The Corporate Headquarters of the San Antonio Gunslingers

I went to Washington, D.C. this week

2010-03-03T22:36:00.000-05:00

And I saw some interesting things.

Newly-minted Senator Scott Brown's Truck. Seriously. And it's kind of a low-rider.
Senator Orrin Hatch getting on an elevator, and he's taller than I expected.
The National Statuary Hall Collection on the first floor of the Capitol, which included an awesomely squared-off statue of Father Damien from Hawaii and a statue from Oregon of Edward Dickinson Baker, the only sitting U.S. Senator to die in battle during the Civil War, at the Battle of Ball's Bluff (not to go on too much of a run-on here, but the Battle of Ball's Bluff is not a joke - and it's famous for another reason, in that future Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. [aka "WEEEEEENDELLLLLL!!!!", for anyone lucky enough to have heard Professor R. Perry Sentell, Jr.'s amazing monologue on the Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table and how he created perhaps America's Greatest Jurist] was wounded at the same battle).
The seldom-seen underground train-shuttle from the Capitol to the basement of the Russell Senate Building.
An ATM right outside the door of the Senate's private barber shop/shoeshine. It's strange looking.
Myself, nearly dropping trou at the security checkpoint entering the Russell Building. My belt was a threat, apparently.
Countless compelling stories from people affected by Arthritis and Arthritis-related diseases. I've never felt so optimistic about the future and the proximity to a cure, but I've also never felt more frustrated by the failure of our nation to respond adequately to a massively expensive problem affecting millions of Americans. I met a six year old already forced to use a wheelchair to get around and for whom painful monthly treatments of shots haven't provided any solace. I met a teenager from Alaska who, though suffering through a flare, couldn't get to see a rhuematologist for nine long, painful months because (a) there are no pediatric rheumatology specialists, (b) the only rheumatologists currently practicing in Alaska no longer accept new patients, and (c) the pediatric rheumatologist from Washington state who is supposed to fly up to Alaska to meet certain needs won't or can't come during the winter. I met a twelve year old girl who has had one hip replacement and is looking forward to her second this coming summer. I met a family with three incredibly brilliant kids, each of whom has been diagnosed with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, a Gulf War veteran father diagnosed with post-traumatic osteoarthritis, where both parents work and have employer-provided insurance, but who, nevertheless, have lost their house because of their oppressive healthcare costs and who have been forced repeatedly to choose which of the three kids would have to go without anti-inflammatory medications this month. We're the greatest country on earth. Nobody can go to our nation's capital without feeling a great sense of pride. But we fail as a nation when it comes to healthcare. We can do so much better. We shouldn't fail people who are doing the right thing. We shouldn't live in a country where a dozen or so states don't have a single medical specialist that serves children with a debilitating disease. We can do better.

I'm afraid to say that you're not one of them

2010-01-19T21:34:00.000-05:00

Saw this commercial for Blue Moon beer a bunch of times tonight. The song playing is "Punctual as Usual" by the Parson Redheads. I think it sounds like "Box Elder" by Pavement, one of my favorite high school jams. That song absolutely rules. The Pavement song. The other one is OK, I guess.

Doesn't make me want to drink Blue Moon though. Watered-down hefeweizen doesn't do it for me.

Gunners with a brutal stretch ahead

2010-01-18T18:43:00.000-05:00

The premiership title might be decided against Arsenal by Valentine's Day. Between now and then is just a brutal stretch (after the return Bolton match on Wednesday).

1/27: at Aston Villa
1/31: home to Manchester United
2/7: at Chelsea
2/10: home to Liverpool

Anything less than 4 points from those 4 matches and the title might be out of reach.

The good news is that the 5 matches after that are all against the bottom half of the league. The bad news is that those 5 "easier" matches come right when Arsenal is playing their Champions' League tie against Porto in the middle of the week. With their injuries and the importance of Champions' League matches, dropping points against the bottom half is likely.

I think smart spending this window would actually be for veteran players who can provide motivation against Wolves and Burnley, not the flashy move that makes the back page.

Pundits ignore Mooninite influence at their own peril

2010-01-16T09:55:00.002-05:00

The Massachusetts special election for Ted Kennedy's senate seat has garnered national attention because of the underperforming in the polls by Martha Coakley. Pundits cite democratic malaise, progressive frustration, an uninspiring candidate, and fired up conservatives. Andrew Sullivan and Radley Balko raise another point though:

"Coakley’s most recent high-profile case was the “Aqua Teen Hunger Force” hoax, in which she defended Boston authorities’ massive overreaction to harmless light-emitting-diode devices left around the city as a promotional gimmick."

One should realize that the Mooninites do whatever they want to whomever they want, at all times.

Incredible Goal

2009-12-14T21:51:00.000-05:00

Can't figure out embedding on this. Figueroa from inside his own half vs. Stoke City.

And a brilliant performance in the second half by Arsenal means the race is on.

Buying a pint for Brad Friedel today

2009-12-12T15:12:00.000-05:00

Huge weekend in England.

Man U give up 3 points at home to Villa. Stellar defense today. Man City, Spurs and Chelsea give up 2 points a piece (Spurs and Chelsea at home).

Tomorrow's Liverpool/Arsenal match just went from big to massive. A win by either team reignites a real chance at the title.

Win tomorrow and their game in hand, and the Gunners are just a game off the lead.

Here's what I want: Arshavin plays 90. Eduardo plays none. Vermaelen's onrushes lead to something other than a killer counter by Liverpool. I fear it won't happen.

My guess: Liverpool play better than they have in months and take a win.

Lock of the Year

2009-12-09T22:40:00.000-05:00

Jane Lynch wins the Emmy for Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy for Glee.

No one else has a chance. She's so good it's ridiculous.

"Finding a hairstyle that doesn't make you look like a lesbian."

So...Whoever loses the Sugar Bowl gets the Notre Dame job?

2009-12-05T19:11:00.003-05:00

Bodog's early lines had Brian Kelly and Urban Meyer both at 3/2 to succeed Weis. I think with Urban losing Strong, Tebow, Spikes, and a litany of other stars, this is when he heads to his "dream job."

Strong and Tebow leaving are good enough news for Georgia. Meyer leaving would be icing on the cake.

HBTD

2009-11-28T23:25:00.002-05:00

Thoughts...

Keep Russ around for good.
Rennie Curran is unbelievable.
Reshad Jones played a good game!
It wasn't until Tech's last offensive play that it made sense that we didn't double team Thomas the entire game.
Why does Demariyus Thomas have a B on his jersey? Or was that just Millen/McDonough incompetency?
And speaking of Millen, when even that empty melon head suggests that SEC refs might have an interest in the game, there's a really bad image problem.
And other than the Boykin jersey pull on an uncatchable ball (which wasn't a completely outrageous call) and the surprising overrule on the subsequent Dwyer rush, the refs were actually pretty good. I was amazed by how well the line call nailed the Jones INT out of bounds when Hill got hurt. I didn't figure it out in live speed twice and he got it completely right.
The two participants in next week's ACC title game both lost this week to SEC teams which would be lucky to play in the Music City Bowl. Get your tickets to Tampa now!
It was so good to watch Bobo continue call running plays on the second drive. So damn satisfying.
Should we be upset that Drew Butler's non-appearance tonight may have cost him the Ray Guy Award? Probably not, right?
Natural order is restored in this state. It's great to be a Georgia Bulldog.

I love animals, and I have ethics, but

2009-11-24T14:27:00.001-05:00

PETA, GFY.

Allow me to reintroduce myself

2009-11-08T13:32:00.003-05:00

Ain't gonna lie...

I'm coming out of a fog. A deep one. I've been crushed by my job the last year, couple years, who knows how long. Just haven't been able to be normal and happy with my life - and my life is actually pretty awesome.

But I'm changing jobs. Very excited about the new one. Better lifestyle, more opportunity to be myself, more of a chance to grow professionally.

Now, this space won't become the first thing I'm going to return to - I've still got a number of priorities ahead of this. But I'll probably be able to write a bit more than before.

So on that note, I instruct you to go watch the ESPN 30 For 30 USFL documentary, if just for the segment where Rick Neuheisel sings the Gunslingers' fight song. I'd embed it if I could find it.

Do not speak of Notre Dame again

2009-11-08T12:54:00.004-05:00

I know the perils of transitive results in college football. Matchups matter, other externalities may affect results, injuries can happen, etc.

But when it's a one week difference for comparisons, and a number of the externalities would normally work against the point you're trying to make, well, I'll make an exception.

One week ago, Temple (yes, TEMPLE, as in arguably the worst team in FBS this decade, the team that got booted out of the Big East even though all the good teams were fleeing, the team whose current senior class once was part of a 26 game losing streak, the team who opened this season with a home loss to FCS Villanova... that Temple) went on the road and beat Navy. Navy is OK this year, but not great. Temple is probably the biggest surprise of the season in college football, yes, but it was a close win by the Owls.

Yesterday, Notre Dame, at home, ranked and with an excellent chance at a BCS berth, loses to that same Navy team when Heisman wannabe Clausen took a sack in the endzone in the last minute of the game.

Just a couple of years ago, Temple was booted out of the Big East (the same Big East that allows Notre Dame to compete in most sports but allows Notre Dame to hoard their football cash and remain an independent). In 2006, when the current seniors at Temple were suffering through that 26 game losing streak, Temple had to play as an independent before the MAC would allow them to join. Only, unlike Notre Dame, Temple didn't have their own TV contract or preferential treatment from bowls.

Today, Temple can go on the road and do something that Notre Dame can't do at home. The Owls also have a better overall record.

So here's my modest proposal: Notre Dame shouldn't get a single benefit of the doubt - ever. No more BCS preferential treatment. Let Notre Dame be treated like all the other teams not playing in a tough conference. TCU, Boise State, Utah, Houston, BYU, Troy, Central Michigan, and yes, even Temple... all those teams have an objective, reasonable claim to a BCS bowl bid ahead of the Irish. Of course, only one of those teams can get a BCS bowl bid, while the Irish can play a cakewalk schedule, face no conference opponents (and the difficulty appurtenant thereto - you play the same team every year and they know your tendencies and have seen all of your film multiple times when scouting your other opponents), and can still waltz into the BCS with a good but not great record. ND can play after January 1 thanks to rules that apply to nobody else. While other teams would finish 3rd or 4th in their conference and go to a respectable bowl with a 9-3 or 10-2 schedule, the Irish get an 8 figure unshared payout.

Join a real conference, go undefeated against a real schedule, or just play by the same rules as the other minor football programs. Until the Irish do anything like that, no credit, no benefit of the doubt.

Five Field Goals

2009-09-13T14:06:00.002-04:00

Assume for the moment that South Carolina is capable, or at least competent offensively.

Now, hypothesize that Georgia would play an aggressive, risk-taking defense, rather than a keep-everything-in-front-of you, no big plays defense.

What percentage of drives do you believe would end in a punt or turnover as a result of such aggressiveness?

Aesthetically, Georgia's defense is death by a thousand cuts. So painful to watch. You can see the frustration on the faces of offensive players begging to be allowed back on the field. You fear for the lungs and legs of the defensive players who've been asked so much from. It seems like such a terrible strategy, this bend-but-don't-break thing.

But then I see South Carolina forced to kick 5 field goals with a line of scrimmage inside our 25, and a goal line stop to seal the game to boot. That's crazy. Consider - what if Georgia did play an aggressive, risk-taking strategy and caused INTs or fumble recoveries on half of those possessions, but allowed TDs on the other half (which would've been insanely efficient for a D.) Well, that'd be 21 points where 15 were allowed - and a 4 point win would've become a 2 point loss.

Anecdotal, yes. And still ugly. And, of course, an aggressive defense might very well stop drives long before they get into the red zone. And bend-but-don't-break doesn't always lead to 5 FGs and a goal line stop - an unlucky bounce or a bad call or a missed assignment or a slipped tackle and one of those FGs becomes a TD. But... walking out of the stadium, I thought maybe we were lucky, but maybe Martinez's strategy actually preserved a win.

I guess it depends on what you think of South Carolina's offense. If it's capable of making a team pay for taking risks, then against similarly talented offenses, I might swallow hard and suffer through the continuous stream of 8 yard tight end curl routes on 3rd and 7s. If it's the kind of team that completes around half its passes and can't muster 150 yards against a mid-tier ACC team... well, then the Dawgs might think about taking a few more risks against some of their upcoming opponents.

Nugget from Phil Steele for next weekend

2009-08-29T13:48:00.002-04:00

So I read Phil Steele on the can, and it could be said that I'm not exactly studying during that time. So I want to make sure I remember a few nuggs that kind of jump off the page.

In his "Football 365 Days a Year" piece, which sticks in a number of items he couldn't fit into their own full article, Steele focuses on starts lost to injury in the previous year. Basically, he suggests that injuries have a lot to do with luck, and a team that suffers a ton of injuries one year isn't likely to suffer as many the next while a team with an incredibly small number of injuries isn't likely to have the same good fortune. Relatedly, a team that has suffered a lot of injuries in the previous year benefits from a few silver linings: not only will many of those good players who were injured return (and since they were the starters before injury, it's possible they add significant talent), but because of those same injuries, the team allowed backups to gain significant in-game experience.

For example, Trinton Sturdivant was Georgia's best lineman heading into last year, when he suffered a season-ending injury in training camp. He returns this year, providing a strong infusion of talent (assuming he's healthy). Consider also, that because of Sturdivant's injury, Vince Vance made 6 starts (before also getting injured). Vance is back now too. Further, because of Vance's injury, Clint Boling played all over the line (versatility can be a massive advantage for a pretty deep line). And Bean Anderson picked up 7 starts. Now, entering the season, Vance and Anderson are backups on the depth chart and they have 13 starts and hundreds of snaps under their belt.

Back to Steele (and this is on pg. 314 if you're keeping up at home). Steele has calculated a raw number of games that starters have lost to injury or suspension. Then he's analyzed how teams with significantly large or small amounts of games starters have lost performed in the next year. Steele's numbers over the last 5 years:

If a team loses 32 or more starts in one year, 74.5% of the time that team improves their record the following year (41 out of 55).

If a team loses 6 or fewer starts in one year, only 35.7% of the time did that team improve their record the following year (15 of 42).

Steele's anecdotes are even better. This time last year, Utah had the most starts lost in the previous season (51 starts lost). They improved from 9-4 to 13-0. This time last year, Illinois was coming off a run to the Rose Bowl in a year when they suffered just 2 starts lost. They ended up 5-7. Purdue lost just 4 starts in 2007 when they went 8-4; they went 4-8 in 2008.

So how does this fit in with next weekend?

Last year, Georgia lost 44 starts to injury or suspension, which was tied for 6th most in the nation.

Last year, Oklahoma State lost all of 2 starts to injury or suspension, which was the second fewest in the nation.

From my numbers, guys who are listed as backups on Georgia's current depth chart have as many as 47 career starts, among at least 10 different players (and that's just for last year). Oklahoma State's depth chart has backups with 8 total starts and that's just 2 players.

Could be hot next week. If it's a shootout, players will need to get rotated in and out. Just something to think about.

Flick the Button

2009-08-16T14:30:00.000-04:00

1. The Duchess. Has not this film been made a dozen times before? Who ponies up the (I'd guess sizable amount of) money to produce these sorts of films? What's the audience? I'm not sure why I was a part of it. You're Fired.
2. Transsiberian. I've always had an odd interest in central Russia, so I kind of wanted this to be good. It was OK, but there was something missing throughout. Maybe miscast, maybe just not the movie I would've made. I didn't hate it, but it wasn't anything to recommend to anyone. You're Fired.
3. RockNRolla. Not as much of a collossal turd as Revolver was, but not as good as Lock Stock or Snatch. A handful of interesting characters, but not all that memorable. You're Fired.
4. Changeling. Far better than expected. Eastwood can do suspense, even if he tends to the cliche Steak Knives.
5. Brick. Exceptionally good. I watched it twice and I'd watch it again. See this. Cadillac.
6. The Dead Girl. An odd movie that I wouldn't recommend, and I don't think people would stumble across, but it was actually pretty good. Seemed a little more like a short novel than a movie, which is kind of a compliment, but I don't know. Dull Steak Knives.
7. Choke. The book is better, despite the best efforts of the cast. Seemed like the studio tamed it down, which is almost always the wrong choice. You're Fired, but read the book.
8. Body of Lies. Hmmm... I like international spy thrillers, and I like all of the actors and the director, but this one didn't work. Every other scene has Crowe and DiCaprio just yelling at each other over cell phones, which is lazy and lame. You're Fired.
9. Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. The Lady liked this more than I did. Sweet, I guess. I'd have liked it were I 15. Shrug. You're Fired.
10. Milk. Fantastic performance, pretty good movie. You've heard about this before. Sharp Steak Knives.
11. W. Very good performance, pretty good movie, actually. More entertaining than it should've been. Dull Steak Knives.
12. Crank. Utterly ridiculous and awesomely entertaining. See this. Sharp Steak Knives.
13. Frozen River. Would've made a better short film or novella, but an excellent performance by Melissa Leo. Dull Steak Knives.
14. Junebug. I can tell that the film was made by someone with a complicated relationship with the South, which I think a whole lot of artsy folks down here have. I wonder why the director hasn't made another feature. Worth seeing, but maybe not while one has an impending birth. Steak Knives.
15. How To Lose Friends and Alienate People. Absolutely atrocious. Pegg, you're better than this. You're Fired.
16. The Proposition. Quite beautiful, awfully good. Fine direction. I'm fired up for The Road now. Cadillac, but you should like westerns to think the same way.
17. Pride and Glory. A movie that's been made a dozen times before. Less suspense than an average Law & Order episode. You're Fired.
18. The Transporter. Hilarious, especially the villains. Statham is so effing good. Cadillac.
19. Twilight. Offensively bad. Seriously, I was offended by the baseball scene. As a baseball fan. No self respecting man should have to watch this. You're fired.
20. Notorious. Entertaining as hell, but not exactly great. You will be glad that you've seen this. Steak Knives.
21. Rachel Getting Married. Pretentious, overacted, annoying. See The Celebration instead. You're Fired.
22. Oldboy. Exceptional filmmaking, but it was a bit too much for my tastes. I should probably see this again, knowing what I'm getting into. Reserving rating for another time.
23. The Wind that Shakes the Barley. Historical movies are hard, because they need to come from the perspective of showing the viewer something new. This didn't take the Irish Rebellion in a new direction. I didn't see anything I didn't know already. You're Fired.
24. Away from Her. Very good. One of the best dramas I've seen in a few years. Heartbreaking, realistic, sensitive, even funny. I really respect this film. Cadillac.
25. Taken. A little too serious to be in the class of awesomeness that are most Statham movies. Seeing Liam Neeson kicking people is awesome nonetheless. Steak Knives.

26. The Hangover. One theatre movie! Comedies need to be funny, and this was. I'll see it a dozen more times. Genius move: making the funniest 3 minutes of the movie the last 3 minutes. Cadillac.

A. East Bound and Down. The best television show about the modern South ever made. If you don't laugh at this show, I don't really want to hang out with you. My highest praise.

I'm sure I missed a ton.

Not Dead

2009-08-16T12:49:00.005-04:00

Just had a lot on my plate lately is all...

2 young kids, both hilarious and amazing.
Major renovations to Douchebag Manor.
The economy has rediscovered my real job and has provided me with a way to spend a sizable amount of time.
And all sorts of other things that I've been busy with.

Nevertheless, I don't want this to die. I've been saving a lot of things to write about. Might have shorter posts, might have less interesting (to you) posts. Definitely not doing Gameday Recaps ever again. Probably won't even be watching it this year (I'd rather watch the 10:00 Premiership Match on FSC - more on that in another post). I am still interested in college football, but I have little faith in myself to add anything terribly interesting to the online discussion. Too many smart people do this with more diligence and intelligence.

I have noticed, in the past several months, that I do need an outlet for the bile.

So a welcome back to myself. But first, a few Cheers and Jeers:

Cheers to Carriage House Construction, for coming in under budget.
Jeers to the guy who broke into my car to steal $8 in quarters.
Cheers to the producers of Law & Order: Criminal Intent for adding Jeff Goldblum, who wears pretty awesome specs.
Jeers to the producers of Law & Order: Criminal Intent for making a very short season, but mainly for bringing back Det. Wheeler when they could've easily written her off.
Cheers to Hop City Beer, a fine establishment for a beer lover.
Jeers to Hop CIty Beer, for being located on the West Side, rather than in Georgia's Beer Capital, Decatur.
Cheers to the dessert waffle at Leon's Full Service.
Jeers to the Crunchie candy bar, and to me for forgetting that I didn't like it each time I'd try it again.
Cheers to my son's ticklish feet.
Jeers to inexact MRI readings.
Cheers to Tommy Hanson's breaking ball. Reminds me of a tall Maddux when it whips back over the plate.
Jeers to the Marlins, because they keep winning with a mediocre run differential.
Cheers to the triumphant return of the Guardian's Football Weekly podcast, and the melifluous cyncism of Barry Glendenning.
Jeers to the sad departure of Candace Keener from the How Stuff Works Stuff You Missed in History Class podcast.
Cheers to upcoming book releases I'm excited about: Simon Kuper's Soccernomics, Jon Krakauer's Pat Tillman book, Bill Simmons' basketball book, Jeff Ross' memoir, Joshua Ferris' follow up to the exceptional Then We Came to the End, Chuck Klosterman's Eating the Dinosaur.
Jeers to the above-referenced business getting in the way of reading, and lots of other stuff.
Cheers to having two amazing kids that never stop making me happy.

Lebron is freaking amazing.

2009-05-22T23:45:00.003-04:00

Also...

I'm 32 today.

And I got a new kid a week and a half ago. There is now an Earl of Douchebag and he looks like a miniature version of Boris Becker circa 1988. He's awesome.

And my daughter now demands "Bagel Butter" on any breakfast item. "Bagel Butter" is cream cheese.

I lead a ridiculous life.

If I'm gonna be a dick, I only want the challenge of being a MASSIVE dick.

2009-03-01T14:38:00.005-05:00

So Curt Schilling says if he comes back he'd want to take on the "challenge" of either the Cubs or Rays.

The Cubs had the best record in the National League and the second best record in the Majors in 2008.

The Rays made the World Series last year and had the second best record in the AL in 2008.

Similarly, if I were to bother playing in the Ryder Cup, I'd only want the challenge of being paired with Tiger Woods. If I were to lower myself to playing professional football, I'd only want to try to fix the problems facing the Steelers, or maybe the Patriots. If I were to act in a movie, I'd only agree to allow my amazing talents to improve the dreck the Coen Brothers put out.

Seriously, if Stephon Marbury said this week that he was looking forward to the challenge of the Celtics, the media would have mocked him senseless. Schilling's got Platinum Crown Club priviliges on Douche Air Lines, but nobody seems to mention this.

Flick the Button

2009-02-14T23:23:00.000-05:00

1. Leatherheads. I fell asleep. What was attempted was not as entertaining as what resulted. You're Fired.

2. Eagle Eye. I did not fall asleep, but this sucked. SPOILER ALERT: They steal the ending from the Simpsons episode where Homer remakes Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. And it is so ridiculous. You're Fired.

3. Ghost Town. They don't make many comedies like this - not exactly a romcom, not a grossout - which end up kind of funny and sweet, but not that good either. Gervais is a genius, but he's too restrained here. And Tea Leoni is only in mediocre or worse movies (and usually that's not her fault). A decent try for an adult comedy, but still blah. You're Fired.

4. Fred Claus. The worst Christmas movie I have ever seen, and I've seen Prancer and Santa Claus: The Movie and Toys and Jingle All the Way and some other pieces of shit. Totally useless. Paul Giamatti, Miranda Richardson, Elizabeth Banks and Rachel Weisz should all be ashamed of themselves. You're Fired.

5. WALL-E. I feel like I'm alone in thinking this way, but I sensed that this was (a) the least funny Pixar film and (b) the most preachy Pixar film. And I'm not insensitive to what it was preaching about, and I thought Cars was not good. There's cuteness but I didn't really want to see it again - and I can't say that about any other Pixar film except Cars. I feel bad about myself for not liking this more. You're Fired.

6. The House Bunny. Throwaway. Anna Faris is funnier than anything that has ever been written for her, but that also does not mean she's all that great. I'm struggling to remember anything about this. It had a few "oh wait, is that [girl from American Idol/girl from Superbad/Bruce Willis' daughter]?" moments. You're Fired.

7. Mamma Mia!. Jesus. You're Fired.

8. Mongol. Gorgeously shot and consistently interesting. Made me want to see a sequel and learn more about Genghis Khan. See this. Cadillac.

9. Death Race. Statham! Say it while you're fucking! Shockingly entertaining. Of course it's objectively terrible, yet rewatchable and absolutely awesome. My math says Steak Knives.

10. Hamlet 2. I like Coogan, but I was bored. The movie thinks it's more clever than it is. Maybe I would've liked it better if I had been into drama in high school or something. For a movie that seeks its humor from the ridiculous, this wasn't ridiculous enough. You're Fired.

11. Appaloosa. The first hour or so is awesome, but it falls apart in the last half hour or so. Women screw everything up, especially Renee Zellweger (whom I had no idea was in this movie) apparently. As long as Ed Harris and Viggo are killing people, this rules. When they start building houses and feelings start to matter, this has problems. Steak Knives.

12. Pineapple Express. A matter of expectations. I expected funnier, or maybe I expected Franco to be as good as he was. Just not surprised by anything. I was entertained though. Steak Knives.

13. Bangkok Dangerous (2008). Horribly horribly and hilariously incredible. Come for Nic Cage's outrageous forehead, stay for the ridiculousness. Between this and The Protector, Thailand has become the go-to nation for comedy. If only we could get Statham in one of those Thai movies... Steak Knives (yep!).

14. Max Payne. Ugh. Wahlberg has no sense of humor at all. Awful. You're Fired.

15. Man on Wire. An entertaining and inspiring dude, and a well made film. Recommended. Sharp Steak Knives.

16. Slumdog Millionaire. OK, I feel strongly about this movie. If you left this film not entertained, you are a prig and I don't want to hang out with you. It was suspenseful, funny, romantic, interesting, timeless, universal, and most importantly, just a good movie. It was about goodness and humanity. Political posturing about this is dickish. Cadillac.

17. Encounters at the End of the World. Watch Planet Earth instead if you want to see awesome footage of nature. Watch this if you want to be underentertained about not-as-interesting-as-presented people. Maybe I'm not a Herzog guy. You're Fired.

18. Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Only a guy like Woody Allen could get this movie made. It's not really about much of anything. It's kind of entertaining - the acting is quite good and everyone and everything looks pretty. It's also not really memorable. It'll make you smile a bit, but then forget it. You're Fired.

19. The Visitor. It's OK, I suppose, but I get the sense that critics like simple movies that don't screw things up more than complicated movies that make a few mistakes but also challenge. I wasn't bored, but I didn't learn anything either. I'll forget I've seen this, even though it's not bad. You're Fired.

20. The Diplomat. The NY Times TV critic that praised this enough for me to watch it owes me 3 hours. They took a 2 hour movie screenplay and made it shittily so it stretched. Massive plot holes. Deus Ex Machina througout. Someone teaching a class on screenwriting should use this as a "DO NOT DO THIS" lecture. But I did learn that my cable company carries something called "ION TV," so it wasn't a total loss. You're Fired, and that means you, NYT critic.

21. Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Like Kevin Smith's good movies, it's really dirty (moreso than even I expected), but also pretty sweet. I don't mind the filth if there's a reason. Elizabeth Banks is funny - really funny. Steak Knives.

22. The Rocker. Blah. Not exactly the Dwight Schrute thing, but not exactly funny. Forgettable, and I just saw it. You're Fired.

23. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Gorgeously shot, and the first hour or so is great (especially the tugboat/submarine scene). But the last hour (I'm not kidding) is just Ralph Lauren-esque photo shoots of Brad Pitt looking good. And the Katrina-era flash forwards did not add to the film. Cutting this up more would've helped. If it matters, The Lady liked this a good deal more than I did. Perhaps I'm nitpicking... I did like a lot of it, but I just have these nagging concerns I can't seem to get rid of and that seem to make me like this less and less. Still, worth seeing. Steak Knives.

On the current scenaria.

2009-02-07T22:50:00.003-05:00

Our economy sucks a fatttttt dick right now;

I am ready for things to turn around now. now. now. now. now.

But in the meantime, I suppose it's OK to think it's good enough that marauding tribes of machete-wielding zealots aren't murdering our families in our sleep.

positivity.. really.

Lebowski Standings - Final 2008

2009-01-18T15:50:00.003-05:00

Done this in past years. Rankings based upon who had the best season at winning each game on their schedule. Ties among teams with the same record are broken via ColleyRatings strength of schedule, except where one team won a head-to-head matchup. Full list below the fold.

120. Washington 0-12 (1)
119. North Texas 1-11 (102)
118. SMU 1-11 (77)
117. Washington State 2-11 (50)
116. Miami U. 2-10 (113)
115. Western Kentucky 2-10 (103)
114. Idaho 2-10 (98)
113. Tulane 2-10 (85)
112. Iowa State 2-10 (76)
111. San Diego State 2-10 (71)
110. Eastern Michigan 3-9 (105)
109. Army 3-9 (101)
108. New Mexico State 3-9 (97)
107. Indiana 3-9 (64)
106. Utah State 3-9 (48)
105. Michigan 3-9 (36)
104. Toledo 3-9 (108)*
103. Syracuse 3-9 (16)
102. Kent State 4-8 (125)
101. Louisiana-Monroe 4-8 (124)
100. Ohio 4-8 (110)
99. Wyoming 4-8 (81)
98. Marshall 4-8 (70)
97. Central Florida 4-8 (93)*
96. UAB 4-8 (104)*
95. New Mexico 4-8 (51)
94. Mississippi State 4-8 (45)
93. Texas A&M 4-8 (44)
92. Purdue 4-8 (41)
91. UCLA 4-8 (28)
90. Baylor 4-8 (12)
89. Duke 4-8 (8)
88. MTSU 5-7 (122)
87. Florida International 5-7 (119)
86. Akron 5-7 (115)
85. Temple 5-7 (106)
84. UTEP 5-7 (84)
83. Kansas State 5-7 (80)
82. Louisville 5-7 (68)
81. Illinois 5-7 (55)
80. Tennessee 5-7 (32)
79. Auburn 5-7 (38)*
78. Colorado 5-7 (23)
77. Stanford 5-7 (22)
76. Arizona State 5-7 (53)*
75. UNLV 5-7 (72)*
74. Arkansas 5-7 (6)
73. Virginia 5-7 (2)
72. Northern Illinois 6-7 (118)
71. Memphis 6-7 (111)
70. NC State 6-7 (11)
69. Hawaii 7-7 (75)
68. Arkansas State 6-6 (123)
67. Louisiana-Lafayette 6-6 (126)*
66. Bowling Green 6-6 (117)
65. San Jose State 6-6 (107)
64. Florida Atlantic 7-6 (109)
63. Southern Mississippi 7-6 (96)
62. Fresno State 7-6 (95)
61. Minnesota 7-6 (88)
60. Nevada 7-6 (82)
59. Wisconsin 7-6 (66)
58. Notre Dame 7-6 (63)
57. Colorado State 7-6 (61)
56. Kentucky 7-6 (56)
55. U. of Miami 7-6 (18)
54. South Carolina 7-6 (14)
53. Clemson 7-6 (21)*
52. Vanderbilt 7-6 (13)
51. Buffalo 8-6 (94)
50. Troy 8-5 (121)
49. Louisiana Tech 8-5 (114)
48. Central Michigan 8-5 (112)
47. Houston 8-5 (92)
46. Arizona 8-5 (79)
45. Air Force 8-5 (78)
44. Navy 8-5 (86)*
43. Connecticut 8-5 (58)
42. Louisiana State 8-5 (47)
41. Kansas 8-5 (29)
40. South Florida 8-5 (67)*
39. Rutgers 8-5 (59)*
38. North Carolina 8-5 (20)
37. Wake Forest 8-5 (9)
36. Maryland 8-5 (46)*
35. East Carolina 9-5 (83)
34. Boston College 9-5 (30)
33. Western Michigan 9-4 (116)
32. Iowa 9-4 (74)
31. Northwestern 9-4 (87)*
30. West Virginia 9-4 (54)
29. Oklahoma State 9-4 (43)
28. Michigan State 9-4 (37)
27. Nebraska 9-4 (34)
26. California 9-4 (31)
25. Florida State 9-4 (27)
24. Georgia Tech 9-4 (42)*
23. Mississippi 9-4 (26)
22. Pittsburgh 9-4 (15)
21. Oregon State 9-4 (7)
20. Missouri 10-4 (39)
19. Virginia Tech 10-4 (17)
18. Rice 10-3 (100)
17. Brigham Young 10-3 (91)
16. Oregon 10-3 (52)
15. Ohio State 10-3 (40)
14. Georgia 10-3 (10)
13. Tulsa 11-3 (120)
12. Cincinnati 11-3 (62)
11. TCU 11-2 (69)
10. Penn State 11-2 (65)
9. Texas Tech 11-2 (60)
8. Ball State 12-2 (127)
7. Alabama 12-2 (33)
6. Oklahoma 12-2 (4)
5. Boise State 12-1 (99)
4. Southern California 12-1 (35)
3. Texas 12-1 (5)
2. Florida 13-1 (3)
1. Utah 13-0 (73)

Too bad all the Tech Fans had left already

2008-12-31T23:33:00.002-05:00

I love Les Miles.

Any man who will run a fake punt while up 35 in the 4th quarter on Georgia Tech gets my lifelong affection. Bravo to you, sir.

Amazing dickishness. All my praise comes your way.

A College Football Primer for NFL Fans

2008-12-29T00:28:00.003-05:00

This play is a microcosm of how the Georgia-Georgia Tech series has typically gone (this year notwithstanding).

That is all.

If Lorne Michaels is still alive

2008-12-07T16:01:00.004-05:00

MAKE JORMA TACCONE A CAST MEMBER OF SNL.

He's a writer and was hysterical in the classic digital short last night. Dude is a genius. If you haven't already, go rent Hot Rod and focus on Kevin. Hilarious.

Flick the Button

2008-12-07T13:23:00.000-05:00

Oh crap I'm way behind on these. I know I've missed some of them...

1. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Waste of time. Old people running but not hilariously. And homages to movies that weren't that good to begin with. And that's before we get to the alien bullshit. You're Fired.

2. Iron Man. Without Downey, this is Daredevil. But with Downey, this is great fun. Is it just me, or does Downey seem like the kind of actor that actually entertains, rather than the sort that Hollywood thinks we're interested in? I want to see this again. Cadillac.

3. The Incredible Hulk. Wasn't as fun as Iron Man, but I still liked it. I liked how there wasn't a deeper meaning, just popcorn. And I liked how instead of picking a world landmark to blow up in CGI, they for the most part just destroyed a college campus. Steak Knives.

4. Forgetting Sarah Marshall. A little long, a little painful, but funny at times too. I can't help liking Russell Brand or Kristin Bell either. There's kind of a problem with the Apatow stable writing their therapy sessions into their movies, but they get some pretty good jokes in too. I would go see the vampire musical. Steak Knives.

5. You Don't Mess with the Zohan. I don't believe it myself, but this was funny. Honestly, I thought I would hate this so much, but everyone in it has this stupid smile on their face and the jokes aren't as quite easy as the last 5 or 6 Sandler comedies (like I said, Apatow gets some jokes in). I've seen a lot of pretty bad movies lately, and stunningly, this wasn't one. Steak Knives (and I liked it better than Sarah Marshall).

6. Get Smart. So was Anne Hathaway supposed to be Steve Carrell's love interest? If so, that's weird. Anyway, if this was supposed to be funny, it wasn't. It also wasn't exciting. A complete failure. You're Fired.

7. Baby Mama. Forgotten just about everything about this, and I like Tina Fey and Amy Poehler and I've been through the baby thing recently enough to get the jokes. I guess I liked Amy Poehler's Philly accent. You're Fired.

8. The Foot Fist Way. I'd like to see this a few more times, at increasing levels of drunkenness. Sure, the plot doesn't really exist. Danny McBride is hilarious nonetheless. Steak Knives (but I reserve the right to increase this upon future viewings).

9. Smart People. Offensively bad. You're Fired.

10. Charlie Bartlett. Anton Yelchin is game, but it's not as funny or interesting as it could've been. And it felt like Downey was reined in. We've been here before and funnier. You're Fired.

11. Role Models. We've been here before, but not funnier. Take a formulaic comedy, add T&A, add copious amounts of cussing, add funny actors and a director that knows comic timing. I know you're thinking that this is a movie you can wait for a rental, but definitely remember to rent it. It's very funny. Steak Knife/Cadillac.

12. Kung Fu Panda. Way more violent than I was expecting. Not for kids under 10 or so, I'd guess. But it is kind of amusing and kind of entertaining. Definitely feels like a Dreamworks animated movie and not a Pixar movie, and that's not a good thing. Fired/Knife.

13. Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Having a locker full of Tecate in a can is fucking awesome. I liked this a hell of a lot more than the first one, and a lot more than most action or comic movies. Not quite Iron Man level, because Pearlman is good but not Downey great. Also better than Hulk and 2 of the 3 Spiderman movies. Sharp Steak Knives.

14. State of Play. Why are British television miniseries better than most American feature films? Well acted and well written. Yes, there are some timeline problems (people appearing in 2 spots across London within moments). It's still as interesting as anything I've watched in a year. And everything Bill Nighy does is gold. See this before the Ben Affleck/Russell Crowe 2 hour version comes out (though I trust Kevin MacDonald to do a decent job). Cadillac.

15. The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2. Obviously this was a choice of the Lady's (and she'd seen the first one when I wasn't around). Umm... It's OK if you want to see something like this? I didn't want to particularly watch it, and I spent most of the time on the computer or reading, but it didn't bother me that it was on. Fired, I guess?

16. Hancock. I liked the idea, but the outcome wasn't exactly good. The CGI was confusing: the flying looked like the original Superman green-screening, but some other stuff looked pretty cool. It was short, which was fine because the movie was kind of crappy. Even though I have no idea what they could've done to make it better, I don't think they focused on the most interesting things about the characters. You're Fired.

17. Step Brothers. I take great care in saying this: I do not think another movie made this decade has as many great one-liners. I know this movie will get repeat viewings. Don't fall for the conventional wisdom that Ferrell is passe. Semi-Pro just sucked. This was funny. Cadillac.

18. Wanted. I watch a lot of crappy action movies, so when I see one that I like I might go overboard on it. That may be why I got fired up about Iron Man and Hellboy II. I liked Wanted better than either. It's action scenes are crazy and kind of goofy, but they just work. McAvoy seems like an odd choice for an action star, but he pulls it off. And Jolie, well, what can you say? She's a freak of nature. I liked the dialogue, I liked the stunt sequences, I liked the plot (even though I could kind of figure things out). I would like for there to be more of these movies. I was upset when it ended. Cadillac.

19. Tropic Thunder. We have so many comedies lately that are really just ad-lib scenes in a tired setup; it's almost odd when we see a comedy that has an actual plot more than just a skeleton for sketches. This was kind of a real movie, that happened to have funny scenes in it (aside from a few sequences). Downey, again, is the star among stars. He's the funniest in a cast of guys who usually carry their own comedies. He's a fantastic actor. I'd like to see him nominated for awards for this performance. I don't know if there are many actors who could have pulled it off. Cadillac.

20. The Protector. Might be the best movie to watch while drunk ever. Baby elephants; kicking; ridiculous music, lighting and costumes; Thai canal boat chases that lead to helicopter explosions (which Die Hard 4 totally ripped off!); kinda trippy animation; actors that look like Street Fighter characters. Wildly hilarious. Also: this movie could have been made in 1985 or 2015 and sent back in a time machine. We'll never know. It's insanely, entertainingly ridiculous. Cadillac.

Yikes

2008-11-20T23:53:00.002-05:00

472 yards rushing against a D that only gave up 23 points and 345 total yards to Florida? And we gave up how many yards to that freshman Kentucky QB on the option? Scary.

I'm not feeling as good about 8 in a row as I was a few months ago.

Set your TiVos

2008-11-17T20:53:00.001-05:00

The Nightman cometh on Thursday.

General Bowl Predictions

2008-11-15T23:04:00.005-05:00

Looks like a Disney New Years for UGA. Dawg fans hoping for the Cotton Bowl need to learn the rules. The BCS will likely take both Alabama and Florida. Capital One picks first of the remaining SEC teams. Even if we lose to Tech, I don't see the erstwhile Citrus Bowl picking 3-loss LSU over us. But if they did take the Bayou Bengals, the Cotton can't take an SEC East team until the Outback Bowl chooses one first. Thus, LSU and presumably South Carolina would have to be more attractive than Georgia for us to go to Dallas.

For the best possible bowl matchup, Dawg fans should root for both Oregon State and USC to win out. If those two "top" Pac-10 teams win the rest of their games, both will go to the BCS, leaving the Big 10 with only 1 BCS team, and the Dawgs would face the Buckeyes or Penn State (if they lose to Michigan State). If one or both of those Pac 10 teams lose, that would open the door for a Big 10 non-champion to go to the Fiesta, and Georgia would probably face Michigan State in Mousetown.

Here's how I see things shaking out for the BCS and SEC tie-in bowls:

BCS Championship: Texas Tech v. Florida
Rose Bowl: Oregon State v. Penn State
Fiesta Bowl: Texas v. Southern Cal
Sugar Bowl: Alabama v. Cincinnati
Orange Bowl: Maryland v. Utah

Capital One Bowl: Georgia v. Ohio State
Cotton Bowl: LSU v. Oklahoma
Outback Bowl: South Carolina v. Michigan State
Chick-Fil-A Bowl: Vanderbilt v. some ACC chump
Liberty Bowl: Kentucky v. some Conference USA chump
Music City Bowl: Ole Miss v. some ACC chump
Independence Bowl: Non SEC v. some irrelevant chump
PapaJohns.com Bowl: Non SEC v. some irrelevant chump

Yep. I predict the SEC will be 2 teams shy of fulfilling their contractual tie-ins. The only teams not listed above that could become bowl eligible are Auburn if they beat Alabama (yeah, right), and Arkansas if they beat both Mississippi State and LSU (unlikely).

I heard Kirk Herbstreit on the radio last week say that he thinks his Buckeyes would go to the Sugar to face the loser of the SEC Championship Game. That statement shows his fundamental misunderstanding of how the BCS works.

There are ten BCS slots. 6 are automatic conference champs (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac 10, and SEC). We can safely assume that the SEC and the Big XII will each get an extra BCS team. That leaves two spots, and this year, one is reserved for Cinderella. Because of the mediocrity of the ACC and Big East, it is all but certain that there will be a BCS buster this year. Even if Utah, Boise, and Ball State each lose all of their remaining games, BYU would very likely be in the Top 16 and ranked above the champion of one or both the ACC and Big East. (BYU and Utah's only remaining game is against each other). That leaves the last spot for either a second Pac 10 team or a second Big 10 team, but not both.

It's possible for Ohio State to go to the Rose or Fiesta, but the Sugar is simply too long a shot. If Penn State loses to Michigan State, and Ohio State beats Michigan, then the Buckeyes go to Pasadena. If that doesn't happen, Ohio State should hope for an Oregon State loss, sending USC to the Rose, raising the chance for the Buckeyes to be selected by the Fiesta.

For Ohio State to go to the Sugar, the Fiesta would have to decide not to take Ohio State, and instead choose either a BCS party-crasher (the highest ranked of Utah/Boise/Ball St./BYU) or the Big East champ (likely the winner of Pitt v. Cincy). Not bloody likely.

Let me explain my predictions above, and it may shed some light on the procedure, for Herbsreit's edification:

#1 and #2 go to the BCS championship. The bowl that "loses" the #1 team picks next. I predict Texas Tech to win the Big XII and be #1 in the final BCS standings. The Fiesta would pick Texas for their first slot. Assuming Florida wins the SEC and sits at #2, the Sugar picks next to replace the SEC champ, and they will take Alabama.

The Rose Bowl will have the Pac 10 champ against the Big 10 champ. Oregon State controls its own destiny. The road is tough with its final two games against teams with winning records (which are rare in the Pac 10). First they play at Arizona (6-4), then finish the season at home in the Civil War against archrival Oregon (8-3). Making things even tougher, the Ducks have a week off to prepare while the Beavers duel in the desert with the Wildcats. Still, I think Jaquizz and the boys will win their way to Pasadena to face Paterno and PSU.

The ACC champ automatically goes to the Orange. I'm guessing Maryland, but it could just as easily be any of a bunch of other equally mediocre teams.

The final three slots are on a yearly rotation, with this year the order being Fiesta, Sugar, Orange. The Big East champion must be selected at some point, as must the highest ranked team from a non-BCS conference if they are in the top 12 or in the top 16 and ahead of a BCS conference champ, which I predict will be Utah. The Fiesta also could select an at-large team, i.e., any team in the top 14 whose conference does not have two teams already slotted. If what I predict above is correct, then USC and Ohio State are really the only contenders for the last at-large bid. USC is ranked much higher, beat tOSU head-to-head, and its fan-base is closer to Glendale, so I see the Trojans getting the nod to face Texas. (This is what sends the Buckeyes to Orlando to face Georgia).

After the Fiesta picks, the Sugar has only two options. It must pick either (1) the "Cinderella" which will probably be Utah or (2) the Big East champ, which I predict will be Cincinnati with a win over Pitt. Even though Utah would be ranked ahead of the Bearcats, simple economics come into play. Although "Mormon" and "Bourbon" loosely rhyme, the two don't really go together, and Utah fans won't spend as much in the French Quarter as the Big East blue-collar boozers. If, however, Florida loses to Alabama, the Sugar Bowl may select Utah over the winner of Pitt/Cincy to set up Urban Meyer against his old team, but I doubt that is enough of a pull to overcome the money matters.

Whichever of those two that the Sugar doesn't pick will face the ACC champ in the Orange Bowl.

Are there other possibilities? Sure. In my list above, Bama and Florida are interchangeable, depending on the outcome in Atlanta. The SEC champ's opponent is still up in the air, too. If the Big XII South representative wins the conference championship game in Kansas City, they'll win the opportunity to play for the Crystal Pigskin. I predict Texas Tech, but if Oklahoma beats the Red Raiders and Okie State, the Big XII South will decided by highest BCS ranking among Texas Tech, Texas, and Oklahoma. My guess is Texas would then sneak in to play Mizzou, but Oklahoma might overcome their head-to-head loss to Texas with an impressive final-week win over Oklahoma State. Regardless of who wins that mysterious tiebreaker, if the Big XII North can pull out the upset in KC, that would pull the pin on this year's BCS exploding shit grenade. USC could then sneak back into the title game, unless the Beavers prevent the Trojans from winning their conference, in which case Penn State may have new life. But why not let an undefeated Utah jump all 1-loss teams to face the SEC champ in that scenario?

So there's still a lot yet to be seen, including whether Kirk Herbstreit will ever learn the rules. I'm looking forward to some colossal games in the coming weeks, particularly Oklahoma v. Texas Tech and Florida v. Alabama, as well as the State Championship game in Athens on 11/29.

Briefly on Sports Punditry

2008-11-08T10:27:00.002-05:00

I've been following the English Premier League far more closely than in previous years, and one of the things I've noticed about the people who cover the sport is that there is a remarkable division of ability and talent among pundits and opinioneers over in England, and how that compares to American sports.

For one thing, the play by play and in-game commentators are for the most part sensational. I'm not talking about the FSC or GOLTV people who provide the commentary from a basement studio 8000 miles from the games they're covering. I mean the English guys on site. They know when to keep their mouths closed and let the game happen. They know that they don't have to explain every last thing that is happening, because they know that they are on television and if you are watching you can figure some things out for yourself. They have a vocabulary larger than that of a fifth grader. They aren't, for the most part, former athletes who have some limited training in broadcasting, but rather professional broadcasters who know what they're doing. There are no Tony Siragusas on hand. The broadcasters are apparently praised and promoted for their intelligence and for being concise.

Second, the studio show pundits in England are every bit as foolish as American sports pundits. They relentlessly focus on intangibles and personalities. There are forced disputes. There is talking over one another and extending statements to remain on camera longer. The things that are wrong about American studio pundits are just as wrong in England.

But for the American viewer of the sport, it's not that hard to avoid those shows. One can only watch games and follow stories online. And that brings me to the best part about English football punditry: the written word.

Football writers in England are incisive, smart, thoughtful and unafraid. The strength of the press in England has created an entirely different relationship between the individuals involved in the sport and the journalists. There isn't a symbiotic relationship. Writers are tough enough to get stories without relying on the public relations people for various clubs. And this provides a far greater freedom for the writers - but one that the writers don't need to abuse. There isn't a need to write things that are inflammatory to draw attention. For some reason, in England, the better writing and more intelligent takes draw attention, rather than the most salacious or offensive. Now, of course, I'm painting in broad strokes (of course there are bad writers in the tabloids). The thing is that I can find several really good national writers on English football. I'm not sure I can find more than one or two American mainstream media writers whose pieces are salient.

Here's a comparison.

Read this column on Harry Redknapp by Russell Brand. Russell Brand is a comedian, a damned ridiculous character. And this column is interesting, well-written and raises a few salient points on the true effect of a coach that apply to any sport. Read through the Guardian's archives for other pieces by Brand. They're all interesting, well-written and salient. The odd thing about this is that this guy is a comedian. He's not the dean of pundits over there, or anything even close to it. Yet his columns are better than just about any national writer over here I can think of.

Now go do a google search for sports columns by American comedian Jay Mohr. I can't bear myself to look for them to link to them. Russell Brand's column is what they have. 15 year old stale jokes, cliches and forced edginess is what we have.

Luckily there are writers over here that are trying to elevate the discourse. A lot of them are in the blog world. It's time for mainstream media outlets to realize that readers want better than what has been offered. Coverage of American sports can be a whole lot better. The dwindling readership and audience for several outlets should drive those outlets to do better.

Pepsi Challenge: Mediocre-ish Teams Edition

2008-10-28T23:29:00.006-04:00

Which team is better?

Team A:

5-2

1 win vs 1-AA/FCS opponent

Unbeaten in own conference

438 yards per game (20th nationally)

34 points per game (25th)

338 yards allowed per game (49th)

22 points allowed per game (49th)

113th toughest schedule according to Colley Ratings

97th toughest schedule according to GBE

Both losses to top-15 teams (one team is 7-1, the other is 7-2, both from major conferences, both on the road).

No wins over ranked opponents.

Team B:

5-2

1 win vs. 1-AA/FCS opponent.

Unbeaten in own conference

357 yards per game (69th)

24 points per game (71st)

312 yards allowed per game (34th)

15 points allowed per game (11th)

112th toughest schedule according to Colley Ratings

110th toughest schedule according to GBE

Both losses to teams at or near .500 (one is 4-4, the other 4-3, one from a major conference, the other a mid-major, both on the road)

No wins over ranked opponents

One team scores a lot more, the other allows a lot fewer points. Neither team has played a decent schedule. Neither team has proven that they can beat a good opponent, but one of these teams at least has only lost to very good teams.

Neither team is in line for the national title or anything, so this is more of an academic exercise than one that will determine anything all that important.

But Team B is currently 26th in both the AP and Coaches' Polls. Team A barely gets a whiff of votes in either poll (no votes in the Coaches' poll, 1/13th the number of votes in the AP poll that Team B got). And I've seen a few bloggers giving blogpoll votes to Team B.

We're at the point in the season where what people think will happen ought to be eclipsed by the evidence of what has happened. The evidence doesn't show any real difference between these two teams.

So why is it that people give the benefit of doubt to West Virginia (Team B) but don't give the same deference to Troy (Team A)?

Just askin'.

Oh crap. My day is ruined.

2008-10-20T21:55:00.006-04:00

Dolemite is dead.

"St. Peter wants to see you Dolemite"

"What the hell does that rat soup eating muthafucka want with me?"

HT: Mez Eclipse.

Pepsi Challenge: High Powered Offense Edition

2008-10-20T21:17:00.003-04:00

Which team is better?

Team A:

7-0

2 wins vs. 1-AA/FBS opponents

45.9 points per game on offense (5th)

557 yards per game on offense (2nd)

21.1 points allowed per game on defense (43rd)

24.8 scoring margin

126th toughest schedule according to Colley Rankings

116th toughest schedule according to GBE

Against toughest opponent: home vs. 4-3 team, in overtime, by 6 points

Team B:

7-0

1 win vs. 1-AA/FBS opponent

56.6 points per game on offense (1st)

624 yards per game on offense (1st)

27.1 points allowed per game on defense (80th)

29.5 scoring margin

129th toughest schedule according to Colley Rankings.

120th toughest schedule according to GBE

Against toughest opponent: home vs. 4-3 team, by 35 points

Both teams have played against atrocious schedules. One has played slightly worse opponents, but the other has played 2 lower division opponents. Neither has played a ranked opponent.

One has a higher powered offense, while the other has a slightly better defense. Both teams have one close win (6 points), but all of their other games were blowouts.

So...

Any idea why one team is ranked in the top 6 in the coaches' poll, while the other barely cracks the top 25? Any idea why one team got 4 times as many points in the AP poll as the other?

What is it about Texas Tech (Team A) that is that much more impressive than Tulsa (Team B)?

Just askin'.

Rise by the machines.

2008-10-19T17:37:00.008-04:00

Despite very few upsets this weekend, the Dawgs did move up a few notches on the ladder of the college football elite with the publication of the official BCS standings for the first time this year. The human voters feel no different about us. In the Harris and Coaches polls (the human polls used by the BCS), the Dawgs remained at #9 in both, same as last week. But with a little help from our artificially intelligent friends, the Dawgs sit at #7 in the only list that matters.

Vandy really boosted us in the computers. After the Tennessee game, two of the BCS computers -- Anderson & Hester and Colley Matrix -- each had us at #18. With the Commodores now in the Dawgs' wake, those same computers now have us at #8 and #7 respectively. A win at LSU could give an even bigger e-boost.

As much as Georgia was helped the computers, Florida, on the other hand, felt their sting. The Gators are at #6 in the Coaches and #7 in the Harris (and #5 in the AP), but the computers drop UF down to #10 in the BCS standings. I still think if either Florida or Georgia runs the table, beating an undefeated Bama in Atlanta, the chips will fall into place for an SEC east team in the Big One. We know at least one undefeated Big XII team is going down in Austin on Saturday. I like the Buckeyes' chances to spoil Penn State's run this week as well.

This four-week, flaming tightrope of a roadtrip is going to test the Dawgs like never before. Here's hoping Richt's patented road-focus is in high gear. Bring on the Cajun Cats!

Call Maury Povich.

2008-10-09T23:52:00.000-04:00

Those vacuous, narrow-set eyes. That pursed-lip scowl, so cognizant of self-mediocrity. Those many telling chins. So familiar. Where have I seen them before? Could it be that Nick Stephens' recent promotion to starter was born not only of the pathetic performance of Jonathan Crompton, but also of the never-to-be-spoken love of a...father?

I envision a hot, sticky, east Tennessee night in the late '80s. A wisp of teased, crimped blonde hair across the barroom catches the corner of Phil's eye. He looks up from his tall beer mug and near-empty box of Krispy Kremes. With desire enflamed by her jail-orange sweatshirt, cut wide at the neck and draped below one shoulder, he wipes the glaze from his chin and makes his approach. Soon all control is lost in a breathy fog of heaving thighs and guttural bellows of hillbilly ecstasy.

She never spoke of the encounter, and Johnny Joe Stephens raised young Nick as his own, deep in the heart of Texas. Still, a long-repressed paternal pride later became a scholarship offer, and now, the opportunity to start under center. Just like his lustful mother, this bastard is going to be on his back all night Saturday, and his hefty biological father will be out of a job come Sunday.

Go you hairy Bulldawgs!!!

Rivalries, Misery, Hatred and Hideous Orange: A Memoir

2008-10-09T23:21:00.000-04:00

There's something a little strange about being a Georgia football fan that a lot of our rivals don't quite understand. It's the sticky issue of having multiple hated rivals, but not one that is head and shoulders above of the rest in terms of the emotions raised by such a team. Some teams have just one hated rival, and nothing else really comes too close to that: Auburn fans hate Alabama worse than anyone else. South Carolina fans hate Clemson, and vice versa. Ohio State hates Michigan and vice versa. Some teams might have two hated rivals: Tennessee fans hate Alabama and Alabama fans hate Tennessee most of all, though each school does have a secondary hated opponent (Florida and Auburn, respectively) that doesn't quite approach their primary nemesis. Kansas hates Missouri first and foremost, but each has a second rival (Kansas State, Illinois). Some teams have one hated rival, but are considered the one hated rival by a host of other teams - the perfect example is Texas and Oklahoma, who hate each other worst of all, but are considered the most hated rival by other teams, like Texas A&M, Oklahoma State and Nebraska. There are even ladders of hatred: Texas is considered the most hated rival by Oklahoma fans, while Oklahoma is considered the most hated rival by Nebraska fans, while Nebraska is considered the most hated rival by Colorado fans, while Colorado is considered the most hated rival by Colorado State fans, while Colorado State is considered the most hated rival by Wyoming fans. The point is that for most fans of a particular football school, there is usually one clear answer to the question of who is the fanbase's most hated rival.

But Georgia is different. If you ask 10 Georgia fans who the most hated rival for the program is, you might get 5 different answers. And the answers may be perfectly valid, but for different reasons.

Sometimes it's geography that causes Georgia fans to hate a particular team. If you ask a Georgia fan in Columbus who the most hated rival is, there's an excellent chance he'll say Auburn. He might cite that the Auburn-Georgia series is the longest-running in the deep south, and it's always been a close rivalry (over 100 games and there's like a 3 point margin between the two in total points scored). But the real reason is that Auburn is just down the road from Columbus and a lot of the people this Dawg fan is friends with, lives near and works with probably went to Auburn (or are sidewalk fans). So Auburn is the biggest rival to this guy, because he has to hear all about War Damn Eagle all year long. Same with a Georgia fan who lives in Dalton or Calhoun - they're probably more likely to tell you that Tennessee is the most hated rival because they live near Vol fans and get sick of hearing about it. Or a Georgia fan from Hartwell and is surrounded by Clemson fans. Or a Georgia fan in Valdosta who has to listen to bandwagon-jumping Florida fans. Or even a fan from Atlanta who took AP Physics in high school with a bunch of nerds who, for some bizarre reason, like Georgia Tech. There might be one or two fans in Augusta who even think South Carolina is the most hated rival, but they're probably suffering from odd wind shifts from the Savannah River Site.

Personally, I think timing matters more than geography. See, a real Georgia fan develops his hate early, in the formative years of his fanhood. And early learned hatred never leaves. I say this as the father of a young child - I know that teaching to hate requires patience and repetition. But I digress... timing matters. The period in which a person became a Dawg fan directly affects where their hatred will be directed. If someone became a Dawg fan in the midst of a long losing streak to Tech, like some of the really really really old Dawg fans, that hatred never leaves. If someone went to UGA in the early 1980s, they may very well still hate Clemson more than anyone else, because of the 1981 and 1982 games. Even the fact that we don't play Clemson annually cannot bury that pure, unadulterated hatred. And just a single year can be a line of demarcation for hatred. If you became a Dawg fan in the 1980-83 period, you might hate Clemson most, but if you became a Dawg fan in the 1984-88 period, you are probably in the camp that hates Auburn most of all.

Florida might be the one team that isn't really tied to a time period. Most Georgia fans hate Florida a lot, even though we owned them for long stretches. There might be a spike in Florida hatred among fans who came of age in the Spurrier period, but it was also during that period that our hatred of Tennessee emerged - and we also suffered a few ignominious (and subsequently vacated) losses to Georgia Tech (the Jasper Sanks "fumble", Tech fans wrecking our hedges).

The 90s were a tough time to decide on a rival. Mainly because for the majority of the time, Georgia sucked. Well, not exactly sucked (we had 2 good seasons and a few other decent seasons), as much as Georgia was totally irrelevant and uninspiring, while competitors for "most hated rival" all mattered. And it just so happened that this was my personal coming-of- age as a Georgia fan.

In the early 90s there was a Georgia Tech team that won probably the least impressive national title in history. Seriously, if one of (a) one loss, 5th down-beneficiary and phantom-block-on-Rocket's-return Colorado or (b) a Georgia Tech team that was an unbeaten team that actually played for a tie and whose best win was over 8-4 Virginia has to win a title, but unbeaten 2004 Auburn gets nothing, don't we have to place certain value on how good a title was? Then Bobby Ross left and Tech descended into terribleness with Bill Lewis, and we won 7 straight, leaving many of us to wonder whether lopsidedness affected whether there was an actual rivalry. But then George O'Leary, what with his Nobel Prize in Economics, 6 Honorary PhDs, Ponce de Leon Rd. McDonald's Employee of the Month Award and Order of Lenin (according to his resume), figured out how to take roided linemen from New Jersey and midget quarterbacks and turn them into a decent team (the trick: don't go to class!). That and hilariously inept referees led to a couple of the worst defeats I have ever experienced. Hating Tech became a lot easier in the late 90s. But you always knew in a 12 round bout they couldn't hang with you, even if they got a few punches in every couple of rounds. And further, it's only a little fun to beat up on nerds. After a while, no matter who you are, you start to feel a little guilty.

Auburn was another story in the 90s. There were pros and cons to hating Auburn in the 90s. On the one hand, Auburn plundered the state for good recruits and there was a pretty good streak of Auburn beating us in Sanford Stadium. 1997: coming off of a ridiculous upset of Florida, ranked as high as anyone could think, on a day so cold my mother and aunt sneaked a full pint of scotch into the game (no flask or ziplocks, just dropped the bottle in her purse and expected the security guards not to suspect middle aged women to pull a stunt like that), Daymeune Craig rips the defense apart, ruining any chance of an SEC title game appearance. 1999: Jasper Sanks can't use his massive ass to move the ball 3 feet with 9 blockers in front of him, and Mark Richt shows that he never had to manage the clock at his previous job. Such fun days. On the other hand, there were some pretty good moments for Dawg fans against Auburn in the 90s. We end their on-probation winning streak by refusing to unpile and line up. In '96, we win the SEC's first ever overtime game with a hail Mary at the end of regulation and a well-rested Robert Edwards annihilating the tired Tiger defense in OT. Later in the decade it was kind of fun to watch them fumble around with Tater Tot. All in all, there were highs and lows, but Auburn wasn't exactly a team that my generation of Georgia fans truly loathed. They were kind of like us - sometimes OK, sometimes mediocre, usually dysfunctional, talented but oddly coached. It's too exhausting to hate something so much like yourself, so Auburn isn't the choice for most hated rival for a 90s era Dawg fan (unless you live in Columbus or Alabama, and then it's acceptable).

Clemson we only played a few times in the 90s, and the only memorable game was the day the Dawgs upset Clemson and the Braves clinched the NL West, going from Worst to First. Also, that win on October 5, 1991 was the last win over a ranked team in Sanford Stadium for the rest of the decade. Really. Nope, I'm not kidding. Zero home wins over ranked opponents between 1992 and 1999. That's how awesome it was to be a Dawg fan in the 1990s. So, anyway, Clemson's a good rival for the old school Dawgs, but it doesn't really work with people in my generation.

South Carolina shouldn't really be considered among the others on this list. Regardless, in some ways the 1990s were the Golden Era of Gamecock football. They won their first ever bowl game. Steve Taneyhill had the sweetest hairstyle this side of the Pittsburgh Penguins' second line. They even had a winless season - and it takes real effort to have one of them! The Cocks were always annoying mosquitoes, but never enough to truly hate. Yes, the 2000 game was the definition of misery, but few Dawg fans hate South Carolina over that (plenty of bile is reserved for Quincy Carter and Jim Donnan in that one).

But that leaves us to the hard ones: Tennessee and Florida. Both treated us like their whipping boys. Both became national media darlings for the games against each other and the stars who played for both, while we were out in the wilderness. Both gave me personally harrowing memories.

For all this time, in my gut, Florida was the choice. I hated them purely and with white heat. Their offensive arrogance drove me mad. I never understood how it was that their receivers would be 10 yards away from our defenders. In those rare close games, if there was a time for a key penalty or turnover, it would always go in their favor. '92: the timely timeout that prevented Zeier's touchdown pass. But for the majority of seasons, the games were never in doubt. I was always negative on Florida, before I went to Georgia, because I particularly didn't like the state itself. Plastic and pastel still turn my stomach. But in 1995, my freshman year, dislike turned to outright and open hatred. I was a pledge in a fraternity, and as is often the case, it is the pledges' duty to clean up after band parties or other social events the following morning. In 1994 and 1995, the old Gator Bowl was being renovated for the Jaguars, so Georgia and Florida played the games on their campuses. 1995 was the first visit to Athens for the Gators in something like 50 years. And though Florida was heavily favored, Georgia fans turned out in droves to see the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party come to Athens. To this day, I still have never seen tailgating like there was on that afternoon. More food, more liquor, more people than ever before or since - and though I think Georgia fans have been steadily improving over the last 13 years at tailgating, this one day was an aberration. And then the game came, and it was an abomination. Florida could do no wrong, Georgia could do no right. And then Steve Spurrier thought he'd like to get some revenge for the beatings he took at the hands of the Dawgs when he played for Florida, and thus left in his future Heisman winner in the waning moments of a blowout to score on a trick play, just to say he was the coach of the team that scored 50 on Georgia in Sanford Stadium. So out of the stadium streamed 80,000+, to return to their potable tailgates and drown their sorrows in that sweet embrace of brown liquid. And just as the tens of thousands were drinking to forget, all of a sudden a baseball team from just down the road gave them a reason to drink to celebrate. The Atlanta Braves won the World Series that very same night. And a town full of people already annihilated by alcohol and Florida's football team turned up another bottle, just to feel good about something. The next morning, however, would not be enjoyable. I cannot remember if it had rained overnight, but it seemed as if it had because of the way things had melted, spread out and settled. I cannot remember if it was actually an oddly warm October morning, but I believe I was wearing a t-shirt which got very wet. Sunday morning, tailgate cleanup. The parking lot of the fraternity house was covered in a festering sea of an inch-deep curdling stew, which was primarily cole slaw but also included such delightful ingredients as crab dip, raw ground beef, bourbon, dog feces, soaking wet tortilla chips, broken beer bottles, and chicken bones. This is not something you would like to pick up at any time, but at 7:00 a.m. the morning after drinking until 3:30, this was particularly a bad time. We had around 25 guys working on the mess. It took until about 11 a.m. We used shovels to pick up the leftover slaw stew. We used hoses. We threw up as we cleaned. We were soaking wet, covered in filth. The topic of conversation that was first on our minds: how bad did Dawgs looked yesterday. With a handful of broken glass and chicken bones, I thought right there, that I would forever hate Florida with all of my might and with no other approaching the level of loathing I harbored for that team. They took away the purity and enjoyment of watching football, and replaced it with a memory I would always carry: a blowout followed by the most disgusting job outside of a peepshow. Florida took the fun out of football that day. In fact, it wasn't until the next year at Auburn (the overtime game) that I would enjoy football again. The next year Texas Tech came to Athens on a rainy Saturday, and all I could do was look out at the same parking lot and think about how disgusting the cleanup would be for those current pledges. I didn't go to the game, and I don't even remember watching it. And all that time, Florida was en route to their national title. We were losing to Southern Miss at home and suffering through a new coach that might not have been up to the task in Division 1-A. This was malaise. This was not what football was supposed to be. This is how that mid-90s juggernaut Florida team made me feel.

Worst of all, each year, at the end of October or the beginning of November, I start to feel that way again. This is because Florida has continued to punish Georgia fans since before that day in 1995 and long afterward. I watched Terrence Edwards' dropped pass that potentially cost Georgia a title shot in 2002. I heard the boos that night, but I didn't think it was his fault. It wasn't just Edwards' failure to send neurological signals to his hands to close them at the precise moment. It was a massive weight that every Dawg carried with him, and we all put it on his shoulders. We all knew the unbeaten run that year was too good to be true. We all had too many scars from the previous decade or so. We saw too much talent squandered. We saw too many mental mistakes taken advantage of by Florida. We knew that the moment was too big for us. We saw the golden ring, but we weren't ready to reach out far enough to grab it. And we walked out of the stadium with clenched fists, wondering when it would be our time.

Yes, we had a few moments. 1997 was a glorious afternoon, where Robert Edwards, Mike Bobo and Hines Ward gave us a taste of forbidden fruit, if only for a day. I remember when Robert Edwards turned the corner and ran toward the endzone for the clinching score (even though Georgia had been ahead by 13 or so, we knew Florida and karma could strike at any second). I don't remember him actually scoring, because I was standing in that endzone, the open end of the stadium where, in those days, oddly swaying and not-exactly-sturdy bleachers rose. As soon as Edwards looked like he was about to score, the entire weight of those endzone bleachers rose in the air at once, and came down in a spot slightly in front of where they took off. Several thousand of us ended up in a pile, a perfect, orgasmic pile. It was amazing. But walking out of the stadium, we merely celebrated the upset. We didn't think the series had changed for good. We just saw what was possible, not what should be expected. And we showed that over the next 4 years, losing games we could have won. We squandered three games against Ron Zook, incredibly. 2003 saw Chris Leak drive the field to take what must have seemed as rightfully his. In 2004, our win felt not just expected, but almost undeserved - as if it was Florida whose ineptitude allowed us to win, rather than because we took the game from them. 2005 will go down as a "what might have been", thanks to DJ Shockley's knee injury the previous week against Arkansas.

It wasn't until 2006 where we actually looked like a team that felt like it belonged on the same field as Florida. You may think I meant to write 2007, when the celebration in the end zone supposedly turned the tide in the series. No, I meant 2006. 2006 was a magical year for Florida. They ended up winning the national title. Fortune smiled upon them in half of their games, particularly South Carolina. But, for some strange reason, a freshman-quarterbacked Georgia team was right there, in the game, potentially with a chance to drive the field and win it (if not for an unlucky and accidental facemask penalty). For the only the second time in my fanhood, 1997 being the other, did Georgia enter the Florida game a decisive underdog, but somehow kept up with the Gators. We looked like we belonged, even if the final score didn't go our way. It was 2006, not 2007 that turned the tide. And the last two years may have made a difference in how I feel about the Gators. I still hate them with a white hot passion. I hate Urban Meyer's sanctimonious ego every bit as much as Steve Spurrier's smirking while spanking us. But instead of dreading Florida and expecting them to pound us into submission, now I expect two good teams to collide and neither to have a dramatic psychological advantage. Our team believes they can play with the Gators, and I believe in the team. It's still hatred, but it's not a hopeless hatred. And the hopelessness, I think, is what gave Florida a slight edge when it came to me absolutely hating a rival. Without hope, all I had was hatred. What purpose does hatred serve when there is hope?

Which brings me to Tennessee...

I never felt hopeless against Tennessee, I just hated them. In some ways, that is logically worse - since Georgia wasn't very successful against Tennessee, the fact that I thought we had a chance going into almost every single game but still failed should have made myself feel worse about Tennessee than Florida. But hatred isn't a logical emotion. Tennessee got my hopes up and crushed them. Florida never got my hopes up, just drowned me in depression, before and after the game. So here's the question: if I am no longer hopeless about Florida, and the bulk of my hatred of them came from that place, do I still hate Florida more than Tennessee? Perhaps I should take another, more rational (rational hatred - now there's a concept I can get behind) look at the Volunteers, and think about whether I've been hating the wrong shade of orange all this time.

Georgia didn't play Tennessee every year before the additions of South Carolina and Arkansas to the SEC, and that affects the rivalry in the eyes of many long-time Dawg fans. Sure, we all remember Herschel running over Bill Bates in 1980 and Larry Munson screaming "My God a Freshman!," but there's not all that much history to the series before the last 15 years or so. However, the last 15 years or so include my personal coming-of-age as a Dawg fan. So while Tennessee as a rival might not stand up against Tech, Florida or Auburn in the grand scheme of things, to me the Tennessee story is plenty rich - and it started with a personal story.

1995 was my freshman year at Georgia. This was back in the glory days before the school was on the semester program. Under the quarter system, Fall session didn't start until toward the end of September, and Spring session continued all the way through May (which, as an aside, was by far the best month of the year in Athens - warm weather, less clothes, midterms are over, exams not yet begun, the NCAA tennis tournament is in town... I'm getting pissed-off-nostalgic now, so I digress). In 1995, Vince Dooley had given Ray Goff an ultimatum regarding the "significant improvement" of the football team. Goff got the message, and in preseason camp he had taken the best athlete on the team, Robert Edwards, and moved him from defensive back to running back, and further restructured the offense around a strong running game - back to the successful system of the 80's and in direct response to the aerial attacks preferred by Florida and Tennessee at that time. The opener against South Carolina was promising. South Carolina, if I recall, was actually favored (or at least the line was close) and had a decent team returning. Robert Edwards changed things entirely. His afternoon was incredible. Toughness, breakaway speed, and a nose for the endzone. That afternoon he scored 5 touchdowns and tallied a ridiculous amount of yards. He looked like the stars of old, the guys who made UGA (and not Southern Cal) known as Tailback U in the 80s and early 90s. The next weekend against Peyton Manning and Tennessee looked to be a tougher task, but Georgia fans were pretty excited to go to Neyland Stadium with their new-found talent. And Edwards didn't disappoint. The first half was exhilarating. Edwards carried the ball with confidence and toughness, breaking loose in the secondary multiple times. It seemed like the question was "how are they going to stop us" rather than "how are we going to stop them". We dominated time of possession, keeping Manning on the sidelines. Then, on a long run down the right hand side of the field and with the endzone in sight, Edwards was tackled awkwardly. He got up and tried to stay in the game, even carrying the ball a few more times. Then halftime came and the bad news: Edwards had a broken bone and wouldn't return. The shooting star had fizzled out. Georgia stayed in the game, but the running game faltered and the strategy of running downhill and working the clock failed. Manning led a comeback and the game was tied. Georgia was hanging tough and had the ball, using short passes and weak runs to get to about midfield. With time short and facing a third down, Georgia needed to complete a pass to burn more clock and get into better field goal position. The pass hit Brice Hunter in the numbers and fell to the ground. Tennessee got the ball back, drove with Manning's skill, and Jeff Hall drilled a long field goal to send Georgia home with a loss. Edwards would be out for the season, Georgia's confidence would disappear. It was a thoroughly depressing result. And I was an immature 18 year old who didn't react well to losses. I watched the game with a group of close high school friends. We all were going to away to college that week and it was pretty much the last time we'd see each other together for a while. A little more than half were going to Georgia, so most of us were rooting for the Dawgs. But not all. One of my best friends was on her way to UCLA, and though she would become a Bruin, her family were all Volunteer fans. We were close friends and she was on her way across the continent. After Hall hit the field goal to win the game, I think I just turned, didn't say anything, got in my car and drove home. I spent the rest of the night finishing up packing and loading the car. The next afternoon, I had moved into Russell Hall. I didn't even say goodbye to some of my closest friends. That loss had affected me and I didn't respond like I should have, and it hurt friendships. I blame my own immaturity for that, but it was also hard not to think things might've been different had Edwards not gotten hurt or had Hunter caught that first down.

But those thoughts were only temporal. Over time, I started to realize that while the '95 loss to Tennessee was something I didn't handle well and it was bad for me personally, it may have been a blessing for the Georgia program. If Georgia wins that game and Edwards stays healthy, Georgia may have won more than the 6 games it did that season, and Ray Goff might have been given a longer tenure at a job he simply wasn't capable of performing at that high a level. The '95 Tennessee game adds to my hatred of the Vols, but only in a personal, immature and stupidly selfish way. Realistically, it was a tough loss but ultimately not that terrible for the program.

I have little recollection of the 1996 game. That should tell you how insignificant Georgia football was in Donnan's first year. We had already lost to Southern Miss and South Carolina, and eked by a weak Texas Tech team. We knew it was a rebuilding year, and we knew Tennessee was good. I think they threw the ball all over us, but I don't know for certain. This game surely didn't make me hate Tennessee all that much more, except for one thing. I remember there being a lot of Vol fans at this game, and I remember them singing Rocky Top all game long and all the way out of the stadium. Rocky Top echoes very loudly down the North Side ramps from the upper deck and it is annoying. This was the first experience I had with this sensation, but it would not be the last. Also, I noticed that Tennessee fans had, in their hands, pre-printed fans or placards in bright orange that had the number "6" on them. They had printed out these cards knowing full well that they'd win the game. No worry of bad karma. It was that certain. I'd see those same cards in 1998.

1997 was my first visit to Knoxville. I boarded a bus at 6:00 a.m. I reached into a ice-filled trash can and cracked open a Pabst Blue Ribbon at 6:45 a.m. I drank Natural Light at my fraternity's UT chapter most of the afternoon. I got to the game early, shockingly. My seats were in the endzone, and pretty close to the field. Tennessee's players were stretching close enough to yell at. We yelled at them. We thought we had a pretty decent team thus far that season. We were unbeaten. We had just pounded Mississippi State 47-0. We thought we were ready to take the next step. Tennessee was loaded - senior Peyton Manning was a Heisman candidate, Jamal Lewis was their young back who had shown flashes of talent. My buddy Woodrow was sitting next to me - a big follower of recruiting. The previous year, Jim Donnan had made the decision to recruit Jasper Sanks out of Columbus - supposedly a huge talent, but with suspect grades and personal issues - rather than Jamal Lewis out of Douglass High in Atlanta. For the entire warmup period, Woodrow (with a booming baritone) bellowed "WE DIDN'T WANT YOU JAMAAAAAAAAALLLL!!!!! WE GOT JASPER COMIN'!!!!!!! WE DON'T NEED YOU JAMAAAAAAAAAAAL!!!". At one point, I believe Jamal Lewis looked up in our direction. He then proceeded to completely and unabashedly sodomize our defense. I think he had 4000 yards and eleventy touchdowns. Jamal Lewis had more yards that day than Jasper Sanks had pounds when he finally showed up the next year. Woodrow knew it was his fault too. On I think the 22nd touchdown Jamal Lewis ran for, coming right at our endzone, Woodrow hurled his nearly-full enormous Beam and Coke towards the field. It didn't make it. Immediately two security guards came right up to our row and pointed, incorrectly at The General, who was sitting with us. The General was hilariously (and honestly) defiant. He stood inches away from the guard asking him if he threw the cup, pointed his index finger and yelled "NOOOO WAAAYY!!! NOOOO WAAAAYY!! NOOOO WAAYYYY!!" about as many times as Jamal Lewis scored that afternoon. Many of you may already know this about The General: there are times when he is Unabomber Insane. He has these blue eyes that somehow become bunsen burners, sending torching heat at you. Then his face and neck turn bright red. And also, he looks very much like he is, carefully, thoroughly and with the most excruciating pain accompanying, going to disembowel you. The guard walked away. Neither Woodrow nor The General was ejected. I was, all of a sudden, sober. Tennessee scored again. We left, returned to the fraternity house, and I was convinced to haze some Tennessee pledges (which I have to say, I didn't particularly know how to do). The Tennessee fraternity had some great band playing and we were convinced we were going to win, so the bus didn't plan on leaving until something like 2:00 a.m. After the game, we were not all that happy about this. Vol fans were celebrating their win over us, and then Florida proceeds to crap the bed against LSU, opening the door for UT to go to the SEC title game. I believe we returned to Athens just under 24 hours after we left. It was a completely memorable and completely disastrous day. And while I think the stories were fun, I will say that watching a guy from Georgia that we could've recruited do that to us did make me hate Tennessee a bit more. Also, seeing Neyland and all that orange in person is something you don't forget. It burns into your cornea. And that makes you hate them.

During my senior year at Georgia, perhaps the greatest lesson I learned was that we, as Georgia football fans, never learn from our previous miseries. Year after year, it seemed we were always overly optimistic about the new additions to our team, and overly dire in the losses suffered by other teams. We're losing a senior QB who just put in one of the greatest passing performances ever against Wisconsin in the Outback Bowl? Who cares? We can definitely replace him with a guy who has been out of football for 3 years! We just lost one of the most physically gifted running backs in a decade in Robert Edwards? Relax! Jasper Sanks is coming! Mid-90s Georgia fans were supremely talented at convincing ourselves to expect greatness. And when something even subtly hinted that our delusions could become true, like a road win against a then-top-5-ranked LSU team (ignore their subsequent 4-7 record and coach firing), look out for Dawg fans to become flat earth believers. And so we arrive at the 1998 Tennessee game. We have deluded ourselves into thinking we're a top 10 team, with a freshman quarterback in Quincy Carter who is destined for greatness. We have deluded ourselves into thinking that the Tennessee team that had been killing us annually was mostly the result of Peyton Manning. We have deluded ourselves into thinking that his replacement, Tee Martin, would shrink from the big stage. We have deluded ourselves into thinking that the injury suffered by Jamal Lewis the previous week meant that Tennessee had nobody to run the ball (because we have collectively forgotten their other highly talented backs). We have deluded ourselves into thinking that the fact that College Gameday had come to Athens and built their set on our Tate Center meant that we had truly arrived. We have deluded ourselves into thinking that by packing Sanford Bridge from end-to-end just so the Sportscenter live throw to the Gameday crew on Friday evening would look cool, our team would become a national power. The next day reality reared its ugly head. Georgia's typical red zone inefficiency showed itself. Quincy Carter debuted his trademark "you know what the one thing we really don't need to do here? Throw an interception!". Tennessee apparently had depth at running back and Tee Martin made no mistakes. And that was that. We all believed we would win that game. We all thought we were the better team. We were all wrong. And being wrong kind of sucks. Tennessee fans sang Rocky Top and it echoed down the North stand's ramps. They carried placards that had the number 8 on them, preprinted. Bastards. That fall, I was living in the fraternity house and 6 of us shared a common area. 5 of us were seniors and trying to live up the last of the glory days. We had pretty much given up on the frat-tastic social scene and instead we were just trying to have fun, no matter how ridiculous. After the Wyoming game, we hosted a crazy latenight where everyone ended up with costumes on and women danced with toy guns against greek columns. Before the game, we expected something similar to happen after we beat the Vols. Well, neither happened. We wanted to take our minds off the game and tie one on. That, however, was not possible. The year before we had taken a bus to Knoxville and hung out with the UT chapter of our fraternity. This year, those guys returned the favor. And camped out. They took over our living area to watch Florida play. They did not leave. We drank, hoping they would become less obnoxious and intruding. Didn't happen. We couldn't outright tell these morons to get out, because one of our roommates was trying to hook up with one of these terrible Vol fan girls that came down. Eventually my roommate Dr. Tealpants ordered some chinese food, and the loveseeking roommate realized that the Vol girl was terrible. The next thing I know, the Vol girls are in the driveway in some Sebring convertible, blasting a "Cotton Eyed Joe"-like remix of Rocky Top. Dr. Tealpants, the soon-to-be Mrs. Dr. Tealpants and said loveseeking roommate responded to the music by hurling moo goo gai pan at them from an upstairs window. Earlier in the night Tealpants and I had thrown tailgating chairs in trees and drank Mimosas, because it was all we had left in the cooler. Another memorable and disastrous night. The Vol fans were imposing enough to make me hate Tennessee just a little bit more, but the game itself made me hate myself and Georgia fans as a whole - because we truly believed things could change.

I entered law school at Georgia in 1999. The first year of law school is supposed to scare you and make you work harder than you ever have and learn a lot about yourself and become a better critical thinker and indoctrinate you into the most miserable life you could possibly foresee (and love it!). I worked harder than I ever had (though not as hard as I eventually would), but I also thought I wouldn't fall for the fear of failure law school imposes on so many. Or, to be more specific, it wasn't until after I got my first semester grades that I thought I could get by without fear. One way I convinced myself that I wouldn't become a paralyzed 1L was by continuing to live it up on football weekends, and when my buddy Napoleon IV had an extra ticket and a place to stay (with another friend at UT Law), I jumped at the chance. I was leaving right after Professor Brussack's Civil Procedure class on Friday afternoon. Because I had been packing for the trip and running other errands I normally did on the weekend, I did not prepare for class. Brussack only called on one person each day, so it was a 1/75 chance I'd get called on, and regardless, I was on the road to see the Dawgs in an hour anyway. Of course, Brussack called on me. It was one of those personal jurisdiction cases (I think Burger King or International Volkswagen or something) and I was an embarrassing failure. I tried to be funny as I misstated the facts and completely missed the point of the case. I failed at that too. Apparently personal jurisdiction isn't good fodder for comedy. Nonetheless, I was on the road. We got to Knoxville, grilled out and hit the strip. Here's where things got strange. We end up in kind of dive bar somewhere (can't remember names now). I'm not hammered - just drinking beer to save up for tailgating. Further, I'm wearing (a) a white polo shirt with jeans and (b) a bright Tennessee-orange colored CB&T hat. There is nothing readily apparent, save for having all my teeth, that would reveal me to be a Georgia fan and not a Tennessee fan. I even had an orange hat on! Nonetheless, and for no reason at all, a Vol fan decides he would like to fight me.
Probably my animalistic sexual appeal to rocky-soil women. He shoves me, asks me why I thought Georgia fans could drink in a "Vol Bar" (no lie). I respond by saying "well, yeah, I am a Georgia fan, but how did you know?". I may have used that teeth line, which would have merited his actions, but I cannot recall. The dude was bigger than me, and I have never been in a fight, being a mild mannered law student by day and a dashing raconteur to the ladies by night. Things did not look good. Next thing I know, out of nowhere, the one guy I knew from UGA who will probably end up jailed for murder shows up and asks what the problem is. Things calmed down. I remained confused as to why I was targeted, or even why someone would want to prevent anyone else from enjoying libations. We ended up leaving and I think we drank in an Applebees or Chili's or some other famous Knoxville watering hole. That evening made me hate Tennessee a lot. And the game wasn't much better. It rained. It rained a lot. I was very wet. Tennessee got a lead, we kind of came back, and then just when we thought we had some kind of a chance, UT returned our kickoff for a TD and the game was over. We left, and walked for what seemed like 50 miles in the rain. Then we ended up at Krystal. The rain stopped. I saw a drunk driver rear end a cop car (awesome). At like 3 in the morning I think I watched The Big Lebowski for the first time. Almost got into a fight, Dawgs got beat. SEC title hopes over. This weekend was perhaps the peak of my Tennessee hatred.

The 2000 Georgia football team was the team Jim Donnan had waited 55 years to coach. And he was absolutely right. Something like 15 players on that defense ended up playing in the NFL. The only problem was that he was the coach. South Carolina had already pretty much ruined our season. No, check that. Quincy Carter and whoever called the same play for 4 of 5 interceptions in Columbia had already pretty much ruined our season. We were still outrageously talented, but we had little to play for. However, this season was not a vintage Volunteer team. Georgia played boring football, took advantage of Tennessee miscues and ended up winning in a thoroughly uninvigorating fashion. That did not stop Georgia students, myself included, from rushing the field and tearing down the goalposts. Yes, we were that starved for success that we stormed the field for a win over a 2-2, unranked opponent in a game we were favored and wasn't even that thrilling. That's how much we needed to feel success. It had been 15 years and 9 games since we'd beaten Tennessee. Running on the field and tearing down the goalposts wasn't the cool, or even the appropriate, thing to do, but catharsis rarely is cool or appropriate. Pieces of the goalposts went off in various directions, dragging up Lumpkin to go downtown. I ended up back at my old fraternity house, proudly wearing a "Yes, I'm a creepy old guy no longer in college" grin. We finally got that dance party we wanted in '98. Music was blasting, people were dancing. And the next thing you know, one arm of the goalposts arrived. We started dancing with the goalpost over our heads. It was a weird football-centric conga line. I cannot imagine ever having that happen to me again, but what happened next probably will never happen to anyone ever again. A buddy of ours, who once almost got a DUI on a riding lawnmower, decided that with the goalpost right there, it would be a good idea to fire up a chainsaw and cut the post up. To give everyone a little souvenir. I was absolutely annihilated, along with everyone else, but seeing the rainbow of sparks fly when the chainsaw metal hit the metal of the post provided an incredible moment of clarity. This was such a bad idea that, as drunk as I was, I thought it was a bad idea. But what was I going to do, stop the drunk guy using a chainsaw to cut through metal? So he started cutting. I did not know this before, but the goalposts are actually hollow inside. They're basically a long, metal PVC pipe. Also, the hollow area on the inside is shockingly close to the diameter of your standard koozy. And so as our friend cut up pieces, people started using their souvenir small ring of the goalpost to hold their beers. I am not kidding about this. It most certainly happened. Or at least I hallucinated it. I would appreciate corroboration, but I never got a goalpost koozy. Maybe it was all a dream. No. I am pretty sure it happened. An outrageous night. And the outpouring of unnecessary emotion goes to show: we all really hated Tennessee, and we were going to celebrate, even if they weren't that good.

2001: New coach, new starting quarterback, new everything. Low expectations. 2001 was the year Georgia fans learned their lesson. We all got too excited the previous year, and when we went 8-4 and had to play in some bowl called the Oahu Classic, which may or may not have actually been a legitimate bowl game, we all took our lumps. The lesson: never again would we overhype our team... until the next time we overhype our team. But not this year. We all had reasonably low expectations. And that's why, even though I was a frequently-drunk, mostly lazy third-year law student, I made no plans to travel to Knoxville to see our young pups play against a better (on paper, at least) Tennessee team. Also, if I wasn't going to be able to drink in a "Vol Bar", I wasn't going to go. So I watched it on TV with my roommates hungover from the previous night. If my memory serves, the air in the room smelled bad, but that may be because the air in our den always smelled horrible. There may have been a small nugget tray there. Nobody was drinking anything by gatorade and flat coke. Regardless, it was an early game. Georgia played pretty well, especially on defense early on. We exchanged punts, took advantage of field position and used some special teams skills to take a lead. Tennessee had the ball with about a minute to go and wasn't looking too potent, but my roommates and I had seen just one stinking 1 Georgia win over the Vols in our 6 years in Athens (and even before), so we knew the other shoe could drop. Then one of those Travises (Henry or Stephens, I can't remember) catches a screen pass and takes it all the way in for a TD and the lead. We get the ball back with like 45 seconds left and down 4. Some of us may have stopped watching already. We know that we have no chance in Neyland Stadium. They stupidly squib kick it to us, so we have the ball in decent field position. Then our unproven QB starts hitting our tight ends over the middle. We've all given up, but then we look up and we have the ball on like the 4 yard line with 6 seconds or so to go. How did this happen? Who is this team? Then Verron Haynes sneaks out of the backfield unmarked and Greene gets it to him. We just smashed their faces. In our living room, we didn't know what to do. We weren't drunk (still hungover). Only dudes there, and not many of us. We yelled for a minute, but then when we stopped it was really quiet. Like, too quiet. Were we supposed to hug each other or just exchange high fives? We had all this adrenaline in us for a minute and then didn't know what to do. We all just kind of looked at each other. We'd never experienced something like that sober and inhibited. The Dagger and I went outside and threw a frisbee for a few minutes and then maybe played a game of foosball. Weird. I think we started drinking again not long afterward. We had lost 9 in a row to Tennessee, and now we'd won 2 in a row. It felt weird. It felt good. The manner of beating them felt really good. We gave them the thought that they still owned us, and then we took that thought away. This was comeuppance. Maybe not 9 years worth, but still pretty damn good comeuppance.

In 2002 Georgia fans were stuck with a difficult choice about their own optimism. Should we think positively about our team, since we have just about everyone that matters back and our coaches look much better than they did under Donnan? But if we do hype things up, will that make us feel worse when they inevitably lose? It left us in a precarious position. Georgia fans, especially after the trauma of the 90s, are not particularly good at having confidence. So when Tennessee arrived in Athens with a team that, for the first time in a long time on paper, was a real step below Georgia, what were we to think? We'd won a game we probably shouldn't have in Columbia and we'd looked really good in the other games. What if we were the real deal? What if this was the season that all those miserable days behind us had been building us up for? My old roommate and I, I believe, took different approaches to this team, and the result of the Tennessee game showed it. The Dagger waited for the other shoe to drop. He was sure that Tennessee was going to beat us and start a real slide. I didn't feel great about Tennessee, but I thought we should win the game. And further, I thought the past failures didn't mean this year there would be one (at least with Tennessee, with Florida I thought it was hopeless). So when Georgia played a solid and steady game, taking advantage of Tennessee miscues and inadequacies and ended up winning a relatively uneventful game, I wasn't all that surprised. I thought we were on Tennessee's level - we'd beaten them 2 straight and the previous year was a brutal way for them to lose. The Dagger, on the other hand, was near tears at the end of the game. He couldn't believe that Georgia actually didn't fall into the trap. It was the first moment he thought Georgia actually had a chance to do something special that year. That's Tennessee hatred. Being near tears after an uneventful win because you thought something really really crazy could've happened right until the final zeroes... that's traumatic hatred. Even though I didn't feel that way at the time, I understood it. And it was good to beat Tennessee. The sound of "not hearing Rocky Top every 5 minutes" is beautiful.

Things can change in an instant. The gaping mouth of the Tennessee fan watching a sure touchdown right before the half turn into a fumble return for a touchdown and basically the end of the game for a shell-shocked UT team. That's all you need to say about 2003. We expected a battle. One bounce of the ball turned it into a rout. An unexpected rout. And a hilariously enjoyable rout. Schadenfreude makes hatred fun. And I knew I really hated Tennessee when I couldn't tell if I was happier that Georgia won in this fashion or that Tennessee was the recipient. One other thing that shows how things can change quickly: my 4 undergrad years at UGA ended in 1999. I watched 4 losses to Tennessee. The Wrangler is 5 years younger than me and entered in 2000. In his 4 undergrad years at UGA, he watched 4 wins against the Volunteers.

If there is a spectrum of hatred and how it applies to the chances of success against said hated opponent, it probably goes from hopeless-hate, doubtful-hate, simply-hate, confident-hate, and finally overconfident-hate. In some ways, the virulence of actual hatred works inverse to the chance of success. It's easy to hate when you don't have a chance, but easier to laugh at when you know you'll win (and laughing at is related to, but not pure hatred). From 1996 to 2004, Georgia fans probably experienced the entire spectrum. Unfortunately, 2004 was our overconfident year. We were experienced and talented. We had just pounded the defending national champions. We were ranked in the top 5. We had everything going for us. Nobody playing on the team had ever experienced a loss to Tennessee. We thought we owned them. And then the narrator from "Behind the Music" breaks the bad news. Tennessee still had some talent. Tennessee still could play defense. And Tennessee was tired of losing to a team that they once owned. Tennessee played great, and we didn't have answers until it was too late. When Greene's pass in the endzone to Leonard Pope fell incomplete, the giddy optimism that "this might really be our year" ended. Our overconfidence had led us to forget how much we hated Tennessee. We had our eyes on Florida and Auburn. We didn't hone our hatred enough. And it cost us dearly. Arguably the best team of my time as a Georgia fan didn't even win the SEC East. This is the lesson I learned: even when you're good, you have to remember how to hate.

And from an overconfident level, we returned to simply hating Tennessee in 2005, and what resulted was probably the toughest, most hard-fought game of this series. Georgia played a man's game that day, running Thomas Brown over and over again, killing the clock and wearing down the strong Volunteer defensive line. It was a beating Georgia gave Tennessee, but not on the scoreboard. It was a reminder: we still hate you, and we won't forget. This is the kind of game I think of when I think of how I'd really like to beat a good team that I hate. Bareknuckled. Bloody.

2006 was a game of two halves. The first half Georgia played way above their heads. Tereshinski was more efficient than he had a right to be. We played the kind of game that was successful in '02 and '05. Then the second half started and it became a reverse of 2003. Special teams debacles. Interceptions and fumbles. In an instant a grinding game that we're very much in becomes a whirlwind blowout. Looking back, Georgia probably didn't have the advantage in talent in the game, but there was still no reason to give up 51 points. They bit us good and deep. And it stung. Walking out of the stadium, hearing Rocky Top again, it made me wonder whether we were on the right path. We were young, but what if we also weren't that good? Tennessee reintroduced doubt, and that reinforced hatred.

For the end of 2006, Georgia went on a pretty good run that made us all pretty optimistic entering 2007. We hung with Florida, pounded a much better Auburn team, beat Tech and came back against a pretty good Virginia Tech team. We shutout South Carolina and though we hadn't really been killing other teams, the defense looked outrageously good. Tennessee came in with Fulmer on the hot seat and needing a big win. Tennessee looked more prepared and executed exactly what they wanted to do. I was intensely frustrated with Georgia's response. We looked lackadaisical. We looked predictable. We looked like a Donnan-coached team. I was mad. And I had a 5 month old daughter taking a nap as I watched the game. She decided she didn't want to sleep. This was frustrating as well. I needed to think. What did this game mean to me? I knew I couldn't let a poor performance of my team affect my personal life, like it did way back when. I was 30 years old. I had a kid. I had to figure it all out. And the Dawgs did too. They were talented, and capable of beating anyone in the country. But they lapsed and let Tennessee beat them senseless. It was a wakeup call. What would they do? What would I do? Would Georgia keep doing what they've been doing and hope that things would change on their own, or that luck comes their way one time? Or would they shape things up and take control of the situation - embrace their id, play with more reckless abandonment, have a little fun out there? And what about me? Would I throw myself into worry and depression with each Saturday? Would I allow my personality to get affected by this game, and, God forbid, let that affect how I engage with my family? Or would I take a step back and look at things in a different way? Instead of expecting something terrible to happen and driving myself crazy when it does, why not embrace the fact that I don't like other teams and let that be all it is? Why not always hope for something good to happen to the Dawgs, and if it doesn't, why not rely on hatred of that team to move past it? Instead of internalizing hatred and frustration, throw it out there and have fun with it, but let it go. Loosen up and quit worrying. That was the lesson of last year's Tennessee game. And Georgia went on an incredible run afterwards. For me personally, the lesson was "don't get so frustrated about losing this game - remember you've always hated those bastards, so be comfortable with that hatred and go play with your daughter." You wouldn't believe how much of a difference there is just by thinking a little differently.

And now we're here in 2008. I'm comfortable with my hatred of Tennessee, and, after taking a step back, I realize that my history of hating Tennessee is probably every bit as tortured and deep as my history of hating Florida. So how should I feel about this weekend's game? Well, I'm not going to worry about getting angry or frustrated if we lose. I want to win, and I'll be happy if we win. If we lose, I'll hate Tennessee no more than I already do. And that's a lot of hatred. So here's what I want: I want to beat them; I want to stick the knife in their gut and twist it; I want to hear silence instead of Rocky Top; I want next week's news to be dominated with "Will Fulmer be Fired?" stories; I want Tennessee fans to wonder if it was Cutcliffe that was all the brains; I want every top recruit looking at Tennessee and Georgia to think the Volunteers are a sinking ship; I want the Vols to switch quarterbacks 4 times because of obvious ineptitude; and I want Georgia to let them know they've been beaten really badly. Make it show. Make them bleed. And if those things don't happen, I'll still hate them.

That's the liberating thing about embracing hatred - it's always there to comfort the fall. When things are hopeless, hatred is key to just remaining a fan. But when things are good, and bad things happen, hating makes it easier.

Getting to Know Roddy White

2008-10-05T14:16:00.001-04:00

So on the Falcons game there was a pretaped segment on "Getting to Know" Roddy White, and we learned that he was a 2 time state champion wrestler. More importantly, he said it was a family tradition, and that he had several successful wrestlers in his family.

MOST INTERESTING, however, was that one of said relatives was "his uncle, Carl Champagne".

Carl Champagne. Name of the Year, 2008.

About Saturday

2008-09-14T11:35:00.002-04:00

1. William Hung has more rhythm than the officiating crew of the USC-UGA game. The only thing they were good at was stopping frequently enough to allow me to replenish my beer. So thanks for the hangover, incompetent refs!

2. On that same note, I don't think the refs changed the outcome of the game. I do think that they affected both offenses. The game did not have to look that ugly, offensively, for either team. Georgia's offense and South Carolina's offense looked decent on certain drives when the refs stayed out of the damn way. I'd actually like to watch these two teams play each other with a competent crew.

3. AJ Green is good. I'd have liked a few more deep throws yesterday. And I expect more next week.

4. Speaking of next week... Will Sun Devil fans blame Chick-fil-a for the turd dropped against UNLV? Will Gameday not go to the desert now? Will they instead go to Florida-Tennessee? It's an odd twist of fate. Will Georgia benefit from ABC/ESPN corporate synergy for once?

5. I am excited for the inertia-driven polling that will eventually place an early-losing, once-beaten Ohio State ahead of a later-losing, once-beaten Southern California team. Pollsters: remember how shitty the Buckeyes lost and put their ceiling at #10, no matter how many mediocre Big Ten teams they beat.

6. Speaking of mediocre... Cal, what the hell? Oregon, what the hell? Arizona State, what the hell? UCLA, what the hell? Arizona, what the hell? With the Pac-10 having exactly one good team, the ACC having no good teams, the Big Ten having maybe one good team (I'm talking about Penn State), and the Big East having maybe one decent team (South Florida), who is going to fill those at-large BCS slots? Might be the time to amend the prohibition against having more than 2 teams from the same conference (SEC and Big XII) or the prohibition against more than one non-BCS-automatic-qualifying conference team (so ECU and BYU could both make it). At the least the powers that be should start thinking about this.

7. Shiner Black Lager = good.

8. Was that Mark Richt Ford commercial national or local? It made him look really good.

9. A short annoyance about College Gameday yesterday... would it kill Lee Corso to at least know what conference the teams he talks about play in? Rice has not been a member of the WAC for several years now. Related: Vandy is half way to bowl eligibility, and that's awesome.

Rare Realism

2008-09-08T23:02:00.006-04:00

I have long been annoyed by the deluded fan-sac who passionately, pathetically brandishes a single finger at the camera, frantically declaring the numerical supremacy of his beloved football squad. In reality, his team may not have cracked the top 25, but don't tell that to the ol' nostril-shovel of his. Whether signaling barehanded or with oversize foam, there are thousands of these fartheads in every stadium across the land.

That's why I was pleased to see the two Dawg fans shown here proudly displaying our actual ranking from their seats in Sanford. With Knowshon flying through the air with the greatest of ease, you can understand the grumblings among some of the Bulldawg faithful who were mad about slipping from the top spot in the polls, but I applaud these levelheaded Dawg fans, obviously pleased to cruise along in the deuce hole. After all, that's all we'll need to get to play for the shebang, so like these fine gentlemen, I'm happy right where we are.

UPDATE:

The Jersey version.

Russell Brand is funny

2008-09-07T21:17:00.004-04:00

I always appreciate an emcee who goes a bit further than his audience or producers would like. And his hair looks like a 1985 Jersey skank in a camaro.

Also, his columns on the Premiership in the Guardian are usually extremely interesting and well written.

One other thing about Florida-Miami from last night

2008-09-07T13:09:00.001-04:00

One of the nicer things about not having College Football around is the complete lack of Penn Wagers' presence in our living rooms and stadia.

How that guy has a job still is a question science cannot answer.

Not too bad Matt Ryan

2008-09-07T13:07:00.002-04:00

Pretty good first NFL pass.

I expect nothing less than multiple Super Bowl titles now.

OK, new mission statement

2008-09-07T11:39:00.004-04:00

So yeah, I haven't written on this site much, and hopefully a lot of folks think it's dead. I suppose I owe folks an explanation...

WHY?

Well, I've got other stuff going on, so it's not as much a priority.

Also, I've been a little more politically focused, or on family or movies or books. I've thought about this site and how I didn't start it as a college football blog, but then it got some attention as a college football blog. And I'm not really that specialized, or one-track-minded, or something. I meant for this to be a zip drive for my brain and my thoughts on all things, but at some point it turned into something else, and that kind of bored me.

Another thing is that a lot of the college football thoughts I've had, well, they're out there already. 3 years ago, I think there was a decent amount of sub rosa aggravation with how the sport was covered, how titles were conferred, etc. People complained on message boards and around water coolers. Maybe I thought there was a voice unheard back then. But now, there are tons of people who are writing and talking about media bias, subjectivity in sports coverage, statistical analysis above intangibles, local coverage advantages, etc. Sure, there's a mission in further spreading the gospel and staying on mission, but... well, I've got other fish to fry, and there are smarter people out there frying that one.

So here's the new way forward. I'm going to write what's on my mind when I can or need to. I'm not going to pigeonhole myself. I'm not doing Gameday recaps anymore - I can barely bring myself to watch it, let alone spend 4 hours parsing it. I probably won't do the Lebowski stuff anymore - you can figure it out. That doesn't mean that when I hear Kirk Herbstreit raving about Ohio State's intangibles I won't shudder and sometimes post. That doesn't mean that I won't ever post about how Craig James shouldn't be allowed to puff up Texas Tech without disclosing that his son plays on the team (FOUR NEGATIVES IN THAT SENTENCE, TOP THAT!).

The good news is that now that I've let the weeds overgrow this place, nobody's reading. And that leads to a great sense of freedom.

This is confusing

2008-09-07T11:34:00.004-04:00

This Week on ABC is having their political roundtable, and from what I can tell, David Freaking Brooks is representing the most liberal view on such roundtable this week.

Two ideological conservatives, two nonideological journalists and a referee. This definitely presents all views.

Also, everyone just laughed out loud about McCain/Palin's ridiculous claim about foreign policy by osmosis near Russia. Why don't they call the candidates and their surrogates out on that to their faces? Are they scared to say this unless they're among their own kind?

UPDATE: Take it back. Brooks just basically said everyone in latte-sipping New England thinks Palin's trailer trash. Nobody paints with a broader brush (but the wrong color) like David Brooks. He should go choke on a Red Lobster cheese biscuit.

Dear Brent Musberger

2008-09-06T23:05:00.002-04:00

Florida did not kick a meaningless field goal to impress recruits, or voters.

Florida did not throw to the end zone or run plays with time left on the play clock on their final drive to win "the beauty contest."

Florida did not continue to "showcase their offense," with all starters in, when Miami had already not used their final time out, and when Florida could have kneeled out the clock.

No, Brent, you naive drunk.

The line was between 21 and 22, depending on the source. Florida was up 20. It was a gambling move alone. Please the big donors.

I'm sure there's a network taboo with mentioning gambling. But it does a disservice to viewers. Urban Meyer pressed his O to please his gambling fans. Don't mention it though. Might not match the narrative of Saint Tim and Pope Urban.

Flick the Button

2008-08-20T22:32:00.000-04:00

Think I've got them all this time...

1. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. A thoroughly interesting film. Exceptional acting and directing. And, oh, the lovely Marie-Josee Croze, one of my personal favorites. What I liked best about it was that it wasn't particularly inspiring to me, but just very human. There is much color in this film. Sharp steak knives.

2. 21. Serviceable, if forgettable. A decent enough adaptation of the book, but I didn't like the book all that much. Or at least I thought the book was interesting but poorly written, while I thought the movie was made fine enough, but I'd heard the story before. You're Fired.

3. Drillbit Taylor. Awful and embarrassing to all parties involved, including me for wasting my time. You're Fired.

4. The Last King of Scotland. Exceeded my expectations. I thought it'd be a performance movie, and Whitaker is really good, but it's more than that. McAvoy really impressed me in this (far more than Atonement), but the history (yes, embellished) was what kept me interested. It made me want to learn more about Africa. A lot of ground is covered in this film, but the film never felt long. Cadillac.

5. A Hard Day's Night. Classic fun. Great music and silliness. I could watch this dozens of times. Why is John Lennon not known as being so funny? Damn you Yoko Ono for robbing the world of his hilarity! Cadillac.

6. Harold and Kumar: Escape From Guantanamo Bay. Has its moments, but didn't feel as clever or fun as the first one. It's almost like the filmmakers heard some of the praise for the original being slightly smarter than it needed to be and then tried to hard at making this one smart. But it still has some very funny scenes, particularly the threesome scene and just about everything NPH says. You're Fired.

7. Eagle vs. Shark. Another movie that tries a little too hard, but it's still kind of a nice movie. No, I'm wrong about that and confusing Kiwi for quirky. It's not that good a movie. Still like Jemaine Clement though. You're Fired.

8. The Ruins. Not sure why I read a lot of positive reviews for this. Didn't really scare, wasn't that interesting. One 90 minute "wait, is that all?". You're Fired.

9. Cocaine Cowboys. Fascinating and engrossing, if too-shiny. There are better-made docs out there, but there probably aren't many I'd be as interested in or as detailed. Wacky editing though. Recommended. Steak Knives.

10. Vantage Point. Speaking of wacky editing... This movie took us nowhere. Wasted 90 minutes. You're Fired.

11. Definitely, Maybe. Ehh. If you are a woman and you have a very large crush on Ryan Reynolds, then it's worth watching. It wasn't horrible and Abigail Breslin didn't annoy the hell out of me. But I wouldn't say it's "good." You're Fired.

12. Chopper. I really liked it, but there was a tremendous flaw with the DVD: no closed captioning. I understood about half of what was said. What I understood I loved, and I wished I'd been able to comprehend the rest. One key thing: nobody can watch this and think Eric Bana is overrated, which I did until I saw this. Steak Knives.

13. The Hammer. It was a little better than I thought it'd be. I get annoyed by Carolla's energy, but I can't deny his comic timing. The story's been done before and better, but I've seen worse too. You're Fired, but not awful.

14. Jumper. First off, any studio head that gives $100M budget for a movie starring Christensen needs to be fired. Second, why is it that I sensed that they ran out of money for this movie? Seemed like it was missing something or that they didn't use the resources well. Third, Jamie Bell was, by far, the most interesting character in the movie. They should've introduced him earlier and given him more screen time. Lastly, Rachel Bilson's character is as poorly written as any character I've ever seen on screen. One more: actually seeing this movie makes me hate Fox's bowl coverage more because of their corporate synergy from last year's Sugar Bowl. Why do I have so may thoughts about this movie, when it sucked so much? You're Fired.

15. Revolver. This movie made no sense. Whatsoever. Jason Statham shouldn't have hair. You're Fired.

16. Stop-Loss. Ryan Phillippe can't act. The reason why this and other Iraq War movies have failed is because we can't tell whether it's sensationalizing, preaching, reality with gloss, or what. I'd rather see either a documentary or something like Saving Private Ryan. But that's a taste thing. From a critical view, this wasn't very good. Poorly acted, plot felt like an outline, little tension. You're Fired.

17. The Onion Movie. Small handful of laughs, lots of misses. Cockpuncher is very funny. The Onion works better in words. At least it's really short. You're Fired.

18. The Bank Job. With a slightly better cast this would've been great, but instead it's just polished and interesting. A decent popcorn movie. Nothing all that important or mindblowing, but enjoyable. Steak Knives.

19. The Other Boleyn Girl. Snooze. Now having seen Chopper, I wish Henry VIII had used shivs and cussed constantly. You're Fired.

20. The Dark Knight. A theatre movie?!! Yes. It's an exceptionally good movie, and, yes, it's one with big ideas about terror and chaos. But I didn't like it as much as Batman Begins, which is one of my favorite movies of the decade. I missed the winking humor of Bruce Wayne. Everything that's been written about Ledger is true. A spectacle. Cadillac.

Confession

2008-07-28T22:47:00.003-04:00

I actually voted in the ESPN Title Town USA thing. And I picked the winner too. I spent a summer in Title Town USA! Magic Square indeed!

Easiest job in the world today: Editor in Chief for the VD Times.

Next stop, the googles

2008-07-28T22:34:00.002-04:00

I'm on Facebook now.

Go find me and we can be friends. Finally, the world of zeroes and ones has opened up possibilities never before dreamed of!

Flick the Button

2008-07-08T22:00:00.000-04:00

1. I Am Legend. For a big action movie, this was sure subtle. I kept waiting for the "whoa" scene, but it never came. Initially, I thought that might be a credit to the film, but thinking back, I mean, isn't this supposed to be a big Will Smith action movie? Why isn't there a big scene that kicks ass? I guess it's serviceable, if forgettable. You're Fired.

2. Atonement. My least favorite movie of the year. I had serious ethical issues with it. Perhaps the east satisfying ending of any film I've seen. You are fired.

3. There Will Be Blood. On the other hand... this may be the best film of the last year. It's far more than Day-Lewis's performance. Perfect score, exceptional cinematography, thick and meaty script (though sparse dialogue, every word matters). A classic. Cadillac.

4. Cloverfield. OK idea for a film student thesis, but as a feature meh. Though in comparison to I Am Legend, it was far less suspenseful but much "bigger" - the final scenes were what I like to see in an action movie. At a minimum, it was barely longer than an episode of shitty summer reality TV. You're Fired.

5. Charlie Wilson's War. The book is far better if you actually want the history, but the movie does a good job of hitting the high points and keeping you entertained. As good an adaptation as I think could've been done. Hoffman is amazing, as usual, and acts Hanks off the screen. Steak Knives.

6. 27 Dresses. Blah. Don't remember anything about it except that I tuned out about halfway in. And that Katherine Heigl is annoying as hell. You're Fired.

7. The Darjeeling Limited. It might be that I have two brothers, but I really enjoyed this movie. Even though it at times seemed like famous boys on vacation in costumes. I know that there's a certain Wes Anderson-ism that people either love or hate. I like it, but I also think it can be flawed - and the flaws can overcome the qualities of the movie. In this, I didn't mind the flaws. And I loved the soundtrack. I can see people not digging this all that much, but I liked it as much as any of Anderson's since Rushmore. For me, it's a Cadillac.

8. Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story. Surprisingly funny. I was expecting the preview scenes (like the odious Beatles scene) to be the best parts, but that wasn't the case. Reilly is hilarious. Steak Knives.

9. Dan In Real Life. Lifetime movie with famous male lead. Snooze. You're fired.

10. My Kid Could Paint That. Interesting to an extent, but not all that entertaining or informative. I don't think the kid painted the good ones. You're fired.

11. Lars and the Real Girl. A sweet movie, but I'm not sure I liked it all that much either. The acting is fine. For some reason I thought there was some forced quirkiness, like an episode of Northern Exposure. I can see people liking it, but for me it's You're Fired.

12. The Kite Runner. A decent adaptation, but seemed like an HBO movie, rather than a feature. They took out the "evil nazi" angle, which I think was a good choice. The book didn't thrill me when I read it, and the movie gave me about the same thing. You're Fired.

13. The Wicker Man (2006). Pretty hilarious. Man, does LaBute hate women. Man, is Nick Cage a ridiculous actor. You're fired, but I'd watch it again for shits and giggles.

14. Be Kind Rewind. Cute and funny and had some interesting Gondry sight gags, but it was too rough. Felt like a first draft. I liked it, but I know it could've been better. You're fired, but I liked it enough to watch again.

15. In Bruges. Clever and interesting and oddly moving. Really. Colin Farrell's best work since... hmmm... maybe Tigerland? Made me want to visit Belgium. And shoot people. And I don't know if there's anything else one can ask out of a movie. Beat up Cadillac.

16. Semi-Pro. A couple good jokes in the middle of a weak, lazy movie. Wigs and funny costumes aren't enough. The worst Will Ferrell movie. You're Fired.

17. The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. Rent this movie! If you like Christopher Guest movies, this is as good as you're going to get. Simply hysterical. Cadillac.

18. Trailer Park Boys: The Movie. Here's a surprise too. Recommended. Smarter than a cussing comedy needed to be. Reminded me of Super Troopers like that. Canadians are interesting. Sharp Steak Knives, and if I see it a few more times (and when drunk), I'm betting I'd raise this to a cadillac.

19. Death at a Funeral. A fine choice if you're looking for a somewhat funny comedy that you can watch with your parents without cringing too much. Not the most memorable film, but a decent way to spend a couple hours. Dull steak knives.

20. The Signal. Disclosure: I'm friends with one of the directors. Still, this was interesting, shockingly well acted - amazing what happens when a horror movie casts people based on talent, rather than because they have a job on a shitty CW/UPN/WB teen soap. The end gets a little messy, but overall this was a good movie. Really liked the middle transmission. Sharp steak knives for a horror movie.

Best/Worst Goal Call Of All Time

2008-06-13T23:23:00.005-04:00

After Wesley Sneijder's goal in extra time today against France, ~~Andy Gray Derek Rae~~ Adrian Healey had this to say:

"It's a Dutch oven, and the French are toast!"

Yep. Greatest and worst ever.

Update: Name corrected. It was Adrian Healey, not Andy Gray or Derek Rae.

Euro 2008 Thoughts

2008-06-07T16:32:00.002-04:00

Overall: I know it's not bold, but I like Germany to take the Euro 2008 title. As a surprise team, I'd back Russia. Here's my ladder of rooting for teams in this tournament:

1. Spain

2. Germany

3. Croatia

4. Russia

5. Sweden

6. Holland

7. Turkey

8. Greece

9. Romania

10. France

11. Switzerland

12. Austria

13. Czech Republic

14. Poland

15. Italy

16. Portugal

If you like money, you should now bet on Italy or Portugal (and Poland for the big payoff).

As for today's games...

I started writing this post while watching the Swiss/Czech match. Going into the game, I thought I'd root for the Czechs. Over the course of the first 60 minutes or so, I found them to be annoyingly defensive, completely unable to maintain possession and simply boring. The Swiss were organized and pressuring, though it looked pretty clear that they weren't that talented. Then the Czechs scored on a brainfart from the Swiss defense. Not sold on either of these teams going too far. But the Czechs aren't playing enjoyable football.

The second match... Well, I'm pulling for Turkey, but I doubt they'll pull anything off. Can I root for a Ronaldo comeuppance without being a dick?

Some things I Like

2008-04-23T21:51:00.000-04:00

1. How Krazee Eyez Killah was in a State Farm commercial that ran every break during March Madness.

2. Leinenkugel's Sunset Wheat

3. Pulitzer Prize Winning Doritos Spicy Sweet Chili.

4. The Internet Is Terrible

5. Heavy Metal Parking Lot, which I'd heard about from that Backstreet Boys video a while back, but never actually seen. Incredible.

6. Blanche de Chambly (and Don de Dieu, if you want to get drunk fast). All about the ale on lees.

7. Mad Men. Watch this television show. It's great. I can't stress this enough.

8. The fact that a team in the Philippine Basketball Association was excited to have signed former UGA basketball player Steven Thomas. Look: he's all over their website! Also: you can spend an hour looking at info on the PBA on wikipedia. The PBA is freaking awesome. I thought I was going to become a die hard Beverage Master fan, but I don't want to be a frontrunner. Come on Phone Pals!

9. That Saturday is the NFL draft. I know it's terrible. I know I'm a massive nerd for loving it. I actually even did a live blog of it 3 years ago (whoa... stone age in blogtime). I can't help it. I love college football and I like pro football. I even think Mel Kiper is great; he's one of the few people on ESPN that actually provides insight - he's definitely an expert in his field, especially compared the the litany of ESPN's former players/moronic sportswriters yelling conventional wisdom. Sure, I wish it would go faster. And Berman is atrocious (though this year I might watch a bit more of the NFL network). Still, I like it. I can't help it. Now, please let Dorsey fall to the Falcons so we're not stuck with Matt Ryan and an albatross contract.

10. The best thing that has ever been on the internet: Fun Town Autos.

11. Finally, a happy 10 year anniversary to Je Suis France, a fine rock-n-roll band. The average life span of an Athens band is like 3 weeks, and the average level of awesomeness on a scale of AIDS to Fun Town Autos is "scrotal contusion", it's just incredible that they've lasted so long and continue to provide the cruisejams and crotchbashes at such a high level. Congrats, dudes. Also, Darkness - something is coming your way. Keep your eyes open.

Unseen Power of the Picket Fence

2008-04-20T11:05:00.002-04:00

So, I suppose I owe an explanation as to why the posts have gotten so sporadic.

Last May, the Lady and I had a daughter. She's a lot more mobile now, and more interesting than when she just sat and slept and pooped and ate. Not that I don't find great interest and satisfaction in blogging, but, well, it just doesn't compare to having a kid around to play with and teach things and all. If ever I have to choose between blogging and spending a minute with the Countess, well, that's no choice at all.

Now, you might be thinking, "But LD, you watch a ton of movies, and in a post or two you'll tell us that you've watched 127 episodes of Law & Order: Criminal Intent since January. You can't tell us that blogging and hanging out with your kid is an 'either/or' quandary. You can post if you make the effort." And you would be right, or at least partly right. It's true, I do have free time outside of work, and the little one goes to bed relatively early, leaving me with a good amount of time in the evening during which I could be blogging. Truth is that the Lady, for the last couple of years, is a freelance writer. And considering that having the Countess rambling around affected her daily routine quite a bit more than mine, she really had a good reason to use the computer once the little one went to bed. If the choice is between the Lady using the computer and getting paid for it, and me blogging and not getting paid for it, there's no choice at all.

I'm not shutting down the blog. And I am going to try to post more frequently. I might be able to do just that too (we have 2 computers now). So don't give up just yet.

And one last note: yes, that picture with the mustache below is me. And it was real. The beard lasted about 2 1/2 months. It was getting too hot and I was getting odd looks from people at my real job. It had to go. I should've kept the 'stache longer though.

Flick the Button

2008-04-20T09:26:00.001-04:00

Big backlog, so I'll try to be brief.

1. Grandma's Boy: Got some moments, but just felt like it could've been a little funnier. Overall the cast was funny and all of them deserve more and better roles. But there are too many stretches without laughs, or just non sequiturs pretending to be gags. Note: I agree completely with the IMDB featured comment, "This film would have sucked had Sandler been in it." You're Fired.

2. Across the Universe: Enjoyable and occasionally brilliant. Not every number works, but a few of them are fantastic. Taymor is a visionary who doesn't need to prove it on the silver screen, but I also got the feeling like she could make a revelation of a film. It's like I want to praise the heights this film hits, but I also think it could've been a classic. Great art direction. Pretty decent acting from the leads, though the supporting acting is so-so. I liked it, but I also really like the Beatles. Steak Knives.

3. No End In Sight: Important for someone who hasn't been paying attention to the Iraq war for the last 5 years, but little new information. Strong editing and interviewing skills, but not all that groundbreaking. Seemed like a decent Frontline special. You're Fired.

4. The Brave One: Clean and well made, but ultimately empty. Probably a bit too straight-forward. Terrence Howard was pretty good though. You're Fired.

5. Gone Baby Gone: Surprisingly, this was really good. In fact, I think I might've liked it better than (the natural comparison) Mystic River. Casey Affleck is fantastic. The rest of the cast, especially the bit players, was outstanding - maybe the best ensemble for a movie I've seen all year. Amy Ryan got all the attention, but it's really Casey Affleck that stole the show. The kind of movie that made me want to read the book - and that's a high compliment. Not afraid to say it, Cadillac.

6. Shoot 'Em Up: As a comedy, it could use more laughs. As a thriller, it could use less ridiculousness. Or just more of everything. I think it's just shy of being a parody, but it also has some hilarious moments, primarily skydive fighting. If this were more ridiculous, I'd probably watch it again, but it isn't, so I won't. You're Fired.

7. 3:10 to Yuma (2007): I like westerns. I like Bale and Crowe (and Ben Foster too). I like Elmore Leonard. But there was something a little too slick about this for me to really love it, though I did like it OK. I think I'd have liked it more had it been grittier. Or maybe it just doesn't compare to the great Westerns too favorably. Maybe I'm being too critical. Probably, because I did like it. Steak Knives.

8. Michael Clayton: One of my favorites of the last year. White collar Bourne Identity - and I really appreciate the way Tony Gilroy thinks and writes. Excellent acting, fine direction, great pacing. Cadillac.

9. Sunshine (2007): Alternated between beautiful visuals and epileptic chopping. Alternated between psychological drama projected onto an eternal and universal canvas and goofy ripoff of Event Horizon (which at least knew it was ridiculous). A movie needs to figure out what it wants to be. This didn't. I did kind of like the final scene though. You're Fired.

10. American Gangster: Tried too hard to be good. Watching some movies, you can just envision the pitch that got it started. With this, it was "a new Scarface, big, badass". OK, that's fine if they want to make that, but it didn't turn out to be great. It feels about an hour too long. Denzel Washington is kind of a ham. An indulgent film. You're Fired.

11. The Lives of Others: A solid moral drama. Finely acted and directed. The pacing of the film matches plodding bureaucracy, and that works. As far as Communist-era East German-set films go, I preferred Good Bye Lenin!, but this was pretty good too. Steak Knives.

12. Layer Cake: My mistake here was in reading the book first. The book is richer, twistier, makes more sense (and less - it's written in cockney), and has a better ending. I'm not really in a position to tell you how good the movie is on its own, because I can't think about the movie without comparing it to the book. You might like the movie a lot (and there are some scenes that are great). For me, you're fired - read the book.

13. No Country For Old Men: Again, I read the book first, but here it's a little different. The book and the film are pretty much identical. Almost word for word. And I appreciate that. The film matches the book in power, vivid imagery, and how indelible it is. It's a classic film that stands up next to a classic novel. The Coen Brothers have done better, and so has Cormac McCarthy, but nobody else could've done this novel better. Cadillac.

14. Into the Wild: Again, I read the book first. Here, the book/film issue worked somewhere between the previous two. What was good was the scenery and cinematography - works much better on film than in Krakauer's news-reporting, little describing style. What was missing was (and I shouldn't be surprised because it's Sean Penn) the humor. I really got the sense in the book that McCandless was an interesting, positive, sort of infectious character once he hit the road. That only shined through in too-brief moments in the film (talking to an apple, "I'm fuckin' hungry!"). Maybe that's Hirsch's fault, but I sense that it's Penn's fingerprints that made the character just too morose. Also - for a movie that relied on bit players he meets on the way, it seemed like the supporting cast was terribly underused (especially Galifianakis). You're Fired.

15. Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End: Oh Lord. Three scenes that were cool (multiple Sparrows, battle in the whirlpool, umm... make that two). 150 scenes that sucked or were terribly annoying. This movie felt interminable. Get to the point. Everything that made me hate the second one was back. Everything that made the first one good was completely absent (except that one scene with the multiple Sparrows). Seemed like a massive waste of filmstock and resources. Jeez. This sucked. You're Fired.

16. Fracture: I figured out all the twists way early on. We never found out why Gosling spoke with a southern accent, though, and that was the most interesting mystery. Throw-away movie that I'd have forgotten completely if I hadn't watched it yesterday. You're Fired.

17. Mad Men - Season One: An exceptional television program which I highly recommend to everyone I know. Seriously, this is one of the best-written TV shows I've ever watched and the acting, style, etc. all works great. NOTE: AMC IS RESHOWING THE FIRST SEASON STARTING TONIGHT AT MIDNIGHT. WATCH THIS! I THINK IT'S ON "ON-DEMAND" TOO. WATCH IT!

I'm pretty sure I've forgotten a bunch of movies, but if I can't remember them, they sucked.

Somethin' Fo tha Honeys

2008-04-01T21:03:00.003-04:00

A brief interlude on the Hawks

2008-03-12T20:06:00.002-04:00

I find the Atlanta Hawks mystifying. I want to root for them, because I have a real sense of "buy low, cash in big" with this team, but then I think they are already underperforming greatly. There is talent on this team, but they aren't performing well. I found myself nodding in agreement when the 790 AM morning hosts were bitching that the top-to-bottom roster for the Houston Rockets, who might never lose again, isn't as good as the roster for the Hawks. Well, the Rockets certainly have more depth, but I think there's some merit to the argument. The Rockets are a significantly better coached team than the Hawks.

Regardless, the Hawks are primed for a berth in the playoffs. They sit in the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference right now, and they have what on paper is the easiest schedule remaining of the teams in the hunt for 6th-8th. There is reason for some optimism that the Hawks may make the playoffs. The AJC this morning broke down the chances of the Hawks making a run to the playoffs. The problem: 4 of the AJC's reasons why the Hawks will make the playoffs aren't very strong. There is really only reason why the Hawks will make the playoffs: other Eastern Conference teams are more awful than the Hawks. That's it. Let me break down the other reasons:

1. The schedule: Of the Hawks' 19 remaining games, 11 are against teams with a worse record, including three against the 18-win Knicks.

Yes, the Hawks have an easy schedule remaining, playing so many bad teams. The flaw in that argument? The Hawks still aren't very good against those teams. Against the 11 teams with worse records than the Hawks that the Hawks have yet to play, the Hawks are barely above .500 (9-7). Take out the 3 wins against the worst team in the league, Miami (which wins were by a margin of only 9 points combined!), and they're below .500. The Hawks have already lost twice to the Bucks and Nets (more on them in a second), and they've been blown out once by the Bulls. The three games against the Knicks should cause optimism, but if you saw last week's Knicks game, the Hawks struggled mightily and only had a lead of more than one basket for the last 11 seconds in the 4th quarter. Checking any game remaining on the schedule as a "sure win" is not a good idea.

2. The opponents: The Hawks play Washington, New Jersey, Chicago (2), Philadelphia (2) and Indiana — all teams within four games in the standings

Having your closest competitors for a playoff spot is definitely an advantage for a team, but only if you actually win those games. The Hawks haven't shown that they are likely to do so. They are just 6-6 against those 5 teams so far this year. The other thing: the Hawks have to travel on the road against all five of those teams (Chicago and Philly both also come to Philips Arena). The Hawks already lost on the road at New Jersey, Chicago and Indiana. The Pacers loss was by 22 points! The AJC mentions in their section on why the Hawks won't make the playoffs that the Hawks are just 7-25 on the road this year. 5 of their remaining 9 road games are against these key teams. That's bad news.

3. The point guard: Mike Bibby is averaging 12.6 points, 6.4 assists and 31.1 minutes in 14 games since trade to the Hawks.

Those numbers might seem pretty good compared to the point guards he supplanted. But here's what the AJC isn't telling you: Bibby's numbers are down from when he was on the Kings. Just this year, Bibby's points per game, rebounds, and steals are down. His assists are slightly up, but everything else is down. His FG shooting and FT shooting is worse too. And that's just comparing Bibby on the Hawks to the 2007-08 Bibby on the Kings. If you look at his numbers from previous years, he's going to average career lows in points, steals and rebounds. And the clincher is this: that's not even the worst news about Bibby. That would be his defense. Since the trade for Bibby, the Hawks have averaged giving up 110 points per game. That's more than 10 points more than their season average. Opposing PGs have had a field day on Bibby, including Baron Davis going for 35 points twice and Chris Paul posting a 23/18 day. Yeah, those guys are all-stars, but Raymond Felton put up 23/10 for the Bobcats (another team with a worse record than the Hawks that the Hawks just lost to). Bibby's D is really hurting the Hawks (or, who knows, maybe it was all AJ, Lue, and Shelden doing the defending). Regardless, unless the Hawks figure out how to defend better with Bibby, or increase his offensive output dramatically, Bibby's presence won't help the Hawks make the playoffs - it'll hurt it.

4. The All-Star: Joe Johnson is starting to score more. He is averaging 29.6 points over the last five games, including 39 against Miami.

Joe Johnson does seem to be playing better, and it's mainly because of his 3-point shooting. He's hit better than his season average in FG% and 3-PT % in 9 of the 13 games since the Bibby trade. That's definitely a positive. And it could be a sign that Bibby's presence is getting Joe open for better shots. The increased scoring average, though isn't all good news. In those 5 games where Joe is nearly averaging 30 points a game, the Hawks are 1-4, and all 4 losses were blowouts (by 11, 15, 15 and 17 in games that really weren't even that close). I can't find/put together the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that Joe's points per 100 Hawks possessions in those 5 games isn't all that improved over his numbers for the rest of the season. The Hawks are giving up more points, so they're getting more possessions. Joe's increased scoring could be just a product of shootout games - and worse, shootout games that aren't really all that close. When the Warriors or Magic are up 25 points in the late third quarter, the benches are getting emptied for the opposing teams and they aren't working quite as hard on D as they might be in a 1 possession game. And finally, Joe Johnson's scoring is up over the last 5 games, but Josh Smith, Marvin Williams and Josh Childress all are seeing their scoring drop precipitously over that same stretch. Joe's scoring, but it's to the detriment of, not in addition to, the other scoring options. I don't think the increased scoring numbers will automatically lead to a Hawks playoff berth.

My honest opinion: I think the Hawks do have a great chance of making the playoffs. But it won't be because of the reasons the AJC is giving. It'll be only because the Hawks are equally or slightly less terrible than the Nets, Bulls and Pacers (but those three teams have tougher remaining schedules). And those teams are also really terrible.

Something I learned from ESPN today...

2008-03-11T09:35:00.005-04:00

Peter Gammons likes the way Evan Longoria holds his bat.

No. I'm not dead.

Hot Thrashers Rumors!

2008-02-23T09:31:00.004-05:00

So, while drinking in L'Oncle Antoine, a pub located in a 1700's building in Vieux Quebec, a Quebecois hockey fan assured me that within the next couple of weeks, Marian Hossa will be a Montreal Canadien.

Makes sense to me. Hawks make a trade to add a relatively pricey player, time for the Thrashers to trim some payroll. Two teams that care about winning in this city is just too much, right?

Also: Philips Arena is one of the most successful concert venues in the world. But the Thrashers have the 8th most cap space in the NHL. The Hawks are 28th out of 30th in salary.

Philips is a moneymaker. The Hawks and Thrashers can draw fans and revenues. Time to spend real money on the teams, Spirit.

Flick the Button

2008-01-31T21:42:00.000-05:00

1. The Namesake. Alright. I never noticed Kal Penn as having an oddly big nose in House or Harold and Kumar, so was it a prosthetic in this? In the few Mira Nair movies I've seen, music seems to dominate certain scenes (almost to a distraction), and this is no different. Plot-wise, this movie might've made a better saga miniseries, but TV networks don't really do that anymore, except for Lonesome Dove tales. Neither forgettable, nor memorable. You're Fired.

2. The Simpsons Movie. I guess I was hoping for more. In mymind, I had this theory that the last few years of the Simpsons on TV were so-so because they were saving the best jokes for the movie. I don't think my theory was correct, though there were some funny moments. The movie seemed like less of a "take the show to the next level" but more of a "let's remind everyone about how great the show is, as a whole". There's lots of references to golden age (early-mid 90s) episodes, which is nicely nostalgic, but maybe I was just hoping for something more. Maybe I need to see it again too. Fired/Steak Knives.

3. The Kingdom. I was suprised, but I actually liked this, despite many reasons not to. Normally I dislike jerky camera action, and the dialogue is pretty much stock action movie. But for the most part, this is really just a crime procedure movie, and it's pretty good at doing that. Not so much political, not so much bad ass action movie (until the end, where it does get a silly). In a weird way, this was kind of the movie I wanted A Mighty Heart to be (albeit with more guns and bombs). Steak Knives.

4. The Heartbreak Kid (2007). A couple of "geez, that's sick" moments, but no heart, and little actual comedy beyond the gross-out. And it's quite forgettable. Shame. I kind of like Michelle Monaghan. I'm not ready to say that There's Something About Mary was a complete outlier for the Farrelly Bros., as there are moments in some of their other movies. This, however, blew. You're Fired.

5. Stardust. I kind of wanted to like this, and it was OK for the most part. But a lot of the movie felt forced. Were I 13 and a girl, I'd probably like this a lot more. Instead, it looks like a SciFi network movie with more famous actors and peppier dialogue. In the fantasy genre, I appreciate the efforts of creating a new and fantastic world. In this movie, the new world felt kind of, well, like it'd been done before. You're Fired.

6. La Vie en Rose. Acting school. Cotillard is really really great in this. She reminds me of my great aunts, in mannerisms and how her Edith Piaf is really funny. The movie itself was engaging and interesting, even if I had no idea who Edith Piaf was, and I really wasn't much of a fan of her music. Beyond the acting, this felt like a real movie, not a TV movie with a bigger budget. Sharp steak knives.

7. Eastern Promises. Right after finishing the movie, I wasn't sure about how much I liked it. Probably because the Cronenberg movies I've seen seem just a little too slick. But this one stayed with me, and I think it's Mortensen's acting that's the reason for it. Like Watts's character, I wanted to believe he was good but capable of real evil, even when there was little evidence from his actions. The viewer and Watts' character were in the same boat. Kind of powerful. Downside: Cassel's performance was pretty hackish. Steak Knives.

8. Jesus Camp. I can't say I was all that shocked by the political angles here. And in a way, this is just a movie about weirdish kids coming from weird parents. But it also had a lot of moments of "really!!??" or "dude!!!". The Lady liked this a lot lot lot more than I did, but I didn't think it was bad. Probably a very effective movie to a lot of audiences. Steak Knives.

9. Suburban Girl. Stunning that this even made a DVD release, and not just an "ABC Family Original". There's no conflict for 2/3ds of the movie. The acting is bad or boring (and you have Alec Baldwin!). The editing bits are insulting to the audience (especially the last frame, which is the worst way to end a movie I've ever seen, really). Really bad. In fact, so bad, the only thing I found slightly redeeming was the lines from the Philawarepragueicago guy. Also, the title and marketing is F'd up. (A) She's not really a "suburban" girl. She lives in a massive apartment owned by her Aunt who was a member of the literati. (B) This movie isn't really based on the book it says it's based on, per The Lady. Don't get tricked. You're Fired.

10. The Brothers Solomon. Like Let's Go To Prison, this felt like an early draft of something that could've been very good. It's got funny moments, but it just feels rushed and like it could've had more funny moments. I think Will Arnett was miscast (and I'm a huge Will Arnett fan). He's creepy-nice in this, when he should either be nice-nice or actually creepy, or maybe they left it open for too long because they weren't sure whether they were going to have him end up creepy or nice. I liked Will Forte a lot in this though. The movie was way way way better than the other dick and fart comedies in this post, but not quite very good. And I probably grade tougher because I think with a couple of revisions, this could've been great. You're Fired.

11. Hairspray (2007). Not as fun as the original, and this one definitely felt in some ways like "famous people playing dress up". But it was also nice, in that I think one could watch it with your parents and not feel too worse for the wear. The music was alright, but I didn't think there were any showstoppers either. Basically, this is an OK movie. Or maybe I just think that because we rented it at the same time as the 2 worst movies on this list. Then there's this: with a young daughter and a wife who liked this a bit more than I did (and who very much liked the original), I fear my future will include seeing this several more times. And I'm not exactly fired up about that. Therefore my Steak Knives are downgraded to You're Fired.

12. Planet Terror. I'd forgotten I saw this already, and I saw it just a few weeks ago. Can't say I was all that excited while watching this. And perhaps if I'd seen 28 Weeks Later after this, I'd have been more fired up about the helicopter cutting heads off and stuff. Jeff Fahey was a plus, and I liked that joke about Fergie being a "no brainer". Otherwise, it's just meh. Though I think I did like this more than Death Proof and the incessant prattling on. You're Fired.

13. Good Luck Chuck. Wow did this suck. 100 minutes I'll never get back. I can't think of a single good joke in this. Yes, there's gratuitous nudity, but (and I can't believe I'm saying this), even that wasn't entertaining. Atrocious. Possibly the worst movie to get a wide release last year. IMDB says if you liked this you'll probably like The Heartbreak Kid. They're right, but they're also calling you a moron. You're So Fired Dane Cook You Might Never Work Again.

14. Once. Simple, sweet and good. Nice tunes, nice people, and a nice story. Been a while since I saw a movie that made me so happy/sad at the same time. That said, it almost felt Dogme, so it might not be accessible to many audiences. I liked it quite a bit, and I'd like musicals more if they were like this. Steak Knives.

15. Smokin' Aces. Yep, I saw this 8 days ago and completely forgot I'd seen it. This movie tricks you into being interested by having all the exposition come at you at 100 miles an hour in direct monologues, and then the end tells you what you just saw similarly. So you think you're "interested," but really you just have to pay attention just to know what's going on. All the acting is ridiculous, and lots of the plotlines are just moronic. Was there a sizable audience who was just begging for Common and Alicia Keys to get together on screen? Something tells me this movie "sounds" like a good movie more than it actually was a good movie. I'm sure over-RedBull-ed teenage boys think this is the shit though. You're Fired.

16. Juno. Yes, I actually saw a movie in a theatre (first one since Knocked Up, I think). Precocious Juno is a bit too peppy, but it's not too too too clever (only too too clever, I guess). Anyway, I suppose I liked this a good bit, though too many of the funniest parts were in commercials. Luckily the sweetest parts were left in. I know I sound gay for writing that. But it is a sweet movie. And that doesn't need to be a bad thing. More Bateman in movies (except not Smokin' Aces), please. I don't see how this can win an Oscar for Best Picture, but I did like it better than I suppose the recent comparables, Knocked Up and Little Miss Sunshine (and the last 2 Wes Anderson movies I've seen). Sharp Steak Knives (and the Lady, I believe, would've given it a Cadillac).

I know I'm missing some, but they are probably forgettable anyway... Man did I see some shitters in this group. I need to see some good movies, pronto.

Lebowski Rankings - FINAL 2007

2008-01-30T20:29:00.000-05:00

As always, these are objective rankings based solely on wins and losses, with strength of schedule and head-to-head competition the only tiebreakers. This list does not depict who is the "best" team, only which teams have done the "best" at winning every game on their schedule. Number in parentheses is strength of schedule according to Colley Ratings. There were a ton of head to head ties, so I'll explain those one by one below the fold (* indicates a head to head win, # indicates a complicated circle of teams, @ indicates a split of 2 games, and more info is below). This is the whole list.

120. Idaho 1-11 (106)
119. Southern Methodist 1-11 (98)
118. Florida International 1-11 (69)
117. Minnesota 1-11 (37)
116. Duke 1-11 (25)
115. Northern Illinois 2-10 (120)
114. North Texas 2-10 (94)
113. Utah State 2-10 (87)
112. Alabama-Birmingham 2-10 (79)
111. Nevada-Las Vegas 2-10 (56)
110. Syracuse 2-10 (26)
109. Rice 3-9 (119)
108. Louisiana-Lafayette 3-9 (91)
107. Marshall 3-9 (72)
106. Army 3-9 (71)
105. Colorado State 3-9 (62)
104. Baylor 3-9 (52)
103. Iowa State 3-9 (31)
102. Kent State 3-9 (100)*
101. Notre Dame 3-9 (14)
100. Mississippi 3-9 (6)
99. New Mexico State 4-9 (116)
98. Washington 4-9 (3)
97. Texas-El Paso 4-8 (109)
96. Tulane 4-8 (112)*
95. Eastern Michigan 4-8 (108)
94. Akron 4-8 (93)
93. Temple 4-8 (115)*
92. San Diego State 4-8 (57)
91. North Carolina 4-8 (33)
90. Stanford 4-8 (20)
89. Toledo 5-7 (114)
88. Buffalo 5-7 (113)
87. San Jose State 5-7 (107)
86. Arkansas State 5-7 (103)
85. Western Michigan 5-7 (101)
84. Louisiana Tech 5-7 (96)
83. Middle Tennessee State 5-7 (89)
82. Wyoming 5-7 (65)
81. Miami (FL) 5-7 (53)
80. Kansas State 5-7 (48)
79. Pittsburgh 5-7 (35)
78. Washington State 5-7 (34)
77. Arizona 5-7 (17)
76. North Carolina State 5-7 (15)
75. Vanderbilt 5-7 (11)
74. Nebraska 5-7 (9)
73. Nevada 6-7 (118)
72. Miami (OH) 6-7 (110)
71. Colorado 6-7 (28)
70. Maryland 6-7 (13)
69. UCLA 6-7 (2)
68. Ohio 6-6 (123)
67. Louisiana-Monroe 6-6 (92)
66. Northwestern 6-6 (84)
65. Iowa 6-6 (86)*
64. Louisville 6-6 (38)
63. South Carolina 6-6 (4)
62. Southern Mississippi 7-6 (111)
61. Memphis 7-6 (125)*
60. Ball State 7-6 (95)
59. Indiana 7-6 (75)
58. Georgia Tech 7-6 (55)
57. Michigan State 7-6 (44)
56. Oklahoma State 7-6 (24)
55. Texas A&M 7-6 (21)
54. California 7-6 (19)
53. Alabama 7-6 (16)
52. Florida State 7-6 (22)*
51. Central Michigan 8-6 (102)
50. Western Kentucky 7-5 (126)
49. Houston 8-5 (122)
48. Bowling Green 8-5 (117)
47. Navy 8-5 (105)
46. Florida Atlantic 8-5 (90)
45. Texas Christian 8-5 (80)
44. Purdue 8-5 (76)
43. East Carolina 8-5 (74)
42. Rutgers 8-5 (61)
41. Arkansas 8-5 (42)#
40. Mississippi State 8-5 (30)#
39. Kentucky 8-5 (5)#
38. Troy 8-4 (81)
37. Fresno State 9-4 (104)
36. New Mexico 9-4 (97)#
35. Air Force 9-4 (83)#
34. Utah 9-4 (68)#
33. Florida 9-4 (1)
32. Connecticut 9-4 (67)#
31. Wisconsin 9-4 (64)#
30. Penn State 9-4 (59)#
29. Illinois 9-4 (50)#
28. Wake Forest 9-4 (49)#
27. Virginia 9-4 (58)*
26. Texas Tech 9-4 (78)*
25. Clemson 9-4 (40)#
24. Michigan 9-4 (39)#
23. South Florida 9-4 (23)#
22. Auburn 9-4 (18)#
21. Oregon 9-4 (10)
20. Oregon State 9-4 (27)*
19. Tulsa 10-4 (99)
18. Central Florida 10-4 (88)
17. Tennessee 10-4 (7)
16. Boise State 10-3 (121)
15. Cincinnati 10-3 (66)
14. Arizona State 10-3 (32)
13. Texas 10-3 (54)*
12. Oklahoma 11-3 (45)
11. Boston College 11-3 (40)@
10. Virginia Tech 11-3 (29)@
9. Brigham Young 11-2 (70)
8. Ohio State 11-2 (60)
7. Southern California 11-2 (51)
6. West Virginia 11-2 (43)
5. Georgia 11-2 (12)
4. Missouri 12-2 (46)
3. Louisiana State 12-2 (8)
2. Hawaii 12-1 (123)
1. Kansas 12-1 (77)

Explanations:

Asterisks indicate a head-to-head win by a team with an identical record, but a lower strength of schedule. The winning head-to-head team is placed immediately above the losing head-to-head team. Examples: Kent State over Iowa State, Tulane over UTEP, Temple over Akron, Iowa over Northwestern, Memphis over Southern Miss, FSU over Alabama, Virginia over Wake Forest, Texas Tech over Virginia, Oregon State over Oregon and Texas over Arizona State.

The ampersands next to Boston College and Virginia Tech refer to the fact that the two teams played twice and each won once. Because of that, I've reverted to strength of schedule.

Number signs indicate a scenario where 3 or more teams have beaten another team with an identical record, but also lost to another team with an identical record, creating a circle. When this happens, we'll revert to the strength of schedule as the tiebreaker, but wins and losses by teams outside such circles will still apply. There are 4 such examples this year and I'll explain them each.

(A) Three SEC teams finished at 8-5. Kentucky beat Arkansas but lost to Mississippi State. Arkansas beat Mississippi State but lost to Kentucky. Mississippi State beat Kentucky but lost to Arkansas. Perfect Circle, revert to strength of schedule.

(B) Three WAC teams finished at 9-4. Utah beat New Mexico but lost to Air Force. Air Force beat Utah but lost to New Mexico. New Mexico beat Air Force but lost to Utah. Perfect Circle, revert to strength of schedule.

(C) Four Big Ten teams finished at 9-4. Michigan beat Illinois and Penn State, but lost to Wisconsin. Illinois beat Wisconsin and Penn State, but lost to Michigan. Wisconsin beat Michigan, but lost to Illinois and Penn State. Penn State beat Wisconsin, but lost to Michigan and Illinois. Not exactly a perfect circle, but reverting to strength of schedule leaves us with an equitable result. The two teams that finished 2-1 in this circle placed higher than the 2 teams that finished 1-2. Among the 2-1 teams, Michigan beat Illinois head-to-head, so by SOS and head-to-head, Michigan is ranked higher. Among the 1-2 teams, Penn State beat Wisconsin head-to-head, so by SOS and head-to-head, Penn State is ranked higher.

(D) All of the teams in the 9-4 category proved to be quite complicated. Every single team that finished 9-4 beat, lost to or both beat and lost to another 9-4 team. This created a massive circle for 5 of the teams, and affected how all of the teams were placed. Auburn beat Clemson, who in turn beat Wake Forest, who in turn beat Connecticut, who in turn beat South Florida, who in turn beat Auburn. Connected thereto... Virginia also beat Wake Forest and Connecticut (but lost to Texas Tech). And Auburn beat Florida (who also lost to Michigan, who also lost to Oregon (who also beat Fresno State but also lost to Oregon State). The decision I made was to separate the "closed circles" from one another, ignore head-to-head wins within closed circles, but then apply head-to-head wins outside those circles. The result is thus:

Oregon is placed first because they had the (second) best SOS, but Oregon State was placed ahead of them because of the head-to-head win. No 9-4 team beat Oregon State, and no 9-4 team other than Oregon State beat Oregon. Next, I follow SOS to include the 5 team circle, but I place the Big Ten teams from the 4 team circle in their appropriate slot based on SOS (since none of the Big Ten teams lost or beat any of the teams within the 5 team circle). Auburn, followed by South Florida (despite the head-to-head win), followed by Michigan because of SOS. I have not slotted Florida yet, despite their excellent SOS, because they lost to both Auburn and Michigan and didn't beat anyone with a 9-4 record (a fact they only share with Fresno State). Michigan is followed by Clemson, who is then followed by Texas Tech and Virginia before Wake Forest. Virginia didn't lose to anyone in that 5 team circle, but did beat Wake Forest (and UConn, but Wake is slotted higher based on SOS). Therefore we'll slide the Texas Tech and Virginia head-to-head wins in ahead of Wake, but behind the other teams in the circle with a higher SOS. After Wake Forest, we'll slot the three other Big Ten schools, based on their SOS ranking. Then Connecticut finishes up the 5 team circle. Here's where we slot Florida. Logically, we couldn't slot Florida any higher than this, because every team above Florida would have beaten another team at 9-4. They can't be ahead of Michigan or Auburn because they lost to both. And every other team ahead of them beat either Auburn or Michigan or beat a team that beat Auburn or Michigan (by some stretch). Florida didn't beat any of those teams. We can rank Florida ahead of Utah, Air Force, New Mexico and Fresno State because none of those teams beat Florida or any team with a link to a team that beat Florida.

Make sense?

Please just let Chris Dimino talk...

2008-01-30T09:22:00.001-05:00

In one segment this morning on 790 the Zone, Steak, Dimino and Cellini were talking about the Johan Santana trade. In a 3 minute span, Steak Shapiro made the following errors:

Called Hanley Ramirez, "Aramis Ramirez".
Called Anibal Sanchez, "Aramis Sanchez".
Called Carlos Beltran, "Carlos Beltre".
Mentioned the Braves' starting pitchers (listed them all) without referencing Tom Glavine.
Said Mike Gonzalez is a risk because his "history of arm problems". In 4 seasons, Gonzalez has just one injury year (last year). In prior years, he pitched in 47, 51 and 54 games. He's no Mark Prior.
Also, he said Santana is "maybe the second best starter in baseball." Is there some consensus on someone who is better than Santana? Peavy, Webb, Beckett? Am I missing someone? Santana is the best pitcher in baseball. There's not much debate on that.

Steak, you've got one of the best baseball minds in radio not 5 feet from where you're sitting. Just slowly push the microphone away from you and let the professional handle this.

Great Middle Names of the NFL

2008-01-08T17:48:00.001-05:00

Thus begins a new running series here at the Corporate Headquarters. I will offer a middle name, and a multiple choice of potential NFL players. You make the call, and the answer will be below the fold.
Our first name is:

"Eldorado"

A. Keenan McCardell
B. Terrell Owens
C. Demarcus Ware
D. Clinton Portis

The answer is...

Cameo

2007-12-27T23:02:00.001-05:00

For EDSBS readers:

Penn Wagers Does it Again

2007-12-27T21:29:00.000-05:00

Do the same replay officials work with a particular crew of referees? I took issue here with Penn Wagers and his crew's interpretation of the rules that enabled Bama to squeak out a win in Oxford, and possibly cost Orgeron his job. Again, a penalty flag falls from the replay booth, thrown by this same crew, this time in the Holiday Bowl, resulting in a 50 yard penalty, a change of possession, and a total change of momentum. The "Longhorn Steve Bartman" interference/noninterference is yet another egregious miscarriage of football justice by this horrendous SEC crew.

The replay showed that there was an referee right on that sideline very near the "toucher" with an unimpeded view of the play as it happened. He didn't blow the play dead nor did he throw a flag when the Texas staffmember reached for the ball. That means the call on the field was "no interference." Therefore, video evidence had to be indisputable that he touched the ball. I looked at it for 20 minutes on super slo-mo in hi-def, and I really don't think he touched it. Herbstreit and Musberger, idiots as they may be, disputed whether it was touched during the whole review. If there was dispute, then, by very definition, it's disputable.

But okay, whatever. Give Wagers his (latest) moment in the spotlight to deliver the shocking reversal. Even still, he doesn't have to make it a 50 yard penalty (50 because the Longhorn player who eventually recovered the lateral was tackled at the ASU 43; after the microscopy from the booth, the ball was spotted at the 7). The language from Rule 9-1 is as follows:

Illegal Interference
ARTICLE 4. a. No substitute, coach, authorized attendant or any person subject to the rules, other than a player or official, may interfere in any way with the ball or a player while the ball is in play.
PENALTY—15 yards from the basic spot. The referee may enforce any penalty he considers equitable, including awarding a score.

It was obvious the Texas dude thought the play was already dead and he wasn't trying to interfere. Also, I really don't think he touched the ball. The equitable thing to do would be to declare the ball dead at that spot, which would leave the ball in ASU's possession, but it would be 4th and forever. Nevertheless, Penn Wagers thinks it's equitable to enforce a 50 yard penalty. Wow.

To me the right call was actually never mentioned on TV or by the refs. It looked to me that the staffmember never touched it, but a Texas player trying to save it from going out of bounds immediately after the "interference" was touching the ball at the same time his hand hit the chalk of the boundary. Should have been blown dead, ASU ball at that spot.

If Penn Wagers loves the esoteric nuances of the rules so much, how come he never pulls out that "whatever is equitable" clause?

Seasons' Greetings!

2007-12-23T23:18:00.000-05:00

Before the day was over, I wanted to wish everyone a glorious Festivus.

Readers, a donation has been made in your name to the Human Fund ("money... for people").

Considering that this blog is just a constant stream-of-consciousness Airing of Grievances, we shall now move on to the feats of strength.

Nobody leaves until one of the 5 regular readers pins me.

Thoughts on the UNC assault cases

2007-12-21T10:49:00.001-05:00

You may read the background here.

My thoughts on the alleged perpetrators:

Coolio never should've cut his signature braids.

And thus ruins my dreams of a PM Dawn reunion.

Did these hip hop artists learn nothing from the deaths of Biggie and Pac? Crime doesn't pay.

Revisiting the BCS Selections

2007-12-19T09:45:00.000-05:00

Go back and read my piece on BCS selections (scroll down or click HERE).

Now read Stewart Mandel's piece HERE.

Here is a relevant part:

Two sources not directly involved in the decision speculated that the commissioners feared such a matchup might damage the legitimacy of the Ohio State-LSU title game.

...

Asked whether the split possibility played a factor, Slive insisted, "It never came up."

My response to Mike Slive's comment: "Bullshit."

Random Thoughts Not About Football Necessarily

2007-12-18T20:24:00.000-05:00

Peter King style!

1. I think the pitch for the most recent Old Navy ad campaign was this: It's Christmas at Zoolander's apartment. Too bad a gas fight didn't break out.

2. Radiohead's In Rainbows is their most enjoyable album since OK Computer.

3. I still think there's a sociology thesis to be written on the role of race and the demographics of the audience in the selection of America's Next Top Model. But let that not cloud my congratulations to Poor-Man's Rihanna!

4. This weekend Shannon Sharpe told me the weather in Cleveland was "treach-you-us".

5. Speaking of terrible speaking, on the E! True Hollywood Story for "Hip Hop Wives", an editor for Jet magazine used the word "jury" multiple times when I believe she meant "jewelry". It's good to know that editing a major magazine with a wide circulation doesn't require pronunciation skills.

6. It took me two weekends, several hours, and three trips to Target to complete the job of hanging Christmas lights. It was here that I sensed the following conflicting/in perfect harmony emotions:

(a) dammit, why do these lights break so damn easily with just a single staple through the main line!

(b) great! these lights are on sale for just $2 a box!

I'm an idiot.

7. Cheers to Sam Adams for brewing a mass-produced cranberry lambic. OK, not exactly a true lambic, but it's kind of/sort of close. And at least the attempt gets some points in my book. Thumbs up for their cream stout, too.

8. If there's one thing in this world that is true, it's that it wouldn't be a Lemon party without old Dick.

9. Brett Favre is SI's Sportsman of the Year. Here are better options:

(a) Glenn McGrath. If the choice is an aging statesman, why not choose this guy (who plays in the sport with the largest worldwide audience this year)? In his final international cricket appearance, the 2007 Cricket World Cup, he was named Player of the Tournament, led the tournament in wickets (setting a record for most wickets taken in a single World Cup), topped the record for all-time wickets taken, and just so happened to lead his Australian team to their (another record) third-straight World Cup victory. He was named World Player of the Year at age 37 (quite old for the sport). If Favre is having a great autumn, McGrath was inconceivably great.

(b) Roger Federer. OK, let me just say this: It is absolutely ridiculous what Federer has done in the sport of tennis over the last few years, and this year very well might've been his best. Look at this year what he did in the major tournaments. Australian Open - defended his title, and DIDN'T LOSE A SINGLE SET IN THE ENTIRE TOURNAMENT (let me put that in perspective - the last man to do that in a Grand Slam event was Bjorn Borg in 1980). French Open - on his worst surface, he still made the final, losing in 4 sets to the best clay court player of this generation, Rafael Nadal. Wimbledon - won his 5th straight title (equaling Borg's record for the Open Era) in one of the best single game sporting events of the year, the 5-set beat-the-hell-out-of-each-other classic with Nadal. US Open - won his 4th straight title (a record for the Open Era), dropping only 2 sets the entire way (and beating world ranked 5, 4, and 3 consecutively, all in straight sets). In 2007 Federer set the all-time record (male or female) for consecutive weeks ranked #1 (he's topped the rankings since February 2004!). He's played in 10 consecutive Grand Slam finals, winning 8 of them. He won a second straight (and 4 of the last 5) Masters Series (year-end championship),. He also broke his own record for earnings in a season, becoming the world's first $10,000,000 earner. I think it's utterly ridiculous that Federer has never been named Sportsman of the Year. Nobody (yes, even Tiger Woods) is as good at his sport as Federer. I'm serious.

(c) Younis Mahmoud. Read the link.

10. I watched Hot Rod a second time, just to make sure I wasn't crazy about liking it. I think I may have even liked it more the second time (the dance punching in the woods is even funnier than I first thought, and the march/riot killed me). I pose this question to you: why isn't the band Europe held in as high regard as some of the other bands of the era? Do they not totally rule every bit as much?

Flick the Button

2007-12-16T17:00:00.000-05:00

1. 28 Weeks Later. Lively, but doesn't come close to the greatness of its predecessor. Big problem with the way Carlyle's character didn't exhibit the typical zombie mindlessness. While watching it, I enjoyed the ride (you can't beat a handheld camera and running from zombies), but it didn't stick in my head very long, and the more I think about it the more I'd rather just watch the original again. You're Fired.

2. X-Men: The Last Stand. Did this look better on the big screen? A big-budget action movie without many scenes that inspire awe. Seemed more like a Daredevil or an Elektra than a summer franchise movie. The second one was a classic compared to this Ratnerfied mess. You're Fired.

3. Death Proof. There were a host of issues I had with this, and I get that most of the problems are probably homages. I thought the movie was either about 45 minutes too long, or should've had 2 more chase/crash scenes. The lapdance scene was useless. The one thing that bothered me the most about this movie: how much so many of the actors struggled with the Tarantino dialogue. So unnatural - several scenes had a real Dawson's Creek-nobody-actually-talks-this-way feel to them. In fact, the most natural and I'd say the best actor of them all in this movie was Zoe Bell - and she's a stuntwoman. She ran circles around the others in her scenes. I usually like Tarantino's films, but this one didn't do it for me. You're Fired.

4. Transformers. So what happened to the plotline with the soldiers and the hackers after about 75 minutes? Did the film just ignore them or did I fall asleep for a minute and it was all resolved. I'm confused. Wait. Why am I concerned about plot? It's gigantic robots punching each other. And when it came to that, it seemed to me that the CGI was really realistic and nice looking. I also sensed that they were holding back a little though. Like they knew it'd be a hit and they wanted to save something for sequels. I expect robots punching each other atop numerous world monuments. You're Fired.

5. Spider-Man 3. This trilogy is like a rock band who found success by singing songs about their blue collar roots, then once they made it big, could only write new songs about how much it sucks to be famous and rich. While the first two were never a garage band, they did have a completely different sensibility from this one. Too long by a half hour or more. Not memorable like the first two. And this one relied so much on deus ex machina, or people just in the exact spot needed for plot reasons, but for no real reason at all. A frustrating third part. You're Fired.

6. Goal! - The Dream Begins. What I liked about this was that it was clearly made for an international audience - which meant that it didn't insult people who knew anything about soccer, like 90% of the movies made about soccer. It was well-made, not horrendously acted and actually depicted the lives of professional athletes somewhat realistically. If you don't enjoy Oasis or you are annoyed easily by montages, you probably won't like this. But do, so I sort of liked it. Steak Knives.

7. Ocean's Thirteen. So it's not as good as the first, but more like the first than the second. It's tricky and fun, though riddled with inside jokes. Words I never thought I'd write: Pacino should've hammed it up more. They should've used Cassel more too. So it's flawed, but still an enjoyable way to spend 2 hours. I'll watch it again. Steak Knives.

8. 1408. What is it about Stephen King adaptations lately that has allowed the male leads to have so much fun playing their parts? Like Johnny Depp in the underrated Secret Window, Cusack is pretty great in this. It's kind of spooky, but the payoff isn't as great as I was hoping. Dull Steak Knives.

9. We Are Marshall. They could've cut 5 montages set to early 70s music and there still would've been about 8 left. Great story, but the movie was annoying despite it. McConaughey did a pretty good job, really - not too bombastic, kind of silly. Matthew Fox does his tortured soul bit. It's also nice to see a few people I know personally on the big screen. But the direction, man... it's weak. You're Fired.

10. Live Free or Die Hard. So it was way more ridiculous than the other Die Hard movies, but I still liked it better than most of the summer blockbusters I've seen recently. Justin Long was stunningly not annoying as hell. Here's the problem: I had fun watching it, but it's significantly less memorable than any of the other Die Hard movies. Unfortunately, that means this is a You're Fired.

11. Sicko. I could write a lot about this, but I'll just leave it to this: people need to watch this and ask themselves, "what kind of country do we want to live in?". Moore's most significant film. Goddamnit. Cadillac.

12. Superbad. Fantastic. I thought I'd missed the boat on this, because I was afraid I'd seen all the funny parts in previews. I do think it would've been better to see in the theatre, with the crowd laughter adding to the experience, but it's pretty spectacular on DVD. Michael Cera is a comedy genius. Cadillac.

13. A Mighty Heart. This is a movie that makes me confused about how I feel about it. On the one hand, Angelina Jolie does a fantastic job purely acting - it's an Oscar-reel role, but it didn't come off like a Lifetime movie. On the other hand, I think the movie might've been better if she weren't in it at all. I found the investigation scenes and the political intrigue parts significantly more interesting than the human interest side. Winterbottom is one of the most capable storytellers in the business. Look at his IMDB profile and the true stories he's taken on (or look at Paul Greengrass'), and then think about how much McG butchered the Marshall air disaster story. Steak Knives.

14. Rescue Dawn. This movie is a total throwback. A war movie without politics, without irony, without forced comedy, without a forced romance. And it's nice that a movie like this can get produced. This is the sort of movie that got made in the mid-60s, but not really since. That, to me, made it a nice movie, but it was also kind of "too" straight for my own sensibilities. I see that as kind of flaw in my own personality though. Bale is as good as always. Steak Knives.

15. Waitress. Not quite lives up to the hype, but considering how terrible most romantic comedies are, I guess I could see why a lot of critics liked it. The moral of the story is that being unfaithful is great in most cases? Likable bit players get big roles here, so there's probably something for a lot of people. Notable things: Jeremy Sisto's character captured the insecurity of an abuser well; Eddie Jemison's character will annoy you at first, but after a few scenes he's great. For me, You're Fired, but in comparison to most rom coms, Steak Knives.

16. Ratatouille. Now here's a nice story, though I'm not sure that America's yet got the idea that animated movies aren't necessarily just for kids. In fact, I'm not sure this movie is right for kids under 12 or so. But it's very good. Funny, sweet. Patton Oswalt's fingers seem all over this movie. Also, the camera moves (sort of, I guess) are some of the best I've seen in a movie in a few years. Not quite as great as Monsters Inc., but far superior to Cars. Cadillac/Steak Knives.

17. The Bourne Ultimatum. The best action movie since Casino Royale. Here's a movie that is just slightly below the perfection of the first two Bourne movies, but it fits in the trilogy just right. The Waterloo Station scene was classic, as well as the chase in NYC. It's an exceptional movie. Cadillac.

18. Hot Rod. If you watch this with low expectations, you'll love it. I laughed a whole lot. The timing of the editing perfectly added to the comedy. The axiom that "if it's funny once, it's funny every time" is proved true again and again in this movie. A goofy comedy is good if it makes you laugh. I was in a crappy mood when I watched it, but laughed my ass off. Sharp steak knives.

19. Letters From Iwo Jima. I wasn't in the right mood when I watched this, so my judgment is probably not to be trusted. It was OK, though I don't think I saw anything different from what I already knew about WWII in the Pacific. Some of the images shown are startling. Cinematography is good (though it was hard to tell what was going on in some of the scenes). But I was kind of tired/bored/distracted. Like I said, probably an unfair viewing. But I don't think I'll watch it again. You're Fired.

20. Veronica Mars - Third Season. From reading other views on this, I would've thought this would've been the worst of the three seasons. But, while there wasn't a moment in the third that compared favorably to the first season, the third season was much better (tighter, more fun) than the second. It's a shame that the network didn't give them a full 22 episodes. 100 more minutes would've been nice - especially since the finale was rushed but fantastic. This is the kind of TV show more should aspire to be.

Here's hoping I didn't miss any because I forgot watching them.

Something About Ranked Opponents

2007-12-04T09:23:00.000-05:00

The M Zone calls a team's record against ranked opponents the "dumbest stat in college football". I, for one, think punting statistics are the dumbest in college football, because they don't take into account the intent of a particular punt (if punters are pooching or cornering kicks frequently, the average length of a punt is a moronic stat).

But the topic of record against ranked opponents is an interesting one, and I think The M Zone's analysis is incomplete.

Their view is that when people cite a particular record against ranked opponents, they normally cite the record against opponents who were ranked at the time they played, and this is erroneous because teams can very well be ranked inaccurately at the point they play. As examples, they cite LSU's schedule, and credit for wins against South Carolina and Alabama, who were ranked at the time LSU played each. South Carolina and Alabama both went in the tank at the end of the year, losing their last 5 and 4 games, respectively.

The M Zone says that "record against ranked opponents" should take into account the rankings of those opponents at the end of the year, when the body of work is complete.

My view: yes, simply citing ranked opponents as of the time played is incomplete analysis. But citing ranked opponents as of the end of the regular season is also incomplete analysis.

Rankings are fluid over the course of the year, but so are teams. It is possible that an inflated ranking early in the year isn't an accurate picture of a particular team (such as, say, an early win over a top-10 preseason ranked Louisville team). But it's also possible that an inflated ranking early in the year is an accurate picture of a particular team at that point in time - just the team changed significantly over the course of time, as a result of injuries or personnel changes.

The M Zone cites South Carolina as it relates to LSU (and dozens of others have pointed to Georgia's loss to South Carolina as a reason for excluding the Dawgs from the BCS NCG). USC lost their last 5 games, dropping their overall record to a thoroughly mediocre 6-6. The week LSU played USC, USC was 3-0 and ranked 12th in the country. One could look at their final record and say they were significantly overrated at the time. Or one could look further. USC's best player on the defense, Jasper Brinkley (an All-SEC linebacker) injured his knee in the LSU game, changing the USC defense entirely. Before the injury, USC had averaged allowing fewer than 10 points per game. After the LSU game, with Brinkley out, USC conceded 28 points per game. Maybe they started playing better opponents, maybe they simply weren't that good overall. Or maybe the loss of key personnel (who played in the games against LSU and Georgia) made a massive difference to the season. The "at the time of" ranking might be an accurate depiction of the team LSU (or Georgia) played, AND the "end of season" ranking might also be an accurate depiction of the complete season USC had.

The thing is that temporal rankings can provide some context as to a game's value, but it takes more than a cursory citation. The problem is that the citation of such a stat is a simplification - but then again, the citation of any stat can be a simplification.

And at the end of their post, The M Zone is definitely right about how crazy it is that this sport uses opinions to decide things, and those opinions rely on incomplete information.

Thought for the Day

2007-12-03T08:24:00.000-05:00

LSU is playing for the national title instead of Georgia because Tennessee had a better season than Arkansas.

Wrap that around your brain.

The BCS Does Not Want Good BCS Bowls - Just a Good BCS Title Game

2007-12-03T07:49:00.000-05:00

Stewart Mandel is a frequent target of this blog, because I think he writes conventional wisdom and often fails to analyze such critically (and because I think he has a limited understanding of the sport he covers). But this post is not to bash him (which I most certainly could, for a number of his writings over the last week or so), but rather to use one of this posts today as a jumping point.

Mandel, in a column at CNNsi, writes about one of the underreported problems with the BCS. The fact that the goal of having a 1 vs. 2 National Championship Game has led to less compelling matchups in the other BCS bowls.

But you can't blame the bowls for most of those choices. In nearly every case, they were simply following selection protocol -- Pac-10 champ to the Rose Bowl, Big 12 champ to the Fiesta Bowl, ACC champ to the Orange Bowl, etc., etc.

He's right about this. #1 is playing #2 in the BCS National Chamionship Game, but then the next 4 teams in the final BCS rankings do not play each other. #3 Oklahoma plays #11 WVU. #4 Virginia Tech plays #8 Kansas. #5 Georgia plays #10 Hawaii. #6 USC plays #13 Illinois.

Mandel uses this problem to divert on a tangent regarding the tension of retaining traditional bowl matchups and how a "plus one" model might solve some things.

I take a different approach. See, I think you can necessarily blame the bowls for the weaker BCS bowl matchups because of the selection protocol. The BCS is a system in place to elevate 2 teams to a National Title Game. This is its primary goal and there really isn't a secondary goal. There are other concerns (such as maintaining traditional bowl matchups), but those are tensions against the goal - not a goal in and of itself. Whatever works against the prospect of elevating 2 teams to a National Title Game is necessarily against the interest of the BCS.

And because there is just one real goal to the BCS, the selection procedures are set up in a manner such as to prevent a compelling matchup in the other BCS bowl games. See, if the 3rd place team were to play the 4th place team in the Rose Bowl or some non BCSNCG game, then there's a significant opportunity for a split title, resulting from the AP Poll.

I can't stress this enough: a split title is the worst case scenario for the BCS. The worst case scenario isn't the current one, where a host of teams have reasonable arguments to play in a game but the process has selected one - in fact that's the precise raison d'etre for the BCS, to make a choice out of reasonably similar teams. No, the worst case scenario is if the selections take place, and the BCS gets it wrong.

Let's use a hypothetical. Assume Ohio State and LSU play in the BCS NCG and the two combine for 8 turnovers in a 13-10 joke of a game that neither team plays well in. A few days beforehand, say USC and Oklahoma played in the Rose Bowl and USC absolutely annihilated Oklahoma 57-7. Most reasonable people would think that the BCS certainly got it wrong - and there's an almost definite chance that USC would be awarded at least one poll's title. This was the case in 2003. If the system gets the choice wrong (and that's the only job the system has to do), it calls into question everything.

The BCS knows this. And that's why it is completely in their interest to dilute the other BCS bowls. If the 3rd best team is playing the 4th best team, it's too much of a showcase for those teams - and a great result by either of them calls into question whether the BCS got the right selection for the BCS NCG. But if the 3rd best team is playing the 11th best team, well, that's not as much of a showcase for the 3rd best team. Even a big victory might not be enough to raise the suggestion that the BCS NCG did not include the right teams.

The goal is not to have 5 good matchups. The goal is to have 1 good matchup - and the other 4 can very well be sacrificed in order to keep that 1 good matchup. That's why the BCS NCG keeps moving later and later into January. Separate this game from the others. Eliminate the suspicion that the BCS NCG is just a game like all the others. Set up a system that works in a way so that the remaining good teams do not play each other. Use the "promotion of traditional bowl matchups" as a method to prevent actually good games.

Don't think the weaker BCS bowl matchups are unintentional.

Why Tommy Tuberville should become the coach at Arkansas

2007-12-02T21:14:00.000-05:00

He's perfect for those insane morons in the Ozarks. From the AJC:

Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville said that he had LSU No. 1 on his ballot followed by Oklahoma, Ohio State, Hawaii, and Georgia.

"Winning our conference championship means a lot to me," said Tuberville, whose team lost on a last second play at LSU (30-24) but was hammered by Georgia (45-20) on Nov. 10. "Believe me, I know how good Georgia is. But LSU found a way in win the championship, so they deserve this shot."

Wow. Insane on so many levels.

1) LSU 30 Auburn 24 (last second, in Baton Rouge). UGA 45 Auburn 20 (not close at all, in Athens). One would think that these results would lead Mr. Tuberville to think one team would be appreciably better than another.

2) LSU's SEC losses = 2. UGA's SEC losses = 2. Why did LSU win the SEC, while UGA didn't have a chance? BECAUSE THE OTHER WEST TEAMS, LIKE TUBERVILLE'S COACHED AUBURN TEAM, WEREN'T AS GOOD. "Found a way in win the championship" should translate to "was lucky enough to be competing against incompetents like myself."

3) You have to be fucking kidding me. Hawaii?

4) Richt/Stafford/Moreno To-Fuck-Harder-Than-Anyone's-Been-Fucked-Before List:

(A) Les Miles

(B) Tommy Tuberville

The 2008 Pain Train starts with a brutal pounding of the ~~Flying Chocolate Unicorns of Guam~~ Hawaii. You boys know how to shovel coal?

hat tip to PNA in comments.

The Coaches' Poll in a Nutshell

2007-12-02T14:09:00.000-05:00

Results Here.

Here's the nutshell:

1) You shouldn't pay any attention to how we vote from week to week, because we'll elevate whoever we want based on rules never enunciated and for whatever reason we decide this year is important.

2) There are eleven of us voters so corrupt (biased or personally benefiting) as to place a team ranked 7th last week #1 his week after requiring a pick six in the last few minutes to eke out a win over an underdog.

3) There are two of us voters so corrupt (biased or personally benefiting) as to place a team ranked 8th last week at #1 this week.

4) We have completely forgotten about Kansas.

This system is irretrievably broken. I can't wait to see the USA Today grid to see all of the conflicts of interest in all their glory. And if you want to rely on the Harris Poll, go through my archives back in fall of 2005 to see how corrupt and conflicted those voters are.

And congratulations, Les Miles. You've just sealed your fate in Baton Rouge next year. Whatever the point spread, it does not matter. Georgia will absolutely annihilate LSU next year. Put the money in the effing bank,

Shorter Coaches Standing Up For Their Teams

2007-12-02T11:56:00.001-05:00

Last night, the late SportsCenter invited the coaches of several schools competing for a slot in the BCS National Championship Game to come on the show via calling in and state the case for their team. Here, briefly, is what the three coaches said:

Mark Richt: It's a bad system. We're a strong team. Our losses were the results of youth.

Pete Carroll: It's a bad system. We're a strong team. Our losses were the results of injuries.

Les Miles: I'm not going to come on here and criticize any other team, but Georgia sucks for the following reasons. Also, we didn't really lose because I don't comprehend the concept of this "overtime" thingamajig.

Les Miles wears a tall hat because it has to fit around his ass.

Also: there's little doubt in my mind that Les Miles' approach will work. Pollsters don't reward class. They reward people who stand up and say "I want this", even if they are assholes while doing it.

Your guess is as good as mine

2007-12-02T08:49:00.000-05:00

The Wannstache virus has officially liquefied all of the BCS's internal organs, its body falling limp to the ground with a gory splash of blood, shit, and bile. So many teams have a legitimate argument to be in the National Championship Game. All we know for sure is that the following teams are in the BCS somewhere:

Ohio State
Louisiana State
Virginia Tech
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Southern California
Hawai'i

NOTHING ELSE IS CERTAIN.

Most all of the pundits have quickly slotted Ohio State in the title game, and I'd say that's likely, but surely not definite. #1 and #2 could be any combination of a list that includes any of the above teams, along with Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, and Arizona State. That gives you 55 possible combinations for the NCG alone. Because any of the BCS bowls could lose their tie-in champion, there's no destination guaranteed at this point. The only slots that are all-but-guaranteed are VT to the Orange and Hawai'i to the Sugar. Depending on how the top-two shakes out, other teams that can sneak into a BCS bowl (but not the NCG), would be Illinois, Boston College, and maybe even Florida (if Georgia falls out of the top-4 and the Orange takes the Gators over us; not likely but possible).

What Georgia fans thought was the best case scenario may actually turn out to be the worst case scenario. If Ohio State and LSU go to the NCG, we will face Hawai'i in the Sugar, as was predicted before LSU lost to Arkansas. Even if Ohio State is #1, giving the Rose the first pick, they couldn't take Georgia to face USC unless the Sugar consents, which they won't. The language of the rule from the BCS website: "When two bowls lose host teams, then the bowl losing the number one team may not select a replacement team from the same Conference as the number two team, unless the bowl losing the number two team consents."

But I'm not giving up on being in the big one yet. I think enough has been said about Georgia not winning the SEC that the voters probably will impose a de facto must-win-your-conference rule by not voting Georgia any higher than #3. That's fine by me as long as nobody has us lower than #3, and they split the votes among different teams to be slotted ahead of us. Assuming everybody has Ohio State #1, if some people put LSU ahead of us at #2, some put USC, some put Oklahoma, they could spread out the votes enough to have Georgia slide into #2 without anybody having us there in the actual ballots.

The ballots are independent from the prior weeks, but I'm sure there are some voters who simply move down the teams that lost, and move up the teams that didn't in the same order as they were before. There is certainly no rule that says they have to.

Here is a smattering of combinations that I would put at or near the top of the "likely" list, but there's no telling what the voters (and the selection committees) will do:

Scenario #1
NCG - Ohio State v. LSU
Rose - USC v. Illinois
Sugar - Georgia v. Hawai'i
Orange - VT v. WVU
Fiesta - Oklahoma v. Kansas (or Arizona State)

Scenario #2
NCG - Ohio State v. USC
Rose - Arizona State v. Illinois
Sugar - LSU v. Hawai'i
Orange - VT v. Georgia
Fiesta - Oklahoma v. WVU

Scenario #3
NCG - Ohio State v. Georgia
Rose - USC v. Illinois
Sugar - LSU v. Hawai'i
Orange - VT v. WVU
Fiesta - Oklahoma v. Kansas (or Arizona State)

Scenario #4
NCG - Ohio State v. Oklahoma
Rose - USC v. Illinois
Sugar - LSU v. Hawai'i
Orange - VT v. Georgia
Fiesta - WVU v. Kansas (or Arizona State)

Scenario #5
NCG - LSU v. Georgia
Rose - Ohio State v. USC
Sugar - WVU v. Hawai'i
Orange - VT v. Kansas
Fiesta - Oklahoma v. Arizona State

Scenario #6
NCG - USC v. LSU
Rose - Ohio State v. Arizona State
Sugar - Georgia v. Hawai'i
Orange - VT v. WVU
Fiesta - Oklahoma v. Kansas

Scenario #7
NCG - USC v. Georgia
Rose - Ohio State v. Arizona State
Sugar - LSU v. Hawai'i
Orange - VT v. WVU
Fiesta - Oklahoma v. Kansas

The bottom line is, don't get your hopes up, Dawg fans, but it's Selection Sunday, all the regular season games have been played, and we are VERY MUCH in the discussion of who plays for the Crystal Pigskin. Unbelievable turn of events considering the debacle at Neyland and needing a miracle fumble to win in Nashville. Absolutely stupendous job by our players, coaches, trainers, cheerleaders and fans. Most of all, bless you, Coach Richt!

Why do we have polls anyway?

2007-12-01T22:48:00.000-05:00

Polls are supposed to provide an objective analysis where subjectivity is insufficient (or at least that's what people tell me).

Here's the thing. Two ATROCIOUS phantom holding calls effectively removed 6 points from Pittsburgh's score tally and gave the ball back to West Virginia undeservedly. (and another excessive celebration penalty that was ridiculous). The already-been-proven by plenty of examples incompetent and possibly corrupt Big East officials tried their damnedest to give the game to WVU.

Pollsters can use their "objectivity" to discount entirely WVU's win (if they come back). If a win is undeserved, vote as if they didn't.

Just sayin'.

UPDATE: Never mind. Karma.

Fuck you, Kirk Herbstreit

2007-12-01T15:45:00.000-05:00

You are a fucking fuck, Kirk Herbstreit. You don't know me, you fucking ass hat. I've never even met Jon Tenuta. Don't fucking talk about me again, shitstick.

This Week in Piscine Marksmanship

2007-11-26T19:02:00.000-05:00

Oh Peter, I have been ignoring you for too long.

Peter King's ability to remain internally logical = null set.

1. On Darren McFadden:

I think I don't care how good Darren McFadden looked last Friday, and if you saw how he steamrolled LSU in Baton Rouge, you know he looked like a future star in the NFL. Probably. I wouldn't use a high first-round pick on him. Of the top 50 running backs in the NFL entering this weekend (ranked by rushing yards), 30 were not first-round picks... More than any position in football, running back is the one you can find players from the most disparate sources.

2. On LaDanian Tomlinson (who was drafted 5th overall):

[I liked] LaDainian Tomlinson, who reached 10,000 rushing yards in six-plus years. He could have been yours, Atlanta.

The lesson: don't actually take running backs highly, just eventually regret not taking running backs highly.

Peter King's knowledge about college football = null set

1. On College Coach Contracts:

College contracts are such one-way streets, with the coach holding all the power. Why guarantee the coach that much money, when he can basically leave any time he wants to anyway?

Such is called "negotiation". Where college football programs are significant money-makers for institutions, and successful college football coaches are in limited supply, there is a "marketplace" for such coaches' skills. The guaranteeing of a contract is necessary because other institutions will do the same. Further, most colleges include something called a "buyout" clause in the contract, which says the coach can leave "anytime he wants to" but he (or the institution he leaves for) has to pay often a significant amount of money to do so. This is also "negotiation" and "market-based economics". And I'm not sure I need to explain this to you, but with everything else you've written, who knows? - a college coach's contract isn't "guaranteed" to the extent that if he leaves for a new job, his former institution continues to pay him. Were Bill Callahan to have been wildly successful at Nebraska and the Kansas City Chiefs offered him their job, Nebraska wouldn't continue to pay him under that contract.

2. On Bill Callahan:

On Oct. 23, Callahan said, "I have done an excellent job in every area." In the four Nebraska games since, this excellent coach oversaw a team that allowed an average of 50 points per game.

OH SNAP! You got him good! Wait, did you say October 23? You mean after the Texas A&M game that dropped them to 4-4 overall, and was their third straight loss? Mr. King, anyone with a passing knowledge of the sport didn't need the last 4 Nebraska games to realize that Callahan's statement is ridiculous. Most of us saw that a year or two ago. Also, what did you expect a guy to say in his own defense? "I have been a mediocre coach who has destroyed the tradition of winning at Nebraska." It's kind of dumb to use his own words against him. Now, had you used a defense by Tom Osborne, maybe this would make sense. Instead, it's just a gotcha statement with no meaning (except maybe to show that you haven't been paying attention).

3. On who should compete in the BCS National Championship Game:

The national championship game has to be the Missouri-Oklahoma winner against West Virginia.

Yes, it just has to be. Because a 2-loss Oklahoma team deserves to play for a title far more than a 1-loss Ohio State team or SIX other 2-loss teams that have played against tougher schedules than Oklahoma (USC, Arizona State, Georgia, LSU, BC, Virginia Tech). Actually, I'm a little surprised he didn't pimp Hawaii here. (If Missouri beats OU, fine. But Oklahoma's resume is not better than any of those other schools I listed above).

4. On playoffs, amateurism and time:

And no, there shouldn't be a playoff. Enough of this "amateur'' sport. I've railed against this before, but it's patently absurd that college students be asked to practice football for who-knows-how-long in the spring, return at the beginning of August and practice through the last game in January -- the same as an NFL team does -- without asking them to continue games into their second semesters.

I wonder if Peter King knows that there already is a playoff in place for every other division of college football, and they complete those games before the second semester begins in all of those divisions. He should know that, right? Didn't Colgate, his own daughter's college and the school he writes about all the time, participate in the 1-AA/FCS playoffs as recently as 2005 (and they were in the title game in 2003). If time considerations are of such concern, why are playoffs allowed at any level of play?

Not to get too nerdy here, but what does that second sentence mean? Is he saying that college football isn't amateur, so it shouldn't be treated as such? Is he saying that college football should be more amateur, so what's already the case in college football is too much? Is he saying simply that he's had enough of college football because of some other reason? Why is one of the nation's most widely read sports columnists so difficult to comprehend?

And further, ahem... not to get too nerdy here, but does that third sentence actually read how he intends? It's absurd to ask athletes to practice for as long as we already ask them to unless we can ask them to practice more? Is he arguing for more games? I figure he means "it's absurd that we ask this of them, let alone the even crazier idea of asking for more", but that's not what he wrote. And I think what he actually wrote is a decent argument FOR a playoff or some other system than the current one - these kids sacrifice so much already, it's only fair that they have a chance to settle titles on the field.

As for the amount of time college students are asked to practice, well... it'll take you just a second or two on the Googletubes to find out very clearly that the NCAA regulates and limits practice time. "Who knows how long in the spring"? I do, along with anyone who can use a search engine: 15 designated practice days, a maximum of 4 hours per day. Yes, college football teams return in August for camp and practice through the season. But the NCAA further limits that. There are different rules for particular times (preseason/during the season), so perhaps you should just go to this link and take a look for yourself. As for your description of college practices as "the same as an NFL team does," well, that's patently ludicrous. Every single NFL team had a training camp longer than the 29 practices allowed by the NCAA. Further, practices for NFL teams are (for each session) significantly longer and allow more contact than NCAA rules permit. College athletes aren't asked to do the same thing as professionals. Not even close.

And on the non-college football front, his paragraph on Alex Rodriguez truly shows how little he understands of negotiation. I would love to sell this guy a used car.

Outlook not so Rosy

2007-11-25T21:47:00.000-05:00

A lot of Dawg fans are excited about the possibility of an Oklahoma win putting UGA into a Pasadena showdown with USC. LD and I don't think it's that simple or likely. I think that it's about a 95% chance Georgia goes to the Orange to face the winner of the VT/BC rematch.

If OU wins and Ohio State goes on to the NCG, look for Illinois to face the Pac 10 champ in the Rose. It's all but inevitable that current #15 Illinois will be at-large eligible. They only have to slide up one spot. 10 teams ahead of them still have a game to play, and at the very least, three of them will lose because they play another team ranked ahead of Illinois. As long at the Illini are in the top 14, the Rose will almost certainly take Zook's team to replace the New Orleans-bound Buckeyes.

I did a little digging into the history of the Rose Bowl, to see if they have ever gone outside of the traditional P10-B10 matchup. I only found two times since 1946, not counting years when the Rose hosted #1 and #2 in the NCG. Neither were by choice.

In 2002, the Rose lost Big 10 champion Ohio State to the NCG (Fiesta Bowl) against Miami. The rules then did not allow for the bowl that lost their tie-in champion to pick its replacement first. Instead, the rotating pick system that year allowed the Orange to pick in front of the Rose, taking #5 Iowa to face #4 USC in Miami in what was called "Rose Bowl East." No conference can have 3 teams in the BCS, so the Rose Bowl was forced to take Oklahoma to face Pac 10 champ Washington State. The Rose Bowl officials were none too happy about it, and they later lobbied successfully for the implementation of the pick-first-if-you-lose-your-champ rule.

In 2004, the Rose lost undefeated Pac 10 champion USC to the NCG (Orange Bowl) against undefeated Oklahoma. To replace them, the Rose took #4 Texas to face Big 10 champ Michigan, even though Cal was ranked #5 in the final BCS. They couldn't take Cal because back then there were only 2 at-large bids, and both were taken by automatic qualifiers. Urban Meyer's undefeated Utah squad got one of them by finishing #6, and Texas got the other by finishing #4 but not winning the Big XII.

Interestingly, Georgia was also locked out of the BCS in 2004 even though the Dawgs finished #7 in the final standings. Three lower ranked teams got in by winning their conference: (#8 VT, #13 Michigan, and #21 Pittsburgh). You may remember other major controversies that year because of 5 regular-season undefeated teams (hard to believe after this year). Auburn was kept out of the national title game (but won the Sugar over VT), and Boise State was kept out of the BCS altogether (but lost the Liberty to Louisville).

If I recall, it was the Rose Bowl's displeasure with not being able to take Cal that year that led to the 5th game (the separate NCG) being added. The spin was that it gave teams from non-BCS conferences a better chance to get in, but I think I remember reading somewhere that the Rose was pulling out if there wasn't a remedy that would minimize the chances that they would ever have to break tradition again. Looks like it will pay off for them this year, keeping the Dawgs out of the granddaddy of them all.

Gameday Recap

2007-11-25T10:36:00.000-05:00

Week Thirteen
November 24, 2007
Kansas City, Missouri - Missouri vs. Kansas

Looking back over the season, I'm thinking this is probably the biggest game they attended all year. The 2 visits to Oregon might be close. Oh, and definitely that Williams-Amherst game is right up there. First really rough weather they've had all year too.

Looks like a pretty decent sized crowd for such bad weather (though there are some empty parking lots behind the set).
I kind of like seeing the divided fanbase - really there are only 4 or so games each year that could look like this (Title games, Georgia/Florida, OU/Texas, Army/Navy).

Big N Rich

Corso says in bad weather, defense will be important and Kansas has the advantage there.
Herbstreit says the game should be a shootout despite the weather.
Fowler says the numbers are in line so the winner of the Missouri-Kansas game would be #1 in the BCS.
Slate: UConn-WVU, UT-UK, VT-UVA, Oregon-UCLA. Title-implicating games listed, and not just ESPN/ABC properties.
Fowler mentions the historical significance of Missouri-Kansas. Missouri fans cheer loudly when he mentions the burning of Lawrence.
Brief interviews with Kansas and Missouri players regarding the hatred of the rivalry.
Herbstreit says that for either team, the season is a failure if they lose this game no matter how good the season is - or at least that what he says the players and coaches think.
Corso: both teams need to protect their QBs to stay on track for the title because Oregon and others didn't do that.

First Commercial Break

BCS talk - Brad Edwards is on from the Bristol studios.
Edwards says WVU will stay ahead of OSU if they win out.
2 Loss team in BCS NCG? Edwards says Georgia is probably best positioned, VT might have a chance, and LSU has a chance even still.
Desmond Howard joins the set.
Herbstreit says the 2 teams he wouldn't want to play are Georgia and USC.
Now Corso says Ohio State is the best all around team he's seen. That is at least the third different team he's said that about (and he'd seen OSU earlier in the year, before he said the same thing about Oregon and Oklahoma). Corso's opinions shift dramatically, and not because of changing conditions.
Desmond Howard likes Virginia Tech among 2 loss teams.
Fowler brings up "playing under pressure" and says that's what cost LSU.
Corso says LSU lost because of "lousy defense" and "hey, they scored 50 points on them!". Yes, Lee, Arkansas scored 50 points. 22 of which came during the overtime periods when they got the ball on the 25 yard line. Now, maybe 28 points isn't great to give up, and a D surely has a chance to stop the other team in OT. But it's crazy to suggest that giving up a lot of points in overtime with a really short field behind you is a massive indictment of the defense.
The rest of the set ribs Corso because his pick of a national title winner is wrong. I think just about everyone's wrong.

Second Commercial Break

Breaking News - Callahan fired at Nebraska.
Auburn-Alabama talk.
Clip of Nick Saban's presser with the 9/11 and Pearl Harbor comments. Not much follow up from the talking heads though.
Herbstreit carries some water for Saban, saying how difficult it is to step in to a program and turn it around.
Herbstreit likes Alabama because nobody is giving them a chance.
Corso also defends Saban, saying Saban was brought in to beat Tennessee and he did that.
Clemson-USC talk.
Herbstreit thinks USC has "urgency and redemption" on their side, but Clemson has more talent (WOW, actually focusing on tangibles!), but then he says Clemson wins because of emotional inspiration (didn't last long...).
Corso likes South Carolina because Spurrier called the team "stinky". When you read Corso's reasons for his picks, you really have to wonder why anyone watches this show at all. There is no tangible analysis, no picks based on things like talent or strategy.

Third Commercial Break

Highlights of Jeremy Maclin at Missouri. I think this guy deserved a little more hype than he's gotten so far.
Fowler introduces the piece on WVU by saying their offense burst on the scene in the Sugar Bowl where they "shredded" Georgia. (By 3 whole points, requiring a fake punt at the end to seal it, taking advantage of 3 inopportune UGA turnovers, outgaining a decent but not dominant Georgia offense by a massive margin of one yard). I know I'm howling at the moon on this, but that WVU-UGA Sugar Bowl simply wasn't the massive upset or dominating WVU performance that a lot of people seem to think it was.
Extended Piece on West Virginia's offense. Todd McShay reporting. Very useful and informative piece. Give Todd McShay a piece like this every single week. Seriously.
Fowler mentions how UConn has been outgained by every Big East opponent but Syracuse. Creeping stat-ism? Let's hope.
Corso then talks about the UConn offense optimistically, showing highlights of the Syracuse game. If there's a piece of objective evidence that says one thing, count on Corso to go the other way from it. (then he picks WVU because they have more to lose).
Herbstreit then spends some time breaking down the tangible parts of the improved WVU defense, but then picks WVU because Rodriguez's neck will be bulging and stuff. Does pick the margin correctly though

Fourth Commercial Break

Gillette Game Face: Shaved chest hair in the "MU" shape. Kind of, no, VERY gross.
Nebraska-Colorado highlights and numbers on how crappy Nebraska's season was.
Texas-Texas A&M highlights and some numbers on Dennis Franchione.
Pat Forde joins to discuss coaching changes.
Forde suggests Tuberville heading to A&M, maybe Chris Peterson or Mike Sherman.
Forde suggests Nebraska looking at Bo Pellini, Turner Gill, Jim Grobe, Paul Johnson.
Forde says Arkansas isn't going to move fast on Houston Nutt, but that he'll not resign - suggests that he wants them to fire him and pay the buyout.
Notre Dame-Stanford talk. Corso likes Notre Dame to pull the upset, and head into 2008 with momentum and big wins over top private academic institutions. Herbstreit also takes ND.

Fifth Commercial Break

Montage of Kansas highlights and former greats.
Famous Alums of Kansas - Don Johnson, Bob Dole, the Survivor winner. Missouri - Sam Walton, Sheryl Crow, Brad Pitt.
Virginia-Virginia Tech talk. Herbstreit picks UVA for reasonable reasons - tangible matchup and talent analysis. Corso responds with a NSFMF, but then also uses matchup rationales to pick VT.
Miami-BC - Corso thinks BC wins big. Herbstreit thinks Miami's recruiting will be great.

Sixth Commercial Break

Extended Piece on Oklahoma State's Martel Van Zant, who is deaf. Tom Rinaldi reporting. A little more than just a human interest story - interesting parts about the use of sign language.
OU-Okla. State talk. Both guys like OU big. Herbstreit gives a good tangible reason - Oklahoma State's lack of depth on D.

Seventh Commercial Break

Oregon-UCLA. Fowler gives the injury updates. Herbstreit picks against Oregon because he has no faith in Brady Leaf. Corso likes Oregon because the line would give Leaf just enough time.
Herbstreit hints that the only reason why USC will beat UCLA next week is "all you've gotta say is 'remember last year'."
Highlights of Hawaii-Boise State.
They take a closer look at Hawaii and whether they can get a BCS bid.
Corso says Hawaii deserves a BCS bid because Boise State was undefeated in the WAC last year and got one. Left unmentioned: Boise State played a significantly more difficult OOC schedule last year, and the natural logical fallacy that one year is different from another. Also, Corso says Hawaii's D looked great in holding a Boise State team that rakes up points against their horrendous conference opponents to 27. Also, Corso blames Hawaii's disrespect on the fact that "we never get to see them because they play way out off the mainland". I've seen Hawaii play 3 times on national TV on the family of networks that pays Lee Corso's salary. Shouldn't one of the top "analysts" who gets paid to be an expert on college football take the time to watch one of the teams that he talks about?
Herbstreit says that a full 50,000 seat stadium in Hawaii was a great sight. He also thinks Hawaii deserves a BCS bid because they handle their business against atrocious competition. Also says Hawaii's offense has been BCS quality all year (I'll insert the "against atrocious competition" for your benefit), but that the D finally stepped up (against the only team they've played all year in the top 90).
Fowler focuses on the facts alone - saying that Hawaii probably will get a bid because of teams losing ahead of them.
Fowler asks: if LSU wins the SEC, do you think they'd want to see Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl? (suggesting that they wouldn't). Herbstreit suggests that LSU wouldn't want to see Hawaii's receivers. Everyone laughs. Herbstreit says they'd be the best receivers they'd see all year. LET ME USE ALL CAPS: LSU WOULD LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE TO PLAY HAWAII AND THEIR SUPPOSEDLY GREAT RECEIVERS. LSU WOULD HAVE PLAYED SEVEN GAMES THIS YEAR AGAINST TEAMS RANKED AT THE TIME, SEVERAL OF WHOM WOULD HAVE VERY GOOD PASSING GAMES (Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee) AND STRONG RUSHING ATTACKS TO GO WITH THEM (WHICH HAWAII DOES NOT HAVE). THERE IS PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE PLAYER ON ANY OF THE DEFENSES ON THE TEAMS HAWAII HAS PLAYED ALL YEAR WHO WOULD MAKE LSU'S 2-DEEP. LSU WOULD PREFER TO PLAY HAWAII THAN ANY OTHER TEAM IN THE BCS. HAWAII'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS THIS YEAR CANNOT BE VIEWED OUTSIDE OF THE PRISM OF THEIR TERRIBLE SCHEDULE. But it's definitely worth a laugh. We'll keep tabs and see if any of these guys nut up and pick Hawaii against LSU (or Tennessee).
Desmond Howard is on the suddenly re-emerging fake field. Says some Florida fans want Tim Tebow playing basketball for the gators "or maybe these guys", pointing to the fans of Missouri and Kansas. I don't think I get it.

Eighth Commercial Break

Semi-extended piece on Chase Daniel and Todd Reesing. Interviews with each's teammates.
Corso would take Chase Daniel over Reesing because he saw Daniel in person (he hasn't seen Reesing). Corso has become Joe Morgan today.
Herbstreit would also take Daniel, but gives some tangible reasons for that.
Desmond Howard's Heisman interview series goes to Florida at interview Tim Tebow. I am not exactly surprised to find out that Tebow only wears cleats and crocs. Crocs.
Darren McFadden is on the phone and Fowler interviews him. It's a little hard to understand because McFadden talks 100 miles an hour.
Corso now says Colt Brennan should be considered for the Heisman because he holds a bunch of records (earned against terrible opposition).
Herbstreit agrees with Corso in that Brennan should make NYC because "he's been doing it all year". Was Brennan not injured for several games, allowing him to play minimal amounts and not bloat his numbers further (and note how that injury didn't affect Hawaii much, because they were playing atrocious opposition).
Herbstreit says Darren McFadden is the most outstanding player in the country, my have won the Heisman.
Fowler asks about Dennis Dixon, says that he hopes voters don't leave him out entirely.
Some brief talk about UF-FSU. Herbstreit says FSU shouldn't try to intimidate Tebow. Do not taunt Happy Fun Tebow.
Corso thinks FSU could outscore Florida because of better weapons on FSU's O. Also thinks FSU would blitz Florida like Georgia did.
Fowler chimes in with the trope about how "Tebow was very very hurt against Georgia". If he was that hurt, should he not have been playing?
Herbstreit: don't taunt Tebow. Because then he gets mad. And then he gets even.

Ninth Commercial Break

Energizer Spirit Meter says 99. They just make this up. Williams-Amherst, with a crowd 1/4th the size registered a 102.
Tennessee-Kentucky talk. Short interview clips with Fulmer and Ainge.
Corso likes Kentucky because Kentucky is at home.
Herbstreit likes Tennessee because everyone is picking against them. Seriously - for no other reason than this.
Georgia-Georgia Tech talk.
Corso thinks the line is messed up, but still picks Georgia.
Herbstreit: over the last few weeks, Mark Richt has done as good a job as anyone in America. Thinks Georgia wins, gets to a BCS game. (nobody corrects him to say that if Kentucky had beaten Tennessee, Georgia wouldn't be assured a BCS berth).

Tenth Commercial Break

Extended piece on Missouri's Aaron O'Neal. Steve Cyphers reporting.
Missouri-Kansas talk. Breakdowns of when each team has the ball. Desmond Howard on to talk about special teams (really, just the return game). Fowler actually covers the kicking game.
Herbstreit: the most explosive offense in the country is Missouri.
Howard picks Kansas, despite having just said a good deal about explosiveness of Maclin and Missouri.

Eleventh Commercial Break

Pontiac Game Changer: Corso - Andre Woodson. Herbstreit - Knowshon Moreno. Fowler - Vince Hall of VT. Maybe Fowler? Woodson had a decent game, but they didn't win. Moreno gave way to Thomas Brown.
Breaking News: Mississippi fires Orgeron.
Saturday Stupid Selections: Corso - South Carolina, Kentucky, Oregon. Herbstreit - Virginia, Alabama, (and he hinted that he'd pick Kansas).

This episode was one of Corso's worst of the year. Herbstreit was a little better than normal. I suppose you could probably tell, but I don't buy the hype for Hawaii - and they were significantly hyperbolic in praise for Hawaii. The McShay piece was great.

Next week, I'm guessing they'll go to the Oklahoma-Missouri game in San Antonio.

Where to?

2007-11-21T21:18:00.000-05:00

So many different bowl possibilities for the Dawgs at this point. Lose to Georgia Tech on Saturday and we could be in the Nugget Bowl (again), the Outback, or possibly the Cotton, given so many terrible records in the SEC West. Take care of business on the Flats, and at worst, we’d go to Orlando or Dallas.

Don’t want to speak too soon about a BCS bid, but it seems like everyone else is, so why not. With some help from Kentucky, we’d be able to properly earn our spot, but most of the talk right now presumes an at-large invitation. A win over Tech, however, by no means guarantees a BCS slot. If, for example, Tennessee beats LSU in a close game, and LSU only falls to #3 or #4, the Bayou Bengals would still get an automatic BCS bid, and the Dawgs would be locked out by the limit of two teams per conference. Even if LSU falls to #5 or lower, they could still be selected above UGA, and we’d likely be headed to the Citrus.

Still, the Sugar seems most likely, and there’s even a possible outcome that could land Georgia in each of the other BCS bowls, including the National Championship Game:

1. Sugar Bowl
Front door:
Kentucky beats Tennessee
Georgia beats LSU to earn automatic bid to Sugar (unless…see scenario #5 below)

Back door:
Tennessee beats Kentucky.
Georgia beats Tech.
LSU beats both Arkansas and Tennessee.
With the first pick of the BCS draft in order to replace #1 LSU, the Sugar would almost certainly take the Dawgs because of SEC ties.

Prediction for UGA’s opponent in this scenario: Kansas. I know everybody says Hawai'i, but bear with me. In scenarios #2-#5 below, I outline possibilities, but here, I'll explain my overall prediction for how the BCS shakes out:
Rose - Ohio State v. Southern Cal
Sugar - Georgia v. Kansas
Fiesta - Oklahoma v. Boston College
Orange - Virginia Tech v. Arizona State
National Championship - LSU v. West Virginia
I'm not convinced that Hawai'i can get past either Boise or Washington, but even if they win out, they could still be left out. There's a pretty good chance that, even with inevitable losses by teams ahead of them, Hawai'i could stay right where they are now at #15. The rules say Hawai'i gets an automatic bid on their own if they finish in the top 12. I think that is out of reach. If they get some help from a team ranked behind them winning a BCS conference, they could be as low as #16 to get an automatic bid. Best hopes for that to happen are Virginia (currently #16), Tennessee (currently #18), and UConn (currently #20). My guess is those first 2 would probably jump over Hawai'i by winning their conference, negating the "top 16" clause. So the Warriors should be huge Connecticut fans this week against WVU. The ACC championship may help Hawai'i, even if Virginia isn't in it. Only the top 14 are eligible for at-large bids, if there are enough within that group to fill the balance of the 10 BCS slots. If Virginia Tech blows out Boston College (currently #14), BC would likely slip down, giving Hawai'i at least the #14 spot. If the automatic provisions don't work out for Hawai'i, and if BC wins the ACC or loses close, Hawai'i likely stays at #15, and they cannot be selected by a BCS bowl because the top 14 will be enough to fill the 10 slots.

I say Kansas beats Mizzou, but loses to Oklahoma in the Big XII title game, sending the Sooners to the Fiesta, but Kansas only drops to #4, so the Jayhawks are an automatic BCS qualifier, somewhere. LSU goes to the NCG to face WVU. Automatic tie-ins pit Ohio State against the Pac-10 champ, my guess being USC, who backdoors it into the Rose Bowl by beating Arizona State and benefiting from the Dennis Dixon injury causing Oregon to lose again. The ACC Champ, I'll say Virginia Tech, has to go to the Orange. Because the Sugar lost the #1 team, they pick next, taking Georgia. Then the predetermined yearly rotation of picks kicks in. Orange picks next. I think they take Arizona State, who finishes the season 10-2 with a solid win over rival Arizona. Next the Fiesta will have to choose between Kansas and BC, who remains at #14. All other top 14 teams (I'm guessing Mizzou, Texas, Florida, and Oregon) will be ineligible as two teams from their conference will already be in. Knowing that Kansas will have to be picked anyway so the Big XII will get their two-team BCS payout, the Fiesta picks BC, to avoid the rematch between Kansas and Oklahoma. That forces the Jayhawks into a January 1 showdown with the Dawgs in New Orleans.

Now back to other possible BCS scenarios for UGA...

2. Rose Bowl
Georgia beats Tech.
Tennessee beats both Kentucky and LSU, and LSU falls below #4.
Winner of Kansas/Missouri loses Big XII Championship.
WVU wins out to face Ohio State in the NCG.

In order to replace the Big Ten champion Buckeyes, the Rose would have the first pick among at-large teams and automatic qualifiers without a predetermined tie-in. They would like to pick another team from Ohio State's conference, but the next highest ranked team, Illinois (currently #17), would be ineligible if they stay that low since the cut-off for at-large teams is #14. The list of candidates for the Rose would look like this:
-UGA (2 losses but on a 6-game win streak with lots of national attention)
-LSU (2 losses, including their last game to a 3-loss team)
-A Big XII also-ran (the loser of Missouri/Kansas, the loser of the Big XII championship, and possibly a 10-2 Texas team who didn't win the South).
-Any number of also-rans in the Pac-10, but to pick one of them would create a rematch with whomever is the conference champion since they play a full round-robin season.
-An ACC or Big East also-ran.
-Possibly the winner of Hawaii/Boise State if they win again on December 1 (but maybe not; see #1 above)

If LSU is in the top 4, we're out (unless we rise to #3), so we might need LSU to lose to both Arkansas and Tennessee for this scenario to work. If LSU only loses the SECCG, and they fall to #5, Georgia and LSU’s respective pairs of losses and would look very similar, each losing to the Vols and a once-promising team with an eventual mediocre record. My guess is the Rose would take Georgia as the hotter team at the end. If Georgia finishes ahead of LSU and in the top 4, there would be no choice in the matter because Georgia would automatically qualify and LSU would be locked out.

If Texas wins out but misses the Big XII title game, they would have a resume similar to the Dawgs' in this scenario, but they've been going about it much more quietly. I think the play of Stafford and Moreno, along with the possibility of another Richt gimmick would give Georgia the nod. Plus, the polls already have Georgia much higher.

Prediction for UGA’s opponent in this scenario: Southern Cal, although it would be interesting if Arizona State is there to play the Dawgs, as this would set up a rematch in next September’s non-conference regular season matchup between the schools.

3. Orange Bowl
LSU loses to Arkansas but beats Tennessee.
WVU wins out.
Winner of Kansas/Missouri wins the Big XII to make it into the NCG against WVU.

Fiesta will likely take the loser of Kansas/Missouri or the loser of the Big XII championship game with their first pick to keep it in the B12 family.
The next pick goes to the Orange, whose list of choices would be similar to the list in scenario #2 above, with the exception of LSU, who would be staying close to home in the Sugar. Dawgs get to crank dat on South Beach.

Prediction for UGA’s opponent in this scenario: Virginia Tech, in a rematch from last year’s bowl game.

4. Fiesta Bowl
LSU loses to Arkansas but beats Tennessee.
WVU wins out.
Winner of Kansas/Missouri wins the Big XII to make it into the NCG against WVU.

This is the same scenario as for #3 above, except this time the Fiesta decides to use their first pick, which they earned by losing the Big XII champ to the NCG, to go against its conference ties and takes Georgia over a Big XII also-ran with a recent loss.

Prediction for UGA’s opponent in this scenario: Missouri. This pick predicts the Tigers to lose to Kansas but still be available as an at-large team when the Fiesta makes their second pick. Could just as easily be Kansas, Texas or Oklahoma in that role. In this scenario, the Fiesta’s second pick would come after the Orange picks a team to face the ACC champ (probably the best-looking non-champion out of the Pac-10; my guess is ASU).

5. National Championship Game
USC and/or Arizona beats ASU.
Kentucky beats Tennessee.
Georgia beats Tech.
Winner of Kansas/Missouri loses Big XII Championship.
UConn and/or Pitt beats WVU.
Georgia beats LSU.

Add in some computer help in the form of wins by previous UGA opponents (namely, UF over FSU, South Carolina over Clemson, Okie State over Oklahoma, Vandy over WF, Ole Miss over Miss. State, Troy over MTSU), and the chances are that none of the current top six (except the idle Buckeyes) will stay ahead of Georgia. If UGA can win the SEC over the #1 team in the country, I can't imagine anyone presently behind us could jump the Dawgs.

Prediction for UGA’s opponent in this scenario: Ohio State. This is the only possible matchup if enough of Georgia’s prayers are answered to get us to the big one. In a year of so many unlikely outcomes, this actually seems more feasible than I ever thought it could. Many of the games above are favored to go our way. The longest shot is for WVU to lose.

Obviously, these are just possibilities, and there could be other scenarios to put the Dawgs into each bowl. If there are flaws in my logic, please point them out in the comments. A lot of it is based on LD’s advice on rooting interests, so blame him if I’m wrong. I’m not holding my breath until January 7, but damn it’s fun to still be talking like this over Thanksgiving dinner.

Just in case you were wondering...

2007-11-21T18:55:00.000-05:00

Ryan Hockensmith, Mixed Martial Arts writer for ESPN.com, has produced another Power 16 poll that is hilariously messed up.

Again he gives Kansas its lone #1 vote.
Now he moves Hawaii (after squeaking by weak Nevada) and Boise State up in the rankings. Now both are in his Top 8.

In comparison to the other voters in this poll, Hockensmith...

Ranks Hawaii 5 full slots higher than anyone else(and 3 don't even rank Hawaii).
Ranks Boise State 6 full slots higher than anyone else (and only 3 others DO rank Boise State).
Ranks Georgia 4 slots lower than anyone else.

It wouldn't surprise me if he ranked the winner of Hawaii-Boise State #1 if Kansas loses to Missouri. And it also wouldn't surprise me if he'd never heard of the term "strength of schedule".

Lebowski Standings v.2007.5

2007-11-21T08:56:00.000-05:00

Gameday Recap

2007-11-20T22:53:00.000-05:00

Week Twelve
November 17, 2007
Ann Arbor, Michigan - Ohio State vs. Michigan

Big 10 title on the line, but surely this can't be the hype machine it would've been had both OSU and UofM not lost last week? Please? At least there's a massive crowd on hand, unlike last weekend. I bet I won't be able to pick out the same person in the crowd twice, let alone 45 times.

Maybe I'll be able to spot those guys wearing pop-pom skirts and no shirts more than once.
Desmond Howard opens on the set, first time for a while. Balancing Herbstreit?
Desmond offers gifts to the crew - Bo Schembechler's posthumously published book.
Nice hat, Kirk. Signing up with Elliot Ness?
Corso tells us that it's gun season for deer, and if you need to do outdoor chores, do it during the Michigan-Ohio State game, because most hunters will be watching the game. Or something like that... it made little sense.
Second time ever that OSU and UofM both enter the game off a loss.
Fowler says maybe OSU can win and sit back and back into the BCS Title Game. Not sure whether this is narrative building or if it's a slight (why would OSU "back in"? - there are only so many teams with 1 loss - if the math favors OSU, then it favors OSU and they wouldn't "back in").
That's crazy how OSU has only played in 1 Rose Bowl since 1985.
Corso then says that OSU would have a good bid for the BCS title game if they win, and Herbstreit naturally agrees with the argument.
Then Herbstreit tells us how hard players in the Michigan-Ohio State game will be playing, and Howard agrees. Question - do they play harder than the DIII guys they bragged about last week?

First Commercial Break

Highlights from Hawaii-Nevada.
Highlights from Oregon-Arizona.
Fowler talks about how sad it is that Dixon got hurt, and how that may affect his Heisman status. Corso also says that Dixon was his Heisman pick and that Oregon will suffer greatly. Herbstreit also says Dixon was the Heisman frontrunner. Why not still vote for him?
They do the Saturday Slate after the first break this time (too much Ohio State-Michigan talk to fit it in?)
Interesting way they framed the Oklahoma-Texas Tech game - using the last time they played in Lubbock and bad officiating and how the respective coaches have responded to bad calls recently.
Corso thinks Texas Tech-OU might be a high scoring game (out on a limb there!), but also likes TTU's chances, but not enough to pick them.
Fowler points out that Texas Tech's passing game isn't that great against Oklahoma in recent years.
Internet poll says Kansas had the best chance of losing yesterday (won huge), Oklahoma had the worst chance of losing (lost).

Second Commercial Break

ACC talk. Fowler calls the ACC a microcosm of college football - inconsistency, messy.
BC-Clemson.
Radio clips on Clemson and their yo-yo tendency.
Herbstreit: "Clemson plays in the ACC, but their fans are from the SEC." Then he breaks down Clemson's defense. Then picks Clemson.
Corso likes Cullen Harper for All-ACC QB. Then he gets Clemson's ACC record wrong (says they're 5-1 and will be 6-1).
Fowler walks back the others on Clemson, saying not to underestimate Matt Ryan.
Miami-VT. Fowler says "you have to question Miami's heart."
Corso recommends Miami players go see the Wizard of Oz and find a heart.
Herbstreit says the fact that recruits are questioning the efforts of Miami players is a good thing for Miami and Shannon is on the right track because someone like Ray Lewis would also question the efforts of players. Newsflash, Kirk: those recruits might not go to Miami because of what they saw on the field. That's not exactly a good thing, or a reason to think Shannon is on the right path.
The entire set thinks the Miami-UVa result the previous week looks even worse because UVa doesn't blow anyone out.

Third Commercial Break

Energizer Spirit Meter - 109 dB. Last week's number was total BS.
Extended Piece on Mohawks. Greg Garber reporting. Lord, this is totally useless. For a while, I thought they'd given up on doing these BS pieces. Les Miles thinks mohawks are the result of not having enough money for a full haircut. Is it a surprise that USF is the site of the most mohawks, considering that Tampa is home to the most "clippers on the side, but leave it long on top and in the back" mullets than anywhere south of Ontario?
Fowler mentions how the Michigan fans cheered when Les Miles was on camera.

Fourth Commercial Break

Game Face: Guy dressed in X-Men Wolverine costume. Nice work.
Yale-Harvard talk.
Wired!!! with Yale's coach. That stray ear hair on the coach disturbs me.
Duke-Notre Dame talk. Fowler admits that it's the first matchup of 1-9 teams ever discussed on Gameday.
Fowler: "this Duke-ND game is fairly evenly matched".
Interviews with Duke players. Note to other terrible programs: if you want some publicity, no matter how bad you are, play Notre Dame (no matter how bad they are).
Show offensive stats of Duke and ND - good lord that's terrible.
Howard is back on the set.
Howard says it's comical that Weis isn't getting more scrutiny from the national media because the team isn't improving from week to week.
Corso (without irony!) says that (a) the national media IS getting on Weis, but (b) Weis deserves a free pass because he took ND to two [undeserved] BCS bowl berths. Apparently Corso isn't a part of the national media, and he's an idiot.
Herbstreit says Weis is getting a free pass from the national media, says that were Willingham or Davie 1-9, SportsCenter would devote full episodes to the crisis. Says Weis is getting a free pass because of Super Bowls and a supposedly great recruiting class, but thinks the heat should be hotter.
Fowler says lots of other coaches (Robinson at Syracuse, Orgeron, etc) are feeling heat, with better records than Weis and at smaller programs than ND.

Fifth Commercial Break

Highlights of Colerain-St. Xavier high school game in Southern Ohio
Cincinnati-WVU.
Semi-extended piece on Owen Schmitt. Nobody named as reporting. I thought they did a piece on this guy a year or two ago. This is new material, though.
Herbstreit ably points out the difficulty in defending WVU's various talented offensive players. Nails the pick too.
Corso likes Cincy because the spread seems low and WVU is ranked a lot higher.

Sixth Commercial Break

Big Ten segment - lists a lot of those odd Big Ten rivalry trophies.
Tom Rinaldi joins the set (where only Fowler remains) to talk about his extended piece on Indiana and Terry Hoeppner's legacy.
Rinaldi sets up the next segment, as everyone else has left the set to go inside the stadium

Seventh Commercial Break

Lots of commercials and longer breaks than usual, it seems.
Should I know who the preacher guy is who is hyping Michigan-Ohio State far far far more than the game deserved?
When they went inside the stadium at the season opener at VT, Fowler couldn't stop talking about how emotions were building. Now, he's already said twice how the "excitement is building".
Some talk about Lloyd Carr's legacy at Michigan.
Corso tells us that he thinks the OSU game would be Carr's last regular season game (apparently unaware of Brian Cook's story breaking), praises Carr's getting contract extensions for his assistants.
Herbstreit rambles about Carr reaching out to players on a personal level.
Desmond Howard is outside with a few other UofM former players, who say nothing.

Eighth Commercial Break

Shots of Sly Croom firing up the Miss State faithful, then clips of LSU destroying them.
Arkansas-Miss State talk. Interview with Croom.
Corso tells us that he relates a lot to Croom because, in case you didn't know, Corso used to be a coach and had limited success on the field, but supposedly had great relationships with players and staff.
Herbstreit also talks about character and backbone and perseverence, etc.
LSU-Ole Miss. Highlights of last year's game, where LSU struggled greatly. Fowler hints that Ole Miss might sneak up on LSU. Herbstreit thinks LSU will get the job done because they've seen other highly ranked teams lose. Corso, on the other hand, thinks LSU has been living on the edge and could struggle against a team that can throw the ball.
Corso also adds that he thinks Oklahoma is better than LSU. For those of you keeping score at home, this is a reversion to his original statement about Oklahoma, after a week or two of a flirtation with Oregon being the best team in the nation. Who knows what he'll say next week.
Tennessee-Vandy. Herbstreit thinks Tennessee doesn't lose focus.
Georgia-Kentucky. Fowler calls Georgia the best 2 loss team in the country. Herbstreit apologizes to Georgia fans (seriously) for "being the last to the party" and refers to the Tennessee loss as "spooking" him. Also says that if UGA plays LSU, UGA will win if they keep up the intensity or something.
Corso and Herbstreit both think Tennessee will have more trouble with Kentucky than Vandy.

Ninth Commercial Break

Shots of the Michigan band, Mike Hart getting taped. Seems like there are a lot of meaningless, contentless simple shots of pregame routines. They could spend a whole lot more time breaking down the actual game (or talk about a few other games).
Quick history of teams unranked in the preseason finishing high in polls as segue into Kansas talk.
Todd Reesing talk. Desmond Howard interviews him on his Hello Heisman segment. Useful stuff in here - mainly focusing on visibility of a shorter QB with a big O line.
Howard then muddies things a bit - compares Todd Reesing sending his own highlight tape to colleges to rappers sending demo tapes to record labels or something like that.
Fowler and graphics make some statements about Kansas - and how they haven't played anyone good.
Herbstreit says Kansas is good even though he knows they haven't played anyone good.
Corso is more certain - says Kansas doesn't deserve to be #2 because their schedule is so bad. Then he walks it back by saying Kansas could be OK if they end up beating Missouri and Oklahoma.
Fowler says that it's now starting to rain and cites Guns N Roses.

Tenth Commercial Break

Injury news on Mike Hart, sort of. They need to do more informative injury updates.
Extended previews on player matchups - QB vs. QB, etc. Not so much detailed information as "these are the guys whose names you'll hear later".
Corso talks about Michigan's need to throw the ball deep and well - because of how important it is to beat OSU. Corso also says that OSU isn't out of the National Title picture.
The key to the game according to Corso: "which coaching staff lets their players play". Instead of mocking such an empty cliche, Herbstreit says Corso is "exactly right".
Herbstreit says that Ohio State has relied on adding wrinkles, but then the highlights pretty much show good decisionmaking against Michigan's defense (picking out the right matchups, etc).

Eleventh Commercial Break

Lisa Salters provides some more injury updates - including news from the parents of Henne and Hart.
Pontiac Game Changer. Corso - Sam Bradford. Herbstreit - Pat White. Fowler - Juice Williams. Herbstreit wins.
Saturday Stupid Selections: Corso: Maryland, Clemson, Cincinnati, Oklahoma, Yale. Herbstreit: Clemson, Duke.
Herbstreit calls the Texas Tech upset, and got almost all the picks right.
Keep Corso away from the picks this week. He kept mentioning weird spreads as if that was an intelligent way to pick games.

Next week in Kansas City for Missouri-Kansas. Lots of great games next week, so let's hope for an information-driven show, rather than lots of extended pieces and meaningless segments.

Thoughts on Georgia

2007-11-18T15:26:00.000-05:00

1) Is it possible that Georgia could have both the Offensive and Defensive Freshmen of the Year in the SEC? Who's better than Knowshon Moreno and Rennie Curran at each respective slot?

2) I'm sure the SEC coach of the year will be Croom, but might the psychological work done by Richt this year be his best work? I'm not sure if any other coach in the league could've gotten this team to this record, especially after the UT game. This year was Richt's best head coaching season, and it so happens to be the year he handed off the playcalling duties full-time.

3) If UK beats UT, Georgia controls their destiny for the BCS. If UT beats UK, a Georgia win almost certainly clinches a BCS at-large slot (regardless of who wins the SEC). Not a bad consolation prize.

4) Alabama's loss to UL-M was a TERRIBLE result for Georgia. Schadenfreude aside, that loss will affect Georgia's computer rankings - and it makes the SEC look bad. In fact, Alabama owns the two worst OOC results in the SEC this year (all other SEC OOC losses were by underdog SEC teams to probably better opponents, except maybe UT-Cal). The Tide's losses to FSU and UL-M are inexcusable and makes the entire conference look bad. Nice work, $4 Million Man.

5) The officiating in the Georgia-Kentucky game was eleventy-brazillian times better than the officiating in the Georgia-Auburn game. Good thing the SEC sends the best team to do the JP Sports game, rather than the biggest game of the weekend. Ass faces.

6) Coutu's FG in the 4th quarter yesterday won't be as memorable as the Vandy kick, or any other which would be closer to time expiring. But don't let that fool you. It was a huge, clutch kick. 46 yards on a day when winds were fluky and swirly, into the open end of the stadium, to make the game 2 possessions (against a team that had been simply chewing up yards when in a no-huddle offense). Awesome kick.

7) Kelin Johnson's got himself a pretty nice highlight reel this year over the last couple of games, doesn't he?

Gameday Recap

2007-11-13T21:58:00.000-05:00

Week Eleven
November 10, 2007
Williamstown, Massachusetts - Amherst at Williams

Small school road trip. I've written my piece on it already. I like that they sometimes cover schools a little off the national radar, but I also wonder whether this was the right place to do it. I figure the fans of Mt. Union wonder that too.

For the first time this year, the opener isn't of screaming fans, but rather a bucolic, quiet campus.
Then the fans are shown. Smaller than any we've seen so far.
Before the opener, they've already shown the same two guys three times. Perhaps the size of the crowd is overstated by the camerawork?

Big N Rich

4 times, same guy. Trucker hat, dead center.
They use google maps to show exactly where they are.
Bandmembers, this is the biggest thing to hit your campus in years. And you choose that to wear a hot dog hat?
Herbstreit tells us DIII is the root of college football and a good break from BCS madness or something. If this is better than all that madness, why don't they cover DIII all the time, with the occasional jaunt up to DI?
Corso tells us to go to the Clark Art Museum. Fowler and Herbstreit are amused by this.
Fowler says DIII is fun because we can relate to not being big, fast, strong, etc. I can't tell whether they're praising or insulting DIII athletes.
Fowler suggests that next week they'd be going to Ohio State-Michigan. Is that still operative after both teams' results?
Fowler says South Carolina needed a win to get bowl eligible. They had 6 wins. Yes, one was a 1-AA opponent, but 6 wins is all that's necessary as long as there's a conference tie-in. South Carolina is bowl eligible, but they don't necessarily have a bowl bid secured.
The Saturday Slate of big games does not list the only game between ranked opponents (UGA-Auburn). And if you think they were only listing games on the ESPN/ABC family...
They do discuss Mount Union vs. Marietta College. Marietta was 3-6 going into the game, which they lost 57-0. Fowler says that Mt. Union's defense is fiercer than Ohio State's. No. It isn't.
Apparently it was "Rivalry Saturday" in DIII.
Fowler admits a narrative: this Saturday was thought of as "set the table" for the following week, catch your breath. At the same time, he suggests that having said just that, there'll probably be upsets (like the results of two games that make their trip this weekend to Ann Arbor a bit lamer)
What could happen to shake things up? Corso says Kansas could get beat because Oklahoma State is a small underdog. Herbstreit says watch Texas and USC because of BCS at-large bids.
The same kid in the trucker hat has been shown like 8 times. There are not as many people there as the camera might suggest.

First Commercial Break

Florida-South Carolina talk. Clips of the last 2 games. Clip of Spurrier's press conference - which was hilarious. They should have a recurring segment on Spurrier's self-effacing quips and well timed jabs.
Corso is right in saying that Florida is good on offense because of Tebow and Harvin, but how hard was it to come up with that analysis?
Seventeen minutes in, Fowler mentions the only matchup of ranked opponents (Georgia-Auburn) for the first time. Total length of time discussed thus far: 3 seconds.

Second Commercial Break

Trucker hat kid has been on screen as much as Corso.
Fowler asks the crowd if they like BC. They don't respond.
VT-FSU talk. Corso likes FSU because they were underdogs by 6.5 points, just like in the BC game, and because the game is played in the afternoon. Awesome analysis. Herbstreit likes FSU because of "attitude."
BC-Maryland talk. Well, not really. Just some injury updates. Fowler mentions how one guy is "out with an ankle". A broken ankle? A twisted ankle? A tattooed ankle?
Clemson-Wake talk. Everyone likes Clemson, and only Fowler gives tangible reasons.
Back to BC-Maryland. Fowler says that highly ranked teams that have lost have tended to lose a second game as a letdown. Corso calls this "really voodoo stuff". Herbstreit likes BC because of "maturity", Corso expects BC to win big. Wrong.
Visit with Desmond Howard on the bus. He's not high on the ACC.
Howard provides some love notes from Williams people on the internet. Yes, tell yourselves it was a good decision to go there.

Third Commercial Break

Gillette GameFace: The Trucker Hat kid makes the camera, but they show members of the band.
Highlights of the 1997 Amherst-Williams game. My God that is a terrible play by Williams on that fake PAT. Aren't these kids supposed to be smart?
Trucker hat kid is on camera for the 45th time. I'm starting to think the crowd is primarily cardboard cutouts.
Rivalry notes on Amherst-Williams. They've played a long time.
Some memories of the Orange Bowl Stadium.
Extended piece of highlights. Steve Cyphers (who hasn't been around very much lately) reporting. Nice piece. Game-driven, rather than sappy and forced. Seems like the older the material in these extended pieces, the "realer" it is.
Lamar Thomas was interviewed for that piece. Didn't see any clips of the FIU-UM brawl though...
Herbstreit's memory of the Orange Bowl was a Super Bowl, but then the 2000 Miami game is his memory. Better than Flutie or the Nebraska 2 point conversion?
Corso's best memories of the Orange Bowl are (a) his own high school performance there, (b) his own college performance there, and (c) his own coaching performance there. Glad it's not all about Lee.
Fowler's memory was the Colorado-ND Orange Bowl with Rocket Ismail's return.

Fourth Commercial Break

They use the split screen shots of the crowd, and no shit, the trucker hat kid is on two of the cameras at the same time. Maybe there is more than one goofy looking long haired kid with a velour trucker hat.
Troubled teams: Nebraska, Notre Dame, Texas A&M. Clips of each coach's press conference. Charlie Weis' massive Super Bowl ring is tactfully placed.
Tom Luginbill comes on to reassure the viewers that just because ND sucks ass this year, their future is totally awesome. The degree at ND is so valuable, the great class coming in is spectacular, and ND is still ND, sayeth Luginbill the Aqueduct. He does say Nebraska is losing guys left and right.
Howard joins the set and is asked what it'd take to sign with a losing program. Howard lists platitudes and says some guys would want to be the guy who turns it around.
Corso tells us a story about when he was a coach (if you didn't know, he was a coach). Corso says most coaches should ignore the best players and get players that like you. Really.
Herbstreit continues Luginbill's work carrying water for ND, saying kids have a chance to play right away and that Weis will take the program to the next level.
Apparently Amherst was taking the field for warmups. I counted 18 players.

Fifth Commercial Break

List of famous Amherst and Williams alumni. They show a quote from George Steinbrenner that seems a little strange.
Texas-Texas Tech talk (say that 5 times fast). Herbstreit mentions how Texas is in line for a BCS at-large berth for a second time. Note that narrative building.
Kansas-Oklahoma State. Fowler says Kansas is getting some poll love but they need style points. Don't they need to play someone worth a lick more than "style points"? Clip of Mangino's press conference - and I'm surprised by this, but he actually looks pretty good, put together, compared to Weis' presser.
Herbstreit actually breaks down some plays in Kansas-Oklahoma State. Herbstreit says it's going to be Kansas' most difficult opponent to date. You mean more than Southeast Louisiana, Toledo or Florida International?

Sixth Commercial Break

Comparison of academics at Amherst and Williams.
Flashback to some of their past milestones on Gameday. They've shown most of these clips dozens of times. I'm so sick of that clip where Herbstreit throws the computer. I remember thinking on that show, and I continue to think, that computers provide so much better analysis than Herbstreit it's not even funny.
BCS Breakdown time.
Mark May and Andre Ware join them (for what reason, we're not told).
Fowler, to his credit, says he doesn't have the guts to rank Ohio State behind other teams, hinting that he thinks other teams are better, but other considerations come into play.
Andre Ware says LSU and Oregon might be better than Ohio State.
Corso whips out credentials, saying he's seen lots of teams live, says Oregon's the best team in the nation (a few weeks ago he said the same thing about Oklahoma). Also says that Oregon has the most significant win in college football this year - beating Michigan in Ann Arbor. This is f'ing ludicrous. Oregon's wins over Arizona State and USC were more significant than the win over Michigan. Oklahoma over Missouri? LSU over Virginia Tech? Corso is off his rocker.
Mark May says Ohio State's 4th.
Herbstreit defends Ohio State by saying we need to wait and see, but also that Ohio State's big wins over shitty teams means they deserve #1.
Herbstreit assumes OSU is winning out over and over again.
Corso a second time repeats the assertion that Oregon's win over Michigan is most significant, because Oregon beat them huge (a week after they lost to a 1-AA team) and Michigan had gone on to win 8 straight against mediocre competition. Expansive powers of logic exceed his capacity.
Fowler promises that they'll be heading to Ann Arbor. And then Michigan and Ohio State lose. I think this is kind of poetic. They looked ahead just as much as the teams did.

Seventh Commercial Break

There is no way on earth that that energizer sound meter is accurate. Says 102.
Auburn-Georgia talk. First extended discussion of the day's best game is 1 hour and 13 minutes into the show.
WIRED! with Mark Richt. More of a short interview than a Wired segment.
Corso likes Georgia's offensive balance. Herbstreit thinks defensive inspiration will be important. Maudlin adjectives are Herbstreit's friend.
Herbstreit also thinks last year's Georgia game, and the revenge issue will make the difference.
Corso thinks turnovers make a difference - and Georgia is good at that. Decent nugget.
Some highlights of Darren McFadden running all over South Carolina.
Desmond Howard interviews McFadden. Now his segment has a graphic intro at the beginning.
Herbstreit says the key to UT-Arkansas is making Arkansas throw the ball. Corso likes Tennessee because they beat Georgia big.
Fowler wisely says Mississippi State could surprise Alabama.

Eighth Commercial Break

Every time I see the Gillette commercial with Tiger, Federer and Thierry Henry I laugh when Henry says "I never phink about yethferday".
Now they're starting to show some wider camera angles and it looks like the crowd has filled in a little.
Corso likes Arizona State over UCLA because of coaching. Herbstreit calls UCLA one of the most disappointing teams in college football.
USC-Cal. Herbstreit says turnovers by Cal is the problem, repeats for a third time that USC is in line for a BCS at-large. He is shameless with his support of certain storylines.
Hawaii-Fresno State. Fowler and Corso say that Brennan breaks the all-time TD pass record early, but he did not. Fowler already starts saying that Hawaii is in line for the Sugar Bowl. More narrative building.

Ninth Commercial Break

Extended piece on Amherst-Williams playing football (they work hard too, they care, etc). Jeremy Schaap reports in a highly elitist piece. "They're student-athletes not athlete-students", "they play for the love of the game only", etc...
Now the discussion is on "the last game you ever played". Lots of cliches and repeated statements. They're saying the same thing over and over.
Corso tells us about playing in an all star game. All about Lee.
It is starting to look kind of dark there. Probably just the netting behind the set.

Tenth Commercial Break

Trucker hat kid is on the split screen for the 248th time and he loses his hat.
Ohio State-Illinois. Fowler tells us that this is the game before the real big game for the 50th time. Also says that Illinois won't be able to do anything against the OSU "rock hard" defense.
Corso thinks OSU-Illinois is a big game for teams like Oregon to scout Ohio State's D against the spread.
Herbstreit does say that the Buckeyes need to focus on Illinois not Michigan, but he assures us that Ohio State is doing just that (as always, Ohio State can do no wrong).
Michigan-Wisconsin. Fowler says the numbers look really bad for Wisconsin except for being unbeaten at home.
On-site scenes at Michigan-Wisconsin. Herbstreit praises Chad Henne. Corso tells us Lloyd Carr is a better person than coach and he's a great coach.
Corso calls it a trap game for Michigan because the last time they played in Wisconsin in Madison they were ranked 14th and lost. Analysis!
Herbstreit mocks Fowler for kind of thinking Wisconsin might not be a cakewalk for Michigan.

Eleventh Commercial Break

Trucker hat makes the center of the camera for one last time.
Now for the latest, we go right back to Madison, where we were right before the break to see Erin Andrews... but technical difficulties interrupt.
Pontiac Game Changer. Corso: Brandon James. Herbstreit: Brandon Cox. Fowler: Pat Lucey of Williams. Fowler takes it, I guess. It's hard to tell how that guy did, but he won.
Saturday Stupid Selections: Corso: Ohio State, Michigan (though he did hedge and say close) Herbstreit: UNC, Notre Dame, Arkansas, Auburn, Ohio State (very smarmily), Michigan.
Shot of Williams' coach's pregame speech.

I might be ornery, and it's late, but I didn't think this was all that great a show. Seems like the crew and hosts are running low on gas this late in the year. Very little analysis. They didn't cover some pretty important games at all (UConn-Cincy, for one). They seemed very repetitious when discussing some things, kind of punchy and defensive (especially Herbstreit) at other times.

Next week they're heading to Ann Arbor for the Big Ten Title Game.

Let's talk about Kansas

2007-11-13T14:39:00.001-05:00

Over the last few weeks I've ranted and raved about various polling things. Yes, I complained about UConn and what I perceived as what should be subjective polling using the easy way out. UConn got whipped by Cincinnati last week. So now I have to find a new target. Let's talk about Kansas.

The Kansas Jayhawks are 10-0 and ranked third in the nation in the BCS, 4th in the AP Poll.

The primary strength of Kansas and reason for its lofty ranking is the zero in the loss column. I say this because it cannot be their accomplishments against quality opponents or in big games. It is merely the fact that they are unbeaten against one of the worst schedules of any team in a BCS conference:

Colley: 105th toughest schedule (only Texas Tech is worse among BCS conference teams)
GBE: 98th toughest schedule (only USC is worse among BCS conference teams)
Sagarin: 97th toughest schedule (worst among BCS conference teams)
Team Rankings: 117th toughest schedule (worst among BCS conference teams)
CBS Sports: 73rd toughest schedule (only ahead of USC, Texas Tech, and Miami (FL) among BCS conference teams)
NCAA (warning - PDF): 86th toughest schedule (only ahead of Texas Tech, Miami (FL), and USC among BCS conference teams)

Here's my question: What other teams are "undefeated" against the portion of their schedule as bad as Kansas' entire schedule?

We'll find out who Kansas' toughest opponent is so far, and then look at the schedules of other teams and see if anyone else remains unbeaten against opponents as bad as Kansas' toughest (or worse).

So who is Kansas' toughest opponent?

There are 25 teams ranked in the BCS standings. Kansas has played none of them.
There are 34 teams receiving votes in this week's AP poll. Kansas has played none of them.
There are 35 teams receiving votes in this week's USA Today Coaches' Poll. Kansas has played none of them.
There are 36 teams receiving votes in this week's Harris Poll. Kansas has played none of them.

Let's then look at the BCS sanctioned computer polls, as they rank all teams.

According to Sagarin's ELO-CHESS (the one used for the BCS), Kansas' toughest opponent is Oklahoma State, at #47.
According to Anderson & Hester, Kansas' toughest opponent is Oklahoma State, at #42.
According to Billingsley (which has serious flaws in my estimation), Kansas' toughest opponent is Texas A&M, at #37.
According to Colley, Kansas' toughest opponent is Texas A&M, at #48.
According to Massey, Kansas' toughest opponent is Oklahoma State, at #44.
According to Peter Wolfe, Kansas' toughest opponent is Texas A&M, at #40.

So, basically, Kansas hasn't played anyone better than around 40th in the nation so far. If you place any importance on their undefeated record, you are necessarily assuming that they would not lose to teams tougher than they have played already. That might be an assumption you would want to make (it's not nice to assume someone would lose). But here's the rub: if another team has lost to teams better than Kansas, it is a reasonable position to take to say that that team can be better than an unbeaten Kansas team. For example, LSU has lost one game, to a decent/good Kentucky team that, by every rating system available, is far superior to anyone on Kansas' schedule. To say Kansas deserves to be rated higher than LSU because they are unbeaten necessarily requires the assumption that Kansas would beat teams better than they have already played such as Kentucky).

Let's look and see who else hasn't lost to anyone as bad as or worse than Kansas' toughest...

1. Using Sagarin's ELO-CHESS, the following teams have also not lost to anyone worse than or equal to Kansas' best opponent, Oklahoma State (47):

LSU, Oregon, Ohio State, West Virginia, Florida, Arizona State, Missouri, Clemson, Georgia, Virginia Tech, South Florida, Kentucky, Connecticut, Tennessee, Penn State, Boston College, Auburn, Wisconsin, Alabama, Hawaii (though clearly the same test applies), South Carolina, Arkansas, Rutgers, Georgia Tech, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, and Troy.

That's 27 teams according to Sagarin's BCS list that haven't lost to anyone worse than the best team on Kansas' schedule. If you rate Kansas highly because they are undefeated, you should also see zeroes on those 27 teams' records.

2. Using Anderson & Hester, the following teams have also not lost to anyone worse than or equal to Kansas' best opponent, Oklahoma State (42):

LSU, Oregon, Arizona State, Missouri, Ohio State, Georgia, West Virginia, Florida, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Tennessee, Connecticut, Penn State, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Auburn, Hawaii, Alabama, Mississippi State, Purdue, Arkansas, and Vanderbilt.

That's 22 teams according to A&H that haven't lost to anyone worse than the best team on Kansas' schedule. If you rate Kansas highly because they are undefeated, you should also see zeroes on those 22 teams' records.

3. Using Billingsley, the following teams have also not lost to anyone worse than or equal to Kansas' best opponent, Texas A&M (37):

LSU, Ohio State, Oregon, West Virginia, Arizona State, Virginia Tech, Missouri, Wisconsin, Florida, Clemson, Penn State, Connecticut, Hawaii, South Florida and Troy

That's 15 teams according to Billingsley that haven't lost to anyone worse than the best team on Kansas' schedule. If you rate Kansas highly because they are undefeated, you should also see zeroes on those 15 teams' records.

4. Using Colley, the following teams have also not lost to anyone worse than or equal to Kansas' best opponent, Texas A&M (48):

LSU, Oregon, Arizona State, Ohio State, Missouri, West Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Boston College, Connecticut, South Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Penn State, Hawaii, Auburn, Alabama, Mississippi State, Rutgers, Troy, Georgia Tech, Arkansas and Vanderbilt

That's 26 teams according to Colley that haven't lost to anyone worse than the best team on Kansas' schedule. If you rate Kansas highly because they are undefeated, you should also see zeroes on those 26 teams' records.

5. Using Massey, the following teams have also not lost to anyone worse than or equal to Kansas' best opponent, Oklahoma State (44).

LSU, Oregon, Arizona State, Missouri, Ohio State, Georgia, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Florida, Clemson, Boston College, Tennessee, Kentucky, Connecticut, Wisconsin, South Florida, Penn State, Auburn, Mississippi State, Alabama, South Carolina, Hawaii, Georgia Tech, Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Arkansas and Troy

That's 27 teams according to Massey that haven't lost to anyone worse than the best team on Kansas' schedule. If you rate Kansas highly because they are undefeated, you should also see zeroes on those 27 teams' records.

6. Using Wolfe, the following teams have also not lost to anyone worse than or equal to Kansas' best opponent, Texas A&M (40):

LSU, Oregon, Missouri, Arizona State, Ohio State, West Virginia, Georgia, Virginia Tech, Hawaii, Florida, Clemson, Connecticut, Tennessee, Penn State, Auburn, Mississippi State, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Alabama, Vanderbilt and Arkansas.

That's 21 teams according to Wolfe that haven't lost to anyone worse than the best team on Kansas' schedule. If you rate Kansas highly because they are undefeated, you should also see zeroes on those 21 teams' records.

In sum, if you are ranking Kansas highly, you must be placing a lot of emphasis on not losing, without regard to how bad or mediocre the opposition is. And if you are placing a lot of emphasis on not losing to bad or mediocre opposition, there are about two dozen other teams who also haven't lost to bad or mediocre opposition (but several of them have played and beaten good or great opposition).

Perhaps you really do think Kansas would beat significantly better opposition than they've faced so far. Perhaps the next couple of weeks will prove such.

But based on the knowledge we have right now of that team, there are reasonable arguments to place the Jayhawks in a poll in the high teens or worse. And if you use resume ranking, there aren't reasonable arguments to place the Jayhawks in the top 3.

Mocking a Meaningless List

2007-11-12T15:26:00.000-05:00

That's like, 90% of what I do this time of year.

But here you have it.

ESPN's Power 16 Poll.

Ryan Hockensmith, Mixed Martial Arts beat writer for ESPN*, presents a laughably terrible poll.

Kansas, who hasn't beaten a top 40 team all year at #1.
No ACC team in the top 10, just one SEC team in the top 10.
BUT TWO TEAMS FROM THE WAC?

Seriously. Hawaii at #8, and Boise State at #10.

Two teams from a conference that is, in the aggregate, 0-13 against BCS conference opponents.
Two teams from a conference that has all of ZERO nonconference win against 1-A/FBS teams with even a winning record. The entire conference's best win? Boise State over 5-5, 4th place in C-USA East Southern Miss.
Two teams from a conference that leads all conferences with 10 games against 1-AA/FCS opposition.
Two teams whose best win by either of them is against #58 (according to Colley Rankings) Fresno State - for comparison, Hockensmith's #12 team, Georgia, has played EIGHT teams ranked higher than anyone Hawaii or Boise State has played.
Two teams with strength of schedule rankings above 125 according to Colley Rankings (and yes, there are only 120 1-A/FBS teams).
If Colley ain't your thing? Fine... Two teams with strength of schedule rankings above 122 according to Sagarin (and Hawaii's is 157 - That's ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SEVEN!!!)
Two teams whose best win by either of them is against #74 (according to Sagarin) Fresno State - again, under Sagarin's rankings Georgia has played 8 teams better than anyone either Hawaii or Boise State has played.

If this guy were in the Blogpoll, his ballot would probably be spiked. Isn't it nice that the Worldwide Leader In Sports trusts his opinion on the sport enough to give him some space? And another thing - this is a power poll, remember. This guy thinks Boise State and Hawaii would beat USC, Virginia Tech, Georgia, Texas, Florida, etc. on a neutral field.

I'm certain this guy isn't indicative of the whimsical, ill-informed poll-creating abilities of most writers and voters who determine champions. 100% positive. Nope. Everyone is sharp as nails.

* Yes, I know he has written on college football before. If I remember correctly, he wrote a bunch of stories related to the Ohio State scandals from a few years ago. But look again at his archive on ESPN.com. No football stories in 3 seasons. His last story on college football was about Alex Smith and Urban Meyer at Utah. Why is he included in their poll?

Reason # 43235236 Why I Love My Wife

2007-11-11T23:08:00.000-05:00

While watching the Champions' League Highlight show, she said of Tommy Smyth, "Oh wow. He's just magically delicious, isn't he?"

Follow Up on the Penalty Question

2007-11-11T14:27:00.000-05:00

Yesterday afternoon's atrociously officiated game (more on that in a second) raised the question on the offsetting penalties question in the previous post.

With a little more than 6 minutes to go in the third quarter, Auburn up 20-17. Georgia returns the ball to the 32. Knowshon Moreno ran left into the line and lost three yards. Second and 13 from the 29. On a busted play, Stafford rolled right, scrambled for a while, then heaved the ball forward while stepping out of bounds on the Auburn sideline. Because of the scrambling, one of the linemen had gotten downfield, eliciting an ineligible man downfield penalty. This is a 5 yard penalty (if accepted). On the same play, Stafford was tackled out of bounds, drawing a personal foul penalty on Auburn. This is a 15 yard, automatic first down penalty.

By rule, the 5 yard penalty and the 15 yard/automatic first down penalties offset.

My questions:

1) Why do penalties for inequal infractions offset ever? By football's own rules, the personal foul penalty is a significantly more serious infraction - the punishment is far more severe. One penalty serves the purpose of punishing for a slight competitive advantage. The other serves the purpose of protecting players from injury. Why would two penalties that by no means are equal "cancel each other out"? Should not they mark off 5 yards one way, then 15 the other?

2) Does not the fact that these sort of penalties currently do "cancel each other out" give an unreasonable incentive to perform illegal actions? Say a defensive team sees a flag in an area where a penalty on the offense would be thrown (and that's not too hard to tell - holding penalties are in the backfield, illegal motion are from the side judge, and even on a scramble like in the play described above, the area where the penalty was thrown usually meant a penalty for holding, block in the back, clipping, or illegal man downfield (all against the offense). When a defender sees that flag fly, is it beyond the realm of possibility for the following thought process to start:

a) See flag, know that offense is likely moving back 5-10 yards and the result of the play is nullified.

b) If a particular player is particularly hard to defend or is running all over the place, might it not be of a greater advantage to forget about the 5-10 yards (and a repeat of the down - a mitigation of the penalty to the offense), and instead tackle/spear/trip/lunge at after the play that one player who is causing the defense so much trouble?

If the result of such illegal activity is simply that the 5-10 yards the offense would move back is no longer there, might the chance that the difficult-to-defend player could be taken out be worth it?

I'm not saying the Auburn hit on Stafford in the above-described play was intentional. I have no idea of knowing if that were the case, and I don't believe it was intentional. But hypothetically, a team very well could coach the players into going more aggressively after a foul on the offense has been thrown. Sort of the reverse of the offense getting a "free play" and going deep when they see a flag that looks like offsides on the defense. If the defense goes more aggressive and doesn't get called for anything, they haven't lost anything. If the defense goes more aggressive and does get called for a roughing or personal foul or something like that, they're in the exact same spot they were before the play started, except they have a chance at causing an injury to a particularly strong opponent.

Question on Penalties

2007-11-08T22:58:00.000-05:00

Why don't referees enforce offsetting penalties at separate times?

Two guys scuffle. Two flags thrown. Offsetting 15 yard personal foul penalties called. Because they offset, neither team suffers.

In basketball, two guys scuffle. Both guys would be assessed technical fouls. Both teams suffer.

In hockey, two guys scuffle. Both guys would be sent to the penalty box. Both teams suffer.

In baseball, two guys scuffle. Rare, but both would probably be ejected. Both teams suffer.

In soccer, two guys scuffle. Both given yellow cards at a minimum, probably red cards and ejected. Both teams suffer.

So in football, why not assess a 15 yard penalty on the team with possession of the ball immediately, and assess a 15 yard penalty on the defending team immediately upon that team obtaining possession? If that defending team were to get the ball on a turnover that's returned for a touchdown, assess it on the kickoff or continue delaying the penalty until that team begins their next typical drive. If the game ends before that team can get their penalty, I suppose that's the one downside (Team X on offense is down by 4 with a minute to go - their penalty assessed crushes them)

What do you think?

Gameday Location

2007-11-05T22:18:00.000-05:00

Read today that Gameday is going to be not at Ohio State-Illinois or Georgia-Auburn (the only matchup of ranked opponents) or even one of the ABC prime time sites (College Park, MD and Stillwater, OK). Instead, they're going to bucolic Williamstown, Massachusetts for the Amherst-Williams game.

Amherst-Williams is always a big rivalry. If you've never heard of the schools, it's probably because they're both very small liberal-arts colleges in northwestern Massachusetts. And I know this when I was 17 and stupid, I really wanted to go to Williams. Both are excellent academic institutions and both have historically good athletic teams, leading to a pretty good rivalry.

But let's not kid ourselves. This isn't the year they should be going to this game. Neither the Ephs nor the Lord Jeffs (I'll let you try to figure out which is Amherst and which is Williams) are really in a position to win the conference. The conference (NESCAC) doesn't allow its football teams to compete in the Division III playoffs, and this year neither Amherst nor Williams would be considered a team that could compete against those schools in DIII that do play in the playoffs - in the past Williams and Amherst have been ranked, but not this year.

Both Williams and Amherst have student bodies right at or below 2,000 students. The small size of the student body and the academic rigor at each school means that the talent on the field is, for the most part, not as big, strong or fast as most large high schools in Texas, California, Florida, Georgia or probably a few other states.

The kids who play there surely play their hearts out. And a rivalry like this is always great fun for the students and alumni. It'll be a nice setting (if cold, probably) for the show. But it's not going to be anything like the last few weeks (Eugene and Lexington's huge crowds especially).

I like when Gameday shines a spotlight on smaller schools normally. I've written before how I think they should do a short piece on a smaller school every week (like the Linfield story last week or the Chadron State kid a couple of months ago). And in most years, Amherst-Williams would be a great matchup (nearly every year a conference title is on the line and in many years one or both of the teams enter unbeaten) for them to see. Unfortunately, these aren't the best teams in their series. And there are some pretty important matchups elsewhere in college football. Corso kept talking last week about how important November games are in the big conferences. Now the show is choosing not to attend one of them.