Alex Rodriguez and Scott Boras are receiving a lot of criticism for the timing of the notification that A-Rod would be opting out of the final years of his contract, making him a free agent. On the surface, it seems like having the info get out during the 4th game of the World Series isn't the best way to do things.
But, Rodriguez and Boras didn't know the Red Sox were going to end the series on Sunday. And, the Yankees were set to make an announcement on their new manager on Monday (they chose Joe Girardi for the post). So, an announcement on Monday might seem like an attempt to upstage the New York Yankees. Or, if you wait until after the introduction of the new manager, you give the impression that the manager choice (Mattingly and Pena were also interviewed) might have been a deciding factor in whether or not you remain with the team. That's not really fair to Girardi.
I don't know exactly what the intentions of Boras and A-Rod were. I don't really care, but I didn't think the announcement was that big of a deal. It seemed like a forgone conclusion that A-Rod would opt out, was it really a big enough story that it would upstage the World Series? Should the Braves and Tigers have waited a couple weeks to announce the Edgar Renteria trade? I knew Escobar played well for the Braves and Guillen's health made the SS spot in Detroit available, but that trade was more of a surprise to me than A-Rod opting out.
But, I guess if you're looking for one more reason to pile on A-Rod ... you got it.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
Kornheiser: Just look at points
I'm an avid fan of PTI, but Tony Kornheiser was way off the mark when he said that the only offensive stat that matters is point per game. The subject came up because, despite being 6th in yards per game, the Denver Broncos are 26th in the NFL in scoring. One problem for the Broncos is that they are dead last in starting field position.
Kornheiser is on the right track. For a team, the only stat that really matters is your record. Wins and losses are determined by points scored compared to points allowed (on a game by game basis). It's pretty simple. But, it is not right to say that the Broncos have the 26th best offense based on the Broncos being 26th in scoring. It's not that simple.
Yesterday, Vinny Testaverde and the Carolina Panthers chewed through 11 minutes on their first drive against the Colts. If the Panthers had been able to replicate that drive on each of their drives in the game, the Colts offense wouldn't have had enough opportunities to rack up their usual points and yards. So, obviously, offense and defense are related.
Additionally, defense and special teams can create easy opportunities for the offense to score (or take the load off the offense by scoring themselves). The longer you have to drive to score, the more likely you are to make a drive killing mistake.
This doesn't apply to the Patriots, but some teams take their foot off the gas when they are way up. Thus, it is possible that a lights out defense actually works against an offense at times. Not that being way up in games and cruising to victory is a bad thing.
I agree with Tony that looking at yards per game is a bad way to quantify offensive effectiveness. But, points per game alone isn't much better.
Kornheiser is on the right track. For a team, the only stat that really matters is your record. Wins and losses are determined by points scored compared to points allowed (on a game by game basis). It's pretty simple. But, it is not right to say that the Broncos have the 26th best offense based on the Broncos being 26th in scoring. It's not that simple.
Yesterday, Vinny Testaverde and the Carolina Panthers chewed through 11 minutes on their first drive against the Colts. If the Panthers had been able to replicate that drive on each of their drives in the game, the Colts offense wouldn't have had enough opportunities to rack up their usual points and yards. So, obviously, offense and defense are related.
Additionally, defense and special teams can create easy opportunities for the offense to score (or take the load off the offense by scoring themselves). The longer you have to drive to score, the more likely you are to make a drive killing mistake.
This doesn't apply to the Patriots, but some teams take their foot off the gas when they are way up. Thus, it is possible that a lights out defense actually works against an offense at times. Not that being way up in games and cruising to victory is a bad thing.
I agree with Tony that looking at yards per game is a bad way to quantify offensive effectiveness. But, points per game alone isn't much better.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
How does eliminating the DH eliminate Big Papi?
I don't understand the argument that, as Tim Wakefield put it, "You're taking away possibly 15 jobs from guys in the American League" if you eliminate the DH. I'm pretty sure David Ortiz could play 1B for someone ... maybe even the Red Sox - they are trusting him to handle 1st base in the World Series! Jim Thome would be playing 1B for someone if he couldn't DH. Same goes for Travis Hafner. And, I think the Mariners would have put up with limited D at 3rd from Edgar Martinez to keep his bat in the line-up.
Even if it did put Big Papi and a few others out of business, would that be all bad? Teams would still carry 25 guys on their major league roster. It might not benefit big boppers who can't play in the field, but it might benefit utility guys who can play multiple positions and give managers versatility. Are we really worried about Mike Piazza having to hang 'em up because his offense is no longer good enough to warrant overlooking his defensive inadequacies? I'm not ... and the union shouldn't be either. By keeping the DH, they are protecting a few of their current members, but they are also hindering the advancement of future members. Where is the foresight, guys?
I don't think it's fair to overlook the other side, either. D-backs SP Micah Owings hit .333 this year (20-60). Braves SP Tim Hudson went 20-76, which gives him a .263 average and a definite advantage over teammate Chuck James, who hit .113. Chuck, don't worry, you hit better than a lot of pitchers (including teammate John Smoltz). So, if you add the DH to the NL, you are robbing a subset of the pitchers of an advantage they currently possess ... they can hit and most of their counterparts cannot.
I think MLB should consider phasing out the DH. I think axing it out of the blue in an off-season is a bad way to go. After the World Series, Bud could announce that the 2010 season will be DH-free. That will give Travis Hafner, Big Papi, Jim Thome and others two years to work on becoming competent at a position. Just as important, it will give teams two years to prepare for not being able to stick a big bat in the DH spot. So, the Red Sox would have two years to figure out how to figure out the logjam with Ortiz, Youkillis and Lowell. It gives the White Sox time to sort out the situation with Thome and Konerko. It also gives DH's at the end of their careers two more years to just hit. If they want to play longer then they need to get used to the idea of wearing a glove again. And, it gives AL pitchers two years to work on their batting skills.
I really don't think eliminating the DH would create that much of an impact. It does make a pitchers job easier, but is that a bad thing? The shrinking parks and shrinking strike zone are bad enough for pitchers ... they should have an easy out every once in a while. Teams would be less likely to sacrifice offense for defense on the corners, but is there really going to be an uproar if Doug Mientkiewicz doesn't have steady work? Come on. There is plenty of offense in the NL. And, maybe it would help redistribute the wealth a little bit ... one less elite player for the Red Sox and Yankees to hoard from the rest of the league.
Bud ... eliminate the DH.
Even if it did put Big Papi and a few others out of business, would that be all bad? Teams would still carry 25 guys on their major league roster. It might not benefit big boppers who can't play in the field, but it might benefit utility guys who can play multiple positions and give managers versatility. Are we really worried about Mike Piazza having to hang 'em up because his offense is no longer good enough to warrant overlooking his defensive inadequacies? I'm not ... and the union shouldn't be either. By keeping the DH, they are protecting a few of their current members, but they are also hindering the advancement of future members. Where is the foresight, guys?
I don't think it's fair to overlook the other side, either. D-backs SP Micah Owings hit .333 this year (20-60). Braves SP Tim Hudson went 20-76, which gives him a .263 average and a definite advantage over teammate Chuck James, who hit .113. Chuck, don't worry, you hit better than a lot of pitchers (including teammate John Smoltz). So, if you add the DH to the NL, you are robbing a subset of the pitchers of an advantage they currently possess ... they can hit and most of their counterparts cannot.
I think MLB should consider phasing out the DH. I think axing it out of the blue in an off-season is a bad way to go. After the World Series, Bud could announce that the 2010 season will be DH-free. That will give Travis Hafner, Big Papi, Jim Thome and others two years to work on becoming competent at a position. Just as important, it will give teams two years to prepare for not being able to stick a big bat in the DH spot. So, the Red Sox would have two years to figure out how to figure out the logjam with Ortiz, Youkillis and Lowell. It gives the White Sox time to sort out the situation with Thome and Konerko. It also gives DH's at the end of their careers two more years to just hit. If they want to play longer then they need to get used to the idea of wearing a glove again. And, it gives AL pitchers two years to work on their batting skills.
I really don't think eliminating the DH would create that much of an impact. It does make a pitchers job easier, but is that a bad thing? The shrinking parks and shrinking strike zone are bad enough for pitchers ... they should have an easy out every once in a while. Teams would be less likely to sacrifice offense for defense on the corners, but is there really going to be an uproar if Doug Mientkiewicz doesn't have steady work? Come on. There is plenty of offense in the NL. And, maybe it would help redistribute the wealth a little bit ... one less elite player for the Red Sox and Yankees to hoard from the rest of the league.
Bud ... eliminate the DH.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Not Buyin' Ryan
I'm shocked by the idea that Matt Ryan helped himself in the Heisman race last night. Did Ryan really jump Tim Tebow by pissing away 54 minutes (he threw an awful INT with just over 6 minutes left) and then leading a couple TD drives? Seriously? At best, Ryan was decent. The only reason he needed to throw two TD's at the end was because BC couldn't do anything for the first 3 2/3 quarters.
Ryan threw 2 TD's and 2 INT's. He was lucky to only have 2 INT's ... the Hokies dropped a number of balls. And, Ryan was lucky that one of his lineman hopped on a fumble he lost. He finished 25-52 for 285 yards. Under the circumstances (not great weather against a good team), Ryan performed decent. But, this was one of his worst games ... his numbers (per attempt) were quite similar to the ones he posted against NC State:
15-34, 142 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT (BC won handily, so he didn't have to throw as much)
Matt Ryan doesn't run the ball. He has 3 or more TD's in just 3 games and he already has eight interceptions. He has 8 INT's! Tim Tebow has 3 games with 3 or more TD's and has 17 TD passes compared to just 3 INT's. Tebow also gets you 75 yds and 1-2 TD's per game rushing as well!
Or, take a look at Oregon QB Dennis Dixon. He torched Michigan. He didn't play great against Cal, but if he keeps Oregon in the Pac-10 race after their personnel loses, he's a worthy candidate - as much as I hate to admit it.
Ryan recovered so that he didn't lose the Heisman against Va Tech. That's fine. Maybe he'll light it up the rest of the year. But, to suggest that the game last night moved him up is absolutely absurd.
Ryan threw 2 TD's and 2 INT's. He was lucky to only have 2 INT's ... the Hokies dropped a number of balls. And, Ryan was lucky that one of his lineman hopped on a fumble he lost. He finished 25-52 for 285 yards. Under the circumstances (not great weather against a good team), Ryan performed decent. But, this was one of his worst games ... his numbers (per attempt) were quite similar to the ones he posted against NC State:
15-34, 142 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT (BC won handily, so he didn't have to throw as much)
Matt Ryan doesn't run the ball. He has 3 or more TD's in just 3 games and he already has eight interceptions. He has 8 INT's! Tim Tebow has 3 games with 3 or more TD's and has 17 TD passes compared to just 3 INT's. Tebow also gets you 75 yds and 1-2 TD's per game rushing as well!
Or, take a look at Oregon QB Dennis Dixon. He torched Michigan. He didn't play great against Cal, but if he keeps Oregon in the Pac-10 race after their personnel loses, he's a worthy candidate - as much as I hate to admit it.
Ryan recovered so that he didn't lose the Heisman against Va Tech. That's fine. Maybe he'll light it up the rest of the year. But, to suggest that the game last night moved him up is absolutely absurd.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
No More Vacations
Bud Selig (or someone with access to Bud Selig) decided it would be a good idea to make the MLB All-Star game count by giving home field advantage in the World Series to the team from the league that wins the All-Star game. I have a different solution to a couple of baseball's problems.
Last year, the Detroit Tigers had a long lay-off between the end of the ALCS and the start of the World Series. They were crushed by the Cardinals in the World Series ... although it had a lot to do with the defensive deficiencies of their pitching staff. I'm not going to make excuses for the Tigers and say they were hurt by their vacation time because I don't know. But, I think it's in the best interests of baseball and most fair to expedite the playoffs a bit.
This year, the Rockies had more than a week off between polishing off the D-backs and duking it out with the Red Sox in Boston. The NLCS ended on Monday, October 15, the same day Jake Westbrook outdueled Daisuke to give the Indians a 2-1 lead in the ALCS. At that point, the Indians and Red Sox should have played daily to finish up the ALCS. They played the next day, with Cleveland winning at home to go up 3-1. Then, there was an inexplicable non-travel off-day to enjoy the lovely fall weather in Cleveland. After game 5, there was a travel day for the teams to make the 600 mile trek back to Boston. Games 6 and 7 were played on Saturday and Sunday, with the Red Sox finally pulling it out.
Then, for whatever reason, MLB decided that two off-days were necessary between the end of the ALCS and the beginning of the World Series. Was one of those a built-in weather day? Or, was that what the Cleveland off-day was? So, we're left starting the World Series on October 24th, and I'm not sure why.
The Indians and Red Sox should have played consecutive days to finish up the ALCS. Additionally, the Rockies should have been rewarded with home-field advantage for winning their LCS in the fewest games. If both LCS's take the same number of games, then use the All-Star game result, if you want to. This new format rewards teams that mow their way through the LCS and have to wait for the team from the other league. You could apply the same format to the LCS based on the # of games needed to win the LDS. With these new rules in place, the Rockies would have known they'd be playing games 1 and 2 at home. Tickets could go on sale for the first two games. I think you can sell playoff tickets without announcing a date, as long as you set the start time ... you might not even need to do that, but it would be a nice gesture. The Red Sox could have one travel day to get from Boston to Denver.
Under this new format (and assuming the games went the same way in the ALCS), Byrd beats Wakefield to give the Indians a 3-1 lead on Tuesday. Beckett counters on Wednesday, sending the series back to Boston. Schilling and Daisuke throw Thursday and Friday to send the Red Sox to the World Series. They travel Saturday and the World Series gets underway on Sunday.
Why do this? First, you minimize the number of days without baseball. Personally, I like to watch games ... and it's annoying to not have games when there should be games! Second, you throw teams that have to sit and wait a bone. It's not their fault they swept their series. Third, it gets the playoffs done sooner; even with global warming, there is still the possibility of bitter cold and nasty weather in many baseball venues when you go late into October.
Last year, the Detroit Tigers had a long lay-off between the end of the ALCS and the start of the World Series. They were crushed by the Cardinals in the World Series ... although it had a lot to do with the defensive deficiencies of their pitching staff. I'm not going to make excuses for the Tigers and say they were hurt by their vacation time because I don't know. But, I think it's in the best interests of baseball and most fair to expedite the playoffs a bit.
This year, the Rockies had more than a week off between polishing off the D-backs and duking it out with the Red Sox in Boston. The NLCS ended on Monday, October 15, the same day Jake Westbrook outdueled Daisuke to give the Indians a 2-1 lead in the ALCS. At that point, the Indians and Red Sox should have played daily to finish up the ALCS. They played the next day, with Cleveland winning at home to go up 3-1. Then, there was an inexplicable non-travel off-day to enjoy the lovely fall weather in Cleveland. After game 5, there was a travel day for the teams to make the 600 mile trek back to Boston. Games 6 and 7 were played on Saturday and Sunday, with the Red Sox finally pulling it out.
Then, for whatever reason, MLB decided that two off-days were necessary between the end of the ALCS and the beginning of the World Series. Was one of those a built-in weather day? Or, was that what the Cleveland off-day was? So, we're left starting the World Series on October 24th, and I'm not sure why.
The Indians and Red Sox should have played consecutive days to finish up the ALCS. Additionally, the Rockies should have been rewarded with home-field advantage for winning their LCS in the fewest games. If both LCS's take the same number of games, then use the All-Star game result, if you want to. This new format rewards teams that mow their way through the LCS and have to wait for the team from the other league. You could apply the same format to the LCS based on the # of games needed to win the LDS. With these new rules in place, the Rockies would have known they'd be playing games 1 and 2 at home. Tickets could go on sale for the first two games. I think you can sell playoff tickets without announcing a date, as long as you set the start time ... you might not even need to do that, but it would be a nice gesture. The Red Sox could have one travel day to get from Boston to Denver.
Under this new format (and assuming the games went the same way in the ALCS), Byrd beats Wakefield to give the Indians a 3-1 lead on Tuesday. Beckett counters on Wednesday, sending the series back to Boston. Schilling and Daisuke throw Thursday and Friday to send the Red Sox to the World Series. They travel Saturday and the World Series gets underway on Sunday.
Why do this? First, you minimize the number of days without baseball. Personally, I like to watch games ... and it's annoying to not have games when there should be games! Second, you throw teams that have to sit and wait a bone. It's not their fault they swept their series. Third, it gets the playoffs done sooner; even with global warming, there is still the possibility of bitter cold and nasty weather in many baseball venues when you go late into October.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Nearing the top 25: Boise State
Boise State is #27 in the lastest AP polls, 2nd place in the others receiving votes category. They are #26 in the USA Today poll. They're 6-1 overall and undefeated in the WAC (along with Hawaii and Fresno State). Sure, they've been good in recent years, but they have done nothing this year to garner such recognition.
Boise State lost at Washington 24-10. While the Huskies are a Pac-10 team, they aren't sniffing the top 25 after losing to Ohio State and four Pac-10 games. Along with their conference wins, which included squeaking one out at home on the smurf turf against Nevada, the Boise State Broncos also beat Weber State, Wyoming and Southern Miss in their non-conference play.
Weber State resides near the bottom of the Big Sky Conference, with their only two wins coming against Big Sky bottom feeders Sacremento State and Northern Colorado. Wyoming and Southern Miss are run of the mill Mountain West and Conference USA teams. There is nothing on the Boise State resume that says they could compete consistently with top 25 caliber competition.
And, the problem for Boise State is that the other teams in the WAC do nothing to refute that line of thinking. Hawaii beat Charleston Southern, Northern Colorado and UNLV in their non-conference games thus far. They still have a late-season date with Washington. Fresno State made a late run at Texas A&M after being man-handled for most of the game before losing in OT, got run out of Eugene by the Oregon Ducks and posted a win against Sacremento State. So, while the top of the WAC can take apart the bottom of the Big Sky, I don't find that all that exciting.
San Jose State (4th in the WAC) lost badly at Arizona State, at Kansas State and at Stanford. They did beat Great West juggernaut UC-Davis ... did you catch the sarcasm. New Mexico State got crushed by Auburn. And, while Nevada beat UNLV, they got blasted by Nebraska 52-10 and lost to Northwestern.
There is no justification for ranking Boise State in the top 30. There isn't really any justification for having Hawaii ranked as high as they are, even if they are undefeated. If a conference doesn't have a single win against a team in the top 30, how do you justify having a team in the top 20 and two more knocking on the door of the top 25? It's ridiculous.
Boise State lost at Washington 24-10. While the Huskies are a Pac-10 team, they aren't sniffing the top 25 after losing to Ohio State and four Pac-10 games. Along with their conference wins, which included squeaking one out at home on the smurf turf against Nevada, the Boise State Broncos also beat Weber State, Wyoming and Southern Miss in their non-conference play.
Weber State resides near the bottom of the Big Sky Conference, with their only two wins coming against Big Sky bottom feeders Sacremento State and Northern Colorado. Wyoming and Southern Miss are run of the mill Mountain West and Conference USA teams. There is nothing on the Boise State resume that says they could compete consistently with top 25 caliber competition.
And, the problem for Boise State is that the other teams in the WAC do nothing to refute that line of thinking. Hawaii beat Charleston Southern, Northern Colorado and UNLV in their non-conference games thus far. They still have a late-season date with Washington. Fresno State made a late run at Texas A&M after being man-handled for most of the game before losing in OT, got run out of Eugene by the Oregon Ducks and posted a win against Sacremento State. So, while the top of the WAC can take apart the bottom of the Big Sky, I don't find that all that exciting.
San Jose State (4th in the WAC) lost badly at Arizona State, at Kansas State and at Stanford. They did beat Great West juggernaut UC-Davis ... did you catch the sarcasm. New Mexico State got crushed by Auburn. And, while Nevada beat UNLV, they got blasted by Nebraska 52-10 and lost to Northwestern.
There is no justification for ranking Boise State in the top 30. There isn't really any justification for having Hawaii ranked as high as they are, even if they are undefeated. If a conference doesn't have a single win against a team in the top 30, how do you justify having a team in the top 20 and two more knocking on the door of the top 25? It's ridiculous.
Double Standard
The new polls are out. The AP and USA Today polls are quite similar, with Ohio State and Boston College leading the way. Arizona State is 7th in both polls, while the other undefeated team in a BCS conference, Kansas, is 10th in the USA Today and 12th in the AP.
Proponents of Ohio State and BC at the top of the poll point to the fact that they have beaten all the teams that they've played and that's all a team can be expected to do. Thus, they should be ahead of the one-loss teams. Well, what about Arizona State and Kansas? Don't they deserve the same treatment? While I don't think Kansas is a top 5 team, they plowed through their weak non-conference schedule to the tune of 214-23 (in 4 games), with the closest contest being a 45-13 whipping of Toledo. The Jayhawks beat K-State and CU. Their next four are at A&M and Oklahoma State and at home against Nebraska and Iowa State. They could be 11-0 with a game against Missouri left. And, while they will move up if they keep winning, it probably won't be because they are jumping other teams that are winning. Oregon, Arizona State and USC are all ranked ahead of KU (which I have no problem with) ... USC at Oregon and Cal at ASU next weekend will shake things up, as will ASU at Oregon on 11/03 and USC at Cal on 11/10.
Like KU, ASU is undefeated in a major conference. ASU didn't have a major scare in their 3 non-conference games, including a 33-14 defeat of CU (when they tried to give the game away early). Like Ohio State, which faces its most stiff competition late in the year, Arizona State still has Oregon, USC, Cal and UCLA on the schedule (along with Arizona). Unlike Ohio State, Arizona State finds itself below 4 one-loss teams. Now, I realize that, at this point in the year, the rankings don't have much affect on anything.
However, I find it strange that there is a clear double standard. The resumes of Ohio State, BC, ASU and KU are all pretty similar. Thus, I don't see a clear justification for the separation in the polls. If undefeated teams go to the head of the class, move ASU and KU up, for now. If it's "body of work", scoot BC and OSU down a little bit, because neither of them have had to deal with elite competition thus far. Maybe, the pollsters just think OSU and BC are better than ASU and KU? It's possible ... but where is the proof? What facts are those decisions based upon.
Then, I thought that maybe the voters were looking at who they thought would finish the season with a better record. Maybe, fear of a loss was deterring them from moving ASU and KU up. But, if that was the case, I'd put KU ahead of ASU, which I could see losing 4 of the 5 remaining games if things don't go their way. If I had to guess, I'd say KU loses to Missouri, beats Iowa State and Nebraska, and splits with A&M and Oklahoma State ... giving them two losses on the year. But, that factor has as much to do with who a team is playing as how good a team is, so it shouldn't factor into a voters ballot if they are judging off "body of work" or record.
More likely, it's a matter of longevity. Ohio State started the year knocking on the top 10 in the AP poll. BC was just on the outside of the top 25 to start the season, but ascended to 21st after week 2 and hasn't looked back. Ohio State was 8th and BC was 12th when ASU made it's first appearance in the AP top 25 at #23 after week 4. With a 5-0 record, KU finally snuck in, debuting at #20 in the AP poll after week 6, when ASU was 14th and OSU and BC were #3 and #4. It just makes me wonder how people come up with their rankings.
Proponents of Ohio State and BC at the top of the poll point to the fact that they have beaten all the teams that they've played and that's all a team can be expected to do. Thus, they should be ahead of the one-loss teams. Well, what about Arizona State and Kansas? Don't they deserve the same treatment? While I don't think Kansas is a top 5 team, they plowed through their weak non-conference schedule to the tune of 214-23 (in 4 games), with the closest contest being a 45-13 whipping of Toledo. The Jayhawks beat K-State and CU. Their next four are at A&M and Oklahoma State and at home against Nebraska and Iowa State. They could be 11-0 with a game against Missouri left. And, while they will move up if they keep winning, it probably won't be because they are jumping other teams that are winning. Oregon, Arizona State and USC are all ranked ahead of KU (which I have no problem with) ... USC at Oregon and Cal at ASU next weekend will shake things up, as will ASU at Oregon on 11/03 and USC at Cal on 11/10.
Like KU, ASU is undefeated in a major conference. ASU didn't have a major scare in their 3 non-conference games, including a 33-14 defeat of CU (when they tried to give the game away early). Like Ohio State, which faces its most stiff competition late in the year, Arizona State still has Oregon, USC, Cal and UCLA on the schedule (along with Arizona). Unlike Ohio State, Arizona State finds itself below 4 one-loss teams. Now, I realize that, at this point in the year, the rankings don't have much affect on anything.
However, I find it strange that there is a clear double standard. The resumes of Ohio State, BC, ASU and KU are all pretty similar. Thus, I don't see a clear justification for the separation in the polls. If undefeated teams go to the head of the class, move ASU and KU up, for now. If it's "body of work", scoot BC and OSU down a little bit, because neither of them have had to deal with elite competition thus far. Maybe, the pollsters just think OSU and BC are better than ASU and KU? It's possible ... but where is the proof? What facts are those decisions based upon.
Then, I thought that maybe the voters were looking at who they thought would finish the season with a better record. Maybe, fear of a loss was deterring them from moving ASU and KU up. But, if that was the case, I'd put KU ahead of ASU, which I could see losing 4 of the 5 remaining games if things don't go their way. If I had to guess, I'd say KU loses to Missouri, beats Iowa State and Nebraska, and splits with A&M and Oklahoma State ... giving them two losses on the year. But, that factor has as much to do with who a team is playing as how good a team is, so it shouldn't factor into a voters ballot if they are judging off "body of work" or record.
More likely, it's a matter of longevity. Ohio State started the year knocking on the top 10 in the AP poll. BC was just on the outside of the top 25 to start the season, but ascended to 21st after week 2 and hasn't looked back. Ohio State was 8th and BC was 12th when ASU made it's first appearance in the AP top 25 at #23 after week 4. With a 5-0 record, KU finally snuck in, debuting at #20 in the AP poll after week 6, when ASU was 14th and OSU and BC were #3 and #4. It just makes me wonder how people come up with their rankings.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Drama Queens
The announcers for the Auburn v. LSU game think, somehow, that the clock would have run out if the TD pass late in the game had fallen incomplete. Sure, it was close, but the catch was made with 4 seconds left. If it had been incomplete, there would have been time left. Maybe Miles should have called timeout, but was all the carrying on about the time running out really necessary?
No Bowl for Nebraska
Sitting at 4-1, with the one loss being a decent showing against USC, the Nebraska Cornhuskers probably felt pretty good about their season. Perhaps, they'd be able to win the Big 12 North, win the Big 12 title game and get back into the national title picture.
Or, they could go in the tank. After bad losses to Missouri, Oklahoma State and Texas A&M, things aren't looking good in Lincoln. Looking ahead, the Cornhuskers see road games at Texas and Kansas in their immediate future. Then, they host K-State and go to Boulder to face CU.
In a year where Michigan was trashed early, Miami and Florida State have been mediocre and Nebraska is going in the tank. They're 4-4 and could be headed for a 4-8 or 5-7 record. This was supposed to be a big year in Lincoln, with Keller replacing Taylor at QB and Big Red being another year into the Callahan era. Say "Good-bye" to the Callahan era in Lincoln. I'd give Charlie Weis a couple more years in South Bend, but this should be the end for Callahan ... and I don't have to go far out on the limb to predict that it will be. You can't lose three straight that badly. Nebraska has more talent than that. The results we're seeing from the Cornhuskers are ones you might expect to see posted by Baylor, which is lacking in talent. But, at least the Bears usually show up and compete, which is more than you can say for the Huskers right now.
Or, they could go in the tank. After bad losses to Missouri, Oklahoma State and Texas A&M, things aren't looking good in Lincoln. Looking ahead, the Cornhuskers see road games at Texas and Kansas in their immediate future. Then, they host K-State and go to Boulder to face CU.
In a year where Michigan was trashed early, Miami and Florida State have been mediocre and Nebraska is going in the tank. They're 4-4 and could be headed for a 4-8 or 5-7 record. This was supposed to be a big year in Lincoln, with Keller replacing Taylor at QB and Big Red being another year into the Callahan era. Say "Good-bye" to the Callahan era in Lincoln. I'd give Charlie Weis a couple more years in South Bend, but this should be the end for Callahan ... and I don't have to go far out on the limb to predict that it will be. You can't lose three straight that badly. Nebraska has more talent than that. The results we're seeing from the Cornhuskers are ones you might expect to see posted by Baylor, which is lacking in talent. But, at least the Bears usually show up and compete, which is more than you can say for the Huskers right now.
An assist for the Tigers (of LSU)
Trailing 17-13 in the 4th quarter against Auburn, LSU faced a 3rd and goal from about the 5. Just after the snap, a flag was thrown. The result of the play was an LSU TD. Todd Blackledge speculated that the call was for not enough (only 6) men on the line of scrimmage. It was pretty obvious that the WR (who would have been the 7th) wasn't on the line. Along with the WR, who was more than a yard off the line, there was a TE in motion, the QB and two RB's (5 total). So, the official was right to throw the flag. I don't understand why he decided after the fact that it wasn't actually a penalty.
Apparently, that is not a play that is reviewable. I don't know if I could get a full copy of the college rulebook, but I'm sure there is a cut and dry rule about having 7 men on the line. It's not a judgment call. Why isn't it reviewable? It shouldn't need to be reviewable ... but it should be reviewable. The refs shouldn't screw it up, but, apparently, they do from time to time. Is 12 men on the field not reviewable?
Auburn hasn't done anything in the second half and it appears that LSU is the better team. But, that's not for the officials to decide. The officials need to enforce the rules in a fair manner, which they aren't doing if they are consistently blowing calls like that.
Apparently, that is not a play that is reviewable. I don't know if I could get a full copy of the college rulebook, but I'm sure there is a cut and dry rule about having 7 men on the line. It's not a judgment call. Why isn't it reviewable? It shouldn't need to be reviewable ... but it should be reviewable. The refs shouldn't screw it up, but, apparently, they do from time to time. Is 12 men on the field not reviewable?
Auburn hasn't done anything in the second half and it appears that LSU is the better team. But, that's not for the officials to decide. The officials need to enforce the rules in a fair manner, which they aren't doing if they are consistently blowing calls like that.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Newsflash: Spielman lobbies for Ohio State
Chris Spielman claims his alma mater, the Ohio State Buckeyes, should be ranked at #1 because they are undefeated. His partner in the booth had OU at #1. Of course, Spielman's lobbying for Colt Brennan as Heisman-worthy, despite not putting him in his top 3. Brennan has 10 interceptions, including 5 against Idaho and 4 against San Jose State. He does have 20 TD's, but he's not Heisman-worthy.
Anyway, back to Ohio State and the idea of undefeated teams being inherently better than one-loss teams. Proponents of Ohio State (and BC and others) point to them beating the teams on their schedule. The common quote is "All you can do is beat the teams on your schedule." The problem is, the teams on the schedule aren't plotted out by some "Random Schedule Generator". Ohio State scheduled Youngstown State, Akron, Washington and Kent State for their non-conference schedule. I don't know when the Washington game was scheduled, but the Huskies have been down for a while, although Ty Willingham and Jake Locker seem to have them on the upswing. YSU, Akron and Kent State aren't exactly juggernauts.
Whereas some teams play big games early in the season (Ohio State v. Texas in previous years), Ohio State's schedule is back-loaded. The Buckeyes play Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan in consecutive weeks starting next weekend. If they run the table, move them up. Just because they haven't lost doesn't mean they've proved they're better than LSU (who beat Florida, South Carolina and Va Tech but lost to Kentucky).
Anyway, back to Ohio State and the idea of undefeated teams being inherently better than one-loss teams. Proponents of Ohio State (and BC and others) point to them beating the teams on their schedule. The common quote is "All you can do is beat the teams on your schedule." The problem is, the teams on the schedule aren't plotted out by some "Random Schedule Generator". Ohio State scheduled Youngstown State, Akron, Washington and Kent State for their non-conference schedule. I don't know when the Washington game was scheduled, but the Huskies have been down for a while, although Ty Willingham and Jake Locker seem to have them on the upswing. YSU, Akron and Kent State aren't exactly juggernauts.
Whereas some teams play big games early in the season (Ohio State v. Texas in previous years), Ohio State's schedule is back-loaded. The Buckeyes play Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan in consecutive weeks starting next weekend. If they run the table, move them up. Just because they haven't lost doesn't mean they've proved they're better than LSU (who beat Florida, South Carolina and Va Tech but lost to Kentucky).
Unfair catch
Louisville punted with 13:18 left in the third quarter. As the UConn returner moved into position to catch the ball, he clearly signaled for a fair catch near his own 25 yard line. It was a smart play, as an unimpeded Louisville gunner was in position to blow him up if he didn't make a fair catch. He made the catch, the Louisville guy held up ... everything was normal. Then, the UConn guy took off running ... all the way to the end zone.
The announcers said "But there's a lesson to be learned, even though the fair catch signal was on, you go to the whistle."
Apparently, this play is not reviewable. WTF? The guy obviously signaled for a fair catch. The officials obviously blew it. The returner should have been penalized for running after making a fair catch! It's against the rules to run after signaling for a fair catch.
You don't go to the whistle on a fair catch because if you blow up the returner after a fair catch, you get a 15-yard penalty. Chris Spielman is saying the lesson to be learned is to play through the whistle. That is just asinine. If you signal for a fair catch, you are giving up the ability to run so that you don't get nailed. If the Louisville guy nails a returner who signals for a fair catch, he'll get a penalty 99.9% of the time. Spielman's lack of common sense should get him pulled off the air. There is no excuse for such idiotic commentary.
Then, the officials had the audacity to call a ticky-tack holding penalty on a long kick return on the next play. Way to go guys. You can probably call holding on every return (if not every play). It was nice that you screwed Louisville over twice.
Here's the question I want answered: why is a fair catch not reviewable? My guess is that it will be reviewable in the near future. It's pretty obvious to look at a replay (or real-time footage) and see if the returner is signaling for a fair catch.
Usually, judgment calls aren't reviewable. Maybe, the rule makers think a fair catch signal is a judgment call. If so, that is awful ... the coverage team is supposed to have to make a judgment about whether or not the returner raising his arm above his head constitutes a fair catch? Running at full speed, fighting blocks, the players are supposed to make a judgment call? Perfect.
If that play is not reviewable, maybe it is time for an entirely different change. Perhaps, they need to do away with the fair catch as it currently exists. If you are going to catch it, you are fair game. Or, to get a fair catch, you have to catch the ball after taking a knee - because you are down if your knee is down. Then, the play would be reviewable because whether or not your knee is down is reviewable. I don't think this extreme is necessary, but maybe there needs to be a clarification of the fair catch rule and whether or not the call is made has to be reviewable.
The announcers said "But there's a lesson to be learned, even though the fair catch signal was on, you go to the whistle."
Apparently, this play is not reviewable. WTF? The guy obviously signaled for a fair catch. The officials obviously blew it. The returner should have been penalized for running after making a fair catch! It's against the rules to run after signaling for a fair catch.
You don't go to the whistle on a fair catch because if you blow up the returner after a fair catch, you get a 15-yard penalty. Chris Spielman is saying the lesson to be learned is to play through the whistle. That is just asinine. If you signal for a fair catch, you are giving up the ability to run so that you don't get nailed. If the Louisville guy nails a returner who signals for a fair catch, he'll get a penalty 99.9% of the time. Spielman's lack of common sense should get him pulled off the air. There is no excuse for such idiotic commentary.
Then, the officials had the audacity to call a ticky-tack holding penalty on a long kick return on the next play. Way to go guys. You can probably call holding on every return (if not every play). It was nice that you screwed Louisville over twice.
Here's the question I want answered: why is a fair catch not reviewable? My guess is that it will be reviewable in the near future. It's pretty obvious to look at a replay (or real-time footage) and see if the returner is signaling for a fair catch.
Usually, judgment calls aren't reviewable. Maybe, the rule makers think a fair catch signal is a judgment call. If so, that is awful ... the coverage team is supposed to have to make a judgment about whether or not the returner raising his arm above his head constitutes a fair catch? Running at full speed, fighting blocks, the players are supposed to make a judgment call? Perfect.
If that play is not reviewable, maybe it is time for an entirely different change. Perhaps, they need to do away with the fair catch as it currently exists. If you are going to catch it, you are fair game. Or, to get a fair catch, you have to catch the ball after taking a knee - because you are down if your knee is down. Then, the play would be reviewable because whether or not your knee is down is reviewable. I don't think this extreme is necessary, but maybe there needs to be a clarification of the fair catch rule and whether or not the call is made has to be reviewable.
One year?
Joe Torre has received some bad press for rejecting the offer from the New York Yankees. I'm not going to pile on at this point because I don't know why he's not sticking around the Bronx. If Torre declined the offer to come back because his base salary was reduced to $5 million ... well, I guess it's his call, but I think the monetary compensation in the contract offer was actually quite fair. A playoff appearance would have earned him an additional million. If he guided the Yanks to the World Series, he'd make $8 million total.
Initially, I thought maybe the Yankees didn't want to bring Torre back. At this point, I think they wanted him for one more year. It is pretty clear that they don't have a clear replacement for Torre. If the Yankees missed the playoffs next year or flamed out early again, it would be easier to justify not bringing Torre back. Plus, at that point, they probably wouldn't also be dealing with as many potential exits by players (Posada, Rivera, A-Rod, Abreu, Pettitte, Clemens). Bringing Torre back for another year might allow you to get some of those guys back more easily (for less money) than will now be the case.
But, I think the bigger problem was that Torre saw the offer for what it was. It was an audition, after 12 years of service. If he produced the desired results, he'd be back guaranteed ... but what are the chances the Yankees will go deep into the playoffs next year? Plus, Torre would be subjected to all the speculation (maybe more) than he had to deal with this season. One way or another, the Yankee brass orchestrated Torre's exit, even if it didn't come exactly the way they had planned.
Initially, I thought maybe the Yankees didn't want to bring Torre back. At this point, I think they wanted him for one more year. It is pretty clear that they don't have a clear replacement for Torre. If the Yankees missed the playoffs next year or flamed out early again, it would be easier to justify not bringing Torre back. Plus, at that point, they probably wouldn't also be dealing with as many potential exits by players (Posada, Rivera, A-Rod, Abreu, Pettitte, Clemens). Bringing Torre back for another year might allow you to get some of those guys back more easily (for less money) than will now be the case.
But, I think the bigger problem was that Torre saw the offer for what it was. It was an audition, after 12 years of service. If he produced the desired results, he'd be back guaranteed ... but what are the chances the Yankees will go deep into the playoffs next year? Plus, Torre would be subjected to all the speculation (maybe more) than he had to deal with this season. One way or another, the Yankee brass orchestrated Torre's exit, even if it didn't come exactly the way they had planned.
No Bull
In an article about USF being knocked out of the national title picture, Mark Schlabach wrote "The Bulls even had six points taken off the scoreboard." And, USF coach Jim Leavitt remarked after the game that "It was a huge call, no doubt about it." Leavitt went on to add that it had nothing to do with the second half, which saw the Scarlet Knights rally from a 17-13 halftime deficit to take the game 30-27.
The officials made the right call. It was fairly obvious that the South Florida player (Schlabach says it was Tyrone McKenzie) tossed the ball forward when he was being tackled so that one of his teammates could grab it and make it the rest of the way to the end zone (Schlabach has it being Trae Williams who actually picked it up and scored). It was obviously an illegal forward pass. So, while they did have 6 points taken off the board, it's a little misleading because the points never should have been up there in the first place.
Schlabach mentions all the things that went wrong for the Bulls, from the missed FG's to the points being taken off the board. What he fails to address are some of the miscues by Rutgers that gave USF extra chances. Rutgers muffed a punt in the second quarter that led directly to a USF TD. They had the FG blocked and returned a fair distance when the six points were taken off the board and they muffed another punt early in the 3rd quarter, handing the ball back to USF. Then, late in the 4th quarter, Ray Rice fumbled when Rutgers was trying to salt the game away. So, it wasn't exactly a clean game by the Scarlet Knights.
After the fact, let's go back and look at the big mistakes (and some of the big plays) and see how a less crazy game might have unfolded.
Play #1: Fake punt on Rutgers' first possession that led to a FG. Let's say they just punted. The game would be 0-0. USF, subsequently, drove down the field for a FG, which would give them a 3-0 lead. Rutgers goes 3 and out on their next possession and then the teams trade TD's. USF leads 10-7 early in the 2nd.
Play #2: Tim Brown muffs a Delbert Alvarado punt. Let's say he makes the catch. This wipes out the 7 points on the Grothe to Hester TD and extra point. Instead of being 17-10 USF (actual), the game remains at 10-7. Rutgers drove and had a FG attempt, but it was blocked. Then, Alvarado missed a FG and Ito made one for Rutgers on the next possession. That ties the game at 10, rather than being 17-13 as really happened.
Moving to the second half, the Teel to Underwood TD would make it 17-10 Rutgers.
Play #3: Brown muffs another punt. But, Alvarado has his FG attempt blocked. So, that's a wash. Wiping it out doesn't change the score. Rutgers is still up 17-10 (actual score is 20-17 Rutgers).
Play #4: Rutgers fakes a 32 yard FG. Depaola to Brock nets the Scarlet Knights a TD. Let's wipe the TD off the board and make it a FG, instead. Thus, Rutgers leads 20-10, rather than 27-17. Coincidentally, the margin is still the same.
The rest of the game plays out fairly straightforward. They trade FG's to make it 23-13 (actual score was 30-20). Then, Ford ran for a TD to end a bullish drive by USF to cut the lead to 3 points. Rice's fumble didn't affect the score because USF was forced to punt after they recovered the fumble.
South Florida is probably out of the national title picture. I don't think it's that bad. I realize they have the same number of losses as LSU, Oklahoma, Oregon, Cal and USC. But, unlike those schools, USF doesn't have a conference title game (an additional difficult game at the end of the schedule) like LSU and OU or a deep stable of elite teams in their conference like the Pac-10. If Booty and Longshore weren't injured, would USC have lost to Stanford and would Cal have lost to Oregon State? I doubt it. And, while USC hasn't been torching opponents this year (and I despise USC, so I hate giving them credit), they have been finding ways to win games. Maybe it's a name thing that will keep a 1 loss USF team out of the national title picture. I hope not. If it happens, I hope it's because there are two teams out there who are better than the Bulls, and I think there are.
The officials made the right call. It was fairly obvious that the South Florida player (Schlabach says it was Tyrone McKenzie) tossed the ball forward when he was being tackled so that one of his teammates could grab it and make it the rest of the way to the end zone (Schlabach has it being Trae Williams who actually picked it up and scored). It was obviously an illegal forward pass. So, while they did have 6 points taken off the board, it's a little misleading because the points never should have been up there in the first place.
Schlabach mentions all the things that went wrong for the Bulls, from the missed FG's to the points being taken off the board. What he fails to address are some of the miscues by Rutgers that gave USF extra chances. Rutgers muffed a punt in the second quarter that led directly to a USF TD. They had the FG blocked and returned a fair distance when the six points were taken off the board and they muffed another punt early in the 3rd quarter, handing the ball back to USF. Then, late in the 4th quarter, Ray Rice fumbled when Rutgers was trying to salt the game away. So, it wasn't exactly a clean game by the Scarlet Knights.
After the fact, let's go back and look at the big mistakes (and some of the big plays) and see how a less crazy game might have unfolded.
Play #1: Fake punt on Rutgers' first possession that led to a FG. Let's say they just punted. The game would be 0-0. USF, subsequently, drove down the field for a FG, which would give them a 3-0 lead. Rutgers goes 3 and out on their next possession and then the teams trade TD's. USF leads 10-7 early in the 2nd.
Play #2: Tim Brown muffs a Delbert Alvarado punt. Let's say he makes the catch. This wipes out the 7 points on the Grothe to Hester TD and extra point. Instead of being 17-10 USF (actual), the game remains at 10-7. Rutgers drove and had a FG attempt, but it was blocked. Then, Alvarado missed a FG and Ito made one for Rutgers on the next possession. That ties the game at 10, rather than being 17-13 as really happened.
Moving to the second half, the Teel to Underwood TD would make it 17-10 Rutgers.
Play #3: Brown muffs another punt. But, Alvarado has his FG attempt blocked. So, that's a wash. Wiping it out doesn't change the score. Rutgers is still up 17-10 (actual score is 20-17 Rutgers).
Play #4: Rutgers fakes a 32 yard FG. Depaola to Brock nets the Scarlet Knights a TD. Let's wipe the TD off the board and make it a FG, instead. Thus, Rutgers leads 20-10, rather than 27-17. Coincidentally, the margin is still the same.
The rest of the game plays out fairly straightforward. They trade FG's to make it 23-13 (actual score was 30-20). Then, Ford ran for a TD to end a bullish drive by USF to cut the lead to 3 points. Rice's fumble didn't affect the score because USF was forced to punt after they recovered the fumble.
South Florida is probably out of the national title picture. I don't think it's that bad. I realize they have the same number of losses as LSU, Oklahoma, Oregon, Cal and USC. But, unlike those schools, USF doesn't have a conference title game (an additional difficult game at the end of the schedule) like LSU and OU or a deep stable of elite teams in their conference like the Pac-10. If Booty and Longshore weren't injured, would USC have lost to Stanford and would Cal have lost to Oregon State? I doubt it. And, while USC hasn't been torching opponents this year (and I despise USC, so I hate giving them credit), they have been finding ways to win games. Maybe it's a name thing that will keep a 1 loss USF team out of the national title picture. I hope not. If it happens, I hope it's because there are two teams out there who are better than the Bulls, and I think there are.
Why waste Sabathia?
Josh Beckett outdueled the Indians ace again, sending the ALCS back to Boston. CC Sabathia pitched well, but he wasn't going to beat Beckett tonight. Now, the Indians will face Curt Schilling in game 6. A win by Boston will force the Indians to send out Jake Westbrook in game 7.
Wouldn't the Indians be better off with Sabathia in game 6 and Fausto Carmona in game 7? I understand that Westbrook and 4th starter Paul Byrd had more success against the Red Sox than Sabathia and Carmona, but is that trend going to hold? If the Red Sox come back to win the series, I think the Indians (and everyone else) should take notice of wasting one of their top 2 pitchers by sacrificing him to the best playoff pitcher right now, Josh Beckett.
Wouldn't the Indians be better off with Sabathia in game 6 and Fausto Carmona in game 7? I understand that Westbrook and 4th starter Paul Byrd had more success against the Red Sox than Sabathia and Carmona, but is that trend going to hold? If the Red Sox come back to win the series, I think the Indians (and everyone else) should take notice of wasting one of their top 2 pitchers by sacrificing him to the best playoff pitcher right now, Josh Beckett.
Related:
Thursday, October 18, 2007
More Advice for Urban
South Florida is playing Rutgers tonight in a big college football match-up. Why? Because USF is #2 in the BCS and has a chance to represent the Big East in the national championship game. One potential opponent in that game is Ohio State, which now resides at #1 in the BCS rankings.
What does it say about college football if the national championship game is a contest between two teams who aren't in any of the top 3 conferences in college football? In basketball, it wouldn't be a big deal, because there is a tournament and all the conferences, especially the power ones, are represented. Nothing against the Buckeyes or the Bulls, but I think Ohio State v. USF is an awful match-up as the last game of the year; right now, I don't think they are the two best teams in the nation.
I'm not calling out Urban Meyer. I mention him by name only because it has been reported that USF wants to play Florida and the Gators have turned down the Bulls. Apparently, Bobby Bowden and FSU have declined similar requests from USF ... perhaps to avoid the confusion having FSU and USF in the same game? Perhaps, that's the reason Pete Carroll and Steve Spurrier haven't scheduled a match-up between the Trojans and Gamecocks.
Getting back on topic, if Urban had been able to fit USF into the Gators' schedule this year, South Florida might not control their own destiny for the national title right now. Maybe the Bulls would have smacked the Gators, but it would have been a chance for a top SEC team to show that the SEC is the best conference in the country. On the bright side, if teams from the 4th and 5th best conferences in the country play in the national title game, maybe more teams from the SEC, Big 12 and Pac-10 will decide to diversify and bolster their non-conference schedules. Maybe.
What does it say about college football if the national championship game is a contest between two teams who aren't in any of the top 3 conferences in college football? In basketball, it wouldn't be a big deal, because there is a tournament and all the conferences, especially the power ones, are represented. Nothing against the Buckeyes or the Bulls, but I think Ohio State v. USF is an awful match-up as the last game of the year; right now, I don't think they are the two best teams in the nation.
I'm not calling out Urban Meyer. I mention him by name only because it has been reported that USF wants to play Florida and the Gators have turned down the Bulls. Apparently, Bobby Bowden and FSU have declined similar requests from USF ... perhaps to avoid the confusion having FSU and USF in the same game? Perhaps, that's the reason Pete Carroll and Steve Spurrier haven't scheduled a match-up between the Trojans and Gamecocks.
Getting back on topic, if Urban had been able to fit USF into the Gators' schedule this year, South Florida might not control their own destiny for the national title right now. Maybe the Bulls would have smacked the Gators, but it would have been a chance for a top SEC team to show that the SEC is the best conference in the country. On the bright side, if teams from the 4th and 5th best conferences in the country play in the national title game, maybe more teams from the SEC, Big 12 and Pac-10 will decide to diversify and bolster their non-conference schedules. Maybe.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
What's wrong with getting it right?
Ole Miss was upset about the events at the end of their loss to Alabama. A long pass was invalidated on a replay that, apparently, showed the Ole Miss receiver went out of bounds and was the first one to touch the deep pass.
Ole Miss coach Ed Orgeron offered up this bit of genius:
"The game should not end on a judgment call from the box ... Not after a game like that."
I could be wrong, but I think the replay officials were determining who touched the ball first, not determining the effectiveness of a persuasive essay or the role of carbon emissions on global warming. So, is it a "judgment call"? Perhaps, but not one that is all that complicated. If they have a view that shows the play conclusively, it should be rather simple ... who touched the ball first? (Note: I haven't seen the play in question, so I'm not saying the Ole Miss player touched it first. I don't know.)
And, Coach Orgeron, should the call not be made correctly late in a game? Should they not try to get it right in a close game? Both teams have the right to have the game officiated fairly and to the best of the officials' abilities. Personally, I think it's more important that they get it right late in the game because it's harder to recover from bad calls because you just don't have enough time.
If the call wasn't a good one, that's fine. Blast the replay officials for making the wrong call. But, you have no grounds to complain about a good call because it hurt your team. Maybe your receiver shouldn't have run out of bounds. The system isn't flawed merely because a call goes against you.
Put yourself in the shoes of Alabama and Nick Saban for a second. You'd have a right to be upset if they didn't review it or reviewed it and decided not to overturn a bad call because it's the popular thing to do for the home fans (the game was at Ole Miss). Coach Orgeron has every right to be disappointed. But, you can't add subjectivity to the review process and he shouldn't be advocating it.
Ole Miss coach Ed Orgeron offered up this bit of genius:
"The game should not end on a judgment call from the box ... Not after a game like that."
I could be wrong, but I think the replay officials were determining who touched the ball first, not determining the effectiveness of a persuasive essay or the role of carbon emissions on global warming. So, is it a "judgment call"? Perhaps, but not one that is all that complicated. If they have a view that shows the play conclusively, it should be rather simple ... who touched the ball first? (Note: I haven't seen the play in question, so I'm not saying the Ole Miss player touched it first. I don't know.)
And, Coach Orgeron, should the call not be made correctly late in a game? Should they not try to get it right in a close game? Both teams have the right to have the game officiated fairly and to the best of the officials' abilities. Personally, I think it's more important that they get it right late in the game because it's harder to recover from bad calls because you just don't have enough time.
If the call wasn't a good one, that's fine. Blast the replay officials for making the wrong call. But, you have no grounds to complain about a good call because it hurt your team. Maybe your receiver shouldn't have run out of bounds. The system isn't flawed merely because a call goes against you.
Put yourself in the shoes of Alabama and Nick Saban for a second. You'd have a right to be upset if they didn't review it or reviewed it and decided not to overturn a bad call because it's the popular thing to do for the home fans (the game was at Ole Miss). Coach Orgeron has every right to be disappointed. But, you can't add subjectivity to the review process and he shouldn't be advocating it.
Green should go
Apparently, Trent Green is not going to decide on his own that he should retire. I'm not a concussion expert, but it seems reasonable to assume that even if the tests come back normal, they might not the next time his head is slammed into the turf by a 300 lb defensive lineman. Plus, the additional pounding can't be good for Green's long-term mental health.
At this point, the Miami Dolphins should do the right thing and make a change at QB. Trent Green should not be the starter, even if he is cleared to play. The Dolphins are 0-6. They are six games back in the division (for those of you who don't watch sports and just happened on this blog randomly, the New England Patriots are 6-0). More importantly, they are four games behind Baltimore; the Ravens currently occupy the last AFC playoff spot. When the bye week (week 9) rolls around, the Dolphins might be 0-8 (they play New England and the New York Giants the next two weeks). Then, the fork would be inserted into the Dolphins, if it isn't already.
Trent Green is not the future in Miami. As a 37 year-old with a history of severe concussions, he's not the future for any football team, even if he can still sling it around a little bit. Is 27 year-old Cleo Lemon the answer? Is 26 year-old rookie John Beck the answer? It seems like a good time for the Dolphins to turn the team over to Lemon and try to make some lemonade out of a, so far, sour season. And, the team should probably take a look at Beck in late-season action to see if they need to move in a different direction (Woodson, Brohm, Ryan, Ainge, etc.) for the future. I respect Green's desire to play and compete for his teammates, but I don't see how him playing (and potentially being hurt worse) benefits the Dolphins ... they were 0-4 when he got hurt against the Texans in game 5.
At this point, the Miami Dolphins should do the right thing and make a change at QB. Trent Green should not be the starter, even if he is cleared to play. The Dolphins are 0-6. They are six games back in the division (for those of you who don't watch sports and just happened on this blog randomly, the New England Patriots are 6-0). More importantly, they are four games behind Baltimore; the Ravens currently occupy the last AFC playoff spot. When the bye week (week 9) rolls around, the Dolphins might be 0-8 (they play New England and the New York Giants the next two weeks). Then, the fork would be inserted into the Dolphins, if it isn't already.
Trent Green is not the future in Miami. As a 37 year-old with a history of severe concussions, he's not the future for any football team, even if he can still sling it around a little bit. Is 27 year-old Cleo Lemon the answer? Is 26 year-old rookie John Beck the answer? It seems like a good time for the Dolphins to turn the team over to Lemon and try to make some lemonade out of a, so far, sour season. And, the team should probably take a look at Beck in late-season action to see if they need to move in a different direction (Woodson, Brohm, Ryan, Ainge, etc.) for the future. I respect Green's desire to play and compete for his teammates, but I don't see how him playing (and potentially being hurt worse) benefits the Dolphins ... they were 0-4 when he got hurt against the Texans in game 5.
Monday, October 15, 2007
A little upset after a big upset
Kentucky Coach Rich Brooks was on ESPN First Take this morning and was asked for thoughts on the BCS rankings and being "still a few spots behind LSU" by Jay Crawford. Brooks responded "usually if you beat somebody, you ought to be moving ahead of them." Brooks went on to praise LSU as an elite team, but I think Brooks' lack of perspective is astonishing.
LSU is ranked 4th in the BCS standings. Kentucky is 7th. Nestled in between, at number 6, is Steve Spurrier's South Carolina team. Sure, Kentucky beat LSU at home. But, 9 days before that, Kentucky lost at South Carolina. South Carolina lost at LSU two weeks before that. I'd be willing to listen to a case for Kentucky not being ranked third among that trio, but I'm not going to make one. Kentucky's win came in OT. While it was a great win for the Wildcats (and one-loss teams all across the nation), it was the least decisive win in the round-robin we are discussing. Additionally, Kentucky's other key wins this year are the classic game against Louisville and against Arkansas, which is winless in the SEC (0-3) this season. South Carolina gets the nod over Kentucky for the Gamecocks' win over Georgia. LSU has wins over Virginia Tech and Florida to propel them to the top of the group, even after the loss in Lexington.
I will agree with Brooks that the current BCS rankings don't really matter much ... it's what they look like at the end of the season. In their last five games, Kentucky plays Florida, Mississippi State and Tennessee at home and travels to Vanderbilt and Georgia for games. Georgia, Tennessee and, especially, Florida are highly-regarded teams. MSU, other than being steam-rolled by LSU, has been competitive and Vandy almost knocked off Georgia. If Kentucky can win out and USC loses to Vandy, Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida or Clemson (tough games), they will win the SEC East. A win against the SEC West champ would propel them into the national title picture.
Right now, Kentucky has one huge win and a couple good ones. 7th in the nation seems about right.
LSU is ranked 4th in the BCS standings. Kentucky is 7th. Nestled in between, at number 6, is Steve Spurrier's South Carolina team. Sure, Kentucky beat LSU at home. But, 9 days before that, Kentucky lost at South Carolina. South Carolina lost at LSU two weeks before that. I'd be willing to listen to a case for Kentucky not being ranked third among that trio, but I'm not going to make one. Kentucky's win came in OT. While it was a great win for the Wildcats (and one-loss teams all across the nation), it was the least decisive win in the round-robin we are discussing. Additionally, Kentucky's other key wins this year are the classic game against Louisville and against Arkansas, which is winless in the SEC (0-3) this season. South Carolina gets the nod over Kentucky for the Gamecocks' win over Georgia. LSU has wins over Virginia Tech and Florida to propel them to the top of the group, even after the loss in Lexington.
I will agree with Brooks that the current BCS rankings don't really matter much ... it's what they look like at the end of the season. In their last five games, Kentucky plays Florida, Mississippi State and Tennessee at home and travels to Vanderbilt and Georgia for games. Georgia, Tennessee and, especially, Florida are highly-regarded teams. MSU, other than being steam-rolled by LSU, has been competitive and Vandy almost knocked off Georgia. If Kentucky can win out and USC loses to Vandy, Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida or Clemson (tough games), they will win the SEC East. A win against the SEC West champ would propel them into the national title picture.
Right now, Kentucky has one huge win and a couple good ones. 7th in the nation seems about right.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Fix the Rules Now
Dick Jauron became the latest coach to employ the cheap trick of calling a time out and forcing the kicking team to re-kick a last second FG. He should be the last.
I understand that changing the rules during the season could, possibly, be seen as being unfair. Outlawing those types of time out calls wouldn't be unfair in that it wouldn't give any team a competitive advantage. In a given game, the new rule could prevent a team from employing the tactic and possibly weaseling out a cheap win. But, who thought going into tonight that the Bills would be in a position where they would use the move. The NFL should make a temporary rule for the remainder of the season - it can be revisited by the rules committee during the off-season - to prevent all the coaches from looking like tactless rule-benders.
And, while they're at it, the NFL needs to look at the force out rule on catches near the sidelines. It was ruled that Terrell Owens wouldn't have come down in-bounds on a play in the second half against the Bills. He was along the left sideline and he got his left foot down in-bounds. He was pushed by a defender and his right foot (his inside foot) came down about a foot out-of-bounds. It seemed pretty obvious to me that Owens wouldn't have had any trouble getting his right foot down in-bounds. His left foot was in by a fair margin and his right foot, almost certainly, would have come down farther from the sideline than his left foot did. I don't know how both officials along the sideline blew it. But, more than that, I don't understand why that call can't be reviewed. Replay officials have a better chance of getting it right because they can slow down the play before contact and extrapolate out where the player would go if he was not interfered with.
I understand that changing the rules during the season could, possibly, be seen as being unfair. Outlawing those types of time out calls wouldn't be unfair in that it wouldn't give any team a competitive advantage. In a given game, the new rule could prevent a team from employing the tactic and possibly weaseling out a cheap win. But, who thought going into tonight that the Bills would be in a position where they would use the move. The NFL should make a temporary rule for the remainder of the season - it can be revisited by the rules committee during the off-season - to prevent all the coaches from looking like tactless rule-benders.
And, while they're at it, the NFL needs to look at the force out rule on catches near the sidelines. It was ruled that Terrell Owens wouldn't have come down in-bounds on a play in the second half against the Bills. He was along the left sideline and he got his left foot down in-bounds. He was pushed by a defender and his right foot (his inside foot) came down about a foot out-of-bounds. It seemed pretty obvious to me that Owens wouldn't have had any trouble getting his right foot down in-bounds. His left foot was in by a fair margin and his right foot, almost certainly, would have come down farther from the sideline than his left foot did. I don't know how both officials along the sideline blew it. But, more than that, I don't understand why that call can't be reviewed. Replay officials have a better chance of getting it right because they can slow down the play before contact and extrapolate out where the player would go if he was not interfered with.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Magic Number 41
Up 34-6 over Nebraska in the 4th quarter, Missouri faked a FG and scored a TD to stretch the margin to 41-6. If anyone has a reasonable explanation for running a fake FG up by 4 TD's late, please clue me in. The only half-ass ideas I have are: (1) they really wanted to run up the score on their Big 12 North rivals, (2) someone affiliated with the team placed a bet and took a REALLY bad spread (j/k), (3) they wanted to practice their fake in a game that counts or (4) they wanted to let people know that they are willing to run fakes in order to alleviate some pressure on their actual FG attempts.
The problem with (1) is that running that type of play in that type of game is generally frowned upon, and it might gain a little sympathy for Nebraska and detract slightly from the beatdown the Mizzou Tigers laid on the Cornhuskers.
Obviously, I wasn't serious about (2) and I can't imagine (3) is the actual reason. I would think it would be helpful to keep your fake in the bag until you really need it. I guess it's possible that this is not their best fake FG play and they wanted to showcase this one in preparation for running something else. But, it seems like any heightened awareness of potential fakes will take away from the effectiveness of the play.
So, that leaves me at (4). I'd love if someone would give me a bulletproof rationale for a play that was, superficially, a little bush-league.
The problem with (1) is that running that type of play in that type of game is generally frowned upon, and it might gain a little sympathy for Nebraska and detract slightly from the beatdown the Mizzou Tigers laid on the Cornhuskers.
Obviously, I wasn't serious about (2) and I can't imagine (3) is the actual reason. I would think it would be helpful to keep your fake in the bag until you really need it. I guess it's possible that this is not their best fake FG play and they wanted to showcase this one in preparation for running something else. But, it seems like any heightened awareness of potential fakes will take away from the effectiveness of the play.
So, that leaves me at (4). I'd love if someone would give me a bulletproof rationale for a play that was, superficially, a little bush-league.
3 Yards Behind
A few times a game I wonder "Where do they find these guys?" after an announcer says something idiotic. The announcers in the Florida v. LSU game didn't disappoint. On a Matt Flynn pass, on of the commentators said that the pass was 3 yards behind where it should have been.
Now, it is possible that a ball could be three yards behind a receiver. But, there is no way THAT ball was three yards behind. It was a slant and the receiver got his hands on the ball. A throw directly to or just in front of the receiver would have been optimal. Let's give the announcer the benefit of the doubt and say that a throw 1.5 feet in front of the receiver would have been the correct place to put the ball. If it was 3 YARDS behind that point, it would have been 7.5 feet behind the receiver. Unless Inspector Gadget is suiting up for the Tigers this season, I don't think any of the LSU receivers would get their hands on a ball 7.5 feet behind them. In fact, they probably wouldn't get within 5 feet of the ball.
Now, it is possible that a ball could be three yards behind a receiver. But, there is no way THAT ball was three yards behind. It was a slant and the receiver got his hands on the ball. A throw directly to or just in front of the receiver would have been optimal. Let's give the announcer the benefit of the doubt and say that a throw 1.5 feet in front of the receiver would have been the correct place to put the ball. If it was 3 YARDS behind that point, it would have been 7.5 feet behind the receiver. Unless Inspector Gadget is suiting up for the Tigers this season, I don't think any of the LSU receivers would get their hands on a ball 7.5 feet behind them. In fact, they probably wouldn't get within 5 feet of the ball.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Manny being Manny
Manny Ramirez put the Angels down 0-2 in the ALDS when he took K-Rod deep in the bottom of the 9th for a three-run shot. The home run came after the Angels intentionally walked David Ortiz. After the game, a reporter asked Angels Manager Mike Scioscia about the move.
Obviously, the move didn't work out for the Angels. But, it was a no-brainer. Rodriguez had better numbers against Ramirez than against Ortiz. Also, Ortiz is regarded as one of the premier clutch hitters in baseball. Interestingly, K-Rod, like Boston Closer Jonathan Papelbon, is better against lefties than righties, generally. But, it's not a marked difference and the other factors are more compelling.
The announcers agreed with Scioscia. They predicted before Ortiz strolled to the plate that he might as well not even bring his bat, because he was headed for first base on an IBB. K-Rod got caught trying to sneak a fastball by Ramirez. Right move, wrong result. I just don't understand why the reporter would ask Scioscia about it. Sometimes, the right move yields unfavorable results. That's why you play the games. But, put the focus on the pitch and what Ramirez did with it. That's the story, not the managerial move.
Obviously, the move didn't work out for the Angels. But, it was a no-brainer. Rodriguez had better numbers against Ramirez than against Ortiz. Also, Ortiz is regarded as one of the premier clutch hitters in baseball. Interestingly, K-Rod, like Boston Closer Jonathan Papelbon, is better against lefties than righties, generally. But, it's not a marked difference and the other factors are more compelling.
The announcers agreed with Scioscia. They predicted before Ortiz strolled to the plate that he might as well not even bring his bat, because he was headed for first base on an IBB. K-Rod got caught trying to sneak a fastball by Ramirez. Right move, wrong result. I just don't understand why the reporter would ask Scioscia about it. Sometimes, the right move yields unfavorable results. That's why you play the games. But, put the focus on the pitch and what Ramirez did with it. That's the story, not the managerial move.
In Defense of Joba
After the Yankees lost game two to the Indians, Yankee RP Joba Chamberlain refused to blame the "Canadian Soldiers" that invaded Jacobs Field late in the game. Don't worry Joba, the sportscenter crew has your back. Linda Cohn repeatedly referenced the bugs as a reason for Chamberlain's wildness.
Maybe, the pressure of the moment had as much to do with Joba's wildness as the bugs. He had two wild pitches and hit a batter. During the regular season, he only had one wild pitch and one hit batter. Maybe it was the bugs, but Fausto Carmona - the Indians SP - had bugs all around him pitching late in the game and didn't have any major problems.
The bugs weren't bugging the other pitchers enough to hinder their performance. So, I doubt Chamberlain wants people blaming it on the bugs. That excuse implies Chamberlain lacks the mental fortitude to deal with non-ideal situations. What happens if it snows during the next series? Is that going to throw him off as well?
Maybe, the pressure of the moment had as much to do with Joba's wildness as the bugs. He had two wild pitches and hit a batter. During the regular season, he only had one wild pitch and one hit batter. Maybe it was the bugs, but Fausto Carmona - the Indians SP - had bugs all around him pitching late in the game and didn't have any major problems.
The bugs weren't bugging the other pitchers enough to hinder their performance. So, I doubt Chamberlain wants people blaming it on the bugs. That excuse implies Chamberlain lacks the mental fortitude to deal with non-ideal situations. What happens if it snows during the next series? Is that going to throw him off as well?
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Not so sweet for Lou
The Chicago Cubs lost to the Arizona Diamondbacks in a game that saw Lou Piniella remove starter Carlos Zambrano after just 6 innings and 85 pitches. The move to the bullpen and Carlos Marmol did not work out. Lou didn't do anything horribly wrong. Unfortunately, the result has created a flurry of second-guessing.
Lou Piniella probably wants to bring Zambrano and 2nd game starter Ted Lilly back on short rest to avoid having to use Jason Marquis as a starter. Lilly, Rich Hill and Zambrano had ERA's of 3.83, 3.92 and 3.95, respectively. Marquis posted a 4.60 ERA during the regular season. Zambrano dueled D-backs ace Brandon Webb for 6 innings and the game was tied at 1. Webb pitched a scoreless top of the 7th, and Zambrano was removed to give way to Marmol, who posted a superb 1.43 ERA and allowed only 3 HR's in 69 1/3 innings this season.
Marmol has been exceptional. RP's Bob Howry, Kery Wood and Michael Wuertz have all been good for the Cubs out of the pen. My question for the second-guessers is: when is the right time for Piniella to remove Zambrano?
Brandon Webb posted a 3.01 ERA this year and in 5 years, his highest ERA for a season is 3.59. Arizona has a solid bullpen as well, headlined by closer Jose Valverde, Brandon Lyon and Tony Pena. After six and a half innings, it didn't look like the Cubs' offense was going to be exploding against Webb and Co. any time soon. If you leave Zambrano in for 3 more innings, you might make it impossible to reasonably bring him back for game 4 and you might still have to go to Marmol in a tied ballgame.
If you remember back just a bit, Ted Lilly came back on short rest and performed well after Zambrano tanked in the same situation. Perhaps Lou feels over taxing Zambrano would hinder his effectiveness in an important game 4 situation. By the numbers, Lilly and Hill should be able to hold down the fort and could put the Cubs in a position where a fresh Carlos Zambrano will be throwing for the series.
Think a little, second-guessers. Piniella probably wouldn't have removed Zambrano if he had known Marmol would give up two runs in the 7th inning. But, Piniella probably didn't see that as a likely scenario. We know what happened, but what we don't know is how Zambrano would have done in the bottom of the 7th. Maybe Reynolds takes Zambrano deep and everyone is getting on Lou for not going to Marmol? The move didn't work. Was it the optimal move? I don't know. But, it wasn't a stupid move or one that is going to cost the Cubs the series.
Lou Piniella probably wants to bring Zambrano and 2nd game starter Ted Lilly back on short rest to avoid having to use Jason Marquis as a starter. Lilly, Rich Hill and Zambrano had ERA's of 3.83, 3.92 and 3.95, respectively. Marquis posted a 4.60 ERA during the regular season. Zambrano dueled D-backs ace Brandon Webb for 6 innings and the game was tied at 1. Webb pitched a scoreless top of the 7th, and Zambrano was removed to give way to Marmol, who posted a superb 1.43 ERA and allowed only 3 HR's in 69 1/3 innings this season.
Marmol has been exceptional. RP's Bob Howry, Kery Wood and Michael Wuertz have all been good for the Cubs out of the pen. My question for the second-guessers is: when is the right time for Piniella to remove Zambrano?
Brandon Webb posted a 3.01 ERA this year and in 5 years, his highest ERA for a season is 3.59. Arizona has a solid bullpen as well, headlined by closer Jose Valverde, Brandon Lyon and Tony Pena. After six and a half innings, it didn't look like the Cubs' offense was going to be exploding against Webb and Co. any time soon. If you leave Zambrano in for 3 more innings, you might make it impossible to reasonably bring him back for game 4 and you might still have to go to Marmol in a tied ballgame.
If you remember back just a bit, Ted Lilly came back on short rest and performed well after Zambrano tanked in the same situation. Perhaps Lou feels over taxing Zambrano would hinder his effectiveness in an important game 4 situation. By the numbers, Lilly and Hill should be able to hold down the fort and could put the Cubs in a position where a fresh Carlos Zambrano will be throwing for the series.
Think a little, second-guessers. Piniella probably wouldn't have removed Zambrano if he had known Marmol would give up two runs in the 7th inning. But, Piniella probably didn't see that as a likely scenario. We know what happened, but what we don't know is how Zambrano would have done in the bottom of the 7th. Maybe Reynolds takes Zambrano deep and everyone is getting on Lou for not going to Marmol? The move didn't work. Was it the optimal move? I don't know. But, it wasn't a stupid move or one that is going to cost the Cubs the series.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Attention Voters
The Wisconsin Badgers are 5-0. But, ranking them #5 in the country is an absolute joke, even with all the loses by highly-ranked teams last weekend. I know, voters just slide undefeated teams up into spots vacated by teams dropping after losses. But, doesn't it strike you as odd that the #5 team in the country is coming off back-to-back close home wins against Iowa (which sandwiched the Wisconsin game with losses to Iowa State and Indiana) and Michigan State. This is a Wisconsin team that was tied at halftime with the Citadel Bulldogs a week after trailing UNLV 10-9 heading into the 4th quarter before escaping Vegas with a 20-13 win. I realize Wisconsin beat a Pac-10 opponent, but that was WSU in Madison ... the Cougars just lost 48-20 at Arizona.
I hear people talk about looking at the "body of work" for a team. That's a bunch of garbage. It's readily apparent that they look at records and recent results. There's a reason Wisconsin is #24 in the latest Sagarin ratings ... it's because they haven't beaten anyone and they have done so unconvincingly. It's another case of voters rewarding, or at least not punishing, lame non-conference scheduling and ignoring the play on field. The Badgers have at Illinois, at Penn State, at Ohio State and Michigan at home remaining. My guess is that they pick up a couple losses along the way, even in this year's watered down edition of the Big 10. Wisconsin should be behind unbeatens South Florida, Boston College and Kentucky. I'd probably throw them behind a few one-loss teams as well ... Oregon's loss was to Cal. Someone had to lose. Does that mean one of them should fall below mighty Wisconsin? It's asinine. Someone had to lose the South Carolina v. LSU contest as well. Does losing to one of the top 2 teams in the nation really downgrade your stock?
If Wisconsin gets by Illinois and Penn State, then maybe slide them up. If they run the table, keep advancing them. But, to grade their "body of work" as 5th in the nation at this point in the season is absolutely ludicrous.
I hear people talk about looking at the "body of work" for a team. That's a bunch of garbage. It's readily apparent that they look at records and recent results. There's a reason Wisconsin is #24 in the latest Sagarin ratings ... it's because they haven't beaten anyone and they have done so unconvincingly. It's another case of voters rewarding, or at least not punishing, lame non-conference scheduling and ignoring the play on field. The Badgers have at Illinois, at Penn State, at Ohio State and Michigan at home remaining. My guess is that they pick up a couple losses along the way, even in this year's watered down edition of the Big 10. Wisconsin should be behind unbeatens South Florida, Boston College and Kentucky. I'd probably throw them behind a few one-loss teams as well ... Oregon's loss was to Cal. Someone had to lose. Does that mean one of them should fall below mighty Wisconsin? It's asinine. Someone had to lose the South Carolina v. LSU contest as well. Does losing to one of the top 2 teams in the nation really downgrade your stock?
If Wisconsin gets by Illinois and Penn State, then maybe slide them up. If they run the table, keep advancing them. But, to grade their "body of work" as 5th in the nation at this point in the season is absolutely ludicrous.
Get a Clue, Bud
"To ask a pitcher to stand out there for 2 or 3 minutes (while a play is being reviewed) ... I really, overall, I just don't like the use of instant replay." That was the eloquent MLB Commissioner Bud Selig on PTI this afternoon when asked whether he is a proponent of instant replay in baseball.
Selig points to the Holliday play as a reason not to have replay. You can't conclusively say that Holliday didn't get in and just barely get the plate. You definitely can't say he definitively touched it either. I'll give it to Bud on that one, that was my take. I think the best angle to see whether or not he was safe was the angle the umpire had (from behind the catcher). The one from 3rd base is inconclusive and the one perpendicular to Holliday is also inconclusive. But, Bud, you can't look at one play and say "Replay wouldn't have helped, so we don't need it." That's an illogical argument that lacks the perspective you want from the person running your league.
Oh ... then, after pressure, he said "In the quiet of winter, (replay) is something I'm going to think about."
Selig stated that he doesn't want the pitcher to have to wait 2 or 3 minutes for a replay. The commish doesn't seem all that worried about the pitchers having to wait 2 or 3 (or more) minutes while managers come out to contest calls. In the time it takes for the managers to get out of the dugout, have their say, and slog back to the dugout, a replay official could take a look at a play and make the best call possible. Sure, you won't get them all right, but you have a better shot at getting it right looking at a bunch of different angles in slow motion than you do looking at one angle in real-time. Nothing against the umpires, it's just the way things work.
Woody Paige, who often comes up with off-the-wall ideas, had a reasonable idea for replay in baseball. Rather than have the managers waste time arguing calls (how often are calls reversed?), they can challenge 3 calls per game. I don't know if 3 is the right number. Personally, I think if you are right, you should be able to keep challenging ... no reason to get screwed on bad calls. But, you do have to set limits so managers don't abuse the privilege.
A reasonable system may be:
- three challenges per team
- if you are right two out of three, you earn a 4th
- you can continue to challenge indefinitely as long as you are right
Replay could be used for a number of things but, as I noted in a previous post, there really aren't that many plays that would need to be reviewed/challenged. The potential plays would include:
- whether or not a fly ball cleared the fence for a HR
- fair or foul (home runs and balls still in the field of play)
- close force outs
- tag plays (like the Holliday play in the SD v. CO game)
- catch vs. trap
- leaving early after tagging up (if they could get the replays sync'd up)
Plays that wouldn't be subject to challenge would be:
- balls and strikes (although I'd love to see an entirely automated system used - could save a lot of wear and tear on umpires)
- infield fly rule
- running out of the baseline
- balks (actually, I could go either way on this one)
Personally, I don't see a downside to a challenge/replay system. If Selig is worried about pitchers waiting a couple minutes, he can institute a "no arguing" policy. If a manager (or player, for that matter) delays the game to argue a call, the umpire should immediately eject said person. The punishment for ejections starts at a 1 game suspension and increases 1 additional game for each ejection. This would probably be unnecessary ... I just don't see replay being needed enough to make a big time difference. But, perhaps Selig would like to further limit visits to the mound by pitching coaches, as they too force pitchers to take a short break in the middle of an inning. Rain delays, can we do something about them, as well. And, is there any way we can limit pitcher changes by the opposition ... those increase the time a pitcher spends on the bench between innings.
P.S. Selig also said "We handled it just the way we should" when asked about the home run chase.
Selig points to the Holliday play as a reason not to have replay. You can't conclusively say that Holliday didn't get in and just barely get the plate. You definitely can't say he definitively touched it either. I'll give it to Bud on that one, that was my take. I think the best angle to see whether or not he was safe was the angle the umpire had (from behind the catcher). The one from 3rd base is inconclusive and the one perpendicular to Holliday is also inconclusive. But, Bud, you can't look at one play and say "Replay wouldn't have helped, so we don't need it." That's an illogical argument that lacks the perspective you want from the person running your league.
Oh ... then, after pressure, he said "In the quiet of winter, (replay) is something I'm going to think about."
Selig stated that he doesn't want the pitcher to have to wait 2 or 3 minutes for a replay. The commish doesn't seem all that worried about the pitchers having to wait 2 or 3 (or more) minutes while managers come out to contest calls. In the time it takes for the managers to get out of the dugout, have their say, and slog back to the dugout, a replay official could take a look at a play and make the best call possible. Sure, you won't get them all right, but you have a better shot at getting it right looking at a bunch of different angles in slow motion than you do looking at one angle in real-time. Nothing against the umpires, it's just the way things work.
Woody Paige, who often comes up with off-the-wall ideas, had a reasonable idea for replay in baseball. Rather than have the managers waste time arguing calls (how often are calls reversed?), they can challenge 3 calls per game. I don't know if 3 is the right number. Personally, I think if you are right, you should be able to keep challenging ... no reason to get screwed on bad calls. But, you do have to set limits so managers don't abuse the privilege.
A reasonable system may be:
- three challenges per team
- if you are right two out of three, you earn a 4th
- you can continue to challenge indefinitely as long as you are right
Replay could be used for a number of things but, as I noted in a previous post, there really aren't that many plays that would need to be reviewed/challenged. The potential plays would include:
- whether or not a fly ball cleared the fence for a HR
- fair or foul (home runs and balls still in the field of play)
- close force outs
- tag plays (like the Holliday play in the SD v. CO game)
- catch vs. trap
- leaving early after tagging up (if they could get the replays sync'd up)
Plays that wouldn't be subject to challenge would be:
- balls and strikes (although I'd love to see an entirely automated system used - could save a lot of wear and tear on umpires)
- infield fly rule
- running out of the baseline
- balks (actually, I could go either way on this one)
Personally, I don't see a downside to a challenge/replay system. If Selig is worried about pitchers waiting a couple minutes, he can institute a "no arguing" policy. If a manager (or player, for that matter) delays the game to argue a call, the umpire should immediately eject said person. The punishment for ejections starts at a 1 game suspension and increases 1 additional game for each ejection. This would probably be unnecessary ... I just don't see replay being needed enough to make a big time difference. But, perhaps Selig would like to further limit visits to the mound by pitching coaches, as they too force pitchers to take a short break in the middle of an inning. Rain delays, can we do something about them, as well. And, is there any way we can limit pitcher changes by the opposition ... those increase the time a pitcher spends on the bench between innings.
P.S. Selig also said "We handled it just the way we should" when asked about the home run chase.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
