Something I learned from ESPN today...

Peter Gammons likes the way Evan Longoria holds his bat.

No. I'm not dead.

Read More...

Summary only...

Mocking a Meaningless List

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?

Read More...

Summary only...

I eagerly await Bill Simmons' treatise on the Kurdish-Turkish-Armenian conflicts.

Mandatory Blogger Preemptive Statement: Yes, it's passe to blog about Bill Simmons.

So in Bill Simmons' "Boston Blog" entry yesterday (and isn't it nice that one city gets their own little blog at the four letter?), Simmons wants to analyze the Patriots' videotaping controversy. Joining him is avowed Patriots fan Aaron Schatz. Nice to see that a dissenting voice is there to balance the discussion. The email chain proceeds as you would expect it to. But there was one line that sums up Simmons' sense of self worth appropriately:

"I love the fact you just quoted a Terrell Davis column. I'm just finishing his book about the Gaza Strip."

See, I'm just a guy who doesn't really know much about anything, but if I have one talent on this earth, it's the ability to spot a bullshitter. And one of the first signs always is intellectual arrogance about a topic one knows nothing about and towards someone who knows something about the same topic.

Terrell Davis' column (the merits of which are most certainly fair game for criticism) wasn't about the Gaza Strip, but was about football, and the effects of cheating toward competition.

Who would know more about a football team's operations and whether cheating the way the Patriots did would affect an outcome?

Person A: Seven year veteran of the NFL. League MVP. Super Bowl MVP. Two time AP Offensive Player of the Year.

Person B: Zero year veteran of the NFL. Zero years experience working at any level for a professional football team.

Which one would have more experience and expertise on this topic?

Also: I don't know whether a book about the Gaza Strip written by Terrell Davis would provide any insight, but I'd bet it wouldn't be peppered with 15 years stale Karate Kid jokes and 90210 references.

Read More...

Summary only...

Two ESPN Programming Notes

I need to be quicker about things, because they get stale quickly.

1. Saturday night's SportsCenter offered a quick lesson on how editing decisions can be completely unfair. The University of Georgia played Oklahoma State on Saturday, and going into the day this game was one of the "bigger" games, mainly because there were few games between larger conference teams. ESPN chose to show one "highlight" of the game, immediately after showing clips of 2 touchdowns for Alabama defeating a 1-AA opponent. The only "highlight" they showed of the game: Reshad Jones shoving an Oklahoma State player and then getting escorted to the sideline. Full time of highlight: 10 seconds. Did the highlight let you know who won the game? No, in fact, it probably made someone who merely caught a glance think that Oklahoma State won. Did the highlight show an important moment of the game? No, because at the point of said shove, the score had just become 35-14. Five plays later Georgia intercepted a pass. Said penalty had no effect on the score or outcome. The player who was shoved was not injured on the play. Jones wasn't even ejected from the contest (though there was a Notre Dame player ejected for punching on Saturday in their game with Georgia Tech - surprisingly, that play wasn't shown on the SportsCenter I saw). So to recap, in one of the few games where a Top-15 team played a BCS-conference opponent, in one of the few good performances for a good team against a good opponent, on the world's most viewed sports highlight show on that day, ESPN decided the only thing its viewers deserved to see about the game was a mental mistake that had zero effect on the game but made the team that won look bad. Let me be clear: I'm not saying "conspiracy"; I'm saying that there are completely incompetent people chopping highlights and writing copy in Bristol.

2. But it's not just ESPN's employees that deserve scorn. It's also those to whom ESPN provides a readily visible forum. Take Sunday morning's The Sports Reporters. One might think, were one hoping to actually book pundits who would know what they're talking about, that guest reporters on the show would have some form of expertise in a particular field likely to be covered in that week's show. For example, if it's Masters' week, and it's pretty clear that at least one segment would be devoted to covering the golf tournament, the show might want to have on someone who knows a lot about golf. Or in the middle of March, the show probably wants to have on writers who cover college basketball. Or, perhaps, on the opening weekend of College Football, they might want to have some writers who actually cover college football, like Tony Barnhart of the AJC, Pete Thamel of the New York Times, or, hell, even Stewart Mandel or one of the other SI college football guys. No, you would be thinking incorrectly. The guests on Sunday were William C. Rhoden of the New York Times, Roy S. Johnson of Mens Fitness Magazine, and Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe. None of these men is anything close to an expert on college football.

But that's not why I'm writing about it. It's the opening statement William C. Rhoden made at the beginning of the show that bothered me. Rhoden expressed outrage at the fact that Serena Williams and Venus Williams were on track to play one another in a semifinal on Friday. His line: Venus and Serena should only meet in the US Open in PRIME TIME and in THE FINAL (he accentuated on those lines). He offered no reasons why seeds should be set up with a final pairing the Williams sisters. Basically, if I understand him right, he's saying one thing: that Venus and Serena Williams should never be seeded anything but #1 and #2 in the tournament. Serena Williams was, actually, seeded 8th. Venus Williams was seeded 12th. Was this a wrongdoing by the seed? Should Serena have been seeded #1? Well, she's actually ranked (entering the tournament) #9 in the world, and Venus Williams was ranked 14th in the world entering the tournament. So both were actually seeded ABOVE their ranking. And if there's anything clear about womens' tennis, it's this: neither of them is deserving of the top seed in the tournament. Justine Henin was far and away #1 in the rankings, points chase and money list. The gap in money (the closest the Williams sisters are to her) between Henin and either Williams sister was more than 50%. Serena was beaten twice by Henin this year in Grand Slam events. There is no reasonable argument for either of them to have been ranked #1. None. Henin is the best player in womens' tennis right now and absolutely deserved the top seed. Venus and Serena are both very good tennis players, but neither is prolific enough on tour to merit a top seed. Venus and Serena have combined for 4 victories (2 each) on tour this year, and in fact, those 4 wins are the only appearances by either in a final of a tournament. Henin has won 6 tournaments this year (and finished second at a seventh). Jelena Jankovic (third seed, and Venus' opponent in the quarterfinals) won 4 tournaments and finished second at 3 others. Svetlana Kuznetsova (fourth seed) made the finals of 5 tournaments, and won the last WTA event before the US Open. Ana Ivanovic (fifth seed) made 4 finals, winning 2 tournaments. Anna Chakvetadze (sixth seed) won 4 tournaments this year. Perhaps one could argue that Maria Sharapova was undeserving as the second seed, but she was the defending champion. And now that Henin has, for a third time, dispatched Serena (in straight sets), will William C. Rhoden say anything? What possible objective reason could Rhoden have for saying the Williams sisters deserve special treatment? What axe does he have to grind? Does the New York Times or ESPN have a problem with Rhoden stating an opinion that has no reasonable basis to support it, and leaves the reader with but one impression (I don't even have to say it)? Does William C. Rhoden have contempt for his readers and audience, or at least believe they are dumb enough to buy his ill-founded arguments?

I believe the ESPN ombudswoman has a very difficult job.

Read More...

Summary only...

Apparently nobody who knows a shit about Atlanta was available

Moments ago on SportsCenter, Stephen A. Smith showed us again why nobody knows why he's on television, with his fundamental lack of understanding of the city of Atlanta:

Bob Ley: ...In the real world, given where Vick has been in terms of PR issues in Atlanta, how does this issue of dog fighting affect where he is in the minds of Atlanta management?

Stephen A. Smith: I think in the minds of Atlanta management, it's definitely a problem because remember they're not just marketing the football player in terms of trying to get you to come to the games to watch them on Sunday afternoons, but they're using his name to sell paraphenalia, they're using his name to ingratiate themselves to the public at large. You gotta remember a lot of people migrate to Atlanta, that's why it's considered one of the worst sports towns in the United States [Ley chuckles], simply because most people aren't from Atlanta, a lot of people come there from other different places, so you need a marquee name to draw and attract people to your product. And the reality is that when you've got somebody like Michael Vick conducting himself the way that he's conducting himself, and I repeat this on constant occasions in terms of the black athlete, the majority of patrons are white, and so you take that into account and you consider the fact that he's gotten himself involved in this kind of nonsense, you have to believe that it's going to alienate the viewing public, no question about that. The Atlanta Falcons are gonna feel that in their wallet at some point if they haven't started already.

There's a lot in there that's lazy punditry. Let's go point by point.

1. Are we not yet to the point where it's obvious to anyone that teams care about more than just how a player performs on the field. Of course teams care about image so they can market players in other ways than just selling tickets. So the initial response offers no insight that isn't patently obvious. In this sense, Ley and Smith are at fault. The question is simply stupid. There is no person alive that can say "it won't affect anything." But Smith takes a bad question and answers it first with the obvious, but then leads on to the incorrect.
   
   
2. I have no idea why Stephen A. Smith thinks the Atlanta Falcons have to reach out to the community more than any other city. As of last season, the Falcons had sold out the Dome for 5 years straight, and had a waiting list for season tickets 40,000 names long. Pro football in Atlanta is as big a deal as it is anywhere else.
   
   
3. I believe the transplant argument on why Atlanta isn't a good sports town is flawed, and usually made by people who have a fundamental misunderstanding of the city. Yes, Atlanta is a transplant city. Many people who live here retain loyalties to the cities up North they came from. But that's the case in dozens of cities across the nation. Phoenix, Denver, San Antonio, Tampa, Charlotte all have similar demographics - cities that have increased in population dramatically with rust belt refugees seeking better job opportunities. Further, there is a sizable percentage of Atlantans who either did grow up here (and that number's increasing), or those who grew up in rural areas of the South (places which for the last 30 years did support Atlanta's professional teams). There aren't many 15 generation Atlanta families, like there might be in some Eastern Seaboard towns. But Atlanta isn't a town that only has Red Sox and Giants fans.
   
   
4. The first reason why Atlanta isn't a "great sports town" under the typical definition of an Eastern Seaboard sports pundit: WE DON'T NECESSARILY CARE ABOUT THE SAME THINGS YOU DO. Atlanta has more college football fanatics than there are in probably 10 states of the Northeast. NASCAR's following in the South is a little larger than in Boston. High school sports, even in the metro Atlanta area, are a core source of community involvement and support. Thanks to good weather, Atlanta's participant sports community is significantly larger than most in the Northeast. Name a mid-Atlantic city that has anything comparable to ALTA. Running, cycling, golf, and a host of other activities, I'd argue, are far more participated in in Atlanta than in Boston, where the frigid begets the mud season, begets mosquitoes.
   
   
5. The second, and I believe the most fundamental, reason why Atlantans don't fit Northeastern pundits' understanding of what a good sports city is: Atlantans take a different approach to incompetence from professional athletes from that of Northeastern cities. In Boston or Philadelphia, when a professional sports team performs badly for a few years, the city stews, internalizes the frustrations, talks about it incessantly. My extended family is from the Philadelphia area. Try to tell me that's not how people react. In Atlanta, when a professional sports team performs badly for a few years, fans direct their attention toward something worth paying attention to. Atlantans like basketball, a lot actually. NBA television ratings are typically much higher in Atlanta than in other cities. The Hawks don't draw regularly because they've been terrible for a decade. Atlantans don't mire in misery like Northeasterners do (at least not for professional sports - college football is a different story). Perhaps that's because the professional franchises in the South are just in their third generation, as opposed to 7-10th up North. Perhaps it's because there are other things to care about (see above). Perhaps it's because the weather isn't a constant 34 degrees and raining that makes people that live here, I don't know, not insufferable (sufferable?) misanthropes. Whatever the reason, people here just don't have time to worry about BS like a professional sports team. It's just sports, and guys who get paid to play. Atlantans seem to realize that. I tend to disagree with the premise that you aren't a good sports city if you aren't blindly supporting teams that stink. I actually appreciate that Atlanta is a more discerning sports city.
   
   
6. That was a bit of a tangent, but let me just add that I think it's bullshit that the arbiters of "what's a good sports city" are (Ley) a guy who has worked in a state without a professional sports team since the hockey team left for greener pastures in the Southeast and (Smith) a guy whose sportswriting career almost entirely occurred in the single most miserable sports city on earth - Philadelphia. Misery does not equal being a good fan.
   
   
7. Atlantans do not go to professional sporting events because of marquee names. They go because the teams are winning. This has been the case for every single professional franchise in the city, for 30 years or so. The correlation between winning and attendance in this city is clear. The correlation between "having a marquee name" and attendance isn't provable.
   
   
8. I dispute the argument that the majority of fans of the Atlanta Falcons are necessarily white, or at least that the race of the fans comes into play as much as Smith suggests. One of the reasons why Atlanta is a great city is that it has a vibrant, active, professional, highly-educated African-American community. I'd argue that no major city in America has the kind of Black community that Atlanta has. And that community are among the most fervent supporters of the Atlanta Falcons - and long before Michael Vick wore #7. It's my experience living in Atlanta that the primary allegiance of whites is to a particular college football program, but among African-Americans, the primary allegiance is to the Falcons. That's not to say that whites don't care about the Falcons at all. A lot do care. The point is that the spectators at Falcons games aren't a bunch of white dudes. It's a pastiche as diverse as the city itself. There are thousands of African-Americans who are among the Falcons' biggest supporters. To suggest that the front office of the Falcons has a primary concern of pleasing a white audience shows a complete lack of knowledge of the fans.
   
   
9. Here's where I sort of argue against myself: I think it's kind of offensive to suggest that black Falcons fans wouldn't be as troubled as white Falcons fans by the allegations and rumors against Vick with dog fighting. I find it a colonial, 19th-century stance - to suggest that the whites would abandon the team because of Vick's behavior, but blacks wouldn't. There's no doubt in my mind that thousands of African Americans in this city that are disgusted by dog fighting. The Falcons should be concerned with all of them as much as the stereotypical suburban white rich dude in the stands. That said, and I hinted at this in a previous post, it also wouldn't surprise me if the Falcons took something akin to this offensive, semi-paternalist argument. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Falcons have brushed aside some of Vick's or other player's indefensible behavior because they viewed the fanbase as being composed of a large percentage of African Americans who would be turned off by discipline against African American players. Does this make sense? Here's my thinking, in admittedly coarse language I normally wouldn't like to use: The NBA (in most markets) is selling a largely black league, with a "hip-hop" culture (whatever that means, I consider racist code), to a largely white audience. So they have stupid rules like the bench suspension or dress code to try to make the league less "gangsta" (wtm,Icrc). The result is a paternalistic approach that cracks down on players, possibly unfairly. The Falcons, on the other hand, have a large African American audience. Cracking down on players for doing things like dog fighting, or softer drugs, or general misbehavior/FnDC stuff might turn off the black fans (or so they might think). So they let stuff slide. This, in my view, is equally paternalistic, and wrong. Heavyhandedness on the part of the NBA against the slightest indiscretion to protect the sensitive sensibilities of white audience is wrong. Lighthandedness on the part of the Falcons against actual misbehavior so as to not be accused of cracking down on someone "keeping it real" (wtm, Icrc) by a black audience is also wrong. That make sense? I hope the Falcons aren't doing that.
   

These are just quick thoughts, so please add something in comments so I can get any feedback and help out working through what I think about this. Generally speaking, I think Atlanta gets a raw deal from the annoying faces who ride the Acela. So I'm a little sensitive about that chuckle.

Read More...

Summary only...