some of the rules (the commentators praised Nets PG Marcus Williams for his quickness with the ball on a play where he gained an advantage not with his quickness but with his prolific ability to carry the ball) and night to night a lot of players lack intensity. Generally, there is better team play and a better atmosphere in college basketball. I like the NCAA tourney, but I'd like the NBA playoffs just as much if they didn't have so many off days.
And, finally, Tiger is playing in his first tournament of the year this weekend. Roger Federer is in the finals of the Aussie Open ... again. Who's more dominant? I'm opting for Tiger because I think it's harder to dominate at golf than tennis. Thus, while Federer may win more majors this year than Tiger, Tiger winning 2 consistently is more dominating than Federer winning 3 consistently. A wishy-washy justification is that Tiger has to beat everyone in the field in every tournament, while Federer only has to beat a portion of the field. Imagine a 64 player field for the US Open in golf the US Open in tennis. Tiger has to beat 63 players to win. Federer just has to beat 6 players to win. Maybe it's not that wishy-washy. It's also easier to beat someone at tennis then to beat someone at golf if you are the same amount better than your opponent. A round of golf, for the pros, consists of about 70 shots. In tennis, you have at least 3 sets of at least 6 games with at least 4 points in each game. That's just a 72 point minimum, but when Federer does lose, there are probably going to be 5*10*6 = 300 points, at least. Plus, in each point, there are multiple chances for each player to contact the ball and gain an advantage. If golf tournaments involved 2000+ strokes, I'd take Tiger Woods every time!
Friday, January 26, 2007
Stern Rule Impinges on Rights of Young African Americans
That was former NBA PG Greg Anthony's take, when the new NBA rule was discussed recently on one of the ESPN NBA telecasts. Taking the most simplified view of things, Anthony is correct. Greg Oden could be making a few million dollars this year. Kevin Durant fits into the same class. Maybe there are some others. But, it's hard to feel real bad for the Greg Oden's and Kevin Durant's of the world ... who are few and far between. If they desire, they can declare for the draft after their freshman years and start making millions. LeBron James was driving a Hummer in HS because his mother was able to get a loan for it because of his potential. I bet Oden, Durant, and others like them could get similar legitimate help (not the kind Bush is reported to have received) to enhance their families quality of life if that is a concern. I don't know that Durant or Oden fit into that category, but one of Anthony's points was that these young men are prevented from providing for their families. Really? Something can probably be done if that is a major issue.
Anthony seemed very concerned that Stern had adversely affected African Americans above everyone else. While young African Americans may be more likely to enter the NBA out of HS than Caucasian Americans, I think African Americans are more likely to enter the NBA out of college than Caucasian Americans too. So, African Americans entering the draft and going in the lottery may just be bumping other African Americans down the draft order (decreasing the value of their initial contracts, right?) and maybe even out of the 1st round (the money isn't guaranteed in the 2nd round). But, that's really only a one year thing because next year's draft will probably include a number of "one and done" college players who would have declared this year if they could. That group will make up for the class of elite HS'ers from this year that are forced to wait a year before trying to make their mark in the NBA.
Another factor to look at is that for every player who comes into the league one player will be exiting it. Keeping a few HS'ers out this year allowed a few more veterans to keep their job (or allowed a few people coming out of college a shot). The pie is a certain size. The owners are trying to keep it that way. There is a salary cap and many owners are reluctant to go over it and face the luxury tax. So, do the math, if Greg Oden is taking up a chunk, there is that much less left to go around to everyone else.
Stern's rule may not be well thought out. It may not even be well-intentioned. Personally, I don't like it. I don't want to see every HS'er at the McDonald's game declare. But, at the same time, there are a few players (LBJ) who are good enough to make the jump with a fairly smooth transition. The problem is that the LBJ's of the world are few and far between. As good as Carmelo and Wade are, they needed a little more cultivating. I don't like to see elite HS'ers bypass college and waste away on NBA benches when they could be developing, and excelling, on the college level. It would make the NBA game better and it would make the college game better.
What's the solution? I'm not sure. Theoretically, it would be great if players didn't enter the league until (a) their college eligibility expired or (b) they were ready to play in the NBA. Not many HS'ers are ready to play right away. But, teams still take them because of their potential. One idea (that I just thought of) is that players who enter the draft early and are selected have to play a minimum of some number of minutes (20 per game?) or they will re-enter the draft the next year. And, players who aren't drafted are allowed to attend college without penalty (assuming they haven't already played a year in the league and are now re-entering the draft). This would either (a) dissuade teams from drafting "projects" and/or (b) allow players to develop if they are drafted because they will be playing.
Anthony seemed very concerned that Stern had adversely affected African Americans above everyone else. While young African Americans may be more likely to enter the NBA out of HS than Caucasian Americans, I think African Americans are more likely to enter the NBA out of college than Caucasian Americans too. So, African Americans entering the draft and going in the lottery may just be bumping other African Americans down the draft order (decreasing the value of their initial contracts, right?) and maybe even out of the 1st round (the money isn't guaranteed in the 2nd round). But, that's really only a one year thing because next year's draft will probably include a number of "one and done" college players who would have declared this year if they could. That group will make up for the class of elite HS'ers from this year that are forced to wait a year before trying to make their mark in the NBA.
Another factor to look at is that for every player who comes into the league one player will be exiting it. Keeping a few HS'ers out this year allowed a few more veterans to keep their job (or allowed a few people coming out of college a shot). The pie is a certain size. The owners are trying to keep it that way. There is a salary cap and many owners are reluctant to go over it and face the luxury tax. So, do the math, if Greg Oden is taking up a chunk, there is that much less left to go around to everyone else.
Stern's rule may not be well thought out. It may not even be well-intentioned. Personally, I don't like it. I don't want to see every HS'er at the McDonald's game declare. But, at the same time, there are a few players (LBJ) who are good enough to make the jump with a fairly smooth transition. The problem is that the LBJ's of the world are few and far between. As good as Carmelo and Wade are, they needed a little more cultivating. I don't like to see elite HS'ers bypass college and waste away on NBA benches when they could be developing, and excelling, on the college level. It would make the NBA game better and it would make the college game better.
What's the solution? I'm not sure. Theoretically, it would be great if players didn't enter the league until (a) their college eligibility expired or (b) they were ready to play in the NBA. Not many HS'ers are ready to play right away. But, teams still take them because of their potential. One idea (that I just thought of) is that players who enter the draft early and are selected have to play a minimum of some number of minutes (20 per game?) or they will re-enter the draft the next year. And, players who aren't drafted are allowed to attend college without penalty (assuming they haven't already played a year in the league and are now re-entering the draft). This would either (a) dissuade teams from drafting "projects" and/or (b) allow players to develop if they are drafted because they will be playing.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The Top One - 1/25/07
It's a slow sports week, so I'm going to write a short post today. There's nothing slow about the topic, though. Brian Urlacher is not overrated. Urlacher is an absolute monster in the middle. The Bears' MLB is a factor not only in the running game tracking down ballcarriers from sideline to sideline, he's also the best LB I saw in pass coverage all year. His ability to run with TE's and WR's down the seam is incredible, although he did get beat my Colston in the NFC Championship Game because he didn't locate the underthrown ball. The play that sticks out in my mind is when Reggie Bush was single covered on the outside by Urlacher and Brees didn't take a shot that way. Why didn't he just throw it up? Urlacher's coverage was too good. Bush wasn't even close to being open and Reggie Bush is regarded as one of the most electrifying players in the NFL. A MLB that can cover a top tier skill position player on the outside is incredible. Urlacher was also the only Bear not being blown away by Bush on his long reception for a TD - I guess that's why he was in position to be taunted by Bush.
People like to say Urlacher struggles against the run. They point to a TD run by Shaun Alexander in the playoffs where Urlacher is blocked well and is unable to make the play. However, if you look at the play closely, it would have taken an amazing effort for Urlacher to come close to making a play on that one. The first thing working against him was that he was moving away from the line of scrimmage at the snap. Thus, he had no momentum to knock the oncoming blocker back into the hole. Sure, he didn't have to be moving back at the snap, but sometimes you get caught in that situation. Maybe it was the result of a bad read ... maybe things just didn't work out for him on that one. So, the center was able to get engaged with Urlacher who wasn't in a great position to take on the blocker. None of the defensive linemen were able to do anything and were occupied by the two guards and two tackles (4 on 4). Urlacher was working around the center. Unfortunately for him and the Bears, TE Stevens was coming through as the lead blocker and was able to finish Urlacher off before he could get to Alexander. Any MLB in the same position would have suffered the same fate. The defense just wasn't set up to stop a run right up the middle - both guards were able to get inside the DT's and drive them to the outside. That left Urlacher to battle the center and lead blocker. It's not surprising the Bears didn't stop the play and you can't blame Urlacher for it.
People like to say Urlacher struggles against the run. They point to a TD run by Shaun Alexander in the playoffs where Urlacher is blocked well and is unable to make the play. However, if you look at the play closely, it would have taken an amazing effort for Urlacher to come close to making a play on that one. The first thing working against him was that he was moving away from the line of scrimmage at the snap. Thus, he had no momentum to knock the oncoming blocker back into the hole. Sure, he didn't have to be moving back at the snap, but sometimes you get caught in that situation. Maybe it was the result of a bad read ... maybe things just didn't work out for him on that one. So, the center was able to get engaged with Urlacher who wasn't in a great position to take on the blocker. None of the defensive linemen were able to do anything and were occupied by the two guards and two tackles (4 on 4). Urlacher was working around the center. Unfortunately for him and the Bears, TE Stevens was coming through as the lead blocker and was able to finish Urlacher off before he could get to Alexander. Any MLB in the same position would have suffered the same fate. The defense just wasn't set up to stop a run right up the middle - both guards were able to get inside the DT's and drive them to the outside. That left Urlacher to battle the center and lead blocker. It's not surprising the Bears didn't stop the play and you can't blame Urlacher for it.
The Top Two - 1/24/07
I'm going to revisit an early week topic here. People are not second-guessing Lovie Smith for sticking with QB Rex Grossman because the Bears are in the Super Bowl. They are the winner of the weaker NFL conference. The common theme is "We made it with Rex, so it was obviously the right choice to stick with Rex." Think people!
My first year in graduate school, I took a few of the same classes as another student in my research group. He rarely, if ever, studied and did well. I probably could have posted straight A's without studying much. However, I always error on the side of studying too much, rather than too little. Maybe, I'm wasting my time if all I'm looking for is an "A" in the class.
The Bears made it to the Super Bowl with Rex. The Bears may have made the Super Bowl with Brian Griese. That's the point. Maybe sticking with Rex has kept the Bears on the path to the Super Bowl. I don't think that is the case. The Bears won in spite of Grossman, not because of him. Griese would have known to throw at Fred Thomas, who should have intercepted Grossman's duck that Berrian turned into a TD. Lovie Smith and his supporters may point to the results as a justification for the move and it isn't that simple. It worked out, but just because it worked out doesn't mean it's way the right move.
It's a slow day and I thought about moving on to the Bengals and an arrest for marijuana. I hate the way it smells, but I've caught a whiff of it walking to my car right next to campus. The Bengals have a problem and Jonathan Joseph is hurt by the transgressions of his teammates, but this latest incident shouldn't have everyone up in arms. I'm going to move on to Kevin Garnett and the Timberwolves. Kevin McHale dumped his coach and many in the media think KG should have been sent packing instead. Garnett isn't the problem in Minnesota. When he had help (Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell), the T'wolves made a run in the playoffs. Early in his career, he was teamed with Stephon Marbury. I don't think I need to expand on that. The Joe Smith and Michael Olowakandi acquisitions were both blunders. Wally? Maybe KG isn't the best player in the NBA, but he makes Minnesota click on the offensive and defensive ends (although, honestly, I haven't seen many Minnesota games lately). I'd love to see what he could do with a team like the Bulls where he could dominate inside defensively with Ben Wallace and fill the low post scoring void they have in the Windy City. And, at 20-20, with that roster, I don't think Dwayne Casey should have been axed ... but it's not my call.
My first year in graduate school, I took a few of the same classes as another student in my research group. He rarely, if ever, studied and did well. I probably could have posted straight A's without studying much. However, I always error on the side of studying too much, rather than too little. Maybe, I'm wasting my time if all I'm looking for is an "A" in the class.
The Bears made it to the Super Bowl with Rex. The Bears may have made the Super Bowl with Brian Griese. That's the point. Maybe sticking with Rex has kept the Bears on the path to the Super Bowl. I don't think that is the case. The Bears won in spite of Grossman, not because of him. Griese would have known to throw at Fred Thomas, who should have intercepted Grossman's duck that Berrian turned into a TD. Lovie Smith and his supporters may point to the results as a justification for the move and it isn't that simple. It worked out, but just because it worked out doesn't mean it's way the right move.
It's a slow day and I thought about moving on to the Bengals and an arrest for marijuana. I hate the way it smells, but I've caught a whiff of it walking to my car right next to campus. The Bengals have a problem and Jonathan Joseph is hurt by the transgressions of his teammates, but this latest incident shouldn't have everyone up in arms. I'm going to move on to Kevin Garnett and the Timberwolves. Kevin McHale dumped his coach and many in the media think KG should have been sent packing instead. Garnett isn't the problem in Minnesota. When he had help (Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell), the T'wolves made a run in the playoffs. Early in his career, he was teamed with Stephon Marbury. I don't think I need to expand on that. The Joe Smith and Michael Olowakandi acquisitions were both blunders. Wally? Maybe KG isn't the best player in the NBA, but he makes Minnesota click on the offensive and defensive ends (although, honestly, I haven't seen many Minnesota games lately). I'd love to see what he could do with a team like the Bulls where he could dominate inside defensively with Ben Wallace and fill the low post scoring void they have in the Windy City. And, at 20-20, with that roster, I don't think Dwayne Casey should have been axed ... but it's not my call.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The Top Three - 12/23/07
The Denver Nuggets won their first game with both Carmelo Anthony and Allen Iverson on the court together. Anthony and SG J.R. Smith both took more shots than the traditionally shoot-first Iverson. If those three can keep that up, the interior players can take advantage of all the attention on AI, Melo and J.R. and get easy buckets and put backs. The biggest issue might be Marcus Camby's desire to prove he's the best 18-foot shooting shot blocker in the league.
Why did Terrell Owens speak out about Bill Parcells leaving? More importantly, why is the media reporting what Owens says?
Does Lane Kiffin think he'll be able to succeed with the Oakland Raiders? It's one thing to run up the score on college defenses with top 5 recruiting class talent every year. Does he understand what the Raiders have on offense? Andrew Walter at QB. Fargas and Jordan at RB. A talented pair of receivers who aren't exactly the easiest guys to get production out of on a consistent basis. And, an OL that allowed 72 sacks this season. That's 4.5 per game! The defense only accumulated 34 sacks. That's less than half as many as the offense allowed. They averaged just 10.5 ppg on offense ... that's more than 20 ppg less than the San Diego Chargers. The Raiders scored just more than 1/3 the points the Chargers scored. Unless there is a major shift in the franchise, Kiffin has no chance of getting to the playoffs in a loaded division where he is competing with San Diego, Denver and KC. Why didn't he bide his time in LA with USC and hope Pete Carroll would leave and he could slide in as head coach of the Trojans? It's more likely than moving up in the coaching ranks using the Raiders job as a stepping stone.
Why did Terrell Owens speak out about Bill Parcells leaving? More importantly, why is the media reporting what Owens says?
Does Lane Kiffin think he'll be able to succeed with the Oakland Raiders? It's one thing to run up the score on college defenses with top 5 recruiting class talent every year. Does he understand what the Raiders have on offense? Andrew Walter at QB. Fargas and Jordan at RB. A talented pair of receivers who aren't exactly the easiest guys to get production out of on a consistent basis. And, an OL that allowed 72 sacks this season. That's 4.5 per game! The defense only accumulated 34 sacks. That's less than half as many as the offense allowed. They averaged just 10.5 ppg on offense ... that's more than 20 ppg less than the San Diego Chargers. The Raiders scored just more than 1/3 the points the Chargers scored. Unless there is a major shift in the franchise, Kiffin has no chance of getting to the playoffs in a loaded division where he is competing with San Diego, Denver and KC. Why didn't he bide his time in LA with USC and hope Pete Carroll would leave and he could slide in as head coach of the Trojans? It's more likely than moving up in the coaching ranks using the Raiders job as a stepping stone.
The Top Two - 1/22/07
The Patriots do not deserve the kind words Peyton Manning gave. The idea that the Pats are classy because Manning did not publicly bash them is ridiculous. Manning took the high road, as he is entitled to, by speaking kindly about the team his Colts defeated. He had nothing to gain by doing anything else. If he'd done anything but what he did, he would have been killed in the media. If your math teacher tells you that 2 + 2 = 3 and you'll get an "A" if you answer 2 + 2 = ___ with 3 (instead of 4), are you going to write the "right" answer or the one that is going to serve you best in that situation?
The Patriots' coach was surprisingly quiet after the game. After wins, he has all the answers. He didn't have anything to say yesterday. Why was that? I don't buy for a minute that the Patriots didn't want to steal the spotlight from the Colts. It had nothing to do with the Colts. Belichick didn't want to admit that his defense didn't have an answer for the Colts in the second half. He didn't want to admit that he got conservative and was playing not to lose. He didn't want to have to say that his QB made a horrible throw that sealed their fate.
What amazes me is that Brady kept making the same mistake. It finally bit him in the ass. On Daniel Graham's one catch, Brady just barely got the ball by an Indy LB. Then, leading 34-31, Brady threw a pass that Bob Sanders almost intercepted as he cut in front of the intended receiver. The game took its final turn with the Pats trailing 38-34 when Marlon Jackson cut in front of a receiver to intercept a Brady pass. All three were intermediate length throws to receivers just to the right of the middle of the field. On the first one, they showed how Brady "looked off" the defender. The commentators noted that while the Colts know Brady intentionally looks off the defenders, they react enough to allow him to zip the ball in. Well, how'd that work for him the last couple times?
Quickly, I'm glad to hear that Michael Vick did not have an illegal substance in his water bottle. It begs one question: what was the hidden compartment for? Even with that news, I think it's important for the Falcons to evaluate their options going into next season and figure out whether or not Vick is the best fit for their group. Edgerrin James was a good RB for the Indianapolis Colts, but they never made it to the SB with him in the backfield. That isn't a knock against James. Maybe the Rhodes/Addai duo was better than James, maybe not. But, they were good enough at RB that they didn't have to use the extra money to keep James. The Chargers may have loved to have the security of Brees and Rivers, but you can't pay two QB's and it is a waste to have one sitting on the bench.
One of the panelists on ATH mentioned an idea I had last week. Vick to the Raiders! It would give Al Davis a big name QB who can definitely chuck it deep. Plus, he might be the only QB in the league who could survive with that offensive line. He might end up getting hurt, but it would give him lots of opportunities to improvise and produce highlight reel plays. The only problem is that the Falcons won't be able to get as much for Vick as they gave up (LT +). Vick's contract is enough for a team to take on without giving up this, that and the other. The truth is, if Vick isn't a good fit for Atlanta, they may have to pull a Tom Hick's, cut their losses, and move on. They might be hampered for a bit, but they won't be stuck with him for years to come.
The Patriots' coach was surprisingly quiet after the game. After wins, he has all the answers. He didn't have anything to say yesterday. Why was that? I don't buy for a minute that the Patriots didn't want to steal the spotlight from the Colts. It had nothing to do with the Colts. Belichick didn't want to admit that his defense didn't have an answer for the Colts in the second half. He didn't want to admit that he got conservative and was playing not to lose. He didn't want to have to say that his QB made a horrible throw that sealed their fate.
What amazes me is that Brady kept making the same mistake. It finally bit him in the ass. On Daniel Graham's one catch, Brady just barely got the ball by an Indy LB. Then, leading 34-31, Brady threw a pass that Bob Sanders almost intercepted as he cut in front of the intended receiver. The game took its final turn with the Pats trailing 38-34 when Marlon Jackson cut in front of a receiver to intercept a Brady pass. All three were intermediate length throws to receivers just to the right of the middle of the field. On the first one, they showed how Brady "looked off" the defender. The commentators noted that while the Colts know Brady intentionally looks off the defenders, they react enough to allow him to zip the ball in. Well, how'd that work for him the last couple times?
Quickly, I'm glad to hear that Michael Vick did not have an illegal substance in his water bottle. It begs one question: what was the hidden compartment for? Even with that news, I think it's important for the Falcons to evaluate their options going into next season and figure out whether or not Vick is the best fit for their group. Edgerrin James was a good RB for the Indianapolis Colts, but they never made it to the SB with him in the backfield. That isn't a knock against James. Maybe the Rhodes/Addai duo was better than James, maybe not. But, they were good enough at RB that they didn't have to use the extra money to keep James. The Chargers may have loved to have the security of Brees and Rivers, but you can't pay two QB's and it is a waste to have one sitting on the bench.
One of the panelists on ATH mentioned an idea I had last week. Vick to the Raiders! It would give Al Davis a big name QB who can definitely chuck it deep. Plus, he might be the only QB in the league who could survive with that offensive line. He might end up getting hurt, but it would give him lots of opportunities to improvise and produce highlight reel plays. The only problem is that the Falcons won't be able to get as much for Vick as they gave up (LT +). Vick's contract is enough for a team to take on without giving up this, that and the other. The truth is, if Vick isn't a good fit for Atlanta, they may have to pull a Tom Hick's, cut their losses, and move on. They might be hampered for a bit, but they won't be stuck with him for years to come.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Patriots miss their last chance
Brian Billick could learn a thing or two from Bill Belichick. But then, so could Belichick himself.
In the middle of the third quarter of their game last week against the Colts, down 12-3, the Ravens had 4th and 4 at the Indianapolis 41. This is the gray area between a clear field goal opportunity and a clear punting situation where teams often choose to go for it on fourth down. The Ravens ultimately elected to punt. The Colts made a fair catch at their own eleven. Then, on the very next play, Dominic Rhodes ran for twenty-five yards back to the 36 yard line. In one play, the Colts had all but five yards of the field position back. In other words, the Ravens might as well have gone for it.
Last night, the Patriots twice went for it on fourth down in the first half of their game against the Colts. First, from the Indianapolis 48 on 4th and 1, and on their next drive from the Indianapolis 34 on 4th and 6. Both drives resulted in touchdowns for the Patriots. These two plays, along with Asante Samuel's interception, helped them build their 21-3 lead that almost made it to halftime.
After scoring another field goal to finish the first half, the Colts really got their comeback in gear in the second half. They scored a touchdown on their first possession, held the Patriots to three-and-out, then drove for another TD and a two-point conversion to tie the game.
After a long kickoff return by Ellis Hobbs, the Patriots scored their fourth touchdown of the game. From there, the back and forth continued with another touchdown for the Colts, a pair of three-and-outs, and a pair of field goals.
With the score knotted at 31 and 5:31 left in the game, the Patriots got another good kick return and set up at their own 46. They made one play to get to the Indianapolis 29, and then progress again stalled. After two incomplete passes, they ran the ball on third and ten, apparently to set up an easier kick. On fourth and 6 from the 25, they kicked their second field goal and sealed their fate.
The question is, why wasn't Belichick more aggressive here, like he had been in the first half? Up to this point, the Colts had had five possessions in the second half, with their best starting field position their own 33. They had scored on four of the five, including three touchdowns. Did Belichick really think that his defense was going to shut them down?
As it happened, the Colts did go three-and-out on their next possession. Peyton Manning threw three incomplete passes, and advocates of the "choking" theory patted themselves on the back. But then "Golden Boy" Tom Brady also went three-and-out, and the Colts got the ball back with 2:17 on the clock. The rest, as they say, is football history. The Colts drove 80 yards on seven plays, finishing with three Joseph Addai runs that put them in the endzone with one minute remaining. Brady ended the Patriots chances with an interception on their ensuing possession.
Of course, I admit, hindsight is twenty-twenty. It's easy to second guess a coach's decisions when you get to see how they turn out. Nonetheless, I think there is something here. The way the second half developed, the Patriots were only in the game because of their special teams. And they had only built their big lead in the first half by taking chances. Without those first two touchdowns, and assuming that one of them turned into a field goal, we have 10-6 at halftime instead of 21-6. That's the only reason the Patriots were still in the game at 31-31. Why decide to play conservatively with the game on the line?
Given that they scored a crucial touchdown in their previous game against the Chargers after a fumble recovery following a fourth-down Tom Brady interception, I think it's fair to say that the Patriots would not have been in the AFC Championship Game at all without a fair amount of good luck. But good luck is not something that is merely handed down from on high. If you want to benefit from good luck, you have to put yourself in a position to get it. Going for it on fourth down was the source of most of the Patriots' luck in their last two games. One more shot at it might have been their ticket to the Super Bowl.
In the middle of the third quarter of their game last week against the Colts, down 12-3, the Ravens had 4th and 4 at the Indianapolis 41. This is the gray area between a clear field goal opportunity and a clear punting situation where teams often choose to go for it on fourth down. The Ravens ultimately elected to punt. The Colts made a fair catch at their own eleven. Then, on the very next play, Dominic Rhodes ran for twenty-five yards back to the 36 yard line. In one play, the Colts had all but five yards of the field position back. In other words, the Ravens might as well have gone for it.
Last night, the Patriots twice went for it on fourth down in the first half of their game against the Colts. First, from the Indianapolis 48 on 4th and 1, and on their next drive from the Indianapolis 34 on 4th and 6. Both drives resulted in touchdowns for the Patriots. These two plays, along with Asante Samuel's interception, helped them build their 21-3 lead that almost made it to halftime.
After scoring another field goal to finish the first half, the Colts really got their comeback in gear in the second half. They scored a touchdown on their first possession, held the Patriots to three-and-out, then drove for another TD and a two-point conversion to tie the game.
After a long kickoff return by Ellis Hobbs, the Patriots scored their fourth touchdown of the game. From there, the back and forth continued with another touchdown for the Colts, a pair of three-and-outs, and a pair of field goals.
With the score knotted at 31 and 5:31 left in the game, the Patriots got another good kick return and set up at their own 46. They made one play to get to the Indianapolis 29, and then progress again stalled. After two incomplete passes, they ran the ball on third and ten, apparently to set up an easier kick. On fourth and 6 from the 25, they kicked their second field goal and sealed their fate.
The question is, why wasn't Belichick more aggressive here, like he had been in the first half? Up to this point, the Colts had had five possessions in the second half, with their best starting field position their own 33. They had scored on four of the five, including three touchdowns. Did Belichick really think that his defense was going to shut them down?
As it happened, the Colts did go three-and-out on their next possession. Peyton Manning threw three incomplete passes, and advocates of the "choking" theory patted themselves on the back. But then "Golden Boy" Tom Brady also went three-and-out, and the Colts got the ball back with 2:17 on the clock. The rest, as they say, is football history. The Colts drove 80 yards on seven plays, finishing with three Joseph Addai runs that put them in the endzone with one minute remaining. Brady ended the Patriots chances with an interception on their ensuing possession.
Of course, I admit, hindsight is twenty-twenty. It's easy to second guess a coach's decisions when you get to see how they turn out. Nonetheless, I think there is something here. The way the second half developed, the Patriots were only in the game because of their special teams. And they had only built their big lead in the first half by taking chances. Without those first two touchdowns, and assuming that one of them turned into a field goal, we have 10-6 at halftime instead of 21-6. That's the only reason the Patriots were still in the game at 31-31. Why decide to play conservatively with the game on the line?
Given that they scored a crucial touchdown in their previous game against the Chargers after a fumble recovery following a fourth-down Tom Brady interception, I think it's fair to say that the Patriots would not have been in the AFC Championship Game at all without a fair amount of good luck. But good luck is not something that is merely handed down from on high. If you want to benefit from good luck, you have to put yourself in a position to get it. Going for it on fourth down was the source of most of the Patriots' luck in their last two games. One more shot at it might have been their ticket to the Super Bowl.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Intentional Grounding (Saints v. Bears)
I don't really have a problem with either of the grounding calls against Drew Brees. It would be hard to argue against them because, by rule, they were both intentional grounding. The problem I have is with the inconsistency of the enforcement of that rule. On an fairly inconsequential 3rd down incompletion on a screen pass by Rex Grossman, Grossman was forced to get rid of the ball by pressure in his face. The ball wasn't anywhere near "intended receiver" Thomas Jones. The ball fell at the feet of a couple linemen out on the edge looking to block. There was a penalty flag thrown. Unfortunately, the call was holding (not a loss of down). That's fine. Call holding. But, call the obvious intentional grounding as well. Quarterbacks should know when intentional grounding is going to be enforced. The officials need to be consistent for the playing field to be level.
While I'm on the subject of inconsistent application of rules, Rex Grossman obviously signalled for a timeout in the first half. The problem was that the Bears had just called timeout. Thus, it should have been a penalty against Chicago. The announcers said that the officials ignored Grossman because they're really only concerned with that play on kicks. Well, the rule should be enforced how it is written. If the rule maker only wanted to make the rule applicable for when a team was going to kick a FG, they could have written the rule that way. Apparently, that's not how it's written.
As I watch Reggie Bush just slip and lose his footing and fall out of bounds, I can't help but wonder if the outcome of the game would have been different (a) if it wasn't cold and snowing and/or (b) if the footing wasn't awful. The game reminded me a lot of the two losses by the Colts at NE. Are these really the conditions we want the most important games of the football season played in? It wouldn't be my preference. I don't have any problem with home field advantage, but these conditions aren't conducive to good football. It is similar to baseball games being played in the northern midwest and northeast during the late fall. You play most the season in sunny weather and then the most important games are played under vastly different conditions. It's almost as asinine as waiting a month and a half before playing the last, and most important, game of the season (college football).
And, in a follow-up to a previous post, I still think the Saints were the better team at this point in the season. They didn't take care of the ball and they were hurt by a few penalties (which were few and far between, especially those called against Chicago). While both teams have to play under the same conditions, I think the Saints were impacted more by the environmental factors than the Bears. The Bears won't have that advantage in the Super Bowl two weeks from now.
While I'm on the subject of inconsistent application of rules, Rex Grossman obviously signalled for a timeout in the first half. The problem was that the Bears had just called timeout. Thus, it should have been a penalty against Chicago. The announcers said that the officials ignored Grossman because they're really only concerned with that play on kicks. Well, the rule should be enforced how it is written. If the rule maker only wanted to make the rule applicable for when a team was going to kick a FG, they could have written the rule that way. Apparently, that's not how it's written.
As I watch Reggie Bush just slip and lose his footing and fall out of bounds, I can't help but wonder if the outcome of the game would have been different (a) if it wasn't cold and snowing and/or (b) if the footing wasn't awful. The game reminded me a lot of the two losses by the Colts at NE. Are these really the conditions we want the most important games of the football season played in? It wouldn't be my preference. I don't have any problem with home field advantage, but these conditions aren't conducive to good football. It is similar to baseball games being played in the northern midwest and northeast during the late fall. You play most the season in sunny weather and then the most important games are played under vastly different conditions. It's almost as asinine as waiting a month and a half before playing the last, and most important, game of the season (college football).
And, in a follow-up to a previous post, I still think the Saints were the better team at this point in the season. They didn't take care of the ball and they were hurt by a few penalties (which were few and far between, especially those called against Chicago). While both teams have to play under the same conditions, I think the Saints were impacted more by the environmental factors than the Bears. The Bears won't have that advantage in the Super Bowl two weeks from now.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
C-Web in Detroit
Chris Webber could be a great find for the Pistons. Why? His defensive liability shouldn't dramatically hurt the Pistons. Plus, his passing and shooting ability should help them offensively. I'm not going to focus on Webber's offense because I think people are in agreement that he is still capable on that end of the floor.
I know Webber can't really guard anyone, but he doesn't have to. Rasheed Wallace might not enjoy being assigned the best interior player, but he's capable of defending them. He's tall, long, athletic, and sturdy enough to guard any post player not named Shaquille O'neal. Sure, Webber will be expected to check someone. But, looking at the Eastern Conference contenders, he shouldn't have too much trouble.
Cleveland - Ilgauskas and Gooden: Webber can definitely stay with Z
Washington - Haywood and Jamison: Antawn might cause Webber some problems, but put him on Haywood and anyone they bring off the bench (Songalia, Thomas, etc.)
New Jersey - Kristic and Collins: the Nets are dynamic on the perimeter, not inside
Chicago - Wallace and Nocioni: put Webber on the guy he replaced and tell him to put him on the line
Orlando - Howard and Battie: don't subject Webber to Howard, but he can keep Battie, Garrity and Darko from looking like Hall-of-Famers I'm sure
The point is that there aren't many teams in the NBA with two quality interior scorers. So, Webber's passing can be more of a benefit to the offense than his lack of mobility is a detriment to the defense. Now, I wouldn't want Webber playing big minutes against the Phoenix Suns trying to stick with Amare, Boris or the Matrix.
I know Webber can't really guard anyone, but he doesn't have to. Rasheed Wallace might not enjoy being assigned the best interior player, but he's capable of defending them. He's tall, long, athletic, and sturdy enough to guard any post player not named Shaquille O'neal. Sure, Webber will be expected to check someone. But, looking at the Eastern Conference contenders, he shouldn't have too much trouble.
Cleveland - Ilgauskas and Gooden: Webber can definitely stay with Z
Washington - Haywood and Jamison: Antawn might cause Webber some problems, but put him on Haywood and anyone they bring off the bench (Songalia, Thomas, etc.)
New Jersey - Kristic and Collins: the Nets are dynamic on the perimeter, not inside
Chicago - Wallace and Nocioni: put Webber on the guy he replaced and tell him to put him on the line
Orlando - Howard and Battie: don't subject Webber to Howard, but he can keep Battie, Garrity and Darko from looking like Hall-of-Famers I'm sure
The point is that there aren't many teams in the NBA with two quality interior scorers. So, Webber's passing can be more of a benefit to the offense than his lack of mobility is a detriment to the defense. Now, I wouldn't want Webber playing big minutes against the Phoenix Suns trying to stick with Amare, Boris or the Matrix.
KG defending Madsen
Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? In tonight's Pistons v. Timberwolves game, Detroit PF Antonio McDyess got a little rough with Minnesota PF Mark Madsen after a play and Minnesota PF Kevin Garnett took exception. McDyess got in trouble for throwing an elbow at Madsen. KG and McDyess were both ejected after starting a little fracas of their own. Essentially, KG pushed McDyess. McDyess came back at him and KG threw the ball at him.
The refs overreacted. The Timberwolves lost their best player for sticking up for his teammate. No punches were exchanged and the entire situation was created by McDyess. McDyess threw the elbow. If you are going to do that, you should expect to get pushed. He reacted to KG pushing him by coming back at Garnett. Garnett was exercising Madsen's retaliation for him. That should be fine. The officials should punish the first guy and leave it at that unless the situation gets out of control.
By overreacting, the officials removed a reserve from the Pistons (albeit a solid reserve who could start for them) and an all-star from the T-wolves. Without KG, Minnesota would be headed for the Kevin Durant/Greg Oden sweepstakes. Instead, they're battling for a playoff berth. Minnesota made a valiant effort without their star, but everything was made significantly more difficult. They lost their best interior defender and rebounder. Plus, they lost their best offensive player and a guy who helps create shots for other people. It ended up going to double OT and the talent difference was just too great after KG was sent off.
The refs overreacted. The Timberwolves lost their best player for sticking up for his teammate. No punches were exchanged and the entire situation was created by McDyess. McDyess threw the elbow. If you are going to do that, you should expect to get pushed. He reacted to KG pushing him by coming back at Garnett. Garnett was exercising Madsen's retaliation for him. That should be fine. The officials should punish the first guy and leave it at that unless the situation gets out of control.
By overreacting, the officials removed a reserve from the Pistons (albeit a solid reserve who could start for them) and an all-star from the T-wolves. Without KG, Minnesota would be headed for the Kevin Durant/Greg Oden sweepstakes. Instead, they're battling for a playoff berth. Minnesota made a valiant effort without their star, but everything was made significantly more difficult. They lost their best interior defender and rebounder. Plus, they lost their best offensive player and a guy who helps create shots for other people. It ended up going to double OT and the talent difference was just too great after KG was sent off.
Friday, January 19, 2007
The Top Two - 1/19/07
I'm going to make this short because I have some other things to get to, but heading into the weekend, the top two topics are the games to determine the Super Bowl participants for thie NFL season. Patriots v. Colts and Saints v. Bears - We'll start with the NFC. The Saints should win. Like all the other teams in the conference, they've been inconsistent this season. They should be the favorite, even in Chicago, because they have more ways to beat you offensively than the Bears do. Plus, the Saints have an undeniable advantage at the QB spot. And, the issue of which team has the better defense is debatable. The Bears are without DT stud Tommie Harris. People were talking about him as the defensive MVP early in the season. Plus, they're without the glue of their secondary, turnover magnet S Mike Brown. They still have Urlacher, Briggs, Ogunleye, Alex Brown, etc., but when you remove two key components, it has a negative impact on everyone else. The defense starts upfront and especially with strength at DT. Harris commands double teams when he's healthy and that increases the effectiveness of the pass rushing ends. Plus, he's a key component for stuffing the run by making plays in the backfield, disrupting blocking schemes and keeping blockers off the LB's. If you can stop the run and put pressure on the QB, it makes the job of the secondary that much easier. So, the Harris loss is huge. And, look at the Colts to see the type of impact a S can have on a defense.
Maybe Rex will play out of his mind. Maybe it won't be the Saints day on Sunday. Maybe the weather will be awful and it will come down to a battle of the offensive fronts. But, the Saints should win this one.
Unlike the NFC contest, the AFC winner should be the home team. Yep, I'm going with the Colts. Now, I will admit I have a slight bias in that I hate the Patriots. Plus, my brother has a striking resemblance to Peyton Manning, although he's just 6'4" and he doesn't really have a laser, rocket arm. He's a solid athlete and I'd probably take him in a foot race against the Indy QB.
And, despite attempts to hype up the match-up by pitting one coach against the other, one QB against the other and one K against the other, that's not what it's about. As new Dolphins coach Cam Cameron said "Football is the ultimate team sport." If you want to determine who's better, Manning or Brady, make some robots to run routes and put them in the same situations and see who comes out on top. Think of it as a more complex QB challenge. And, if you want to compare coaches, track down the old football game my uncle had. The offense and defense would each pick a play and you'd overlay the two cards and it would show the likelihood of each result. Play a series of games and may the best man win. For the kickers, how 'bout a good old-fashioned game of horse. Oh wait, that obviously helps out Vinatieri so we better go with M-I-A-M-I.
The Colts are more likely to win because they're at home and they're playing better than the Patriots. Despite not blowing the Ravens away, they were in control of that game the entire way. The same thing can be said of their WC game against the Chiefs, although the game was a little less in doubt throughout. The Pats were fortunate to beat the Chargers. The key play was forcing a fumble after an interception on 4th down. When that is the key to your victory, you knew you weren't in control of the game. And, despite the margin of victory, the game against the Jets wasn't that impressive either.
The Pats don't "own" the Colts in the playoffs. Manning is 0-2 against them. But, weren't the Pats expected to win those two? The Colts have defeated NE each of the last two regular seasons. Before that, they had trouble with them in the regular season too. The two playoff games were not played under the best weather conditions for airing it out. And, that version of the Pats had Ted Washington in the middle to stuff the run. That's a tough combination for an offense. The climate will be controlled in the RCA Dome, increasing Manning's chances for success in the passing game over a situation with snow flurries in the forecast. Plus, LT and Michael Turner showed that the Pats run defense can be vulnerable. If Manning has success early in the passing game, that will help Addai and Rhodes make hay for the Colts. Yummy.
Maybe Rex will play out of his mind. Maybe it won't be the Saints day on Sunday. Maybe the weather will be awful and it will come down to a battle of the offensive fronts. But, the Saints should win this one.
Unlike the NFC contest, the AFC winner should be the home team. Yep, I'm going with the Colts. Now, I will admit I have a slight bias in that I hate the Patriots. Plus, my brother has a striking resemblance to Peyton Manning, although he's just 6'4" and he doesn't really have a laser, rocket arm. He's a solid athlete and I'd probably take him in a foot race against the Indy QB.
And, despite attempts to hype up the match-up by pitting one coach against the other, one QB against the other and one K against the other, that's not what it's about. As new Dolphins coach Cam Cameron said "Football is the ultimate team sport." If you want to determine who's better, Manning or Brady, make some robots to run routes and put them in the same situations and see who comes out on top. Think of it as a more complex QB challenge. And, if you want to compare coaches, track down the old football game my uncle had. The offense and defense would each pick a play and you'd overlay the two cards and it would show the likelihood of each result. Play a series of games and may the best man win. For the kickers, how 'bout a good old-fashioned game of horse. Oh wait, that obviously helps out Vinatieri so we better go with M-I-A-M-I.
The Colts are more likely to win because they're at home and they're playing better than the Patriots. Despite not blowing the Ravens away, they were in control of that game the entire way. The same thing can be said of their WC game against the Chiefs, although the game was a little less in doubt throughout. The Pats were fortunate to beat the Chargers. The key play was forcing a fumble after an interception on 4th down. When that is the key to your victory, you knew you weren't in control of the game. And, despite the margin of victory, the game against the Jets wasn't that impressive either.
The Pats don't "own" the Colts in the playoffs. Manning is 0-2 against them. But, weren't the Pats expected to win those two? The Colts have defeated NE each of the last two regular seasons. Before that, they had trouble with them in the regular season too. The two playoff games were not played under the best weather conditions for airing it out. And, that version of the Pats had Ted Washington in the middle to stuff the run. That's a tough combination for an offense. The climate will be controlled in the RCA Dome, increasing Manning's chances for success in the passing game over a situation with snow flurries in the forecast. Plus, LT and Michael Turner showed that the Pats run defense can be vulnerable. If Manning has success early in the passing game, that will help Addai and Rhodes make hay for the Colts. Yummy.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Top Two - 1/18/07
I don't know what Michael Vick was thinking if he was, as has been reported, trying to take marijuana onto a plane in a hidden compartment inside a water bottle. If I were the Falcons, I'd be less concerned about the marijuana use and more concerned about the obvious lapse in judgement. If you are going to use illegal drugs, you don't take illegal drugs through someplace where searches take place. Maybe Vick figured he would get a pass because he's Michael Vick, but that's just not a chance I'd be willing to take. Maybe 30 years ago, but today, there is so much emphasis placed on players screwing up that it's not a risk worth taking, or at least I wouldn't think it would be.
Perhaps, this is a cunning stunt by Vick to defer analysis and criticism from his sometimes spectacular but consistently, wildly inconsistent play onto his off-field, and leaving field, transgressions. Or, maybe he didn't like all the publicity Petrino was getting. Just thought I'd throw those out there for a little comic relief.
Honestly, this shouldn't be a big deal to the Falcons, unless Vick faces legal trouble that hinders his football development. The bigger issue is whether or not Vick is the long-term solution at QB. Vick's physical skills are mesmerizing. He has tremendous speed and quickness. He can make all the throws with a flick of the wrist. And, while he has been fairly successful as a starter in the NFL, the Falcons have tanked late the last two seasons and Matt Schaub is riding the pine. Why not mix things up and utilize the skills of all the best players on the team. Obviously, Schaub is an asset in the passing game. Deuce McAllister welcomed Reggie Bush to New Orleans because he understood that Bush brought elements to the team that he couldn't provide. While it is easier for RB's to split time because they take more punishment than QB's (aside from David Carr, maybe), the key is putting the team first. If using Schaub can help the Falcons win, they should use him. Personally, I think the added dimension of defending against formations with Vick, Schaub and Vick and Schaub in the game would hinder defenses while simultaneously increasing the potential productivity of the offense.
Moving all the way across the country, we find the Los Angeles Lakers. They took down San Antonio last night. So, where do they fit in the Western Conference picture? At the top, we have Dallas and Phoenix as 1A and 1B. After that, the waters are considerably more muddy. The Lakers and Rockets have dynamic wing scorers. That seems to be all the Utah Jazz are really missing. The Nuggets could be poised for another second-half surge with Anthony returning from suspension to join AI and J.R. Smith. And, we have the aging Spurs.
Like the Heat in the Eastern Conference, there are teams in the Western Conference who are waiting in the wings for the playoffs to begin. Dallas barely edged out San Antonio last year and that team is filled with veterans who usually play their best during the playoffs. So, right now, San Antonio is still number three - although I don't particularly appreciate the benefit of the doubt afforded Ginobli and Duncan - underneath Dirk's Mavs and the leader of the uptempo surge, the Phoenix Suns. Next, I'm going to put the Nuggets in there on potential. If George Karl can convince everyone to buy into a team scheme centered around AI and Carmelo, the team could go a long way. Camby, Nene, Evans, and Najera can do the dirty work on the inside. Is Kenyon Martin going to play this year? He could be another great asset as a defender and rebounder. Plus, if Martin worked hard to follow shots and cut down the lane or backdoor at appropriate times, he could provide a plethora of highlight reel dunks and stay involved without wasting possessions hogging the ball and trying to create, which is not his strong point. With Steve Blake distributing the ball at times and J.R. Smith stroking threes, made easier by all the attention devoted to the two stars, this team could give fits to any team in the NBA.
I do not think any of the other teams out west are really legitimate contenders for the conference crown at this point. Kobe has the Lakers playing well, but he's still without a consistent second scorer and the Lakers still don't have a steady inside presence. But, Kobe can catch fire for stretches and carry the team. He won't get them through the west, though. Carlos Boozer is playing outstanding for the Jazz and Deron Williams is developing at the point. It would have been interesting if they'd grabbed Chris Paul. Chris Paul driving and distributing to AK-47, Boozer and Okur would, probably, be more effective than Williams doing it. The Jazz are just lacking a go to scorer. And, it's a shame because their void is at the SG position, where they Miles, Giricek, Brewer, etc. The SG position is the easiest one to fill with an athletic scorer and that has to be eating at the Jazz.
The last Western Conference team worth mentioning is the Rockets. McGrady and Yao are an interesting pair if they are healthy. Yao is out and McGrady is still having back flair ups. For Houston to be dangerous, they need both of those guys clicking and healthy for the duration. That's not likely to happen. But, just imagine the possibility. Battier is a great complimentary wing to McGrady. Juwan Howard is a solid veteran and Bonzi Wells is a match-up problem if he's not gunning haphazardly. Plus, the pivot combo of Yao and Mutombo is the best duo west of Shaq and 'Zo (Duncan is a PF, right?). And, Alston and Head are solid guards capable of knocking down outside shots.
So, getting back to the topic at hand, the Los Angeles Lakers aren't really that far up the Western Conference hierarchy. They're a team built for the regular season, not the grind of the playoffs.
Perhaps, this is a cunning stunt by Vick to defer analysis and criticism from his sometimes spectacular but consistently, wildly inconsistent play onto his off-field, and leaving field, transgressions. Or, maybe he didn't like all the publicity Petrino was getting. Just thought I'd throw those out there for a little comic relief.
Honestly, this shouldn't be a big deal to the Falcons, unless Vick faces legal trouble that hinders his football development. The bigger issue is whether or not Vick is the long-term solution at QB. Vick's physical skills are mesmerizing. He has tremendous speed and quickness. He can make all the throws with a flick of the wrist. And, while he has been fairly successful as a starter in the NFL, the Falcons have tanked late the last two seasons and Matt Schaub is riding the pine. Why not mix things up and utilize the skills of all the best players on the team. Obviously, Schaub is an asset in the passing game. Deuce McAllister welcomed Reggie Bush to New Orleans because he understood that Bush brought elements to the team that he couldn't provide. While it is easier for RB's to split time because they take more punishment than QB's (aside from David Carr, maybe), the key is putting the team first. If using Schaub can help the Falcons win, they should use him. Personally, I think the added dimension of defending against formations with Vick, Schaub and Vick and Schaub in the game would hinder defenses while simultaneously increasing the potential productivity of the offense.
Moving all the way across the country, we find the Los Angeles Lakers. They took down San Antonio last night. So, where do they fit in the Western Conference picture? At the top, we have Dallas and Phoenix as 1A and 1B. After that, the waters are considerably more muddy. The Lakers and Rockets have dynamic wing scorers. That seems to be all the Utah Jazz are really missing. The Nuggets could be poised for another second-half surge with Anthony returning from suspension to join AI and J.R. Smith. And, we have the aging Spurs.
Like the Heat in the Eastern Conference, there are teams in the Western Conference who are waiting in the wings for the playoffs to begin. Dallas barely edged out San Antonio last year and that team is filled with veterans who usually play their best during the playoffs. So, right now, San Antonio is still number three - although I don't particularly appreciate the benefit of the doubt afforded Ginobli and Duncan - underneath Dirk's Mavs and the leader of the uptempo surge, the Phoenix Suns. Next, I'm going to put the Nuggets in there on potential. If George Karl can convince everyone to buy into a team scheme centered around AI and Carmelo, the team could go a long way. Camby, Nene, Evans, and Najera can do the dirty work on the inside. Is Kenyon Martin going to play this year? He could be another great asset as a defender and rebounder. Plus, if Martin worked hard to follow shots and cut down the lane or backdoor at appropriate times, he could provide a plethora of highlight reel dunks and stay involved without wasting possessions hogging the ball and trying to create, which is not his strong point. With Steve Blake distributing the ball at times and J.R. Smith stroking threes, made easier by all the attention devoted to the two stars, this team could give fits to any team in the NBA.
I do not think any of the other teams out west are really legitimate contenders for the conference crown at this point. Kobe has the Lakers playing well, but he's still without a consistent second scorer and the Lakers still don't have a steady inside presence. But, Kobe can catch fire for stretches and carry the team. He won't get them through the west, though. Carlos Boozer is playing outstanding for the Jazz and Deron Williams is developing at the point. It would have been interesting if they'd grabbed Chris Paul. Chris Paul driving and distributing to AK-47, Boozer and Okur would, probably, be more effective than Williams doing it. The Jazz are just lacking a go to scorer. And, it's a shame because their void is at the SG position, where they Miles, Giricek, Brewer, etc. The SG position is the easiest one to fill with an athletic scorer and that has to be eating at the Jazz.
The last Western Conference team worth mentioning is the Rockets. McGrady and Yao are an interesting pair if they are healthy. Yao is out and McGrady is still having back flair ups. For Houston to be dangerous, they need both of those guys clicking and healthy for the duration. That's not likely to happen. But, just imagine the possibility. Battier is a great complimentary wing to McGrady. Juwan Howard is a solid veteran and Bonzi Wells is a match-up problem if he's not gunning haphazardly. Plus, the pivot combo of Yao and Mutombo is the best duo west of Shaq and 'Zo (Duncan is a PF, right?). And, Alston and Head are solid guards capable of knocking down outside shots.
So, getting back to the topic at hand, the Los Angeles Lakers aren't really that far up the Western Conference hierarchy. They're a team built for the regular season, not the grind of the playoffs.
Late lay-up sinks Gophers
Officials in an NCAA women's basketball game between South Dakota State and Minnesota have been "disciplined" for incorrectly awarding SDSU a game-winning basket shot after time had expired. Get the full story at ESPN. Unfortunately, penalizing referees and changing the outcome of the game on the books are two different things, and the latter cannot be done, we are told.
Said Minnesota coach Pam Borton,
We at There's a Catch wish it weren't true and hope, as always, that this erroneous outcome doesn't spread into the future. Meaning that the extra win for SDSU and loss for Minnesota don't have ramifications for season titles, postseason, etc. But, hey, maybe the refs screwed up some other calls along the way, and the Jackrabbits were supposed to win. Hope, hope, hoping along.
Said Minnesota coach Pam Borton,
Life isn't fair but this situation is what it is.Why don't you say what you mean, Pam? We all know life isn't fair. Apparently, neither is college basketball. That's what Coach Borton meant to say. Basketball isn't fair. Not nearly as obvious.
We at There's a Catch wish it weren't true and hope, as always, that this erroneous outcome doesn't spread into the future. Meaning that the extra win for SDSU and loss for Minnesota don't have ramifications for season titles, postseason, etc. But, hey, maybe the refs screwed up some other calls along the way, and the Jackrabbits were supposed to win. Hope, hope, hoping along.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Top Topics - 01/17/07
Thanks to Around the Horn, I have nine questions to ponder tonight while my wife watches the 2nd 2-hour American Idol of the season. Using my handy DVR, I fast forwarded through the ramblings of the panel in order to find the questions from TR. So, without any further delay:
1. More or less pressure on Peyton this time around?
The Colts didn't blow through the league this year like they did last year. The defense was atrocious at times, but has been fantastic in the first two rounds of the playoffs. And, Peyton hasn't lost to the Patriots in two years. The Colts were derailed last year against Pittsburgh in the playoffs and have beaten the Pats the last two regular seasons. Sure, Peyton hasn't jumped the hurdle of NE in the playoffs. But, this year his team has home field for the AFC Championship.
I might be dancing around the question a little bit, but that's because I don't know if there is a good answer. Manning probably feels the same amount of pressure he usually does for games of this level. I don't imagine he's overly concerned about this installment of the Pats defense, especially considering he's already seen them. I'm sure Manning understands that he needs to get over the AFC Championship Game hurdle. But, he's probably felt the same amount of pressure in previous years. People are talking about the window closing on their Super Bowl chances, but Manning and his receivers are still playing at a high level. Also, the defense is playing as well as it has in a while and RB Joseph Addai is developing into a solid replacement for new Cardinal Edgerrin James.
Internally, no more pressure. Externally, there probably is more pressure this time around. But, I don't think that means anything to him at all.
2. Is Bush the "X Factor"?
In one sense, he definitely is. Reggie Bush, like Devin Hester for the Bears, could break a big play any time he touches the ball. He has great speed and elusiveness in the open field. But, he shouldn't be the focus of the Bear game plan. Without Tommie Harris in the middle, Deuce McAllister might deserve a little more attention. And, there is always Drew Brees and the Saints' big-play passing game.
Reggie Bush topped 70 yards rushing just once this season. He had 88 receptions, but only topped 70 receiving yards in two games. However, each time he topped 70, he went for at least 125 yards (126 rushing; 125 and 131 receiving). But, 13 out of 16 weeks ... let's just say it wasn't a lightning storm. In two other games, he topped 100 total yards from scrimmage. So, he accomplished that feat in less than one third of the games (5 of 17 when you include last week).
And, add to that, he fumbled twice last week. One was recovered for a lucky Saints first down. Then, late in the game, he missed a good pitch from Brees that could have cost his team the game. Maybe the play calling left a little to be desired, but Bush should have at least controlled the ball and kept it away from the Eagles.
Reggie Bush isn't going to be the reason the Saints win ... unless his talent is so mesmerizing that it causes Ron Rivera to lose focus on the other offensive assets the Saints roll out.
3. Warriors or Pacers made out better?
Unless the Warriors somehow managed to switch conferences with the Pacers as part of this deal, I'm going with the Pacers on this one. First and foremost, they got rid of Stephen Jackson. Also, they picked up a lot of hair on the heads of Mike Dunleavy Jr. and Troy Murphy - an Indiana guy from his days at Notre Dame. In all seriousness, Troy Murphy should really benefit from not having to face the power forward gauntlet known as the Western Conference, where you face Dirk, KG, Boozer, Duncan, Diaw, Brand, etc. With Murphy and Jermaine O'neal, Dunleavy should find some open shots and the Pacers are in line for a playoff spot so far, even though they're 4th (out of 5) in their own division.
That said, the Warriors got more athletic and should be fun to watch with Davis, Richardson, Jackson, Harrington, Biedrins, Pietrus and Ellis lighting things up in the uptempo West. Let's see some Warriors v. Suns or Warriors v. Nuggets once Carmelo gets back in the swing of things. They still don't have a shot at winning the West. Put that squad in the East and I'd like their chances a lot more.
4. Bonds' deal with Giants in doubt?
I hope it falls through. Not because I want Bonds to ride off into the sunset. I want Bonds to have one more shot at chasing a World Series and it would be great if he had some protection in the lineup. I don't see Pedro Feliz and Ryan Klesko doing that. Also, I'd like to see Bonds not have to play the field every day. I'm not afraid of balls bouncing off his head for HR's. I'm afraid of him needing days off because chasing after balls in the outfield grass takes its toll on his body, robbing him of precious AB's. Opposing pitchers take away enough of his AB's ... he should reclaim some of the potential AB's by moving to the AL and spending "off" days at DH. It would be nice if he was protected by Manny or Vlad or another big gun, too.
5. Lofton: front-runner for Raiders job?
I thought this name came out of nowhere. And, for Lofton's sake, I hope he doesn't get the job. He should continue up the ranks and look for a better opportunity for his first head coaching gig.
6. Bounce-back season for Mickelson?
Mickelson claims to have put on 15 pounds of muscle during the short golf off-season. I think his chances of having a "bounce-back" season are better than the chances he put on that much lean muscle. Mickelson is a fantastic golfer and should benefit greatly from being in better shape. He won't fatigue as easily during hot summer events. And, he should be more consistent with his swing because of it. He wasn't that far off last year and he should be back as a top 5 golfer on the PGA tour this year.
7. Reaction to "Instant Classic" (UT/OSU)?
This was the first time I sat down and watched Kevin Durant and he'll be fun to watch tear up a somewhat depleted Big 12 this season. Durant is really long and has a good stroke. He reminds me a little bit of Carmelo Anthony. He's good in the post and pulling up off the dribble. He can bomb from the college line. One question is whether or not he'll be able to extend that to the NBA range. Either way, he'll be a dynamic scorer all year and an impact player in the NBA next year.
Back to the game, it was great ... except for all the references to the walk-on for the OSU Cowboys. Walk-on, walk-on, walk-on ... the commentators couldn't let that go. Mario Boggan was fantastic. He was strong inside, hitting jumpers, nailing FT's, and hit a long two-pointer (his foot was inside the line on the "3") to pull it out in the end when no one else on the Cowboys could put the Longhorns away.
Unfortunately, we didn't get to see enough of Kevin Durant v. Marcus Dove, the best OSU defender. The refs were far too quick with the whistle and it hurt the game. Also, Oklahoma State didn't have anyone to bring the ball up court once Eaton fouled out. JamesOn Curry refused to go left to beat the press. It was a fabulously entertaining game because every time OSU looked like they'd put UT away, the Longhorns clawed back and prolonged the dang thing. But, as good as the game was, neither of these teams is elite. They're good teams. They'll probably fight all year with A&M for Big 12 South supremacy, but they're a notch below the Kansas Jayhawks, who destroyed OSU by 30 recently. The Cowboys lack Kevin Durant and Texas doesn't have any experience. Put them together and they came up with one heck of a game, though.
8. Mike or Don better fit for Dolphins?
Neither, although Don Shula is looking better since he started on Nutri-System. Maybe, by losing weight, he's been able to regain enough energy to get back into coaching. Nah. The Dolphins can't hire Mike Shula. They can't do it because they can't take the guy Alabama fired before they stole the Dolphins previous leader. And, they can't do it because Mike Shula would, inevitably, fail in Miami and it's not fair to him to put him in that position. If Mike Shula was a hot commodity, maybe, but it would look like the only reason he was getting the job was because of his father and that's not a good situation anywhere, much less in the NFL.
9. Britney rebuffed by NFL Network?
How did Britney fall so far? Why did she marry K-Fed? So many questions I don't have an answer to. But, I obviously have no idea about this Hollywood-type stuff because I definitely would not have picked Prince to perform at halftime of the Super Bowl. I wouldn't pick Prince to perform at anything I might be watching, much less participate in the biggest single game in American sports.
1. More or less pressure on Peyton this time around?
The Colts didn't blow through the league this year like they did last year. The defense was atrocious at times, but has been fantastic in the first two rounds of the playoffs. And, Peyton hasn't lost to the Patriots in two years. The Colts were derailed last year against Pittsburgh in the playoffs and have beaten the Pats the last two regular seasons. Sure, Peyton hasn't jumped the hurdle of NE in the playoffs. But, this year his team has home field for the AFC Championship.
I might be dancing around the question a little bit, but that's because I don't know if there is a good answer. Manning probably feels the same amount of pressure he usually does for games of this level. I don't imagine he's overly concerned about this installment of the Pats defense, especially considering he's already seen them. I'm sure Manning understands that he needs to get over the AFC Championship Game hurdle. But, he's probably felt the same amount of pressure in previous years. People are talking about the window closing on their Super Bowl chances, but Manning and his receivers are still playing at a high level. Also, the defense is playing as well as it has in a while and RB Joseph Addai is developing into a solid replacement for new Cardinal Edgerrin James.
Internally, no more pressure. Externally, there probably is more pressure this time around. But, I don't think that means anything to him at all.
2. Is Bush the "X Factor"?
In one sense, he definitely is. Reggie Bush, like Devin Hester for the Bears, could break a big play any time he touches the ball. He has great speed and elusiveness in the open field. But, he shouldn't be the focus of the Bear game plan. Without Tommie Harris in the middle, Deuce McAllister might deserve a little more attention. And, there is always Drew Brees and the Saints' big-play passing game.
Reggie Bush topped 70 yards rushing just once this season. He had 88 receptions, but only topped 70 receiving yards in two games. However, each time he topped 70, he went for at least 125 yards (126 rushing; 125 and 131 receiving). But, 13 out of 16 weeks ... let's just say it wasn't a lightning storm. In two other games, he topped 100 total yards from scrimmage. So, he accomplished that feat in less than one third of the games (5 of 17 when you include last week).
And, add to that, he fumbled twice last week. One was recovered for a lucky Saints first down. Then, late in the game, he missed a good pitch from Brees that could have cost his team the game. Maybe the play calling left a little to be desired, but Bush should have at least controlled the ball and kept it away from the Eagles.
Reggie Bush isn't going to be the reason the Saints win ... unless his talent is so mesmerizing that it causes Ron Rivera to lose focus on the other offensive assets the Saints roll out.
3. Warriors or Pacers made out better?
Unless the Warriors somehow managed to switch conferences with the Pacers as part of this deal, I'm going with the Pacers on this one. First and foremost, they got rid of Stephen Jackson. Also, they picked up a lot of hair on the heads of Mike Dunleavy Jr. and Troy Murphy - an Indiana guy from his days at Notre Dame. In all seriousness, Troy Murphy should really benefit from not having to face the power forward gauntlet known as the Western Conference, where you face Dirk, KG, Boozer, Duncan, Diaw, Brand, etc. With Murphy and Jermaine O'neal, Dunleavy should find some open shots and the Pacers are in line for a playoff spot so far, even though they're 4th (out of 5) in their own division.
That said, the Warriors got more athletic and should be fun to watch with Davis, Richardson, Jackson, Harrington, Biedrins, Pietrus and Ellis lighting things up in the uptempo West. Let's see some Warriors v. Suns or Warriors v. Nuggets once Carmelo gets back in the swing of things. They still don't have a shot at winning the West. Put that squad in the East and I'd like their chances a lot more.
4. Bonds' deal with Giants in doubt?
I hope it falls through. Not because I want Bonds to ride off into the sunset. I want Bonds to have one more shot at chasing a World Series and it would be great if he had some protection in the lineup. I don't see Pedro Feliz and Ryan Klesko doing that. Also, I'd like to see Bonds not have to play the field every day. I'm not afraid of balls bouncing off his head for HR's. I'm afraid of him needing days off because chasing after balls in the outfield grass takes its toll on his body, robbing him of precious AB's. Opposing pitchers take away enough of his AB's ... he should reclaim some of the potential AB's by moving to the AL and spending "off" days at DH. It would be nice if he was protected by Manny or Vlad or another big gun, too.
5. Lofton: front-runner for Raiders job?
I thought this name came out of nowhere. And, for Lofton's sake, I hope he doesn't get the job. He should continue up the ranks and look for a better opportunity for his first head coaching gig.
6. Bounce-back season for Mickelson?
Mickelson claims to have put on 15 pounds of muscle during the short golf off-season. I think his chances of having a "bounce-back" season are better than the chances he put on that much lean muscle. Mickelson is a fantastic golfer and should benefit greatly from being in better shape. He won't fatigue as easily during hot summer events. And, he should be more consistent with his swing because of it. He wasn't that far off last year and he should be back as a top 5 golfer on the PGA tour this year.
7. Reaction to "Instant Classic" (UT/OSU)?
This was the first time I sat down and watched Kevin Durant and he'll be fun to watch tear up a somewhat depleted Big 12 this season. Durant is really long and has a good stroke. He reminds me a little bit of Carmelo Anthony. He's good in the post and pulling up off the dribble. He can bomb from the college line. One question is whether or not he'll be able to extend that to the NBA range. Either way, he'll be a dynamic scorer all year and an impact player in the NBA next year.
Back to the game, it was great ... except for all the references to the walk-on for the OSU Cowboys. Walk-on, walk-on, walk-on ... the commentators couldn't let that go. Mario Boggan was fantastic. He was strong inside, hitting jumpers, nailing FT's, and hit a long two-pointer (his foot was inside the line on the "3") to pull it out in the end when no one else on the Cowboys could put the Longhorns away.
Unfortunately, we didn't get to see enough of Kevin Durant v. Marcus Dove, the best OSU defender. The refs were far too quick with the whistle and it hurt the game. Also, Oklahoma State didn't have anyone to bring the ball up court once Eaton fouled out. JamesOn Curry refused to go left to beat the press. It was a fabulously entertaining game because every time OSU looked like they'd put UT away, the Longhorns clawed back and prolonged the dang thing. But, as good as the game was, neither of these teams is elite. They're good teams. They'll probably fight all year with A&M for Big 12 South supremacy, but they're a notch below the Kansas Jayhawks, who destroyed OSU by 30 recently. The Cowboys lack Kevin Durant and Texas doesn't have any experience. Put them together and they came up with one heck of a game, though.
8. Mike or Don better fit for Dolphins?
Neither, although Don Shula is looking better since he started on Nutri-System. Maybe, by losing weight, he's been able to regain enough energy to get back into coaching. Nah. The Dolphins can't hire Mike Shula. They can't do it because they can't take the guy Alabama fired before they stole the Dolphins previous leader. And, they can't do it because Mike Shula would, inevitably, fail in Miami and it's not fair to him to put him in that position. If Mike Shula was a hot commodity, maybe, but it would look like the only reason he was getting the job was because of his father and that's not a good situation anywhere, much less in the NFL.
9. Britney rebuffed by NFL Network?
How did Britney fall so far? Why did she marry K-Fed? So many questions I don't have an answer to. But, I obviously have no idea about this Hollywood-type stuff because I definitely would not have picked Prince to perform at halftime of the Super Bowl. I wouldn't pick Prince to perform at anything I might be watching, much less participate in the biggest single game in American sports.
Restoring College Football
Jim Donnan, like a number of college football coaches, doesn't like the new rule that the clock runs after change of possession. Well, neither does There's a Catch. However, our reasons differ.
Personally, I don't think games are too long. This year, games were about 15 minutes shorter, on average, than the previous year. They still average more than 3 hours in duration, though. What's an extra 15 minutes? My main complaint is that I think the rule is unnecessary. And, I did notice that games without many incomplete passes seem to fly by quickly ... a little too quickly.
Donnan points to shorter games increasing the chances of the less talented team winning. So do TO's, should we get rid of them? Generally, this is true, but I don't remember there being many major upsets. If they shortened the games by half, it might dramatically increase the number of upsets. Often, good teams struggle at the beginnings of games and then turn it on late in the first half and early in the second half to take control of the game. Decreasing the game length forces teams to play better sooner, which I don't think anyone can say is a bad thing ... although I do not think tinkering with the rules to increase the pressure to play well is the way to go either.
Donnan and I diverge on one of his complaints:
One of the ideas Donnan lists as being under consideration is going to a 40-second clock. If you want to keep time sacred, this is essential. Too many times during bowl season, officials would lollygag around before spotting the ball, then lollygag around some more before giving the ready-for-play signal. If you don't know how long each play is going to take (approximately, at least), then you don't stand much of a chance to figure out the clock management side of things. Over the course of 3 plays, a 5-10 second delay in starting the play clock can cost a team a chance at getting the ball back or a chance at getting a couple plays off. And, you can't plan for it and that is why it should be changed. Even if they don't increase the technology available for communication between coaches and players, standardizing the system will benefit everyone involved. You don't have to shorten the time allowed before the snap, just let people know what it is going to be.
Donnan bemoans the loss of approximately 7 plays per team during a game. But, he doesn't argue against new rules that will impact the game similarly: "Other ideas include not stopping the clock when a player goes out of bounds, except at the end of the half and at the end of games, and not stopping the clock on first downs." Not stopping the clock on first downs prevents time from running off the clock while the chains are being moved. We wouldn't need chains if my rule to round to the nearest yard was adopted. Then, it would be easy to determine whether or not a first down had been achieved, assuming the officials get the ball placement correct. Additionally, decreasing stoppage of play for players going out of bounds would keep the clock running, thus decreasing the average number of plays and leading to more upsets. That would be awful!
What I'm getting at is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Many possibilities exist for ways to shorten games. You could allow the clock to run after incompletions. Or, you could limit the total number of plays from scrimmage in a game. As soon as the 170th play is done, the game is over. Implement a running clock. Each quarter will be 40 minutes and there will be a 20 minute halftime. The game will end in 3 hours (4*40+20=180; 180/60=3). I'm interested in game length, but there are bigger issues of equity that should be higher on the list of college football worries.
Personally, I don't think games are too long. This year, games were about 15 minutes shorter, on average, than the previous year. They still average more than 3 hours in duration, though. What's an extra 15 minutes? My main complaint is that I think the rule is unnecessary. And, I did notice that games without many incomplete passes seem to fly by quickly ... a little too quickly.
Donnan points to shorter games increasing the chances of the less talented team winning. So do TO's, should we get rid of them? Generally, this is true, but I don't remember there being many major upsets. If they shortened the games by half, it might dramatically increase the number of upsets. Often, good teams struggle at the beginnings of games and then turn it on late in the first half and early in the second half to take control of the game. Decreasing the game length forces teams to play better sooner, which I don't think anyone can say is a bad thing ... although I do not think tinkering with the rules to increase the pressure to play well is the way to go either.
Donnan and I diverge on one of his complaints:
The rules changes also significantly affected the ability of teams to utilize end-of-game clock management and minimized their chances to stage a comeback.The rule change didn't prevent comebacks. Texas Tech came back from a 38-7 deficit in their bowl game against Minnesota and won. Teams just need to understand time and score and react accordingly. Previously, teams had enough timeouts (3) each half that they could minimize the temporal constraints on the comeback to about 15 seconds if they could force a three and out. Under the current rules, trailing teams would like the clock to stop before 1st down and after 1st, 2nd and 3rd down. They don't give you four timeouts, so extra time is going to run off the clock and you are powerless to stop it.
One of the ideas Donnan lists as being under consideration is going to a 40-second clock. If you want to keep time sacred, this is essential. Too many times during bowl season, officials would lollygag around before spotting the ball, then lollygag around some more before giving the ready-for-play signal. If you don't know how long each play is going to take (approximately, at least), then you don't stand much of a chance to figure out the clock management side of things. Over the course of 3 plays, a 5-10 second delay in starting the play clock can cost a team a chance at getting the ball back or a chance at getting a couple plays off. And, you can't plan for it and that is why it should be changed. Even if they don't increase the technology available for communication between coaches and players, standardizing the system will benefit everyone involved. You don't have to shorten the time allowed before the snap, just let people know what it is going to be.
Donnan bemoans the loss of approximately 7 plays per team during a game. But, he doesn't argue against new rules that will impact the game similarly: "Other ideas include not stopping the clock when a player goes out of bounds, except at the end of the half and at the end of games, and not stopping the clock on first downs." Not stopping the clock on first downs prevents time from running off the clock while the chains are being moved. We wouldn't need chains if my rule to round to the nearest yard was adopted. Then, it would be easy to determine whether or not a first down had been achieved, assuming the officials get the ball placement correct. Additionally, decreasing stoppage of play for players going out of bounds would keep the clock running, thus decreasing the average number of plays and leading to more upsets. That would be awful!
What I'm getting at is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Many possibilities exist for ways to shorten games. You could allow the clock to run after incompletions. Or, you could limit the total number of plays from scrimmage in a game. As soon as the 170th play is done, the game is over. Implement a running clock. Each quarter will be 40 minutes and there will be a 20 minute halftime. The game will end in 3 hours (4*40+20=180; 180/60=3). I'm interested in game length, but there are bigger issues of equity that should be higher on the list of college football worries.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The rotten part of the game
I watched most of the football available this past weekend, and of it all, the first half of the Seahawks Bears game was my favorite. Pure bliss. Why? Not because I hate the field goal, nor because I enjoy interceptions turned receptions, nor even because I admire a tight spiral on a long ball. Rather, these thirty minutes were heaven because the entire officiating crew kept their obnoxious yellow flags in their pockets and nearly disappeared into the background while they let 'em play.
I don't know what pep talk the referee gave them at halftime, but they came out in the second half and reared their ugly heads. I won't catalog their indiscretions here, nor those of the three crews who were on duty in other games. That futile list would take me too far afield. And anyway, it hardly matters, does it? Officials are only human after all. Their mistakes are just part of the game.
I hate that phrase—part of the game. It makes me sick. Not to the stomach, mind you. Something less visceral and more spiritual. Every time I hear, "It's part of the game", I feel thousands of my brain cells dying in protest. I don't know how else to explain it. Why do we have games at all, if we're going to make them just as unfair as the rest of our lives?
What are officials for, after all? They're there to enforce the rules, right? And why do we need to enforce the rules? Why do we have rules in the first place? I don't know . . . maybe . . . to make the game fair? Admittedly, the most basic rules define the game, rather than regulating it, and a few rules are purely about safety. But any changes on top of those basics are about competitive balance—things like eligible receivers, illegal procedure, intentional grounding. Poor enforcement of the rules hurts competitive balance. Football remains competitive and interesting in spite of bad officiating, not because of it. Bad officiating is a part of the game as we know it, yes, but not as it has to be.
I want to make it clear that I'm not blaming the officials themselves for this rotten part of the game. I'm going to assume that they're more or less doing as well as they can. That's exactly the problem. Their best just isn't good enough. And here's why: football is a chaotic game. One little change along the way, and you can alter the final score by fourteen points or more. Say one team has it in the red zone and fumbles, recovered by the defense and run back for a touchdown. Now, if that play is called back for whatever reason—offsides, down by contact, incomplete pass (by the "arm moving forward" rule), etc.—and the original offense proceeds to score a touchdown, we have 7-0 instead of 0-7. That's a fourteen-point swing!
This kind of thing happens all the time. Watch football playing What If? with the possibilities, and your mind will quickly shut down in frustration at the exponential explosion. The right outcome depends on the officials making all the right calls along the way, and that almost never happens.
I know what you're going to say now. Someone always suggests that it all evens out. In basketball, maybe it does, most of the time. But football is too volatile. Even one single mistake is enough to drastically skew the result in one team's favor. You have to be suspicious at least of any game whose margin of victory is less than fourteen points. Ouch! That's almost all of them.
Those of you still skeptical will now say that the players just need to overcome these slight disadvantages. Or maybe you won't. Back when you were thinking in terms of a few yards, or even a few points, that didn't seem like too much to ask. But two extra touchdowns? Let's not be irrational. And that's just to make up for one mistake. What if you get hit by two? Then, you've been squawked.
So what do I propose? I'm not advocating abolition of officiating in the NFL. But I do think fewer responsibilities for the officials and simpler rules to enforce are an absolute necessity. We'll make detailed suggestions in the coming weeks. There is still hope for fairness in football, but it's hanging by a chin strap.
I don't know what pep talk the referee gave them at halftime, but they came out in the second half and reared their ugly heads. I won't catalog their indiscretions here, nor those of the three crews who were on duty in other games. That futile list would take me too far afield. And anyway, it hardly matters, does it? Officials are only human after all. Their mistakes are just part of the game.
I hate that phrase—part of the game. It makes me sick. Not to the stomach, mind you. Something less visceral and more spiritual. Every time I hear, "It's part of the game", I feel thousands of my brain cells dying in protest. I don't know how else to explain it. Why do we have games at all, if we're going to make them just as unfair as the rest of our lives?
What are officials for, after all? They're there to enforce the rules, right? And why do we need to enforce the rules? Why do we have rules in the first place? I don't know . . . maybe . . . to make the game fair? Admittedly, the most basic rules define the game, rather than regulating it, and a few rules are purely about safety. But any changes on top of those basics are about competitive balance—things like eligible receivers, illegal procedure, intentional grounding. Poor enforcement of the rules hurts competitive balance. Football remains competitive and interesting in spite of bad officiating, not because of it. Bad officiating is a part of the game as we know it, yes, but not as it has to be.
I want to make it clear that I'm not blaming the officials themselves for this rotten part of the game. I'm going to assume that they're more or less doing as well as they can. That's exactly the problem. Their best just isn't good enough. And here's why: football is a chaotic game. One little change along the way, and you can alter the final score by fourteen points or more. Say one team has it in the red zone and fumbles, recovered by the defense and run back for a touchdown. Now, if that play is called back for whatever reason—offsides, down by contact, incomplete pass (by the "arm moving forward" rule), etc.—and the original offense proceeds to score a touchdown, we have 7-0 instead of 0-7. That's a fourteen-point swing!
This kind of thing happens all the time. Watch football playing What If? with the possibilities, and your mind will quickly shut down in frustration at the exponential explosion. The right outcome depends on the officials making all the right calls along the way, and that almost never happens.
I know what you're going to say now. Someone always suggests that it all evens out. In basketball, maybe it does, most of the time. But football is too volatile. Even one single mistake is enough to drastically skew the result in one team's favor. You have to be suspicious at least of any game whose margin of victory is less than fourteen points. Ouch! That's almost all of them.
Those of you still skeptical will now say that the players just need to overcome these slight disadvantages. Or maybe you won't. Back when you were thinking in terms of a few yards, or even a few points, that didn't seem like too much to ask. But two extra touchdowns? Let's not be irrational. And that's just to make up for one mistake. What if you get hit by two? Then, you've been squawked.
So what do I propose? I'm not advocating abolition of officiating in the NFL. But I do think fewer responsibilities for the officials and simpler rules to enforce are an absolute necessity. We'll make detailed suggestions in the coming weeks. There is still hope for fairness in football, but it's hanging by a chin strap.
Top Topics - 01/16/07
These are as determined by 1st and 10, not me. But we'll see how it goes.
1. Lakers (Kobe) v. Heat (Wade) - I tuned in for the end of this game - the last quarter and OT. I saw Kobe Bryant frustrate Wade with smothering defense. Bryant caused a late Wade TO that iced the game for the Lakers. Kobe scored on Wade. Wade didn't score on Kobe. The other thing I noticed was a deference by the officials to Wade. Wade got the benefit of the doubt. Kobe got shafted on some calls that any other all-star would have received. Wade may be the better part of a team, but he's not the player Kobe is, at least not yet.
2. Gilbert Arenas - He scored 51 against the Jazz.
3. Barack Obama and the Saints v. Bears - Shaun Alexander kept getting one too many yards on runs against the Bears. Alexander would get ten and a first down, rather than leaving Holmgren with 2 and 1 play calls. Bush and Deuce are as dangerous as, if not more than, Alexander because they are each terrific in one part of the running game. Plus, the Saints have been clicking on offense most the season and beat one of the hottest teams left in the round of eight.
I'm not sure why Obama chimed in on an NFL playoff game. And, I'm not sure why he thinks the Bears are such a lock to make the Super Bowl. The Bears aren't the same team on defense as they were before the injuries (Harris and Brown especially) took their toll. Plus, Rex Grossman is still making too many questionable throws and is still having trouble holding onto the ball when he's pressured. The good Rex might show up next weekend, but I wouldn't bet on it.
4. Angry LT - LT had 23 carries for 123 yards and two TD's. He also caught two more balls for 64 yards, including an electrifying 58 yarder that set up Michael Turner's TD run. That's almost 200 yards (187 for the math impaired out there) from scrimmage against Bill B. and his NE Pats. LT had a great year and the Chargers shouldn't have lost on Sunday. They shot themselves (LT didn't pull the trigger) in the foot and the Pats stole one. So, he was probably frustrated and that may have contributed to him sounding off.
But, was he wrong to do it? Maybe. But his comments were right on. The Pats shouldn't have been doing Shawn Merriman's dance on the Chargers' logo. If they want to dance and celebrate, fine. They should have been excited. They got really lucky that Troy Brown was able to strip Marlon McCree after a 4th down interception thrown by Tom Brady. Yes, the Golden Boy threw an INT (he actually threw 3 in the game). So, pour Gatorade on Bill B., put on hats and t-shirts that say "AFC Championship Game Participant", and celebrate. There was no need for them to mock the Chargers, just like there was no need for them to mock TO and the Eagles a couple years back. LT has a right to complain about it and call them on it because he does not act that way and he probably does not think anyone should. And, the Pats shouldn't get a pass on this because LT is getting negative publicity for calling them on it. If the Patriots want to be put on a pedestal, they need to hold themselves to a higher standard.
Maybe #27 shouldn't have slapped one of the SD players in the head. Lucky for the Pats, when the Chargers acted up, they got flagged. The Pats didn't. Maybe the officials should hold themselves to a higher standard too.
5. NFL to London - What's the NFL trying to accomplish? A game in London might sell out. But, do the NFL higher ups think it will result in a meaningful shift in the shopping and viewing habits of the english speakers on the other side of the Atlantic? It seems like a stretch to me. However, it would be nice for the NY Giants to play a home game in London. It would help make up for getting an extra home game after Katrina displaced the Saints.
6. Early Entry - Adrian Peterson is big, strong and fast. He played through a seperated shoulder his freshman year and still torched a solid Texas A&M defense. His sophomore year, he suffered a severe sprained ankle, a fairly routine injury. This year, he broke his collarbone on a weird play. AD ("All Day") is not really damaged goods because he hasn't had major injuries that really impact RB's long term. Did Emmitt Smith ever have major shoulder problems after that famous game against the Giants? Peterson's knees are fine, he was healthy this year aside from the broken clavicle. Running backs are always a gamble in the NFL. They are affected by the line play and the ability of the QB and WR's to stretch the field. But, AD was the best player in college football this year and should be a star in the NFL for years to come. He runs well between the tackles and is surprisingly elusive in space for a RB his size. Additionally, he catches the ball well enough, lights people up on blocks and when the offense turns into the defense, and has break away speed when he gets into space. He'd be a steal for his home state Texans at #8 and it would give them a marquee name to make up for the Vince Young debacle of last year.
OSU receiver Ted Ginn Jr. has great speed. The question is whether that is enough to make him a star at the next level. If it was, Justin Gatlin would have signed a huge contract and would be participating in the 2008 Pro Bowl. Ginn played for a good team and was surrounded by a lot of talent. It would have been nice to see him play against Florida. Teammate Anthony Gonzalez was more impressive against Texas, and Texas was missing one of their starting CB's. Ginn will go in the 1st round and could be the second WR taken. Unfortunately for him, he's not in Calvin Johnson's class as a polished WR at this point. He's got tons of talent, though.
And, finally, QB Colt Brennan. I didn't see much Hawaii this year. Great numbers from a spread offense against so-so competition. We've seen this before and it does not usually translate to the NFL. I don't know that it won't happen this time, but I wouldn't use a 1st round pick on him.
7. Black GM's - I don't have the numbers on this. GM's and candidates for open GM jobs, shouldn't be judged by the color of their skin, but on merit. Matt Millen should probably be gone. I don't have any names of African Americans to throw in the ring, but it would be great to see qualified candidates, no matter who they are, fill the job openings.
8. Resting the Colts - Three days off? Three days off! What's Dungy doing? The Colts didn't blatantly throw in the towel in games at the end of this season like they did last year. They played in the wild card round. An extra day off is not going to cause the Colts to lose to the Pats. They played on Saturday (instead of Sunday), so that's an extra off day built in. I don't think the Colts will lose to the Patriots. In fact, I think NE is especially vulnerable this year and Peyton Manning has a security blanket (a D that showed up for the playoffs ... imagine that) he has not had the last few years and that will, hopefully, help him relax and limit his mistakes in the AFC Championship Game. I wonder if they had participant hats and t-shirts made too.
9. Daytona's Senior Set - What's with these topics? If you can drive, you can drive. If this guy can drive, let him in the field. I can't imagine anyone in NASCAR is going to put someone in the field who will endanger other drivers because he lacks the requisite driving skills.
10. Brady and Gisele - The NFL Golden Boy is taking Leo's leftovers? That's what my wife is telling me. This isn't sports, it's gossip and this is as far as I'm going to take it.
Please, let tomorrow bring better topics.
1. Lakers (Kobe) v. Heat (Wade) - I tuned in for the end of this game - the last quarter and OT. I saw Kobe Bryant frustrate Wade with smothering defense. Bryant caused a late Wade TO that iced the game for the Lakers. Kobe scored on Wade. Wade didn't score on Kobe. The other thing I noticed was a deference by the officials to Wade. Wade got the benefit of the doubt. Kobe got shafted on some calls that any other all-star would have received. Wade may be the better part of a team, but he's not the player Kobe is, at least not yet.
2. Gilbert Arenas - He scored 51 against the Jazz.
3. Barack Obama and the Saints v. Bears - Shaun Alexander kept getting one too many yards on runs against the Bears. Alexander would get ten and a first down, rather than leaving Holmgren with 2 and 1 play calls. Bush and Deuce are as dangerous as, if not more than, Alexander because they are each terrific in one part of the running game. Plus, the Saints have been clicking on offense most the season and beat one of the hottest teams left in the round of eight.
I'm not sure why Obama chimed in on an NFL playoff game. And, I'm not sure why he thinks the Bears are such a lock to make the Super Bowl. The Bears aren't the same team on defense as they were before the injuries (Harris and Brown especially) took their toll. Plus, Rex Grossman is still making too many questionable throws and is still having trouble holding onto the ball when he's pressured. The good Rex might show up next weekend, but I wouldn't bet on it.
4. Angry LT - LT had 23 carries for 123 yards and two TD's. He also caught two more balls for 64 yards, including an electrifying 58 yarder that set up Michael Turner's TD run. That's almost 200 yards (187 for the math impaired out there) from scrimmage against Bill B. and his NE Pats. LT had a great year and the Chargers shouldn't have lost on Sunday. They shot themselves (LT didn't pull the trigger) in the foot and the Pats stole one. So, he was probably frustrated and that may have contributed to him sounding off.
But, was he wrong to do it? Maybe. But his comments were right on. The Pats shouldn't have been doing Shawn Merriman's dance on the Chargers' logo. If they want to dance and celebrate, fine. They should have been excited. They got really lucky that Troy Brown was able to strip Marlon McCree after a 4th down interception thrown by Tom Brady. Yes, the Golden Boy threw an INT (he actually threw 3 in the game). So, pour Gatorade on Bill B., put on hats and t-shirts that say "AFC Championship Game Participant", and celebrate. There was no need for them to mock the Chargers, just like there was no need for them to mock TO and the Eagles a couple years back. LT has a right to complain about it and call them on it because he does not act that way and he probably does not think anyone should. And, the Pats shouldn't get a pass on this because LT is getting negative publicity for calling them on it. If the Patriots want to be put on a pedestal, they need to hold themselves to a higher standard.
Maybe #27 shouldn't have slapped one of the SD players in the head. Lucky for the Pats, when the Chargers acted up, they got flagged. The Pats didn't. Maybe the officials should hold themselves to a higher standard too.
5. NFL to London - What's the NFL trying to accomplish? A game in London might sell out. But, do the NFL higher ups think it will result in a meaningful shift in the shopping and viewing habits of the english speakers on the other side of the Atlantic? It seems like a stretch to me. However, it would be nice for the NY Giants to play a home game in London. It would help make up for getting an extra home game after Katrina displaced the Saints.
6. Early Entry - Adrian Peterson is big, strong and fast. He played through a seperated shoulder his freshman year and still torched a solid Texas A&M defense. His sophomore year, he suffered a severe sprained ankle, a fairly routine injury. This year, he broke his collarbone on a weird play. AD ("All Day") is not really damaged goods because he hasn't had major injuries that really impact RB's long term. Did Emmitt Smith ever have major shoulder problems after that famous game against the Giants? Peterson's knees are fine, he was healthy this year aside from the broken clavicle. Running backs are always a gamble in the NFL. They are affected by the line play and the ability of the QB and WR's to stretch the field. But, AD was the best player in college football this year and should be a star in the NFL for years to come. He runs well between the tackles and is surprisingly elusive in space for a RB his size. Additionally, he catches the ball well enough, lights people up on blocks and when the offense turns into the defense, and has break away speed when he gets into space. He'd be a steal for his home state Texans at #8 and it would give them a marquee name to make up for the Vince Young debacle of last year.
OSU receiver Ted Ginn Jr. has great speed. The question is whether that is enough to make him a star at the next level. If it was, Justin Gatlin would have signed a huge contract and would be participating in the 2008 Pro Bowl. Ginn played for a good team and was surrounded by a lot of talent. It would have been nice to see him play against Florida. Teammate Anthony Gonzalez was more impressive against Texas, and Texas was missing one of their starting CB's. Ginn will go in the 1st round and could be the second WR taken. Unfortunately for him, he's not in Calvin Johnson's class as a polished WR at this point. He's got tons of talent, though.
And, finally, QB Colt Brennan. I didn't see much Hawaii this year. Great numbers from a spread offense against so-so competition. We've seen this before and it does not usually translate to the NFL. I don't know that it won't happen this time, but I wouldn't use a 1st round pick on him.
7. Black GM's - I don't have the numbers on this. GM's and candidates for open GM jobs, shouldn't be judged by the color of their skin, but on merit. Matt Millen should probably be gone. I don't have any names of African Americans to throw in the ring, but it would be great to see qualified candidates, no matter who they are, fill the job openings.
8. Resting the Colts - Three days off? Three days off! What's Dungy doing? The Colts didn't blatantly throw in the towel in games at the end of this season like they did last year. They played in the wild card round. An extra day off is not going to cause the Colts to lose to the Pats. They played on Saturday (instead of Sunday), so that's an extra off day built in. I don't think the Colts will lose to the Patriots. In fact, I think NE is especially vulnerable this year and Peyton Manning has a security blanket (a D that showed up for the playoffs ... imagine that) he has not had the last few years and that will, hopefully, help him relax and limit his mistakes in the AFC Championship Game. I wonder if they had participant hats and t-shirts made too.
9. Daytona's Senior Set - What's with these topics? If you can drive, you can drive. If this guy can drive, let him in the field. I can't imagine anyone in NASCAR is going to put someone in the field who will endanger other drivers because he lacks the requisite driving skills.
10. Brady and Gisele - The NFL Golden Boy is taking Leo's leftovers? That's what my wife is telling me. This isn't sports, it's gossip and this is as far as I'm going to take it.
Please, let tomorrow bring better topics.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Playoffs?
Some comments on the 1st half of the Colts v. Ravens game:
- Mark Clayton is an OU guy. Therefore, I'm inclined to support him. But, why wasn't he flagged for spiking the ball after making a 1st down reception? Since when is that not a 15-yard foul?
- Twice, Colts' RT Ryan Diem has drawn 5-yard penalties (one of which moved the Colts out of the shadow of their own goal line) by moving when a defensive player jumped into the neutral zone. Both times, it looked like he did it on purpose and that it wasn't just a reaction. Two questions: (1) why don't more offensive linemen do that if the officials are inclined to rule in their favor even though they shouldn't and (2) how is the official supposed to be able to determine if it is actually a spontaneous reaction?
- Peyton Manning went deep to Reggie Wayne on a 3rd down play. Wayne got knocked down and a flag was thrown. However, the officials determined that it was not PI because there wasn't enough contact to warrant PI. Apparently, the flag was thrown for illegal contact. Because the ball was in the air, illegal contact couldn't be called. That is absurd. The contact caused the intended receiver to fall down on a ball that would have been "catchable". It wasn't a case of guys feet getting tangled inadvertently. It was PI!
- Marvin Harrison is killing Peyton Manning. Twice last week, Manning was picked off because he wasn't in sync with Harrison on routes. Today, McAllister almost intercepted a Manning pass because Harrison stopped on a route. McAllister was over the top of Harrison and Manning threw a good ball. Ray Lewis got a finger on the ball, which knocked it off line enough that McAllister didn't make the catch. Harrison wasn't even in on the play and I have no idea why. Then, after the flea-flicker, when Manning made a great play to evade the rush and make a perfect throw to Harrison, Harrison was so quick to get out of bounds and avoid contact that it almost looked like he failed to get both feet down. He wasn't going to take a huge shot, but he didn't want to get hit at all.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Inconsistency, not steroids, doom McGwire
Today on JRIB, HOF voter Ray Ratto explained why he did not vote for Big Mac. His rationale: inconsistency. Really? Inconsistency? Not including his first season (when he played in 18 games), McGwire played in less than 50 games twice ('93 and '94) and played just under 100 games each of his last two seasons ('00 and '01). In each case, he had better power numbers and a significantly higher BA in the first of the seasons. This may be because his numbers dropped when he suffered from injuries. But, I will look only at seasons McGwire played in 100+ games from now on.
He played in 100+ games 11 times, seven times topping 150 games. His HR totals: 49, 32, 33, 39, 22, 42, 39, 52, 58, 70, 65. So, 10 out of 11 he was over 30 HR's. The 1991 season was the exception, and it also marked Big Mac's worst full season by far. In 154 games, he hit just .201. His BA in his other full seasons were better (from lowest to highest): .231, .235, .260, .268, .274, .274, .278, .289, .299, and .312. Not surprisingly, his BA was better later in his career, on average, than early on. Overall, he was a good power hitter with some huge HR years. You couldn't count on a real high batting average, but you could expect him to be somewhere in the .260-.270 range plus or minus a tenth or two.
What am I getting at? I disagree with Ratto's classification of McGwire as inconsistent. He burst onto the scene with a huge rookie season. After that, he suffered through some rough years, probably because pitchers were able to figure out ways to get him out. As Big Mac adjusted, his power and BA averages tended upwards fairly steadily until injuries forced him to hang it up early in the 21st century.
Inconsistency plagued another of the first time eligible players from this year: Cal Ripken Jr. Ripken was elected in a landslide, finishing with the 3rd highest percentage of votes ever. Ripken was twice the MVP and was an all-star 19 times. Did he deserve 19 trips to the mid-summer classic? Probably not. From 1982-1998, Ripken played less than 160 games just twice, in the strike shortened years of '94 and '95 when he played just 112 and 144 (that's all they played). His power numbers are decent for a SS. He topped out at 34 roundtrippers in 1991, his only time over 30 in a season, which helps explain why he didn't reach 400 HR's until his 18th full season.
Inconsistency? Look at his HR numbers from '90-'93: 21, 34, 14, 24. That's not really fair because He was pretty consistent in the HR department otherwise. But, he was a middle infielder with solid power, a lackluster .276 BA and just 36 SB's in his career. He was caught stealing 39 times. He followed two .300 plus seasons with two at .282. Then, he posted .252, .264, .257, and .250 from 1987-1990. Then, he hit a career high (for a full season) of .323 in 1991. He followed that up with .251 and .257 before hitting .315 in the season that wasn't finished due to the strike.
Ripken made 19 all-star teams because he was an incredibly popular player and the fans vote for the players they like. The fans do not always pick the most deserving players. In fact, they usually get it right only if the best players are also really popular. Ripken probably deserves to be in the HOF, although I will admit I'm not a Hall of Fame historian, nor do I really care who gets in or does not get in. But, the voters should have looked at his inconsistency as well. He was always on the field, but he was not always producing at a high level. In fact, there were often questions about whether or not he should sit down and end the streak because it might actually help the team.
I'm also fine with McGwire being left out of the HOF because of suspected steroid use. If that's what the voters want to do, fine. But, don't tell me he was inconsistent. He was a little bit snake-bitten at times with injuries, but his career had a definite upward trend after he burst onto the scene and then dropped off quickly in his 2nd full season. He was, other than injuries, very consistent and constantly improving through his career. It's too bad injuries robbed him of a few seasons at the end of his career. He, before Bonds, would have been chasing the Babe and Hammering Hank.
He played in 100+ games 11 times, seven times topping 150 games. His HR totals: 49, 32, 33, 39, 22, 42, 39, 52, 58, 70, 65. So, 10 out of 11 he was over 30 HR's. The 1991 season was the exception, and it also marked Big Mac's worst full season by far. In 154 games, he hit just .201. His BA in his other full seasons were better (from lowest to highest): .231, .235, .260, .268, .274, .274, .278, .289, .299, and .312. Not surprisingly, his BA was better later in his career, on average, than early on. Overall, he was a good power hitter with some huge HR years. You couldn't count on a real high batting average, but you could expect him to be somewhere in the .260-.270 range plus or minus a tenth or two.
What am I getting at? I disagree with Ratto's classification of McGwire as inconsistent. He burst onto the scene with a huge rookie season. After that, he suffered through some rough years, probably because pitchers were able to figure out ways to get him out. As Big Mac adjusted, his power and BA averages tended upwards fairly steadily until injuries forced him to hang it up early in the 21st century.
Inconsistency plagued another of the first time eligible players from this year: Cal Ripken Jr. Ripken was elected in a landslide, finishing with the 3rd highest percentage of votes ever. Ripken was twice the MVP and was an all-star 19 times. Did he deserve 19 trips to the mid-summer classic? Probably not. From 1982-1998, Ripken played less than 160 games just twice, in the strike shortened years of '94 and '95 when he played just 112 and 144 (that's all they played). His power numbers are decent for a SS. He topped out at 34 roundtrippers in 1991, his only time over 30 in a season, which helps explain why he didn't reach 400 HR's until his 18th full season.
Inconsistency? Look at his HR numbers from '90-'93: 21, 34, 14, 24. That's not really fair because He was pretty consistent in the HR department otherwise. But, he was a middle infielder with solid power, a lackluster .276 BA and just 36 SB's in his career. He was caught stealing 39 times. He followed two .300 plus seasons with two at .282. Then, he posted .252, .264, .257, and .250 from 1987-1990. Then, he hit a career high (for a full season) of .323 in 1991. He followed that up with .251 and .257 before hitting .315 in the season that wasn't finished due to the strike.
Ripken made 19 all-star teams because he was an incredibly popular player and the fans vote for the players they like. The fans do not always pick the most deserving players. In fact, they usually get it right only if the best players are also really popular. Ripken probably deserves to be in the HOF, although I will admit I'm not a Hall of Fame historian, nor do I really care who gets in or does not get in. But, the voters should have looked at his inconsistency as well. He was always on the field, but he was not always producing at a high level. In fact, there were often questions about whether or not he should sit down and end the streak because it might actually help the team.
I'm also fine with McGwire being left out of the HOF because of suspected steroid use. If that's what the voters want to do, fine. But, don't tell me he was inconsistent. He was a little bit snake-bitten at times with injuries, but his career had a definite upward trend after he burst onto the scene and then dropped off quickly in his 2nd full season. He was, other than injuries, very consistent and constantly improving through his career. It's too bad injuries robbed him of a few seasons at the end of his career. He, before Bonds, would have been chasing the Babe and Hammering Hank.
What's in a playoff team?
Suffice it to say, we at There's a Catch don't think much of unbalanced schedules. It is an ugly stain on Major League Baseball. The NFL, on the other hand, is stuck with it. So long as you only play 16 games in a 32-team league, you're going to have some teams getting an easier time.
But the fact that each team has to play six games against the three other teams in its division, and only ten games against other foes, really swings things askew. If we subtract off the 12-12 record that every division has within itself and look only at the 40 games that each division plays against outside opponents, we see that there is significant disparity:
In other words, some divisions are better than others, and so some teams have more difficult intra-division schedules than others. Further, if you're the best team in your division, you get an easier schedule than the worst team. This is backwards from the inter-division games. (At least, how they are intended. Schedule difficulty is set based on the previous year's outcome, which occasionally backfires.)
It is important to remember that the 40 games each division plays are still unbalanced. However, averaging over four teams we achieve more balance than while looking at teams individually.
Why does schedule imbalance matter? Because it affects which teams make the playoffs. First of all, when choosing division winners, we consider overall record, which is clearly affected by schedule difficulty. This issue could be addressed by using only intra-division games to decide division titles. Second, wild card teams are also chosen using overall record, which is even more imbalanced since different teams also play different division schedules. This could be addressed by normalizing the influence of divisional foes. I'll discuss both of these possible solutions in more detail momentarily.
But first, what criteria should we use to choose playoff teams to begin with? This is a tricky question with many possible answers. The current NFL strategy, and for professional sports in general, is to honor the won-lost record above all else. (College football has a very different strategy.) Another possible answer is to choose the teams that have the best chance of winning in the postseason, whatever that means.
Rewarding won-lost record is, of course, the main reason why unbalanced schedules are problematic. Even with schedule balance, it can still be problematic, because teams play at different levels at different times, including because of injured players. Beyond these problems, it is also insufficient to determine the postseason field. In the NFL, teams often finish with the same record and tie-breaking rules have to be invoked to decide division winners or wild card teams. This year, Denver and Kansas City both finished 9-7 and tied vying for the second and final AFC wild card spot. The New York Giants qualified over three other 8-8 teams for the final NFC spot (Green Bay, Carolina, and St. Louis).
The rules for deciding tiebreakers are complicated to say the least. It seems absurd to expect players to take them into account when they're out on the field deciding how hard they need to try to win. They are also more or less arbitrary. Head-to-head record makes sense intuitively, especially if it shows up in a division setting where two games are involved. But considered negatively, if one team has the advantage head-to-head, then the other team has the advantage against the rest of the league. We can play this same game with any possible criterion.
Unfortunately, the only solutions I can propose for fixing the tiebreaker issue are rather silly:
Division winners should be decided by intra-division games only. This throws away the imbalance created by playing different extra-division opponents. Note that, for the 2006 season, this would affect (only?) three of eight divisions, assuming overall record breaks ties. Tennessee (4-2) would have won the AFC South instead of Indianapolis (3-3), Carolina (5-1) would have won the NFC South instead of New Orleans (4-2), and, wildly, Arizona (4-2) would have won the NFC West instead of Seattle (3-3). More on this oddity later. Notice that all three of these teams failed to qualify even for the wild card.
At least at present, all members of a division play the same four opponents in the other conference (from a single division), and all four teams in another division in the same conference. Those eight games could also be used to determine division winners, if you think six games is not enough. I won't discuss this possibility further.
Wild card winners should be decided by subtracting off half the effect of each team's intra-division games. This would normalize the won-lost record to a total of 13 games against 13 unique opponents, rather than 16 games with 3 opponents played twice. Thus, teams with weak divisions, or with good match-ups against their division rivals, would lose some of their advantage, and teams with strong divisions or bad match-ups would gain. Again, this doesn't prevent the incidence of ties, which must continue to be broken or ignored some way or other. Here's how the standings would come out under this criterion (current division winners—not those under my proposal—are in bold):
This would have put Denver and St. Louis into the playoffs in place of Kansas City and the New York Giants. Since the Chiefs and Giants both lost in the Wild Card round, this doesn't seem too bad. And there are no ties, instead of a two-way and a four-way one.
If we adopted both new rules, then the AFC would have Tennessee as a division winner, and Indianapolis and the New York Jets as the wild card teams, with the other three division winners the same. The NFC would have Carolina and Arizona as division winners and New Orleans and Dallas as the wild cards, bumping Seattle and the New York Giants from the playoffs. The Giants have already lost, so that's no big deal. But where did the Cardinals come from?
Arizona had a rough year, including an eight-game losing streak after winning their opener against the 49ers. Outside their 4-2 NFC West schedule, they were 1-9, including 0-4 against the AFC. But were they really that bad? If we look at their close losses, 16-14 versus St. Louis in week three could have had them 5-1 in the division. They also lost to Kansas City and Chicago by three points or fewer. All of their victories were by six points or more. So maybe they were an 8-8 team suffering from some very bad luck? In which case the postseason doesn't seem so far fetched. Or maybe they really were a bad team. Their only inter-division victory was against Detroit. They lost to lowly Oakland. (To be fair, they also got stuck with games against KC, Denver, and San Diego, the formidable remainder of the AFC West. The other three teams in the NFC West each also lost to the Chargers and Chiefs, but beat the Broncos.) But if the Cardinals were bad, why did they give the other NFC West teams so much trouble? I have no idea.
But the fact that each team has to play six games against the three other teams in its division, and only ten games against other foes, really swings things askew. If we subtract off the 12-12 record that every division has within itself and look only at the 40 games that each division plays against outside opponents, we see that there is significant disparity:
| Division | W | L | Pct |
|---|---|---|---|
| AFC East | 23 | 17 | .575 |
| AFC South | 22 | 18 | .550 |
| AFC West | 22 | 18 | .550 |
| AFC North | 21 | 19 | .525 |
| NFC East | 20 | 20 | .500 |
| NFC North | 18 | 22 | .450 |
| NFC South | 17 | 23 | .425 |
| NFC West | 17 | 23 | .425 |
It is important to remember that the 40 games each division plays are still unbalanced. However, averaging over four teams we achieve more balance than while looking at teams individually.
Why does schedule imbalance matter? Because it affects which teams make the playoffs. First of all, when choosing division winners, we consider overall record, which is clearly affected by schedule difficulty. This issue could be addressed by using only intra-division games to decide division titles. Second, wild card teams are also chosen using overall record, which is even more imbalanced since different teams also play different division schedules. This could be addressed by normalizing the influence of divisional foes. I'll discuss both of these possible solutions in more detail momentarily.
But first, what criteria should we use to choose playoff teams to begin with? This is a tricky question with many possible answers. The current NFL strategy, and for professional sports in general, is to honor the won-lost record above all else. (College football has a very different strategy.) Another possible answer is to choose the teams that have the best chance of winning in the postseason, whatever that means.
Rewarding won-lost record is, of course, the main reason why unbalanced schedules are problematic. Even with schedule balance, it can still be problematic, because teams play at different levels at different times, including because of injured players. Beyond these problems, it is also insufficient to determine the postseason field. In the NFL, teams often finish with the same record and tie-breaking rules have to be invoked to decide division winners or wild card teams. This year, Denver and Kansas City both finished 9-7 and tied vying for the second and final AFC wild card spot. The New York Giants qualified over three other 8-8 teams for the final NFC spot (Green Bay, Carolina, and St. Louis).
The rules for deciding tiebreakers are complicated to say the least. It seems absurd to expect players to take them into account when they're out on the field deciding how hard they need to try to win. They are also more or less arbitrary. Head-to-head record makes sense intuitively, especially if it shows up in a division setting where two games are involved. But considered negatively, if one team has the advantage head-to-head, then the other team has the advantage against the rest of the league. We can play this same game with any possible criterion.
Unfortunately, the only solutions I can propose for fixing the tiebreaker issue are rather silly:
- Don't break ties involving playoff qualification. Expand the playoffs ad hoc to include all tied teams.
- Break ties involving seeding with a coin toss.
- I forget the other one.
Division winners should be decided by intra-division games only. This throws away the imbalance created by playing different extra-division opponents. Note that, for the 2006 season, this would affect (only?) three of eight divisions, assuming overall record breaks ties. Tennessee (4-2) would have won the AFC South instead of Indianapolis (3-3), Carolina (5-1) would have won the NFC South instead of New Orleans (4-2), and, wildly, Arizona (4-2) would have won the NFC West instead of Seattle (3-3). More on this oddity later. Notice that all three of these teams failed to qualify even for the wild card.
At least at present, all members of a division play the same four opponents in the other conference (from a single division), and all four teams in another division in the same conference. Those eight games could also be used to determine division winners, if you think six games is not enough. I won't discuss this possibility further.
Wild card winners should be decided by subtracting off half the effect of each team's intra-division games. This would normalize the won-lost record to a total of 13 games against 13 unique opponents, rather than 16 games with 3 opponents played twice. Thus, teams with weak divisions, or with good match-ups against their division rivals, would lose some of their advantage, and teams with strong divisions or bad match-ups would gain. Again, this doesn't prevent the incidence of ties, which must continue to be broken or ignored some way or other. Here's how the standings would come out under this criterion (current division winners—not those under my proposal—are in bold):
| AFC | W | L |
|---|---|---|
| San Diego | 11.5 | 1.5 |
| Baltimore | 10.5 | 2.5 |
| Indianapolis | 10.5 | 2.5 |
| New England | 10 | 3 |
| New York Jets | 8 | 5 |
| Denver | 7.5 | 5.5 |
| Kansas City | 7 | 6 |
| Jacksonville | 7 | 6 |
| Pittsburgh | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| Cincinnati | 6 | 7 |
| Tennessee | 6 | 7 |
| Buffalo | 5.5 | 7.5 |
| Miami | 5.5 | 7.5 |
| Houston | 4.5 | 8.5 |
| Cleveland | 4 | 9 |
| Oakland | 2 | 11 |
| NFC | W | L |
| Chicago | 10.5 | 2.5 |
| New Orleans | 8 | 5 |
| Dallas | 8 | 5 |
| Philadelphia | 7.5 | 5.5 |
| Seattle | 7.5 | 5.5 |
| St. Louis | 7 | 6 |
| New York Giants | 6 | 7 |
| Green Bay | 5.5 | 7.5 |
| Carolina | 5.5 | 7.5 |
| Atlanta | 5.5 | 7.5 |
| San Francisco | 5.5 | 7.5 |
| Minnesota | 5 | 8 |
| Washington | 4.5 | 8.5 |
| Tampa Bay | 4 | 9 |
| Arizona | 3 | 10 |
| Detroit | 3 | 10 |
If we adopted both new rules, then the AFC would have Tennessee as a division winner, and Indianapolis and the New York Jets as the wild card teams, with the other three division winners the same. The NFC would have Carolina and Arizona as division winners and New Orleans and Dallas as the wild cards, bumping Seattle and the New York Giants from the playoffs. The Giants have already lost, so that's no big deal. But where did the Cardinals come from?
Arizona had a rough year, including an eight-game losing streak after winning their opener against the 49ers. Outside their 4-2 NFC West schedule, they were 1-9, including 0-4 against the AFC. But were they really that bad? If we look at their close losses, 16-14 versus St. Louis in week three could have had them 5-1 in the division. They also lost to Kansas City and Chicago by three points or fewer. All of their victories were by six points or more. So maybe they were an 8-8 team suffering from some very bad luck? In which case the postseason doesn't seem so far fetched. Or maybe they really were a bad team. Their only inter-division victory was against Detroit. They lost to lowly Oakland. (To be fair, they also got stuck with games against KC, Denver, and San Diego, the formidable remainder of the AFC West. The other three teams in the NFC West each also lost to the Chargers and Chiefs, but beat the Broncos.) But if the Cardinals were bad, why did they give the other NFC West teams so much trouble? I have no idea.
Monday, January 08, 2007
The Stewart Factor
Why is NASCAR thinking about expanding the Chase for the Championship field from 10 drivers to 12? One name: Tony Stewart. Stewart dominated NASCAR in the second half of this year after not qualifying for the Chase because of some poor early year finishes. So, that's the why. But, seriously, if you are going to pick a number of drivers to qualify, why don't you stick with it. It could be said that 12 teams qualifying for the NFL playoffs this year is not enough. Actually, six was at least two too many in the NFC and the AFC probably could have been fun with at least 8 (Cincy, Denver, Pittsburgh).
Tony Stewart was not complaining about not being in the Chase. He just went out and won races. What if he ends up 13th next year when the Chase begins? Are they going to change the rules again the next year and expand to 15? Why not just accumulate points, as before, through the entire season? Or, why not have a couple winners (one for each half of the season) battle in a head-to-head match-up? If you continually expand the field to accomodate everyone who is "important" then there isn't any incentive to push hard and get into the top spots.
Tony Stewart was not complaining about not being in the Chase. He just went out and won races. What if he ends up 13th next year when the Chase begins? Are they going to change the rules again the next year and expand to 15? Why not just accumulate points, as before, through the entire season? Or, why not have a couple winners (one for each half of the season) battle in a head-to-head match-up? If you continually expand the field to accomodate everyone who is "important" then there isn't any incentive to push hard and get into the top spots.
Heisman
Troy Smith just got sacked at his own three. You can see in the replay that he had a receiver coming open. Unfortunately, Smith got overanxious and stepped up and didn't give his guy time to come open. Smith turned his head and started moving left as the guy gained separation. Subsequently, Smith was chased back and he fell to the ground at the 3. Troy Smith has been pressured today, but he's also held the ball too long (Chris Leak has been getting rid of it) and missed some open receivers. He does not deserve a pass for this one.
The Sacred Clock
While I'm thinking about time issues, let me get back to an incident from the Sugar Bowl. Brady Quinn threw an interception. It was the one near the LSU end zone that was reviewed and overturned. Despite indisputable video evidence that confirmed the call on the field (it was obvious that the Tiger defender had possession the entire time and that the ball did not hit the ground), the officials, somehow, overturned the call they had correctly made in real-time.
But, they made sure to figure out how much time elapsed due to the ruling that it was an interception (instead of an incompletion) and had them add the time back to the clock. A couple plays later, Quinn threw another interception and the game spiraled out of control for the Irish after that. But, it made me wonder why the clock is so sacred when the replay officials do not have a clue what they are doing. Did anyone see the Miami v. Nevada game where the Wolfpack was robbed of a completion after the Nevada TE caught the ball with his legs and kept the ball off the ground. That may have cost Nevada the game. When you can't get obvious plays right using replay, does it really matter if you get a few seconds back on the clock?
But, they made sure to figure out how much time elapsed due to the ruling that it was an interception (instead of an incompletion) and had them add the time back to the clock. A couple plays later, Quinn threw another interception and the game spiraled out of control for the Irish after that. But, it made me wonder why the clock is so sacred when the replay officials do not have a clue what they are doing. Did anyone see the Miami v. Nevada game where the Wolfpack was robbed of a completion after the Nevada TE caught the ball with his legs and kept the ball off the ground. That may have cost Nevada the game. When you can't get obvious plays right using replay, does it really matter if you get a few seconds back on the clock?
Let that clock run
Ohio State got the ball back with 41 seconds in the 3rd quarter. The Buckeyes ran one play, a run for a gain of about a yard, before the quarter ran out. They had 25 seconds to get the 2nd down play off. I'd think that they'd have a little more urgency down 20 with just over one quarter remaining.
Is Florida this good?
Is Ohio State this bad?
Or is there something inherently wrong with a system that allows the #1 team in the nation to have 50+ days off before playing for the national title?
It's the 3rd quarter and Florida is playing as well as I've seen them play all year. Maybe the extra practice time has allowed the offense, which was fairly suspect all year, to gel and become a well-oiled machine. But, this Florida team almost lost to USC ... no, not that USC, the South Carolina Gamecocks.
At this point, with Ohio State down 20, I can not help but wonder if this would be happening if the game was played in mid-December instead of Jan. 8th.
Or is there something inherently wrong with a system that allows the #1 team in the nation to have 50+ days off before playing for the national title?
It's the 3rd quarter and Florida is playing as well as I've seen them play all year. Maybe the extra practice time has allowed the offense, which was fairly suspect all year, to gel and become a well-oiled machine. But, this Florida team almost lost to USC ... no, not that USC, the South Carolina Gamecocks.
At this point, with Ohio State down 20, I can not help but wonder if this would be happening if the game was played in mid-December instead of Jan. 8th.
Unnecessary, Intentional Roughness
On Florida's first play of the second half, Leak threw the ball away over the head of the Florida FB. It was obviously uncatchable. Thus, there was no infraction called for pass interference. But, why did the Ohio State defender run over the "intended receiver"? Why is contact allowed in such instances where it is obviously unnecessary. If the ball is so poorly thrown that the officials determine it to be uncatchable, the defender should be able to make the same determination and at least minimize contact. Or, the officials should make the correct call and flag them for a personal foul.
Missed one
On 1st and 10 with 10:40 left in the 2nd quarter, Ohio State got pressure on Florida QB Chris Leak. #50 got a hit on Leak ... problem is, the main reason he was able to shed the blocker who was engaged with him was that he grabbed the facemask of the OL. Not only was it hands to the face, which I believe is illegal, it should have been a 15 yard facemask penalty. But, apparently, the Pac-10 crew missed that one.
Personal Foul?
With 14:25 left in the 2nd quarter, UF LB Siler nudged Troy Smith after Smith threw a pass. He received a 15-yard penalty. He didn't drill Smith. He didn't hit him in the head. He didn't even extend his arm to push Smith down. Those fifteen yards they just walked off were a gift from the Pac-10 officials to the Buckeyes. Enjoy Ohio State. Enjoy!
UF v. OSU
Did anyone else see Reggie Nelson get held on Ted Ginn Jr.'s kickoff return for a TD on the first play of the game? I thought it was pretty obvious.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Why the 25?
Did the college football OT creators decide on the 25-yard line to start OT possessions so OT would not last long? Perhaps, they figured one team would not score a TD and the other team would on their first possession and the game would be over. Or, maybe they wanted to have the ball continuously in "scoring position." Really, I am unable to come up with a justification for the starting position.
In the NFL, they play sudden death (or sudden victory) in OT. People complain about the pro system and label it "unfair" because one team can win the game without giving the other team a shot. Ah ha. Fair. Starting OT possessions 25 yards from a score adds to the inequity in college football.
Each team should get one possession. But, rather than placing the ball at the 25, each team should have to kick off (from the 35) once. This brings special teams into OT to a greater extent. Special teams are, often, an integral phase of a team, so minimizing them to just the FG unit can hurt teams with good return and coverage units.
The more crucial problem with the current system is that you are in scoring position from the beginning. Why is this a problem? Sticking with teams A and B, with A having the ball first, we can look at the current system. If A scores a TD, B then knows it has to score a TD. This does not just factor into 4th down decisions. Obviously, B will not kick a FG on 4th down to, at best, lose by 4. Not only will teams try to convert 4th downs, they have the added benefit of knowing they will go for it on 4th down as they make calls and run plays on previous downs. On 3rd and 1, they might play fake and try to hit a TD pass, knowing that they will have another chance at picking up the first down even if they are unsuccessful on 3rd down.
How does having each team kick off help make it more fair? It does not change the fact that the 2nd team knows what the first team did. B still has an advantage over A, but it's minimized. Why? To score, each team has to put together some sort of drive. So, until A is in FG range, they have the knowledge that they have to go for it on 4th down. Let's say the 25 is the edge of FG range and drives usually start on a team's own 25. It could take four first downs to get into FG range. On each of those sets, the team will know they have four downs to pick up 10 yards whether they have the ball first or have it second. Going second is an advantage at all times in the current system, whereas it is only really advantageous when you are in FG range. So, by making teams kickoff you reduce the percentage of the time when going 2nd is an advantage drastically, from 100% of the field that is in play to 25-40% of the field in play (depending on who your kicker is and where you start the drive after receiving the kickoff). Having teams drive more of the field increases the likelihood of defensive stops and is a better test of football than the hokey, contrived, 25-yard line starting position employed in the current system.
In the NFL, they play sudden death (or sudden victory) in OT. People complain about the pro system and label it "unfair" because one team can win the game without giving the other team a shot. Ah ha. Fair. Starting OT possessions 25 yards from a score adds to the inequity in college football.
Each team should get one possession. But, rather than placing the ball at the 25, each team should have to kick off (from the 35) once. This brings special teams into OT to a greater extent. Special teams are, often, an integral phase of a team, so minimizing them to just the FG unit can hurt teams with good return and coverage units.
The more crucial problem with the current system is that you are in scoring position from the beginning. Why is this a problem? Sticking with teams A and B, with A having the ball first, we can look at the current system. If A scores a TD, B then knows it has to score a TD. This does not just factor into 4th down decisions. Obviously, B will not kick a FG on 4th down to, at best, lose by 4. Not only will teams try to convert 4th downs, they have the added benefit of knowing they will go for it on 4th down as they make calls and run plays on previous downs. On 3rd and 1, they might play fake and try to hit a TD pass, knowing that they will have another chance at picking up the first down even if they are unsuccessful on 3rd down.
How does having each team kick off help make it more fair? It does not change the fact that the 2nd team knows what the first team did. B still has an advantage over A, but it's minimized. Why? To score, each team has to put together some sort of drive. So, until A is in FG range, they have the knowledge that they have to go for it on 4th down. Let's say the 25 is the edge of FG range and drives usually start on a team's own 25. It could take four first downs to get into FG range. On each of those sets, the team will know they have four downs to pick up 10 yards whether they have the ball first or have it second. Going second is an advantage at all times in the current system, whereas it is only really advantageous when you are in FG range. So, by making teams kickoff you reduce the percentage of the time when going 2nd is an advantage drastically, from 100% of the field that is in play to 25-40% of the field in play (depending on who your kicker is and where you start the drive after receiving the kickoff). Having teams drive more of the field increases the likelihood of defensive stops and is a better test of football than the hokey, contrived, 25-yard line starting position employed in the current system.
Friday, January 05, 2007
OT is fine ...
just not the current overtime framework associated with college football. For now, I'll focus on the option of going for a two-point conversion before it is required. Allowing it is not equitable ... thus, it should not be allowed.
Rewind back before the OU v. Boise State game to the Oregon State v. Missouri match-up. Oregon State (with help from the officials) was able to pull to within one point late in the game (35-34). They could have kicked the extra point and tied it. Instead, they went for two. They converted and won the game. That was not fair to the Tigers. You should not be allowed to go for two to take the lead late in the game because it comes down to who scores when. You shouldn't be penalized for scoring early in the game, should you? All congruent scores should count the same.
The situation came up when Boise State went for two to beat Oklahoma. Some might argue that OU could have gone for two in a preemptive strike. That is true, but Bob Stoops would have been taking a major risk if he'd gone for two after the Peterson TD run on the first play of OT. Stick with me and you'll soon understand why it matters who has the ball first and why it isn't fair for the team that has the ball second to make a choice.
To keep it neutral, we'll use A and B to represent the two teams. Keeping it simple, A will have the ball first and B will have the ball second. Also, for simplicity, we'll assume the probability of scoring on a 2-pt attempt is 50% and we'll assume that kicking the extra point is automatic, neither of these is a huge stretch. So, each team can either (1) kick the extra point, (2) convert a 2-point try, or (3) fail on a 2-point try. Obviously, if A converts a 2-pt attempt, B will not kick the extra point. Also, if A fails to convert, B will kick the extra point rather than risk going for two.
So, we have the following permutations.
A kicks : B kicks -> Tie
A kicks : B fails -> A wins
A kicks : B converts -> B wins
A fails : B kicks -> B wins
A converts : B fails -> A wins
A converts : B converts -> Tie
Wait, there are 6 combinations. Yep. Two result in a tie, two result in A winning and two result in B winning. Exactly. What's not fair? The important point is not how many different permutations there are, but the probability of each happening. Follow?
If A kicks, B can tie by kicking. If A kicks and B goes for two, it's 50/50 on who will win, theoretically. But, A does not have the same opportunity as B. If A goes for two, half the time they will convert and half the time they will not. That's simple. So, when A does not convert, B can simply win by kicking. Thus, B wins half the time A goes for two. But, because B has the option of going for two if A converts, B will tie the game half of the 50% of the time A converts. So, A will win 1/4, B will win 1/2 and a tie will occur 1/4. Those odds are definitely with Boise State if Stoops had gone for two. Wait, I mean the odds are for B.
A simple fix to make it equitable, and still allow both teams the opportunity to take the risk of winning/losing would be to allow A a shot at going for two to tie to prolong the game if B attempts and converts a two-point play following A kicking the extra point. So, using the OU v. Boise State game as an example, OU scored and kicked the extra point to go up 42-35. Boise State scores to answer and make it 42-41 OU. BSU goes for two and goes up 43-42. OU would have a chance to counter the BSU two-pointer and retake the lead 44-43. BSU would then have to convert the extra point to make it 44-44 and the 2nd OT would begin. That would even the odds.
A kicks. B goes for two.
Half the time, B loses.
Half the time, B converts and goes ahead, forcing A to try to counter.
Half of the half, A converts and forces B to tie ... resulting in a tie and subsequent OT period.
The other half of the half, A fails and B wins.
Thus, B wins 1/4, A wins 1/2, and it's a tie 1/4.
Wait, that's not fair ... then B is at a disadvantage! Wrong! It is fair because the team that initiates the 2-pt conversion attempts assumes the risk and it does not matter which team goes first as far as the statistics are concerned, which is not the case currently.
If both teams are forced to go for two, that is fine too.
A fails : B fails -> Tie
A fails : B converts -> B wins
A converts : B fails -> A wins
A converts : B converts -> Tie
That part of the system is fair for both teams, at least as far as going for two goes.
Check back periodically for more discussion of flaws in the college football OT system.
Rewind back before the OU v. Boise State game to the Oregon State v. Missouri match-up. Oregon State (with help from the officials) was able to pull to within one point late in the game (35-34). They could have kicked the extra point and tied it. Instead, they went for two. They converted and won the game. That was not fair to the Tigers. You should not be allowed to go for two to take the lead late in the game because it comes down to who scores when. You shouldn't be penalized for scoring early in the game, should you? All congruent scores should count the same.
The situation came up when Boise State went for two to beat Oklahoma. Some might argue that OU could have gone for two in a preemptive strike. That is true, but Bob Stoops would have been taking a major risk if he'd gone for two after the Peterson TD run on the first play of OT. Stick with me and you'll soon understand why it matters who has the ball first and why it isn't fair for the team that has the ball second to make a choice.
To keep it neutral, we'll use A and B to represent the two teams. Keeping it simple, A will have the ball first and B will have the ball second. Also, for simplicity, we'll assume the probability of scoring on a 2-pt attempt is 50% and we'll assume that kicking the extra point is automatic, neither of these is a huge stretch. So, each team can either (1) kick the extra point, (2) convert a 2-point try, or (3) fail on a 2-point try. Obviously, if A converts a 2-pt attempt, B will not kick the extra point. Also, if A fails to convert, B will kick the extra point rather than risk going for two.
So, we have the following permutations.
A kicks : B kicks -> Tie
A kicks : B fails -> A wins
A kicks : B converts -> B wins
A fails : B kicks -> B wins
A converts : B fails -> A wins
A converts : B converts -> Tie
Wait, there are 6 combinations. Yep. Two result in a tie, two result in A winning and two result in B winning. Exactly. What's not fair? The important point is not how many different permutations there are, but the probability of each happening. Follow?
If A kicks, B can tie by kicking. If A kicks and B goes for two, it's 50/50 on who will win, theoretically. But, A does not have the same opportunity as B. If A goes for two, half the time they will convert and half the time they will not. That's simple. So, when A does not convert, B can simply win by kicking. Thus, B wins half the time A goes for two. But, because B has the option of going for two if A converts, B will tie the game half of the 50% of the time A converts. So, A will win 1/4, B will win 1/2 and a tie will occur 1/4. Those odds are definitely with Boise State if Stoops had gone for two. Wait, I mean the odds are for B.
A simple fix to make it equitable, and still allow both teams the opportunity to take the risk of winning/losing would be to allow A a shot at going for two to tie to prolong the game if B attempts and converts a two-point play following A kicking the extra point. So, using the OU v. Boise State game as an example, OU scored and kicked the extra point to go up 42-35. Boise State scores to answer and make it 42-41 OU. BSU goes for two and goes up 43-42. OU would have a chance to counter the BSU two-pointer and retake the lead 44-43. BSU would then have to convert the extra point to make it 44-44 and the 2nd OT would begin. That would even the odds.
A kicks. B goes for two.
Half the time, B loses.
Half the time, B converts and goes ahead, forcing A to try to counter.
Half of the half, A converts and forces B to tie ... resulting in a tie and subsequent OT period.
The other half of the half, A fails and B wins.
Thus, B wins 1/4, A wins 1/2, and it's a tie 1/4.
Wait, that's not fair ... then B is at a disadvantage! Wrong! It is fair because the team that initiates the 2-pt conversion attempts assumes the risk and it does not matter which team goes first as far as the statistics are concerned, which is not the case currently.
If both teams are forced to go for two, that is fine too.
A fails : B fails -> Tie
A fails : B converts -> B wins
A converts : B fails -> A wins
A converts : B converts -> Tie
That part of the system is fair for both teams, at least as far as going for two goes.
Check back periodically for more discussion of flaws in the college football OT system.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
NFL Week 17 Power Rankings
| Record | Best | Worst | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | StL | 8-8 | 1 | 29 | Our top team misses out on the playoffs, thanks in part to horrible officiating in the MNF game against the Bears. The officials ruled that Bruce did not get out-of-bounds, even though he slid out and was not touched. They did not stop the clock and it cost the Rams a chance to score a TD before half in a, to that point, close game. |
| 2 | NE | 12-4 | 2 | 26 | The Pats are sitting at #2 ... the top playoff team in the rankings. Why are they complaining about a legal block on cheap shot artist Rodney Harrison? Karma is getting the best of the Pats S, that's for sure. |
| 3 | Bal | 13-3 | 3 | 20 | The Ravens were expected to be improved over last year with the addition of McNair. Did anyone expect them to earn a bye coming out of the AFC North? |
| 4 | Hou | 6-10 | 4 | 32 | Houston took a DE with the 1st pick in the NFL draft and had the defensive ROY. This draft, maybe the Texans should get some offensive pieces so they can make a determination on whether or not David Carr is the guy in Houston. |
| 5 | NYJ | 10-6 | 5 | 29 | The Jets are a surprise, I guess. But, they were 10-6 in 2004, too. Losing a QB isn't as traumatic as having a hurricane hit, but it can be almost as devastating in the NFL. |
| 6 | SF | 7-9 | 4 | 27 | Frank Gore emerged as a high-quality RB this year, but 2200 yards is a ridiculous goal for next season. Sure, 2200 is attainable, potentially, but he's setting himself up to look like an idiot if he gets hurt, his line is ineffective, or he just doesn't get enough carries. |
| 7 | GB | 8-8 | 7 | 29 | Four straight wins to surge to 8-8 after a 4-8 start. Favre can't retire after that, can he? While we're talking about Favre, it seems to me that he, essentially, gives up when things are not going well. He takes unnecessary, high-risk chances when his team gets down like he's attempting to come up with a 14 point play on one spectacular throw. He needs to do a better job of fighting that urge and helping his team claw back into games. |
| 8 | SD | 14-2 | 8 | 19 | Despite a 10-game winning streak, the Chargers could climb no higher than 8th in the rankings. Don't blame the system, blame the schedule. SD will have to be content with home field and LT being awarded the MVP. |
| 9 | Buf | 7-9 | 3 | 29 | Bills need a #2 receiver to pair with Lee Evans. Evans had more than 3 times as many receiving yards as either Josh Reed or Peerless Price. Maybe that's because Reed and Price split time (I'm not sure because I didn't get much Bills coverage this year, did you?). Or, maybe it's because Price is on the decline and Reed is best suited as a #3 guy. |
| 10 | Ind | 12-4 | 1 | 30 | We've seen this Indy team before ... good offense, bad defense, good start, bad finish ... maybe playing in the WC round will serve the Colts well. |
| 11 | Ari | 5-11 | 6 | 31 | Cardinals are in the market for a head coach. Should Pete Carroll take the job before officials in college football realize they give his Trojans every call? As Saban showed, you can always jump back to college. |
| 12 | Pit | 8-8 | 1 | 27 | The Steelers have an entire offseason to figure out who's going to coach and whether they're the crappy team that started the season (2-6), the competitive team that finished the season on a roll (6-2 in the last 8) or just mediocre. And, they have extra time to brainstorm celebrations to use after 4 yard runs and 8 yard catches. Yippee! |
| 13 | Phi | 10-6 | 4 | 30 | The Eagles are a favorite to win the NFC without McNabb, yet the "experts" say it's more about the play calling than it is about Garcia. They're lobbying for the same scheme when McNabb is in the game. But, weren't the experts saying how great McNabb was playing early in the season when he was, for some, an MVP candidate? It seems like the "experts" are coddling McNabb a bit. Would #5 be happy in a run-oriented, short-passing scheme? |
| 14 | Sea | 9-7 | 2 | 28 | Division winners even though they allowed more points than they scored this year. Interesting thing to note: Arizona was 4-2 in division games, 1-9 in all others. |
| 15 | Ten | 8-8 | 2 | 30 | Like the Cardinals in the NFC West, the Titans were the class of AFC South division games at 4-2. Vince Young winning offensive ROY is just icing on the cake for Houston fans. |
| 16 | KC | 9-7 | 9 | 22 | I agree with Herm Edwards that KC didn't back into the playoffs. However, they are limping in behind Trent Green. Why is KC so loyal to Green and why does he continue to slide late, awkwardly. He either needs to get down early, avoid contact, or not run. He can't get every possible yard and not expect some contact. Speaking of contact, when you have a backup like Michael Bennett, you should use him. LJ may want the ball, and he may appear to be durable, but durability was one of Jamaal Anderson's strong points until his career was cut short by injuries. It's a matter of perspective, and it will be a shame if the Chiefs ruin LJ's long-term prospects for a few short term gains. |
| 17 | Jax | 8-8 | 1 | 25 | Who's the QB? Leftwich, Garrard, or the new guy? Someone needs to make a decision and stick by it. |
| 18 | Cin | 8-8 | 4 | 20 | Like division rival Pittsburgh, Cincy needs to figure out a way to be more consistent next season. Inconsistency is what ruins the "There's A Catch Power Rankings"! |
| 19 | Car | 8-8 | 6 | 32 | Someone explain how a team can go 5-1 in the NFC South and 3-7 otherwise. Oh yeah, it's the inconsistency of the Carolina Panthers. Keyshawn should spend less time worrying about whether or not Dwayne Jarrett (who appears to be quite unsportsmanlike on the field) is physical enough for the NFL and more time making plays for the Panthers. |
| 20 | Cle | 4-12 | 9 | 31 | Hard to see any help in the future for the Browns if they hitch their wagon to either Brady Quinn (Ohio native) or Troy Smith (OSU QB). |
| 21 | Den | 9-7 | 4 | 22 | Not much has gone right for the Broncos this year. Their season should serve as a cautionary tale for two things: (1) players and night clubs do not lead to good publicity, and sometimes things can go awfully wrong and (2) contending teams should not insert a rookie QB in the middle of a season because you can not afford bad losses, especially in the AFC this year. |
| 22 | Chi | 13-3 | 2 | 32 | The best team in the NFC goes into the playoffs with a bye and a starting QB coming off a day when he posted a 0.0 QB rating after throwing more passes to the other team (3) than to his team (2). What has Rex done to deserve the unwavering devotion of the Chicago Bears and Lovie Smith? |
| 23 | Min | 6-10 | 7 | 29 | The Vikings returned to reality after a promising start. Fortunately, they get, potentially, better draft picks this way. |
| 24 | Mia | 6-10 | 2 | 32 | 3-1 mark against the NFC is just about all that's positive about this season for the Dolphins. Well, that and the whipping of rival NE. I wonder if Nick Saban would have been better off switching to the NFC, rather than the SEC. I think the SEC was, overall, a better conference than the NFC this year (just kidding, obviously). |
| 25 | Det | 3-13 | 6 | 31 | Three wins earns the Lions the 2nd pick in the draft and Matt Millen another shot at royally blundering a should be "can't miss" spot in the draft. |
| 26 | TB | 4-12 | 10 | 26 | Gruden leaving the Raiders for Tampa looked good for both teams at the time ... but times have changed. |
| 27 | NO | 10-6 | 1 | 31 | Deuce McAllister is a solid RB who keeps Reggie Bush from having to do the things that Bush does not do well. Deuce should get as much, if not more, credit for helping Bush as Bush gets for helping Deuce. McAllister is not a media darling, though. |
| 28 | NYG | 8-8 | 3 | 32 | College football people are complaining about potential rematches (Michigan v. Ohio State). Philly and the Giants are playing for a 3rd time. I'd like to see Philly advance behind Garcia, but it would be fun to see the Giants make a run at things ... a few more years of Tom Coughlin in NY would be great fun, don't you think? |
| 29 | Oak | 2-14 | 21 | 31 | At least the Raiders are consistent. Nine weeks in a row at 28th or 29th to go along with a 9 game skid. But with triplets Walter, Fargas and Curry, things are sure to improve in a hurry for the silver and black. |
| 30 | Was | 5-11 | 1 | 30 | All that money for coordinators and they're the only NFC East team not in the playoffs. |
| 31 | Dal | 9-7 | 1 | 31 | What kind of team loses, at home, to the Detroit Lions when they still have a chance at a division crown? The scary thing is that they could storm through the NFC if they get on a roll ... although I think an 18-wheeler stuck three feet deep in mud has a better chance of getting rolling than this year's 'Boys. |
| 32 | Atl | 7-9 | 6 | 32 | Who's the magic coach that will finally guide Vick to stardom? |
Note: Bold indicates playoff qualifiers.
Week 15
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
