People love the baseball analogy for sex, so I'm going to go in reverse for this one.
The playoffs, in Major League Baseball, is the orgasm or the climax to the season. There are only eight teams left and at any moment, with one swing or one pitch, drama can rain down (such is the beauty of the game).
The month-long climax begins tomorrow, when the Division Series for both Leagues starts.
What does that make the regular season then? The foreplay. And sometimes it's really awesome and you may even get off before you hit the real thing, and sometimes it's really boring, turning you off before you even think about the playoffs.
The latter was true for this year's baseball season. Sure, there were some "exciting moments," but those instances occur in every year.
The trade deadline is always exciting, and this one saw a pitching arms-race between two division rivals, the Cubs and Brewers. We all saw one whacko traded from Boston to Los Angeles (welcome home Manny Ramirez, Venice Beach should suit you well).
There were a couple of no-hitters, Francisco Rodriguez broke the single-season saves record, the Rays made the playoffs, Milwaukee tastes the postseason and, as of right now, the White Sox and Twins are battling for the final playoff spot.
But other than that, this season didn't have much oomph. It probably didn't help that my team, the hapless and batting-impotent Padres, finished in last place out in the NL West.
But even then, there have been plenty of shitty Padres seasons, but baseball has always piqued my interest.
So, why was this season so dull? Well, the Angels and Cubs had huge leads in their respective divisions, though the Cubs looked like they wanted to give that up at the end.
The Rays were a feel good story, but when even their own home town fans don't go to games, it's hard to get excited over them. We knew that the Mets were going to choke it all away again. And really, the Phillies in the playoffs? Boring.
It was nice to see the Yankees truly suck for once, but that took away from the most overhyped rivalry in sports. It also didn't help that the Red Sox owned New York this year.
And the NL West was the NL Worst once again. C'mon guys.
And the biggest buzz coming into the year was the Detroit Tigers and their uber-team that they assembled. Uhm, what happened there?
So, this season was a letdown. Kind of like that hot girl at the bar, only to...yeah.
But we're all at the climax. Let's hope the playoffs are more memorable than the regular season.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Farewell To the "Classic(?)" Stadiums
Overshadowed by the grandeur and history of Yankees Stadium, Shea Stadium, home of the Metropolitans, is also long gone in just a few weeks.
Lindsay Schnell, blogger for SI.com and current Oregon resident, laments for the loss of our "beloved sports venues," including the dump we all know as Shea Stadium. And as this New York Times story reminds us, Shea was celebrated as a bringer of the future.
It was only celebrated because it was a member of this new brand of architecture that fit the 1960s mold: brutalism. And brutalism gains its name from the pure functionality of the building's form. Nothing was put on a building unless it helped it in some way.
And all the cookie-cutter, multi-purpose stadiums from the 1960s, the Sheas, Candlesticks, Oakland Coliseums and Qualcomm Stadiums of the world, were built in this fashion. Their beauty was in the lack thereof. There's no need for brick when you can use cheaper concrete. No need for that classical arch when you can just have a huge hole in the wall. There's no need to have a true facade because all of the action happens inside the walls of a sports venue, not outside of it.
But I say good riddance to the cookie-cutters of the 1960s. Miss Schnell (who I met once cover the Cal football team), asks at the end of her blog post if we are seeing all the old venues replaced with ones with no sentimental value.
No, we're not seeing all the old venues replaced, but we're seeing the ones with no sentimental valued being replaced.
To say a building like Shea or the Q have sentimental value is hypocrisy. The brutalist period didn't mean for us to have personal attachment to the buildings. They were built for us to use and use only--not to admire.
The difference between the celebration of Yankees Stadium and the good riddance nonchalance we all have towards Shea is because of the building itself. Sure, it helps that the Yankees have had a better history in the old Yankees Stadium than the Mets in Shea, it also helps that Shea was a monstrosity and that Yankees Stadium is reminiscent of ancient Greece or ancient Rome.
And Schnell brings up The Pit on the campus of the University of Oregon, and to compare it to Shea and the brutalist of the 1960s does McArthur Court no justice.
Most of the collegiate sports venues that have been built throughout the year have been built as monuments--either to honor others or to honor sport itself. California Memorial Stadium, Pauley Pavilion, Rosenblatt Stadium, The Big House, Notre Dame Stadium, The Horseshoe, Cameron Stadium, the Rose Bowl, these are classic buildings, that will never be replaced (even if they literally are). There is character present in those buildings not just because of the history in them, but also because that the buildings themselves are beautiful.
It's the same character found in professional venues like Yankees Stadium, Fenway Park, Wrigley Field and Old Comiskey; that's found in Solider Field, Lambeau Field and Balboa Stadium; that's found at the Old Wembley and at Highbury and at Anfield.
They are places of beauty, that happen to be venues for sport. These buildings call you. They are like a second home (or they are home). Those seats are like that arm chair in your living room. That field, pitch or court is like your backyard. Those buildings are part of you as much as you are a part of that building.
And there are a few new parks that share this unique character: AT&T Park in San Francisco, PNC Park in Pittsburgh to name a few.
But to compare Shea and the brutalist movement to the great architecture of all those that came before it. That is more a travesty than to see these hallowed places go.
Lindsay Schnell, blogger for SI.com and current Oregon resident, laments for the loss of our "beloved sports venues," including the dump we all know as Shea Stadium. And as this New York Times story reminds us, Shea was celebrated as a bringer of the future.
It was only celebrated because it was a member of this new brand of architecture that fit the 1960s mold: brutalism. And brutalism gains its name from the pure functionality of the building's form. Nothing was put on a building unless it helped it in some way.
And all the cookie-cutter, multi-purpose stadiums from the 1960s, the Sheas, Candlesticks, Oakland Coliseums and Qualcomm Stadiums of the world, were built in this fashion. Their beauty was in the lack thereof. There's no need for brick when you can use cheaper concrete. No need for that classical arch when you can just have a huge hole in the wall. There's no need to have a true facade because all of the action happens inside the walls of a sports venue, not outside of it.
But I say good riddance to the cookie-cutters of the 1960s. Miss Schnell (who I met once cover the Cal football team), asks at the end of her blog post if we are seeing all the old venues replaced with ones with no sentimental value.
No, we're not seeing all the old venues replaced, but we're seeing the ones with no sentimental valued being replaced.
To say a building like Shea or the Q have sentimental value is hypocrisy. The brutalist period didn't mean for us to have personal attachment to the buildings. They were built for us to use and use only--not to admire.
The difference between the celebration of Yankees Stadium and the good riddance nonchalance we all have towards Shea is because of the building itself. Sure, it helps that the Yankees have had a better history in the old Yankees Stadium than the Mets in Shea, it also helps that Shea was a monstrosity and that Yankees Stadium is reminiscent of ancient Greece or ancient Rome.
And Schnell brings up The Pit on the campus of the University of Oregon, and to compare it to Shea and the brutalist of the 1960s does McArthur Court no justice.
Most of the collegiate sports venues that have been built throughout the year have been built as monuments--either to honor others or to honor sport itself. California Memorial Stadium, Pauley Pavilion, Rosenblatt Stadium, The Big House, Notre Dame Stadium, The Horseshoe, Cameron Stadium, the Rose Bowl, these are classic buildings, that will never be replaced (even if they literally are). There is character present in those buildings not just because of the history in them, but also because that the buildings themselves are beautiful.
It's the same character found in professional venues like Yankees Stadium, Fenway Park, Wrigley Field and Old Comiskey; that's found in Solider Field, Lambeau Field and Balboa Stadium; that's found at the Old Wembley and at Highbury and at Anfield.
They are places of beauty, that happen to be venues for sport. These buildings call you. They are like a second home (or they are home). Those seats are like that arm chair in your living room. That field, pitch or court is like your backyard. Those buildings are part of you as much as you are a part of that building.
And there are a few new parks that share this unique character: AT&T Park in San Francisco, PNC Park in Pittsburgh to name a few.
But to compare Shea and the brutalist movement to the great architecture of all those that came before it. That is more a travesty than to see these hallowed places go.
The Week That Was Week 4 in the NFL
Let the debate begin...again.
Brett Favre looked like the Brett Favre of old, throwing 6 (SIX!) touchdown passes.
Aaron Rodgers. Well, he's had better days.
Hopefully, by now, people know where I stand (and if you need a reminder, I'm standing behind the Packers and their decision to play Rodgers).
It's only one week and yes, if you look at the stats after four games, Favre numbers do look better. But I still think that Rodgers has played with more poise and has handled himself very well.
This debate will never end. Even if Rodgers takes Green Bay to a Super Bowl and even when Favre (finally) retires from the League. People will talk about this for ages (at least in Green Bay they will).
As of right now, Favre > Rodgers.
To the rest of the week:
Back to Tennessee and Buffalo being undefeated. It's really hard to say which of these teams will continue their pace.
But, I'd argue that the Bills might have a better shot at winning the division and that taking the top spot in the AFC East is Buffalo's only way of getting into the playoffs.
The Titans are good and are probably better than the Bills, but the AFC South is still the best division in the AFC. If the Titans finished third in the South, they probably still make the playoffs.
Whereas, for the Bills, they have the Dolphins, the Jets and the Pats. Granted, the Bills are helped by the loss of Tom Brady. In any other year, I wouldn't expect the Bills to even contend. But no Brady gives Trent Edwards and Marshawn Lynch to taste the playoffs in their second year in the League.
Sure the Jets have Favre, but that team still makes me feel uneasy. And the Dolphins are light-years away from being a factor.
And remember, no one circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills.
Brett Favre looked like the Brett Favre of old, throwing 6 (SIX!) touchdown passes.
Aaron Rodgers. Well, he's had better days.
Hopefully, by now, people know where I stand (and if you need a reminder, I'm standing behind the Packers and their decision to play Rodgers).
It's only one week and yes, if you look at the stats after four games, Favre numbers do look better. But I still think that Rodgers has played with more poise and has handled himself very well.
This debate will never end. Even if Rodgers takes Green Bay to a Super Bowl and even when Favre (finally) retires from the League. People will talk about this for ages (at least in Green Bay they will).
As of right now, Favre > Rodgers.
To the rest of the week:
- I was right about Denver, as the Broncos get pounded by Kansas City.
- Tennessee or Buffalo? Both are 4-0. What?!
- Goodbye Scott Linehan and (soon-to-be?) Lane Kiffin.
- Speaking of Favre's performance, don't forget about Kurt Warner's in the same game. It was like AARP Day at the Meadowlands.
- Too bad only three teams from the NFC East can make the playoffs.
- Sometimes, I still wish that Drew Brees was wearing lightning bolts.
Back to Tennessee and Buffalo being undefeated. It's really hard to say which of these teams will continue their pace.
But, I'd argue that the Bills might have a better shot at winning the division and that taking the top spot in the AFC East is Buffalo's only way of getting into the playoffs.
The Titans are good and are probably better than the Bills, but the AFC South is still the best division in the AFC. If the Titans finished third in the South, they probably still make the playoffs.
Whereas, for the Bills, they have the Dolphins, the Jets and the Pats. Granted, the Bills are helped by the loss of Tom Brady. In any other year, I wouldn't expect the Bills to even contend. But no Brady gives Trent Edwards and Marshawn Lynch to taste the playoffs in their second year in the League.
Sure the Jets have Favre, but that team still makes me feel uneasy. And the Dolphins are light-years away from being a factor.
And remember, no one circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Where Do We Go From Here? Part 2
No Pac-10 headlines this week. I feel I should give it a week off because there really was no buzz.
Sure, California redeemed the Pac-10 against the Mountain West by stomping on Colorado State, but other than Oregon State's upset of No. 1 USC, I saw who cares?
We'll care next week. Promise.
No more conference power rankings either. Why? Cause the rest of the year we're just going to see the mediocre conferences duke it out for spots 4-9. The SEC, Big Ten and Big 12 are by far the better conference's in the country. The MWC is the best mid-major and the Pac-10 is leagues better than the ACC and Big East...combined.
So I'm not even going to bother with that.
But, who would have though nine top 25 teams were going to go down this weekend (three top 25 teams were going to lose, since there were three top 25 matchups)? How about four top 10 teams?
If you didn't think this was going to happen, then you're not living in the right century.
Many thought that last year was an anomaly, with so many upsets and so many teams ranked No. 2 going down throughout the year. It was crazy! It was a roller coaster. But it couldn't happen again, could it? Nah. The powerhouses were going to take control.
Ugh. Wrong.
The days where you can count on the perceived top 10 teams from steamrolling through their schedules are done.
Yes, teams can still go undefeated, but it will be and is harder and more unpredictable.
Parity (a four-letter word to some) is real. It lets teams like Vanderbilt be ranked in the top 20! It lets teams like Ole Miss beat No. 4 Florida. It lets teams like Oregon State own USC.
It's why teams in the mid-major conferences are able to beat teams in the BCS conferences and why teams like South Florida and Mizzou are in the top 10.
It's why the Mountain West was 5-0 against the Pac-10 before this week.
Parity. It's here. It's time for the "traditional" powerhouses to deal with it.
And, oh by the way, with all those losses by top teams, USC was able to stay in the top 10. I still would have voted them out of the top 25, but if the AP is going to put Oregon back in the top 25, I guess Southern California can stay.
But if I were voting, no Pac-10 teams would be ranked. At least for now.
Sure, California redeemed the Pac-10 against the Mountain West by stomping on Colorado State, but other than Oregon State's upset of No. 1 USC, I saw who cares?
We'll care next week. Promise.
No more conference power rankings either. Why? Cause the rest of the year we're just going to see the mediocre conferences duke it out for spots 4-9. The SEC, Big Ten and Big 12 are by far the better conference's in the country. The MWC is the best mid-major and the Pac-10 is leagues better than the ACC and Big East...combined.
So I'm not even going to bother with that.
But, who would have though nine top 25 teams were going to go down this weekend (three top 25 teams were going to lose, since there were three top 25 matchups)? How about four top 10 teams?
If you didn't think this was going to happen, then you're not living in the right century.
Many thought that last year was an anomaly, with so many upsets and so many teams ranked No. 2 going down throughout the year. It was crazy! It was a roller coaster. But it couldn't happen again, could it? Nah. The powerhouses were going to take control.
Ugh. Wrong.
The days where you can count on the perceived top 10 teams from steamrolling through their schedules are done.
Yes, teams can still go undefeated, but it will be and is harder and more unpredictable.
Parity (a four-letter word to some) is real. It lets teams like Vanderbilt be ranked in the top 20! It lets teams like Ole Miss beat No. 4 Florida. It lets teams like Oregon State own USC.
It's why teams in the mid-major conferences are able to beat teams in the BCS conferences and why teams like South Florida and Mizzou are in the top 10.
It's why the Mountain West was 5-0 against the Pac-10 before this week.
Parity. It's here. It's time for the "traditional" powerhouses to deal with it.
And, oh by the way, with all those losses by top teams, USC was able to stay in the top 10. I still would have voted them out of the top 25, but if the AP is going to put Oregon back in the top 25, I guess Southern California can stay.
But if I were voting, no Pac-10 teams would be ranked. At least for now.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Where Do We Go From Here?
I let the dust settle first before I went off about what USC's loss to Oregon State.
I decided to give it a day, because, well, I wanted to gather my thoughts.
There's something that my favorite blogger Dan Shanoff pointed out yesterday; nationally, Southern California is seen not as a choker, like our good friends at THE Ohio State University, but are seen as a team as so cocky and arrogant, that it can't take care of the games that it needs to get to the top of the mountain.
The Buckeyes might get their asses kicked in the big games, but at least they get to the big games.
The Trojans, they haven't had a chance at the BCS title since losing to Texas because USC has lost to Oregon State, UCLA, Stanford and now, Oregon State again, teams seen as inferior in-conference opponents.
Because of this letdown the last couple of years, I don't expect the pollsters to be very kind to USC. If I were voting in any of the polls coming out tomorrow, there is no way I rank the Trojans in the top 25. In effect, USC's BCS hopes are done.
But what does that mean for the rest of the Pac-10?
There are two different strains of thought within the conference itself.
The first and most prevalent, is that any other potential Pac-10 contender is screwed. Here are a few text messages I got from friends Thursday night: "Wtf? I have no idea," "Looks like (Mike) Riley owns the Pac-10," "Jesus Christ," "Is this really happening?" "Shit," "There goes the Pac-10's credibility."
The thought for a long time for teams like California, Oregon, Arizona State and any other contender in one single season has been that USC was going to beat them, USC was going to run the table, get into the BCS and the runner-up in the Pac-10 would go to that promise land known as The Rose Bowl.
That seriously was the case when the No. 4 Bears finished second to No. 1 USC in 2004, but got screwed by the the BCS system.
Now, with the Trojans' BCS title game hopes all but dashed, so is the rest of the teams' hopes of getting to the Rose Bowl. Why? Because we still all know that SC has all the talent in the world. A loss like this should refocus the Trojans and they should take out their anger on the rest of the Pac-10.
Another Rose Bowl appearance for USC seems all but inevitable.
But, to steal a phrase from Lee Corso, not so fast, my friends.
The second strain of thought and the one that is less prevalent is, well, if Oregon State can knock off the Trojans, then shouldn't anyone be able to knock off the Trojans?
We all are not sure that USC can run the table the rest of the season. Sure, all of its (what-should-have-been) toughest opponents play at the Coliseum: Cal, Oregon, Arizona State and yeah, even Ohio State payed them a visit earlier this year.
But if lowly Stanford can cut through the mystique of the Coliseum, then, should the likes of the Bears, Ducks, and Devils be able to too?
And for teams like Cal, Oregon and ASU, which don't have a loss in-conference yet, the goal is simple: they have to run the table, which includes beating the Trojans, and if they do, well, then the Football Monopoly in The Rose Bowl Game (to borrow a phrase from our friends in Westwood) is Over.
It's easier to type this out than to do it. But really, it's sport. Anything can happen.
And at this point, wouldn't it be refreshing to not see USC in the BCS, kind of like not seeing the Yankees in the playoffs or not seeing Brett Favre be a douche in Green Bay.
We can only dream.
I decided to give it a day, because, well, I wanted to gather my thoughts.
There's something that my favorite blogger Dan Shanoff pointed out yesterday; nationally, Southern California is seen not as a choker, like our good friends at THE Ohio State University, but are seen as a team as so cocky and arrogant, that it can't take care of the games that it needs to get to the top of the mountain.
The Buckeyes might get their asses kicked in the big games, but at least they get to the big games.
The Trojans, they haven't had a chance at the BCS title since losing to Texas because USC has lost to Oregon State, UCLA, Stanford and now, Oregon State again, teams seen as inferior in-conference opponents.
Because of this letdown the last couple of years, I don't expect the pollsters to be very kind to USC. If I were voting in any of the polls coming out tomorrow, there is no way I rank the Trojans in the top 25. In effect, USC's BCS hopes are done.
But what does that mean for the rest of the Pac-10?
There are two different strains of thought within the conference itself.
The first and most prevalent, is that any other potential Pac-10 contender is screwed. Here are a few text messages I got from friends Thursday night: "Wtf? I have no idea," "Looks like (Mike) Riley owns the Pac-10," "Jesus Christ," "Is this really happening?" "Shit," "There goes the Pac-10's credibility."
The thought for a long time for teams like California, Oregon, Arizona State and any other contender in one single season has been that USC was going to beat them, USC was going to run the table, get into the BCS and the runner-up in the Pac-10 would go to that promise land known as The Rose Bowl.
That seriously was the case when the No. 4 Bears finished second to No. 1 USC in 2004, but got screwed by the the BCS system.
Now, with the Trojans' BCS title game hopes all but dashed, so is the rest of the teams' hopes of getting to the Rose Bowl. Why? Because we still all know that SC has all the talent in the world. A loss like this should refocus the Trojans and they should take out their anger on the rest of the Pac-10.
Another Rose Bowl appearance for USC seems all but inevitable.
But, to steal a phrase from Lee Corso, not so fast, my friends.
The second strain of thought and the one that is less prevalent is, well, if Oregon State can knock off the Trojans, then shouldn't anyone be able to knock off the Trojans?
We all are not sure that USC can run the table the rest of the season. Sure, all of its (what-should-have-been) toughest opponents play at the Coliseum: Cal, Oregon, Arizona State and yeah, even Ohio State payed them a visit earlier this year.
But if lowly Stanford can cut through the mystique of the Coliseum, then, should the likes of the Bears, Ducks, and Devils be able to too?
And for teams like Cal, Oregon and ASU, which don't have a loss in-conference yet, the goal is simple: they have to run the table, which includes beating the Trojans, and if they do, well, then the Football Monopoly in The Rose Bowl Game (to borrow a phrase from our friends in Westwood) is Over.
It's easier to type this out than to do it. But really, it's sport. Anything can happen.
And at this point, wouldn't it be refreshing to not see USC in the BCS, kind of like not seeing the Yankees in the playoffs or not seeing Brett Favre be a douche in Green Bay.
We can only dream.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
ARE YOU KIDDING?!
Mike Riley owns Pete Carroll. OWNS!
I don't know what it is about Corvallis, Oregon and Resar Stadium. I don't know what it is about Oregon State. I don't know why Southern California can't win...there.
There must be something in the water.
Or, more likely, the Trojans saw this date and were like "it's only Oregon State." I know I would. So the let down came, no matter how much bullshit Carroll talked the week leading up to this game.
It was all that "it's one game at a time," "every game is the national championship," BULLSHIT!
Well, it wasn't bullshit. The Beavers upset the No. 1 team in the country. But to the USC players, all that talk that Carroll did, to them, after this performance, they easily believed that all that was bullshit.
It ain't bullshit.
Now, is everyone ready to watch the SEC champ play the Big 12 champ for the BCS title?
I don't know what it is about Corvallis, Oregon and Resar Stadium. I don't know what it is about Oregon State. I don't know why Southern California can't win...there.
There must be something in the water.
Or, more likely, the Trojans saw this date and were like "it's only Oregon State." I know I would. So the let down came, no matter how much bullshit Carroll talked the week leading up to this game.
It was all that "it's one game at a time," "every game is the national championship," BULLSHIT!
Well, it wasn't bullshit. The Beavers upset the No. 1 team in the country. But to the USC players, all that talk that Carroll did, to them, after this performance, they easily believed that all that was bullshit.
It ain't bullshit.
Now, is everyone ready to watch the SEC champ play the Big 12 champ for the BCS title?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
California, the Pac-10's Last Hope Against the...Mountain West Conference?
Not exactly. Oregon State gets to travel to Salt Lake City to play Utah on a Thursday night affair in a couple of weeks.
But I don't expect the Beavers to win that. The Utes look pretty good. So, California might be the last team in the good ol' Pac-10 that can earn a victory over, uh, the Mountain West Conference, when it hosts Colorado State this weekend in Berkeley.
Much of the talk the last couple of weeks is how good the Mountain West really is. The MWC, with its schools former members of the Western Athletic Conference (yeah, remember that huge thing in the 1990s?), has three ranked teams in the top 25 this week, one team ranked in the top 12 and owns a 5-0 record against the Conference of Champions (yes, the Pac-10 has the most national championships, of any conference, by far).
Pretty good credentials, no? I do admit, that over the last couple of weeks, I've ranked the Mountain West very high in my conference power rankings, ahead of four of the six BCS conferences.
But is the Mountain West better than the Pac-10? I wouldn't go that far.
And so, this takes me to a column ran in the Daily Cal today, that also suggests that the MWC isn't as good as the Pacific 10. Which has gotten into the inner circles of the Rams most ardent fans, as ramsnation.com has gone crazy, well not too crazy, over Andrew Kim's assertion that the Mountain West is still the Mountain West.
I admit it. The MWC is a pretty good conference...this year. In fact, I truly believe that it's better than the Big East--but only for this year.
But it isn't better than the Pac-10, despite previous reports.
Most of those berating Andrew Kim's column point to those three teams ranked in the top 25. They point to the fact that Southern California is the only team that is ranked in the Pac-10. They point out the 5-0 record against Pac-10 foes.
But who did those Mountain West Conference teams beat? Other than what I always knew was an overrated Arizona State, none of the teams that the MWC has beat-up on was expected to compete in upper echelon of the Pac-10.
Sure, UCLA upset Tennessee, but the Vols aren't the Vols of old. And the Bruins aren't the Bruins of old.
MWC top-dog barely escaped Seattle with a one-point win over Washington (when the game should have gone into overtime).
Stanford and Arizona? Please, they'll both finish in the bottom half.
And who have the top three teams in the Mountain West played so far that gives us any indication that those squads are any good?
BYU? Wins over the aforementioned Huskies and Bruins, D-I AA Northern Iowa and lowly Wyoming.
Utah? The two-years away from being a power again Michigan, conference foes UNLV and Air Force and pseudo-state rival and officially the worst team in the Division I-A football, Utah State.
TCU? New Mexico, Stephen F. Austin, the Cardinal and Southern Methodist.
Any of those teams in the top 25? The top 35? Top 50?
Yes, on the merit of three 4-0 teams, the Mountain West is better, right now, this week in college football.
But to say that the entire depth of the Mountain West makes it a better conference than the Pac-10, that's just crazy. Just because the three best teams are ranked doesn't mean that the rest of the conference is automatically better.
This isn't economics. There's no need for the Ronald Reagan tickle-down effect theory when it comes to the talent of a single football conference. And if that were the case, then wouldn't the Pac-10 be the best conference, because the Trojans are the best team in all the land?
That brings us to this week and the showdown for conference bragging rights (?!) when Cal hosts Colorado State. Because the teams that have been slayed by the Mountain West are not teams that you would think would rule the Pac-10, this is the only shot that the MWC has against a team of any merit in the Pac-10.
So, MWC die-hards are salivating at the prospects of the Rams beating California on the road.
But, can you really say that Colorado State has any chance of doing that Saturday?
CSU lost to in-state rival Colorado. CSU beat D-IAA Sacramento State by three points. Sure it beat up on Houston, but it's Houston. It wasn't like they were thrashing Washington or Stanford.
Why the Mountain West is collectively clinging and vicariously living for this game is because of an inferiority complex that the mid-major conferences have always had since the beginning of time.
The BCS conferences have the tradition, the talent, the money to compete at the highest level and all the attention. The mid-majors have been trying to beat that and gain that for decades.
It won't happen in one season. And it won't happen on Saturday.
But I don't expect the Beavers to win that. The Utes look pretty good. So, California might be the last team in the good ol' Pac-10 that can earn a victory over, uh, the Mountain West Conference, when it hosts Colorado State this weekend in Berkeley.
Much of the talk the last couple of weeks is how good the Mountain West really is. The MWC, with its schools former members of the Western Athletic Conference (yeah, remember that huge thing in the 1990s?), has three ranked teams in the top 25 this week, one team ranked in the top 12 and owns a 5-0 record against the Conference of Champions (yes, the Pac-10 has the most national championships, of any conference, by far).
Pretty good credentials, no? I do admit, that over the last couple of weeks, I've ranked the Mountain West very high in my conference power rankings, ahead of four of the six BCS conferences.
But is the Mountain West better than the Pac-10? I wouldn't go that far.
And so, this takes me to a column ran in the Daily Cal today, that also suggests that the MWC isn't as good as the Pacific 10. Which has gotten into the inner circles of the Rams most ardent fans, as ramsnation.com has gone crazy, well not too crazy, over Andrew Kim's assertion that the Mountain West is still the Mountain West.
I admit it. The MWC is a pretty good conference...this year. In fact, I truly believe that it's better than the Big East--but only for this year.
But it isn't better than the Pac-10, despite previous reports.
Most of those berating Andrew Kim's column point to those three teams ranked in the top 25. They point to the fact that Southern California is the only team that is ranked in the Pac-10. They point out the 5-0 record against Pac-10 foes.
But who did those Mountain West Conference teams beat? Other than what I always knew was an overrated Arizona State, none of the teams that the MWC has beat-up on was expected to compete in upper echelon of the Pac-10.
Sure, UCLA upset Tennessee, but the Vols aren't the Vols of old. And the Bruins aren't the Bruins of old.
MWC top-dog barely escaped Seattle with a one-point win over Washington (when the game should have gone into overtime).
Stanford and Arizona? Please, they'll both finish in the bottom half.
And who have the top three teams in the Mountain West played so far that gives us any indication that those squads are any good?
BYU? Wins over the aforementioned Huskies and Bruins, D-I AA Northern Iowa and lowly Wyoming.
Utah? The two-years away from being a power again Michigan, conference foes UNLV and Air Force and pseudo-state rival and officially the worst team in the Division I-A football, Utah State.
TCU? New Mexico, Stephen F. Austin, the Cardinal and Southern Methodist.
Any of those teams in the top 25? The top 35? Top 50?
Yes, on the merit of three 4-0 teams, the Mountain West is better, right now, this week in college football.
But to say that the entire depth of the Mountain West makes it a better conference than the Pac-10, that's just crazy. Just because the three best teams are ranked doesn't mean that the rest of the conference is automatically better.
This isn't economics. There's no need for the Ronald Reagan tickle-down effect theory when it comes to the talent of a single football conference. And if that were the case, then wouldn't the Pac-10 be the best conference, because the Trojans are the best team in all the land?
That brings us to this week and the showdown for conference bragging rights (?!) when Cal hosts Colorado State. Because the teams that have been slayed by the Mountain West are not teams that you would think would rule the Pac-10, this is the only shot that the MWC has against a team of any merit in the Pac-10.
So, MWC die-hards are salivating at the prospects of the Rams beating California on the road.
But, can you really say that Colorado State has any chance of doing that Saturday?
CSU lost to in-state rival Colorado. CSU beat D-IAA Sacramento State by three points. Sure it beat up on Houston, but it's Houston. It wasn't like they were thrashing Washington or Stanford.
Why the Mountain West is collectively clinging and vicariously living for this game is because of an inferiority complex that the mid-major conferences have always had since the beginning of time.
The BCS conferences have the tradition, the talent, the money to compete at the highest level and all the attention. The mid-majors have been trying to beat that and gain that for decades.
It won't happen in one season. And it won't happen on Saturday.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Lightning in a Bottle
It's very interesting to see Darren Sproles run, cut and juke his way around defenders wearing the lightning bolts of the San Diego Chargers.
Just last summer, Sproles was coming off missing an entire year after breaking his leg. With LaDainian Tomlinson and Michael Turner ahead of him on the depth chart, Eric Parker still around as one of the main return guys and new rookie sensation Antonio Cromartie creating a with his ability to run with the football, Sproles looked like a man without a team last year, even though he started fall training camp No. 1 on the depth chart as the Bolts' return guy.
If Sproles didn't win that job, he would have been cut, and another team in the League would have an electric running back.
LT isn't the same. He's still great, but I wouldn't expect the 2001-2006 Tomlinson to suit up for San Diego every Sunday.
But Sproles is a little bit different than what Turner was to LT as a backup. Sure, Turner can take it to the end zone as good as anyone, but Sproles, he's the type of hold-your-breath-and-don't-blink player that make the Chargers so dangerous, even without LT on the field.
And it's amazing to see that, especially since Sproles almost got cut last year.
I'm sure that everyone in the Chargers organization and every San Diego fan out there is relieved that Sproles is backing up LT (and that the team finally won a game tonight).
Just last summer, Sproles was coming off missing an entire year after breaking his leg. With LaDainian Tomlinson and Michael Turner ahead of him on the depth chart, Eric Parker still around as one of the main return guys and new rookie sensation Antonio Cromartie creating a with his ability to run with the football, Sproles looked like a man without a team last year, even though he started fall training camp No. 1 on the depth chart as the Bolts' return guy.
If Sproles didn't win that job, he would have been cut, and another team in the League would have an electric running back.
Fast forward to this year, and after last week's game against Denver, and the way he played tonight against the Jets, Sproles has become invaluable for the Chargers--especially with Michael Turner in Atlanta now. Sure Sproles didn't have as great a game that he had last week, but he was still effective, giving San Diego the ability to pick up first downs on third downs.
LT isn't the same. He's still great, but I wouldn't expect the 2001-2006 Tomlinson to suit up for San Diego every Sunday.
But Sproles is a little bit different than what Turner was to LT as a backup. Sure, Turner can take it to the end zone as good as anyone, but Sproles, he's the type of hold-your-breath-and-don't-blink player that make the Chargers so dangerous, even without LT on the field.
And it's amazing to see that, especially since Sproles almost got cut last year.
I'm sure that everyone in the Chargers organization and every San Diego fan out there is relieved that Sproles is backing up LT (and that the team finally won a game tonight).
The Week That Was Week 3 in the NFL
I really don't care of Lane Kiffin gets fired or not. Good for him that he doesn't want to quit. A lot of people want to see him go. I think that Al Davis should give him a shot.
But then again, I don't care if he's on the sidelines in Oakland or not.
It's not on Kiffin if the Raiders suck for eternity. It's on Al Davis. It's time for him to go. Davis isn't like Jerry Jones, who still pushes the buttons and shoves his team to the cutting edge (that new stadium is going to be fucking awesome).
Davis is the opposite. His team plays in an ugly stadium (which was actually all Davis' fault). He gets in the way of the coaches. And Davis doesn't live larger than life like the other uber-owners in professional sport (like Jones or Mark Cuban or Roman Abramovich).
He does thing detrimental to the club's well-being (on the field). Sure he'll make money, but no one likes the Clippers, so why should Raider Nation stay loyal to an inferior product?
Davis is totally out of touch. Like Matt Millen, it's time for the old man to go.
To the rest of the week:
Unless the Colts get their act together, this might be a totally different AFC this year. We'll see how the Pats do after their bye week, but with the top three teams for the old AFL struggling in the first couple of weeks, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a crap shoot for the top spot in the conference.
But what else does this mean? It means that the NFC is looking fucking strong.
But then again, I don't care if he's on the sidelines in Oakland or not.
It's not on Kiffin if the Raiders suck for eternity. It's on Al Davis. It's time for him to go. Davis isn't like Jerry Jones, who still pushes the buttons and shoves his team to the cutting edge (that new stadium is going to be fucking awesome).
Davis is the opposite. His team plays in an ugly stadium (which was actually all Davis' fault). He gets in the way of the coaches. And Davis doesn't live larger than life like the other uber-owners in professional sport (like Jones or Mark Cuban or Roman Abramovich).
He does thing detrimental to the club's well-being (on the field). Sure he'll make money, but no one likes the Clippers, so why should Raider Nation stay loyal to an inferior product?
Davis is totally out of touch. Like Matt Millen, it's time for the old man to go.
To the rest of the week:
- No one circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills. Trent Edwards and Marshawn Lynch...together. Who would of thought? And after the meltdown the Pats had against the Fish, then the 3-0 Bills look mighty good.
- Did everyone really think the Browns were going to win the division?
- Can Tom Brady play on one leg?
- Matt Cassel = Brett Favre, as of week 3.
- The Cowboys are the best team in the League.
- Aaron Rodgers still > Favre, as of week 3.
- Who's the most overrated 3-0 team? Denver? Tennessee? Buffalo? My vote goes to the Broncos.
Unless the Colts get their act together, this might be a totally different AFC this year. We'll see how the Pats do after their bye week, but with the top three teams for the old AFL struggling in the first couple of weeks, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a crap shoot for the top spot in the conference.
But what else does this mean? It means that the NFC is looking fucking strong.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
What I'll Remember About Yankee Stadium
I've never been to that hallowed piece of ground in the Bronx that they call the House that Ruth Built.
I never got a chance to go see monument park or here the loud speakers blast "New York, New York" after a Yankees win.
I've never been to Yankees Stadium, but there is one moment that I'll remember for the rest of my life.
I was 12. People told me that the 1998 Yankees were a team of destiny. There's no way that my San Diego Padres, which have never won a World Series, was going to beat the greatest team in the history of baseball.
But there I was, watching Game 1 as a wide-eyed kid in a city that had gone bonkers for its baseball team (I had braces at the time and that entire season, the colors of the rubber bands on my teeth with Padres blue and orange).
And before my eyes I saw Kevin Brown pitch with efficiency. I saw Greg Vaughn hit two home runs. I saw Mr. Padre himself, Tony Gwynn, blast one over the right field wall and into the upper deck. I saw what many thought was unbelievable--the Padres had a 5-2 lead over this so-called team of destiny.
But the magic for the Padres was killed short thereafter. Tied 5-5, with the bases loaded, the count 2-2, Mark Langston on the mound, with Tino Martinez at the plate in the bottom of the 7th, with two outs, Langston threw what Padres pitching coach Dave Stewart has since said was a "pretty good pitch."
The pitch was covered the plate, it came by Martinez right at the knees, but Rich Garcia called it a ball. The count now was 3-2 and the next pitch Martinez blasts it for a grand slam. The Yankees never looked back in the series, sweeping my Padres.
I'll never forget that moment. I'll never forget screaming at the television, feeling let down by the system and this American League umpire screwing San Diego. I'll never forget how I felt after that game. It was as if we all knew that the Padres' one and only chance of stealing this series went by as fast as Martinez's ball left the park. We all knew San Diego wasn't going to win the World Series after one game. Because it was the Yankees and only shit like that happens to a team like that--a "team of destiny."
I know I wasn't the only one who felt like that or still feels like that.
So, I say good riddance Yankee Stadium. I never met you, but I never wanted to know you--especially after that game.
By the way, here's a YouTube clip of that very moment:
I never got a chance to go see monument park or here the loud speakers blast "New York, New York" after a Yankees win.
I've never been to Yankees Stadium, but there is one moment that I'll remember for the rest of my life.
I was 12. People told me that the 1998 Yankees were a team of destiny. There's no way that my San Diego Padres, which have never won a World Series, was going to beat the greatest team in the history of baseball.
But there I was, watching Game 1 as a wide-eyed kid in a city that had gone bonkers for its baseball team (I had braces at the time and that entire season, the colors of the rubber bands on my teeth with Padres blue and orange).
And before my eyes I saw Kevin Brown pitch with efficiency. I saw Greg Vaughn hit two home runs. I saw Mr. Padre himself, Tony Gwynn, blast one over the right field wall and into the upper deck. I saw what many thought was unbelievable--the Padres had a 5-2 lead over this so-called team of destiny.
But the magic for the Padres was killed short thereafter. Tied 5-5, with the bases loaded, the count 2-2, Mark Langston on the mound, with Tino Martinez at the plate in the bottom of the 7th, with two outs, Langston threw what Padres pitching coach Dave Stewart has since said was a "pretty good pitch."
The pitch was covered the plate, it came by Martinez right at the knees, but Rich Garcia called it a ball. The count now was 3-2 and the next pitch Martinez blasts it for a grand slam. The Yankees never looked back in the series, sweeping my Padres.
I'll never forget that moment. I'll never forget screaming at the television, feeling let down by the system and this American League umpire screwing San Diego. I'll never forget how I felt after that game. It was as if we all knew that the Padres' one and only chance of stealing this series went by as fast as Martinez's ball left the park. We all knew San Diego wasn't going to win the World Series after one game. Because it was the Yankees and only shit like that happens to a team like that--a "team of destiny."
I know I wasn't the only one who felt like that or still feels like that.
So, I say good riddance Yankee Stadium. I never met you, but I never wanted to know you--especially after that game.
By the way, here's a YouTube clip of that very moment:
Overshadowed Kalou Saves Chelsea's Graces
Wayne Rooney. Wayne Rooney. Wayne Rooney.
When will you learn?
Sir Alex Ferguson did it again, with his tactical prowess, Manchester United took Chelsea out of their element at Stamford Bridge for most of Sunday's super matchup.
Usually backline attacking threats, Ashley Cole and Jose Boswinga, were pretty much ineffective in the attacking third for Chelsea, with their defensive responsibilities taking up much of their action.
And United's goal in the 18th minute was masterful. The Man U really should have taken three points from the Blues.
But Wayne Rooney. Oh you. Sure, Chelsea had opportunity after opportunity to a) take the advantage in the game (that's you Joe Cole) and b) equalize the game (that's you twice Nicolas Anelka).
But Rooney, you're foul in the 80th minute gave Chelsea their change to pounce and they did. Off the foot of the craft Frank Lampard and onto the head of the overshadowed Salomon Kalou, the Blues were able to stay unbeaten at the Bridge in 85 games and stay unbeaten in the Premiership.
Rooney is one of the best footballers in the world. The problem is that he has an identity crisis. Sir Alex plays him everywhere. It's probably because Rooney can play everywhere. But in a game with this much pressure, I think it would have been best, for Rooney's mental stability, to keep him in one spot.
Rooney went from striker to back in the blink of an eye and then gave up the foul which lead to the Chelsea goal.
Kalou and the rest of the Blues thank you Rooney.
And how about this for Man U? That side has only one win in their six Premiership games. It's a long season, but quite a precarious start for the defending champions.
When will you learn?
Sir Alex Ferguson did it again, with his tactical prowess, Manchester United took Chelsea out of their element at Stamford Bridge for most of Sunday's super matchup.
Usually backline attacking threats, Ashley Cole and Jose Boswinga, were pretty much ineffective in the attacking third for Chelsea, with their defensive responsibilities taking up much of their action.
And United's goal in the 18th minute was masterful. The Man U really should have taken three points from the Blues.
But Wayne Rooney. Oh you. Sure, Chelsea had opportunity after opportunity to a) take the advantage in the game (that's you Joe Cole) and b) equalize the game (that's you twice Nicolas Anelka).
But Rooney, you're foul in the 80th minute gave Chelsea their change to pounce and they did. Off the foot of the craft Frank Lampard and onto the head of the overshadowed Salomon Kalou, the Blues were able to stay unbeaten at the Bridge in 85 games and stay unbeaten in the Premiership.
Rooney is one of the best footballers in the world. The problem is that he has an identity crisis. Sir Alex plays him everywhere. It's probably because Rooney can play everywhere. But in a game with this much pressure, I think it would have been best, for Rooney's mental stability, to keep him in one spot.
Rooney went from striker to back in the blink of an eye and then gave up the foul which lead to the Chelsea goal.
Kalou and the rest of the Blues thank you Rooney.
And how about this for Man U? That side has only one win in their six Premiership games. It's a long season, but quite a precarious start for the defending champions.
Conference Power Rankings: Week 4
East Carolina, kiss your BCS dreams goodbye. How did the Pirates beat Virginia Tech and West Virginia earlier in the year? Well, ECU was at home. But lose to N.C. State? Really? Really?!
The Pirates definitely don't belong in the BCS--at least not this year. But if Skip Holtz sticks around, then ECU will be crashing the party soon. Very soon.
The Pac-10 isn't a sorry conference. It's just the conference where USC plays.
Speaking of the Mountaineers, they are done. And I'm sure Ohio State was thankful to play Troy at the Horseshoe after being embarrassed by the USC Trojans last week.
And don't we all love SEC football?
Power Rankings
1) SEC Last Week No. 1
The Pirates definitely don't belong in the BCS--at least not this year. But if Skip Holtz sticks around, then ECU will be crashing the party soon. Very soon.
The Pac-10 isn't a sorry conference. It's just the conference where USC plays.
Speaking of the Mountaineers, they are done. And I'm sure Ohio State was thankful to play Troy at the Horseshoe after being embarrassed by the USC Trojans last week.
And don't we all love SEC football?
| Week 4 Standings: | Record | Winning Pct. |
| 1) ACC | 6-0 | 1.000 |
| 2) WAC | 4-1 | .800 |
| 3-t) Big Ten | 6-2 | .750 |
| 3-t) MWC | 3-1 | .750 |
| 4) SEC | 2-1 | .667 |
| 6) Big East | 5-3 | .625 |
| 7) Big 12 | 5-4 | .556 |
| 8) Pac-10 | 2-2 | .500 |
| 9) C-USA | 4-6 | .400 |
| 10) MAC | 4-9 | .307 |
| 11) Sun Belt | 1-4 | .200 |
| Season Standings | Record | Winning Pct. |
| 1) SEC | 25-4 | .862 |
| 2) MWC | 19-4 | .818 |
| 3) Big Ten | 31-7 | .816 |
| 4) Big 12 | 31-8 | .795 |
| 5) ACC | 22-9 | .709 |
| 6) Big East | 14-13 | .518 |
| 7-t) Pac-10 | 12-12 | .500 |
| 7-t) WAC | 13-13 | .500 |
| 9) C-USA | 13-18 | .419 |
| 10) MAC | 15-25 | .375 |
| 11) Sun Belt | 7-15 | .318 |
Power Rankings
1) SEC Last Week No. 1
- Key Wins: No. 3 Georgia over Arizona State
- Key Losses: Georgia Tech over Mississippi State
- Key Wins: Colorado over No. 21 West Virginia, No. 7 Texas over Rice
- Key Losses: Louisville over Kansas State, UConn over Baylor, Miami over Texas A&M, UNLV over Iowa State
- Key Wins: UNLV over Iowa State, TCU over Southern Methodist, Colorado State over Houston
- Key Losses: Tulsa over New Mexico
- Key Wins: Michigan State over Notre Dame
- Key Losses: Pitt over Iowa, Ball State over Indiana
- Key Wins: Stanford over San Jose State
- Key Losses: No. 3 Georgia over Arizona State, Boise State over No. 17 Oregon
- Key Wins: N.C. State over No. 15 East Carolina, Georgia Tech over Mississippi State, Miami over Texas A&M
- Key Losses: none
- Key Wins: Louisville over Kansas State, UConn over Baylor, Pitt over Iowa
- Key Losses: Navy over Rutgers, Colorado over No. 21 West Virginia
- Key Wins: Boise State over No. 17 Oregon, New Mexico State over UTEP
- Key Losses: Stanford over San Jose State
- Key Wins: Tulane over UL Monroe
- Key Losses: N.C. State over No. 15 East Carolina, Boston College over Central Florida, No. 7 Texas over Rice
- Key Wins: Ball State over Indiana, Akron over Army
- Key Losses: No. 5 Mizzou over Buffalo, Maryland over Eastern Michigan, No. 16 Penn State over Temple, UL Lafayette over Kent State
- Key Wins: UL Lafayette over Kent State
- Key Losses: No. 12 South Florida over FIU, No. 13 Ohio State over Troy
The Headlines: Week 4 The Pac Suc, Part 2
It's official. In one short month the Pac-10 went from one of the best conferences in college football to one of the not-so-good BCS conferences.
And wtf? the Mountain West owned them last week. It's been an awful two weeks for the conference of champions, and with Southern California taking the week off, Wazzu and Stanford (?!) were the Pac-10's only saving grace.
And with Boise State upsetting Oregon at the Autzen Zoo, this year, it really is the Trojans and everyone else.
To the headlines:
And wtf? the Mountain West owned them last week. It's been an awful two weeks for the conference of champions, and with Southern California taking the week off, Wazzu and Stanford (?!) were the Pac-10's only saving grace.
And with Boise State upsetting Oregon at the Autzen Zoo, this year, it really is the Trojans and everyone else.
To the headlines:
- Arizona: Cats Win at the Rose Bowl, But it Wasn't The Rose Bowl
- Arizona State: Rudy Can't Do it All
- Oregon: Lame Ducks
- Stanford: This is Really a Rivalry Game?
- UCLA: The Football Dynasty in Los Angeles...Is Not Over
- Wazzu: FINALLY!
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Hell Freezes Over in Tampa
For years the Tampa-St. Petersburg area has seen some awful sports. The Buccaneers sucked for years. Some people didn't even know that the Lightning existed. And the Devil Rays (now Rays) had been overshadowed by their fellow expansion team in Arizona.
Not...anymore.
Since the turn of the century, Tampa Bay sports have been the top of their respective leagues with the Bucs and Lightning brining home championships.
The Rays now have their chance and it seems that the whole Tampa area finally now believes in this team.
Trust me, it is kind of hard to believe. I really didn't fault the fans for not coming early in the season, when the Rays were hot and surprised everyone by snatching first place early. The team was the worst team in the majors last year, and now they're in the playoffs.
But how amazing that is, what's more unbelievable is that the New York Yankees are officially done. I think it's safe to say that the dynasty is over (it was probably over a long time ago), and we don't have to deal with all of their bullshit this postseason.
It's kind of fitting that they're about to implode the Old Yankee Stadium. The Yankees players of the past, considering the talent that this current New York squad, should be rolling around in their grave. This team doesn't deserve to play in the house the Ruth built.
Pop the champagne, the empire is over.
Like the band of Ewoks that toppled the Empire in Star Wars, the Rays finally ended the Yankees evil clutch on the baseball's playoffs.
Thank you Rays. Thank you.
Not...anymore.
Since the turn of the century, Tampa Bay sports have been the top of their respective leagues with the Bucs and Lightning brining home championships.
The Rays now have their chance and it seems that the whole Tampa area finally now believes in this team.
Trust me, it is kind of hard to believe. I really didn't fault the fans for not coming early in the season, when the Rays were hot and surprised everyone by snatching first place early. The team was the worst team in the majors last year, and now they're in the playoffs.
But how amazing that is, what's more unbelievable is that the New York Yankees are officially done. I think it's safe to say that the dynasty is over (it was probably over a long time ago), and we don't have to deal with all of their bullshit this postseason.
It's kind of fitting that they're about to implode the Old Yankee Stadium. The Yankees players of the past, considering the talent that this current New York squad, should be rolling around in their grave. This team doesn't deserve to play in the house the Ruth built.
Pop the champagne, the empire is over.
Like the band of Ewoks that toppled the Empire in Star Wars, the Rays finally ended the Yankees evil clutch on the baseball's playoffs.
Thank you Rays. Thank you.
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Ryder Cup, ESPN and Money
Does anyone really care about the Ryder Cup? I mean, it's just golf, and does anyone care about golf?
There are so many other things going on this weekend that I'd like for ESPN to not shove it down my throat. Please, no Tiger, no watch (like I'd watch even if Tigers Woods was playing).
You've got the SEC's stalwarts going at it in college football this weekend;MLB pennant races; the NFL and even European fans won't be able to pay attention when their ADD problems with a rematch of last year's European Cup final--Manchester United going to London to play Chelsea.
So why is it that ESPN has give the Ryder Cup, usually an afterthought to many, all this hype? The answer is simple. It's the same reason why CBS promotes CSI up the ass, NBC marks out to The Office, ABC keeps telling you to watch Grey's Anatomy and FOX overexposes American Idol.
Each of those networks owns the rights for those shows. And those networks want to make money. To make money, they need to charge advertisers big bucks. To charge advertisers big bucks, people need to watch (or the possibility of a lot of people watching) in order for broadcaster to justify charging ridiculous rates for 30-second spots during breaks.
It's the same reason why my friend Steven Dunst felt as if the NFL Draft, for years, was so overhyped and got so much more attention than the NBA Draft.
This is a generation of sports fan that gets most of its sports news and information from ESPN, the world-wide leader of sport. They dominate the competition. They try to make sure that their media brand is the only brand that people care about.
And when blogs started to take away from ESPN's readership online, bam, ESPN created blogs.
This is a network that knows how to invade and take over the lives of sports fans across the country and the world.
So, if ESPN is the sole presentation for sports information in the United States, as it is for many, then things such as the Ryder Cup, or the NBA and NFL Drafts and Arena Football will permeate throughout the country's collective sports consciousness because ESPN has a stake in all of these things getting watched on its network.
Sure, ESPN will have a somewhat objective view when it covers the sports and the leagues that it partners with. It kind of has to.
But that doesn't stop it from promoting those leagues and sports and teams and sporting events, no matter what their coverage is. That doesn't stop SportsCenter anchors from devoting extra coverage to those events.
Because I really don't think ESPN cares about whether or not Team USA can finally beat the Europeans for the Ryder Cup or if the San Jose Sabrecats win another Arena Bowl or if a guy like Aaron Rodgers spends an entire day in the green room waiting to get drafted. What they care about is whether or not people watch all of those things happen.
Hype equals money and with the sports nations' undivided attention given to ESPN, they can hype anything it wants, exploiting the viewer to gain some cash.
There are so many other things going on this weekend that I'd like for ESPN to not shove it down my throat. Please, no Tiger, no watch (like I'd watch even if Tigers Woods was playing).
You've got the SEC's stalwarts going at it in college football this weekend;MLB pennant races; the NFL and even European fans won't be able to pay attention when their ADD problems with a rematch of last year's European Cup final--Manchester United going to London to play Chelsea.
So why is it that ESPN has give the Ryder Cup, usually an afterthought to many, all this hype? The answer is simple. It's the same reason why CBS promotes CSI up the ass, NBC marks out to The Office, ABC keeps telling you to watch Grey's Anatomy and FOX overexposes American Idol.
Each of those networks owns the rights for those shows. And those networks want to make money. To make money, they need to charge advertisers big bucks. To charge advertisers big bucks, people need to watch (or the possibility of a lot of people watching) in order for broadcaster to justify charging ridiculous rates for 30-second spots during breaks.
It's the same reason why my friend Steven Dunst felt as if the NFL Draft, for years, was so overhyped and got so much more attention than the NBA Draft.
This is a generation of sports fan that gets most of its sports news and information from ESPN, the world-wide leader of sport. They dominate the competition. They try to make sure that their media brand is the only brand that people care about.
And when blogs started to take away from ESPN's readership online, bam, ESPN created blogs.
This is a network that knows how to invade and take over the lives of sports fans across the country and the world.
So, if ESPN is the sole presentation for sports information in the United States, as it is for many, then things such as the Ryder Cup, or the NBA and NFL Drafts and Arena Football will permeate throughout the country's collective sports consciousness because ESPN has a stake in all of these things getting watched on its network.
Sure, ESPN will have a somewhat objective view when it covers the sports and the leagues that it partners with. It kind of has to.
But that doesn't stop it from promoting those leagues and sports and teams and sporting events, no matter what their coverage is. That doesn't stop SportsCenter anchors from devoting extra coverage to those events.
Because I really don't think ESPN cares about whether or not Team USA can finally beat the Europeans for the Ryder Cup or if the San Jose Sabrecats win another Arena Bowl or if a guy like Aaron Rodgers spends an entire day in the green room waiting to get drafted. What they care about is whether or not people watch all of those things happen.
Hype equals money and with the sports nations' undivided attention given to ESPN, they can hype anything it wants, exploiting the viewer to gain some cash.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
LT All Washed Up?
I don't think so. And neither does Kevin Acee, the uber-tan beat Chargers beat reporter for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
But Michael Silver (the former Cal alum and current columnist for the Yahoo! sports) posed the question of whether or not the years of wear and tear has caught up with LaDainian Tomlinson.
Acee seemed to take offense to the question, spitting off stats that show how awesome LT still is.
Let's just say that I agree with both, on some level. First, on Silver's (I guess) overarching point, LT is getting old. And at 29 years of age, Tomlinson is getting to the point when you trade in that old car for a newer hybrid. He's been getting nicked up, he's sat out games and whenever I watch the Chargers, I'm always afraid that the amazing LT run I just saw might be his last.
But, as Acee noted, Tomlinson is still amazing. Adrian Peterson may be ready to take the mantle of "NFL's current best running back" but I still give that trophy to Tomlinson. There's no other back in the League that I'd like to have when the game is on the line.
He is the NFL's most prolific touchdown scorer and he still has that ability to hit paydirt anytime he touches the ball.
But, I think Silver's main point, was that San Diego doesn't need LT to be Superman to win anymore. There was a time when the Chargers needed a healthy Tomlinson to win. They needed him to touch the ball 35-40 times just to stay competitive.
Not anymore. After last year's AFC title game loss, this is now Philip Rivers' team. The way Rivers plays is how the Chargers will fare the rest of the year.
It's not to say that the Chargers don't need LT altogether. Yeah, Darren Sproles can serve as a pretty legit backup. But at the end, the team will both need Rivers and Tomlinson to play well in order to get to the Super Bowl.
San Diego stay with then-undefeated New England in the bitter cold of the AFC title game with LT on the bench. Tomlinson isn't a necessity to stay competitive anymore.
Just think of what would have happened if a healthy Tomlinson was in the game.
The Chargers don't need LT to stay in games. But they need him to win, because he's still as amazing as he was a few years ago.
But Michael Silver (the former Cal alum and current columnist for the Yahoo! sports) posed the question of whether or not the years of wear and tear has caught up with LaDainian Tomlinson.
Acee seemed to take offense to the question, spitting off stats that show how awesome LT still is.
Let's just say that I agree with both, on some level. First, on Silver's (I guess) overarching point, LT is getting old. And at 29 years of age, Tomlinson is getting to the point when you trade in that old car for a newer hybrid. He's been getting nicked up, he's sat out games and whenever I watch the Chargers, I'm always afraid that the amazing LT run I just saw might be his last.
But, as Acee noted, Tomlinson is still amazing. Adrian Peterson may be ready to take the mantle of "NFL's current best running back" but I still give that trophy to Tomlinson. There's no other back in the League that I'd like to have when the game is on the line.
He is the NFL's most prolific touchdown scorer and he still has that ability to hit paydirt anytime he touches the ball.
But, I think Silver's main point, was that San Diego doesn't need LT to be Superman to win anymore. There was a time when the Chargers needed a healthy Tomlinson to win. They needed him to touch the ball 35-40 times just to stay competitive.
Not anymore. After last year's AFC title game loss, this is now Philip Rivers' team. The way Rivers plays is how the Chargers will fare the rest of the year.
It's not to say that the Chargers don't need LT altogether. Yeah, Darren Sproles can serve as a pretty legit backup. But at the end, the team will both need Rivers and Tomlinson to play well in order to get to the Super Bowl.
San Diego stay with then-undefeated New England in the bitter cold of the AFC title game with LT on the bench. Tomlinson isn't a necessity to stay competitive anymore.
Just think of what would have happened if a healthy Tomlinson was in the game.
The Chargers don't need LT to stay in games. But they need him to win, because he's still as amazing as he was a few years ago.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
D'oh, DeSean...
So, I haven't found a video of Eli Manning flinging the ball with his left hand. But once I do, I'll post it promise.
But here's another video that I have to post. It's of former California receiver DeSean Jackson, let's just say, getting a but too over zealous about his touchdown dance.
He actually drops the ball before he hits the end zone.
But then, D-Jax was the guy who did this at THE high school all-start game when he was a senior. But, before you go mouthing he, Jackson did win the MVP of that game, despite his antics (he also announced that he'd go to Cal at the game too, if I remember).
And you're thinking to yourself, who is this guy? He's a guy that, at any moment, maybe even better than Devin Hester, can take the ball to the end zone. Why is better than Hester? Cause he can catch the football. Hester is a little bigger, I give him that. But he has no hands. Jackson's got some hands, and some moves, and some speed.
As evidenced by all of this:
And my personal favorite:
It was one dumbass mistake. He'll have more. But knowing Jackson, he doesn't really care too much.
But here's another video that I have to post. It's of former California receiver DeSean Jackson, let's just say, getting a but too over zealous about his touchdown dance.
He actually drops the ball before he hits the end zone.
But then, D-Jax was the guy who did this at THE high school all-start game when he was a senior. But, before you go mouthing he, Jackson did win the MVP of that game, despite his antics (he also announced that he'd go to Cal at the game too, if I remember).
And you're thinking to yourself, who is this guy? He's a guy that, at any moment, maybe even better than Devin Hester, can take the ball to the end zone. Why is better than Hester? Cause he can catch the football. Hester is a little bigger, I give him that. But he has no hands. Jackson's got some hands, and some moves, and some speed.
As evidenced by all of this:
And my personal favorite:
It was one dumbass mistake. He'll have more. But knowing Jackson, he doesn't really care too much.
Match Day 1(s) Done in Champions League, Plus Bad Banks
So, did anyone else notice that Manchester United will be wearing a different Champions League patch on their sleeve than everyone else? Yeah, Man U, in its draw with the Yellow Submarine today, was seen wearing a black patch with something to the effect "2008 Cup Winners" (not exact, but something like it).
I've never seen that before. Maybe it's happened in the past, but I really don't recall. Of course, the Red Dragons think that their special and maybe that patch separates them out.
But the bigger news of the week was that of the logo on the front of their jerseys. AIG, who bought that little space on Man U's shirts, needed the U.S. government to bail them out. It's not the first time that a corporate sponsor of a sporting something has almost gone under. Actually, plenty of corporate sponsors have gone away (Enron anyone?). This Time story kind of explains sports aspect of all these banks failing, but not really.
Champions League thoughts:
I've never seen that before. Maybe it's happened in the past, but I really don't recall. Of course, the Red Dragons think that their special and maybe that patch separates them out.
But the bigger news of the week was that of the logo on the front of their jerseys. AIG, who bought that little space on Man U's shirts, needed the U.S. government to bail them out. It's not the first time that a corporate sponsor of a sporting something has almost gone under. Actually, plenty of corporate sponsors have gone away (Enron anyone?). This Time story kind of explains sports aspect of all these banks failing, but not really.
Champions League thoughts:
- Speaking of Man U, not even soon-to-be-world-footballer-of-the-year Cristiano Ronaldo could help United gain three points over Villarreal at Old Trattford. And the Red Dragons play Chelsea on Sunday?! And Man U is in 14th in the Premiership?! No, it's not time to panic in Manchester. But the Yellow Submarine should have stolen that game today.
- Speaking of Man U's group, all four teams went scoreless with Celtic and Aalborg drawing nil-nil in Glasgow. Meaning that after one day, Group E stands pat with everyone with one point. Exciting or boring? You tell me.
- Okay, I'm convinced: Chelsea is pretty awesome right now, in my opinion. But their manager is pissed? Things do not look good for Man U on Sunday.
- Roma lost to who?
- Welcome back to the premiere club competition in Europe Bayern, Juventus and Atletico. And welcome back Stevie G, you're still way better than Frank Lampard.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Yost Toast in Milwaukee
Desperate times calls for desperate measures, I guess.
Today, the Milwaukee Brewers parted ways with manager Ned Yost, as the team tries to get out of a slump that saw it lose 11 of its last 14 games.
The thing is, the Brewers, which haven't been to the playoffs since 1982, still held the lead in for the National League Wild Card, though it being very slim.
It's kind of ridiculous to put this on the club's manager. Not even the Boss himself, George Steinbrenner, has done anything so bold. Does Milwaukee's suits really think that this is going to help the team get out of its slump and into the playoffs?
If you asked me, it may even worsen the situation. Why? Because now there's added turmoil on the team. There's an extra layer of drama that's not needed. And, hanging like an albatross around the Brewers' collective necks, there is the question of whether or not firing Yost was the right thing to do.
Last year, after a poor start to the Premiership season, Chelsea got rid of Jose Mourinho because team officials thought that he hadn't taken the club far enough (and with that kind of talent, I agree). But Roman Abramovich's decision to replace Mourinho came pretty early in the year for Chelsea, giving Avram Grant enough to time to enact real change to save the Blues' season.
Is two weeks really enough time to save the Brewers' season? Yeah, I guess so, with the team still clinging onto the Wild Card.
But maybe it wasn't really Yost's fault, and for the most part, I've always held that it isn't the coach or manager's fault for a failing team. Most of these guys have the same kind of knowledge of the sport. What's a new coach or manager going to do with the same talentless players or some unmotivated players? About the same.
Yost here is just the fall guy. He was the scapegoat.
I think the ultimate reason why the Brewers got rid of Yost was to light a fire under the players' asses. The team was probably complacent with it's huge lead in the Wild Card. Part of that might have been Yost's fault.
But, managers and coaches don't play the games. Too bad one was sent out to pasture because his players were in a rut.
Today, the Milwaukee Brewers parted ways with manager Ned Yost, as the team tries to get out of a slump that saw it lose 11 of its last 14 games.
The thing is, the Brewers, which haven't been to the playoffs since 1982, still held the lead in for the National League Wild Card, though it being very slim.
It's kind of ridiculous to put this on the club's manager. Not even the Boss himself, George Steinbrenner, has done anything so bold. Does Milwaukee's suits really think that this is going to help the team get out of its slump and into the playoffs?
If you asked me, it may even worsen the situation. Why? Because now there's added turmoil on the team. There's an extra layer of drama that's not needed. And, hanging like an albatross around the Brewers' collective necks, there is the question of whether or not firing Yost was the right thing to do.
Last year, after a poor start to the Premiership season, Chelsea got rid of Jose Mourinho because team officials thought that he hadn't taken the club far enough (and with that kind of talent, I agree). But Roman Abramovich's decision to replace Mourinho came pretty early in the year for Chelsea, giving Avram Grant enough to time to enact real change to save the Blues' season.
Is two weeks really enough time to save the Brewers' season? Yeah, I guess so, with the team still clinging onto the Wild Card.
But maybe it wasn't really Yost's fault, and for the most part, I've always held that it isn't the coach or manager's fault for a failing team. Most of these guys have the same kind of knowledge of the sport. What's a new coach or manager going to do with the same talentless players or some unmotivated players? About the same.
Yost here is just the fall guy. He was the scapegoat.
I think the ultimate reason why the Brewers got rid of Yost was to light a fire under the players' asses. The team was probably complacent with it's huge lead in the Wild Card. Part of that might have been Yost's fault.
But, managers and coaches don't play the games. Too bad one was sent out to pasture because his players were in a rut.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Week That Was Week 2 in the NFL
This lead section was going to be about how baller Aaron Rodgers was today (328 yards, three TDs, 0 INTs).
But that gets beat out by officiating and another heartbreaking loss for my San Diego Chargers.
First, can you please tell me why the review booth and all of it's technical stuff wasn't working at the beginning of the game? This isn't high school football? This is the bloody NFL. Millions and billions of dollars are spent on these games every year, and the officiating crew at Mile High Stadium couldn't get the fucking replay equipment to work to review a play?!
What happened was that Chris Chambers fumbled the football. The Chargers wanted a look and the look made it seem like Chambers was down by contact. Except the equipment wasn't working, so the Chargers got charged for a timeout because the equipment didn't work. The referee, in this case Ed Hochuli said that the two minutes for NFL replays was up and decided to let the game move forward.
That's so absurd! What a fucking Mickey Mouse thing to have happened.
But that wasn't so much the referees fault. What was happened at the end of the game, when Hochuli blew a fumble dead, giving Denver the ball back, and leading to the eventual game-winning touchdown and two-point conversion.
Ed, Jay Cutler fumbled the ball. At least he admitted that he made a mistake.
To the rest of the week:
Back to Brett Favre. I know this may sound like I'm hating on him, and maybe I am, I haven't really figured my own thoughts out, but geez, is everything really about him?
Okay, so maybe he got asked a question that prompted him to say "I'd like to come back and win every game...It's why I came back. It was fun out there today. It'd be more fun if we had won."
But still, this is probably the reason why the Packers got rid of him. He's so self-absorbed. He's soooo into himself. Dude, Brett, you've been with the team for over a month. Get over it. You're back playing professional football. Now act like a professional.
Then again, New York (New Jersey) might be the only place that would have wanted or could have handled a self-promoting, woes-me, prima donna like Favre.
But that gets beat out by officiating and another heartbreaking loss for my San Diego Chargers.
First, can you please tell me why the review booth and all of it's technical stuff wasn't working at the beginning of the game? This isn't high school football? This is the bloody NFL. Millions and billions of dollars are spent on these games every year, and the officiating crew at Mile High Stadium couldn't get the fucking replay equipment to work to review a play?!
What happened was that Chris Chambers fumbled the football. The Chargers wanted a look and the look made it seem like Chambers was down by contact. Except the equipment wasn't working, so the Chargers got charged for a timeout because the equipment didn't work. The referee, in this case Ed Hochuli said that the two minutes for NFL replays was up and decided to let the game move forward.
That's so absurd! What a fucking Mickey Mouse thing to have happened.
But that wasn't so much the referees fault. What was happened at the end of the game, when Hochuli blew a fumble dead, giving Denver the ball back, and leading to the eventual game-winning touchdown and two-point conversion.
Ed, Jay Cutler fumbled the ball. At least he admitted that he made a mistake.
To the rest of the week:
- What I failed to mention up there was that the Chargers defense again looked atrocious. And Antonio Cromartie looked like a fool. How can you let one guy catch 18 passes like Brandon Marshall did today?
- Rodgers > Favre as of week 2.
- Also, Cassel > Favre as of week 2.
- Eli Manning is a magician. First, you have that amazing throw in the Super Bowl. And then today, Little Manning throws a LEFT-HANDED PASS?!!!!! Amazing. YouTube video is forthcoming. And oh, the Giants won.
- Not to be outdone by his little brother, Peyton Manning still has it.
- Lane Kiffin off the hotseat, at least for one week.
- I'm going to say it now: those Bills/Pats games this year will be epic, especially if Buffalo continues to play the way they're playing.
- Reggie, Reggie, Reggie. Oh Reggie Bush. I guess they didn't teach you to not taunt your opponents with a shit-load of time left in the fourth quarter. So next time, don't wave goodbye to your opponents until, well, there are four zeros on the game clock. I guess was Ray Small said about Southern California was right (but of course, being a man doesn't mean you win football games, right Ohio State?).
Back to Brett Favre. I know this may sound like I'm hating on him, and maybe I am, I haven't really figured my own thoughts out, but geez, is everything really about him?
Okay, so maybe he got asked a question that prompted him to say "I'd like to come back and win every game...It's why I came back. It was fun out there today. It'd be more fun if we had won."
But still, this is probably the reason why the Packers got rid of him. He's so self-absorbed. He's soooo into himself. Dude, Brett, you've been with the team for over a month. Get over it. You're back playing professional football. Now act like a professional.
Then again, New York (New Jersey) might be the only place that would have wanted or could have handled a self-promoting, woes-me, prima donna like Favre.
Conference Power Rankings Week 3
Southern California reigned supreme, there were upsets and almost upsets. How about Mizzou? They look dangerous right now. And BYU, well maybe it was just a little motivated after how it won last week.
But still, the conference to beat right now is the SEC. And it does help that they've been playing these cupcakes the last few weeks, save, of course, of a few top matchups (like Bama beating Clemson and Florida surviving against Miami). And now, with Arizona State's loss to UNLV, Georgia's trip out west looks a tad easier. Just a tad.
While the SEC still sorts itself out, its the Trojans that have the straightest line and clearest road to the national championship. Every team left on USC's schedule is just a mere speed bump to Miami, especially if the Pac-10 keeps playing like it did Saturday.
Powers Rankings:
1) SEC Last Week No. 1
But still, the conference to beat right now is the SEC. And it does help that they've been playing these cupcakes the last few weeks, save, of course, of a few top matchups (like Bama beating Clemson and Florida surviving against Miami). And now, with Arizona State's loss to UNLV, Georgia's trip out west looks a tad easier. Just a tad.
While the SEC still sorts itself out, its the Trojans that have the straightest line and clearest road to the national championship. Every team left on USC's schedule is just a mere speed bump to Miami, especially if the Pac-10 keeps playing like it did Saturday.
| Week 3 Standings: | Record | Winning Pct. | ||||
| 1) SEC | 6-0 | 1.000 | ||||
| 2) MWC | 7-1 | .875 | ||||
| 3) Big Ten | 7-2 | .778 | ||||
| 4-t) Big 12 | 6-2 | .750 | ||||
| 4-t) MAC | 3-1 | .750 | ||||
| 6) ACC | 3-2 | .600 | ||||
| 7) Big East | 2-2 | .500 | ||||
| 8) C-USA | 2-3 | .400 | ||||
| 9) Pac-10 | 3-7 | .300 | ||||
| 10) Sun Belt | 2-5 | .286 | ||||
| 11) WAC | 2-6 | .250 | ||||
| Season Standings | Record | Winning Pct. |
| 1) SEC | 23-3 | .887 |
| 2) Big 12 | 26-4 | .867 |
| 3) MWC | 16-3 | .842 |
| 4) Big Ten | 25-5 | .833 |
| 5) ACC | 16-9 | .640 |
| 6) Pac-10 | 10-10 | .500 |
| 7) Big East | 9-10 | .474 |
| 8-t) C-USA | 9-12 | .429 |
| 8-t) WAC | 9-12 | .429 |
| 10) MAC | 11-16 | .407 |
| 11) Sun Belt | 6-11 | .353 |
Powers Rankings:
1) SEC Last Week No. 1
- Key Wins: none
- Key Losses: none
- Key Wins: No. 6 Mizzou over Nevada, Baylor over Wazzu, No. 3 Oklahoma over Washington
- Key Losses: Iowa over Iowa State, No. 19 South Florida over No. 13 Kansas
- Key Wins: TCU over Stanford, No. 18 BYU over UCLA, No. 22 Utah over Utah State, New Mexico over Arizona, UNLV over No. 15 Arizona State
- Key Losses: San Jose State over San Diego State
- Key Wins: No. 16 Oregon over Purdue, Oregon State over Hawaii, No. 1 USC over No. 5 Ohio State
- Key Losses: TCU over Stanford, No. 18 BYU over UCLA, New Mexico over Arizona, UNLV over No. 15 Arizona State, Maryland over No. 23 California, Baylor over Wazzu, No. 3 Oklahoma over Washington
- Key Wins: No. 17 Penn State over Syracuse, No. 10 Wisconsin over No. 21 Fresno State, No. 24 Illinois over UL Lafayette
- Key Losses: No. 16 Oregon over Purdue, No. 1 USC over No. 5 Ohio State, Notre Dame over Michigan
- Key Wins: No. 19 South Florida over No. 13 Kansas, UConn over Virginia
- Key Losses: North Carolina over Rutgers
- Key Wins: Maryland over No. 23 California, Duke over Navy
- Key Losses: UConn over Virginia
- Key Wins: Southern Miss over Arkansas State
- Key Losses: Air Force over Houston, Tennessee over UAB, Vanderbilt over Rice, No. 12 Texas Tech over SMU
- Key Wins: Boise State over Bowling Green, San Jose State over San Diego State
- Key Losses: No. 10 Wisconsin over No. 21 Fresno State
- Key Wins: Western Michigan over Idaho
- Key Losses: Boise State over Bowling Green
- Key Wins: Troy over Alcorn State, UL Monroe over Alabama A&M
- Key Losses: No. 24 Illinois over UL Lafayette, Kentucky over Middle Tennessee State, Southern Miss over Arkansas State
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The Headlines: Week 3, The Pac Suck
What a banner day for the Pac-10, if you're Southern California and Oregon State.
We all saw Oregon squeak by Purdue (?!), California lost to Maryland (?!), Arizona State lost to UNLV (?!), Washington lost to Oklahoma, UCLA got thumped by BYU and supposed surprise team Arizona lost to New Mexico (?!).
What awesome week for the "Conference of Champions." To the headlines:
We all saw Oregon squeak by Purdue (?!), California lost to Maryland (?!), Arizona State lost to UNLV (?!), Washington lost to Oklahoma, UCLA got thumped by BYU and supposed surprise team Arizona lost to New Mexico (?!).
What awesome week for the "Conference of Champions." To the headlines:
- Arizona: So...Goodbye Stoops?
- Arizona State: Uhhhhhhh...
- California: Back to Reality
- Oregon: Let's Leave on Thursdays For These Long Road Trips
- Oregon State: Things Aren't That Bad...When You Play Hawaii
- Stanford: Back to Reality, Part 2
- UCLA: Back to Reality, Part 3
- USC: Punching Our Tickets to Miami Already
- Washington: Why Us?
- Washington State: Officially the Worst Team...Probably Ever
Where To Now? The Aftermath: USC versus Ohio State
So Beanie Wells didn't play. It probably didn't matter. Southern California looked too good. That defense was ferocious. Quarterback Mark Sanchez looked amazing. Those stable of Trojans running backs were able to rip through the Ohio State defense.
And oh by the way, the Buckeyes didn't score a touchdown the entire game.
A few things about the game that I didn't touch upon earlier:
And oh by the way, the Buckeyes didn't score a touchdown the entire game.
A few things about the game that I didn't touch upon earlier:
- Obviously, we will not be seeing Ohio State in Miami for the BCS title game. As for USC? It's a simple formula: win-out and punch those tickets for south Florida.
- Sanchez just entered the Heisman race in a big way: 172 yards-4 TDs-1 INT.
- Cliche alert: the only team that can beat USC is....USC.
- Here's the blueprint to beat Ohio State: blitz Todd Boeckman--all day, everyday. That's what the Trojans did and they didn't care what down it was, what the score was and didn't give a shit about who the skill players were on the field. When No. 17 was on the field, USC put him under so much pressure that Boeckman had no time to breathe.
- But speaking of Boeckman, I don't think it's time to bench him. Ohio State's season isn't over. While there's no title game to play for, there's still the Rose Bowl, I guess.
- I thought Ohio State was supposed to have a good defense? Maybe the Trojans are just that good. Okay, the Trojans are just that good.
- I'm going to go back on my "the season isn't over yet" for the Buckeyes. Maybe it is. That all depends on how Tressel is able to spin this for Ohio State. If the players start to not care after this loss, then this season will be over for them.
- The Big Ten sucks.
USC versus Ohio State Halftime Thoughts
So, this "game of the year" is just about to become a blowout, if Southern California keeps going at this rate. The Trojans look really unstoppable right now. As for Ohio State, would Beanie Wells really have made that much of a difference?
Who knows? But it's close, kind of. A few thoughts.
Who knows? But it's close, kind of. A few thoughts.
- Terrell Pryor isn't playing like a freshman. Maybe Jim Tressel is managing the game for him, but so far, the Buckeyes offense looks better with Pryor in the game.
- Speaking of that other quarterback, for someone who played in the BCS title game last year, Todd Boeckman looks like he's overwhelmed.
- Like I said, Beanie Wells wouldn't have made too much of an impact, unless he could play on the defensive end and stop Joe McKnight.
- The USC student section is kind of cocky and arrogant What a fucking surprise from a school like that. They were chanting "overrated" before the first half was over. Will karma come back to bite them in the ass? Maybe not in this football game, but, their degrees from 'SC might be "overrated."
- It is scary to think that this Trojans team can be better than the one that had Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart. This team is just so deep. So far, the USC offense reminds me of the Argentina soccer team's attacking abilities. Just way too fast. Way too scary. Way too creative. And they can strike from anywhere on the field.
- James Laurinaitis and Rey Maualuga are as good as billed
- Penalties are drive killers.
Uhm, About Those Expectations...
I've got to talk about this, because it seems to happen every year.
I've got to talk about this, because I just graduated from there.
But two weeks weren't enough to give the California football team any expectations. After the Bears torched Wazzu last week to the tune of a 66-3 win, the national media, the Bay Area media, everyone was ready to jump on the Cal bandwagon.
And everyone was jumping on the Jahvid Best for Heisman truck. Best was in ESPN's top 10 Heisman list last week after scoring two touchdowns and rushing for 200 yards against the Cougars. Ray Ratto of the San Francisco Chronicle got on the bandwagon, and so did the campus paper, the Daily Cal.
After the first two weeks, why not? The Bears looked good. They defeated what many believed was a middle-of-the-road Big Ten team and throttled someone on the road.
But after losing to a Maryland team that barely beat I-AA Delaware (fuck this FCS bullshit) and lost to Middle Tennessee State, what do we know about this Cal team? Well, let's just say that maybe they aren't as good as we all thought they were and that Jeff Tedford can't coach a team to win on the east coast.
The Jahvid Jet for Heisman campaign and the Bears undefeated season came to screeching halt.
Sure, I'm disappointed. Sure, a lot of Cal fans are disappointed. But maybe we shouldn't have had high expectations after just two weeks of college football and wins against powderpuffs.
And for that, I put it on the media, for boosting this team, for maybe over-hyping this team and for creating this sense of high expectations.
The media should have known better. This was a squad that lost six of its last eight games last year. Sure, there aren't any egos and sure, the chemistry looks like it's there, but this team hadn't proven itself yet.
How can anyone declare Cal a team that could conceivably contend with Oregon and Arizona State and especially Southern California for Pac-10 supremacy?
Maybe the media could have taken it a little easy and maybe not get caught up in the excitement of what could still be a very good Bears football team.
I guess why this happens is because in the Pac-10, everyone is looking for someone who can dethrone the Trojans. And everyone is rooting for someone to knock USC off its pedestal. So when a team, even an unproven team, with a young quarterback and unproven receivers and two fragile running backs shows a glimpse and a glimmer of greatness (even against a really shitty Wazzu team and a so-so Spartans team) then the media will hail them as a contender.
And maybe Cal can be that contender. It's only one loss. It's an out-of-conference loss. The Rose Bowl and Pac-10 title isn't out of sight.
But if the Bears continue to play in that same uninspired fashion that it did today, there's no way they can contend.
The print and mainstream media need to point that out.
I've got to talk about this, because I just graduated from there.
But two weeks weren't enough to give the California football team any expectations. After the Bears torched Wazzu last week to the tune of a 66-3 win, the national media, the Bay Area media, everyone was ready to jump on the Cal bandwagon.
And everyone was jumping on the Jahvid Best for Heisman truck. Best was in ESPN's top 10 Heisman list last week after scoring two touchdowns and rushing for 200 yards against the Cougars. Ray Ratto of the San Francisco Chronicle got on the bandwagon, and so did the campus paper, the Daily Cal.
After the first two weeks, why not? The Bears looked good. They defeated what many believed was a middle-of-the-road Big Ten team and throttled someone on the road.
But after losing to a Maryland team that barely beat I-AA Delaware (fuck this FCS bullshit) and lost to Middle Tennessee State, what do we know about this Cal team? Well, let's just say that maybe they aren't as good as we all thought they were and that Jeff Tedford can't coach a team to win on the east coast.
The Jahvid Jet for Heisman campaign and the Bears undefeated season came to screeching halt.
Sure, I'm disappointed. Sure, a lot of Cal fans are disappointed. But maybe we shouldn't have had high expectations after just two weeks of college football and wins against powderpuffs.
And for that, I put it on the media, for boosting this team, for maybe over-hyping this team and for creating this sense of high expectations.
The media should have known better. This was a squad that lost six of its last eight games last year. Sure, there aren't any egos and sure, the chemistry looks like it's there, but this team hadn't proven itself yet.
How can anyone declare Cal a team that could conceivably contend with Oregon and Arizona State and especially Southern California for Pac-10 supremacy?
Maybe the media could have taken it a little easy and maybe not get caught up in the excitement of what could still be a very good Bears football team.
I guess why this happens is because in the Pac-10, everyone is looking for someone who can dethrone the Trojans. And everyone is rooting for someone to knock USC off its pedestal. So when a team, even an unproven team, with a young quarterback and unproven receivers and two fragile running backs shows a glimpse and a glimmer of greatness (even against a really shitty Wazzu team and a so-so Spartans team) then the media will hail them as a contender.
And maybe Cal can be that contender. It's only one loss. It's an out-of-conference loss. The Rose Bowl and Pac-10 title isn't out of sight.
But if the Bears continue to play in that same uninspired fashion that it did today, there's no way they can contend.
The print and mainstream media need to point that out.
Beanie, Beanie, Beanie
It's as if this guy, Chris "Beanie" Wells, is some sort of savior for Ohio State.
Ever since going down against Youngstown State two weeks ago, the talk has been all about whether wells will play or not.
Apparently, he won't play today, according to Jim Tressel.
But if you've been around Tressel and this Buckeyes program as of late, apparently, this is all a little weird.
Tressel runs his media relations program as if it Soviet Russia in the Cold War. The players all know what to say. The media doesn't get too much access at practices. And after the Tuesday press conference, the team (and most other teams, by the way) stay quiet about any big news until Saturday.
So, to Tressel say on Thursday that Wells will play and then say Friday that he won't, all looks very covert and calculating to me.
But then again, there is so much hype and focus on this game, then maybe everyone is just blowing things out of proportion. If Tressel made that announcement last week before Ohio State's game against Ohio, no one would care.
But if you asked me, Wells is going to be on the field tonight.
Oh, by the way, if you're an Ohio State fan, you don't want your football team to give the kind of performance the women's volleyball team gave against Southern California last night. The Trojans swept the Buckeyes, 3-0. Just though I'd mention it.
Ever since going down against Youngstown State two weeks ago, the talk has been all about whether wells will play or not.
Apparently, he won't play today, according to Jim Tressel.
But if you've been around Tressel and this Buckeyes program as of late, apparently, this is all a little weird.
Tressel runs his media relations program as if it Soviet Russia in the Cold War. The players all know what to say. The media doesn't get too much access at practices. And after the Tuesday press conference, the team (and most other teams, by the way) stay quiet about any big news until Saturday.
So, to Tressel say on Thursday that Wells will play and then say Friday that he won't, all looks very covert and calculating to me.
But then again, there is so much hype and focus on this game, then maybe everyone is just blowing things out of proportion. If Tressel made that announcement last week before Ohio State's game against Ohio, no one would care.
But if you asked me, Wells is going to be on the field tonight.
Oh, by the way, if you're an Ohio State fan, you don't want your football team to give the kind of performance the women's volleyball team gave against Southern California last night. The Trojans swept the Buckeyes, 3-0. Just though I'd mention it.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Time to Give In to the Hype: USC versus The Ohio State
I come from Pac-10 county. I was born in it. I grew up in it. I went to school at one of its founding members.
The Pacific-10 conference truly does live up to its self-proclaimed nickname, the Conference of Champions. The conference, as a whole, as more national championships than any other in the entire NCAA. That's pretty impressive.
But Saturday's tilt between No.1 Southern California and No. 5 Ohio State really isn't about the Pac-10 versus the Big Ten, even though on the surface it is.
Yes, it's a matchup of two of the oldest conferences in all of sport. It's the traditional Rose Bowl matchup, so conceivably, the Trojans and Buckeyes can meet each other again in Pasadena on New Years' Day. And it's two traditional powers and two of the powers that have run college football in the first decade of the 21st century.
But what this game is really about is respect, and not respect for the Pac-10 or the Big Ten. But respect for USC and for Ohio State.
Alright, we already respect these teams as programs. Their history and tradition speak for themselves. But this is about the respect for the present.
The Buckeyes are done getting embarrassed by teams outside of the Big Ten. They were embarrassed last week in their win against Ohio. They have been embarrassed by two SEC teams in the last two BCS title games.
The Trojans are ready to get back to the BCS title game. They're ready to shed the shadows of Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush. They want to rid the stench of losses to Oregon State, UCLA and Stanford that the Trojans have incurred the last two years.
For both teams, their histories suggest that they belong, but in the eye of the public, do they really?
That's what Saturday's about.
And, yeah, there's that whole "the Big Ten sucks as a whole" thing. And sure, people are tired of seeing Ohio State in the national championship game.
But if the Buckeyes, someone how win Saturday, then they have a shot of going undefeated and, hey, we'll see them again in the BCS title game.
And apparently, that's something we all don't want to see again. Apparently. But if Ohio State wins, they'll have my respect.
The Pacific-10 conference truly does live up to its self-proclaimed nickname, the Conference of Champions. The conference, as a whole, as more national championships than any other in the entire NCAA. That's pretty impressive.
But Saturday's tilt between No.1 Southern California and No. 5 Ohio State really isn't about the Pac-10 versus the Big Ten, even though on the surface it is.
Yes, it's a matchup of two of the oldest conferences in all of sport. It's the traditional Rose Bowl matchup, so conceivably, the Trojans and Buckeyes can meet each other again in Pasadena on New Years' Day. And it's two traditional powers and two of the powers that have run college football in the first decade of the 21st century.
But what this game is really about is respect, and not respect for the Pac-10 or the Big Ten. But respect for USC and for Ohio State.
Alright, we already respect these teams as programs. Their history and tradition speak for themselves. But this is about the respect for the present.
The Buckeyes are done getting embarrassed by teams outside of the Big Ten. They were embarrassed last week in their win against Ohio. They have been embarrassed by two SEC teams in the last two BCS title games.
The Trojans are ready to get back to the BCS title game. They're ready to shed the shadows of Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush. They want to rid the stench of losses to Oregon State, UCLA and Stanford that the Trojans have incurred the last two years.
For both teams, their histories suggest that they belong, but in the eye of the public, do they really?
That's what Saturday's about.
And, yeah, there's that whole "the Big Ten sucks as a whole" thing. And sure, people are tired of seeing Ohio State in the national championship game.
But if the Buckeyes, someone how win Saturday, then they have a shot of going undefeated and, hey, we'll see them again in the BCS title game.
And apparently, that's something we all don't want to see again. Apparently. But if Ohio State wins, they'll have my respect.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Why I Fell in Love With Soccer
This really might blow some people's minds and it really has nothing to do with anything that's going on right now.
But it also might be appropriate given the times and where U.S. Soccer is in the world.
I had the pleasure of sitting with Sam's Army for the first time at last night's World Cup Qualifier against Trinidad and Tobago at cozy Toyota Park. It was an awesome experience, as it reminded me of my old college days (which aren't that old, by the way), of when the student section would stand the entire game and lead the entire stadium in chants and cheers (though I don't know how much the other 11,000 fans in the Chicago suburb went along with the Army's cheers and jeers).
But it was support, and support of the highest kind. And it wasn't blind support. Members of Sam's Army were able to say when they didn't like a decision by an American player. Sure they bitched if a referee blew the whistle the other way, but their fans, and they have that right. But at least there was recognition of when our team was at fault.
You see, you don't get that at any other professional sporting event in the United States. Where are the rooting sections in NFL stadiums, in baseball ballparks, in NBA arenas or NHL ice rinks? Where is the character and the heart of the fans?
The fans, that's one of the reasons why this game, the one that's called football in other parts of the world, is one of my favorites. There is passion. And passion not just when it's a crucial game 7 in the finals for the championship or passion on the final drive of an American football game. There is passion at all games, against all opponents, no matter the situation.
But I wasn't exposed to that until I watched my very first World Cup, the one back in 2002. I know, that seems a tad late, but I do remember watching the 1998 World Cup in France, but trust me, especially after the Olympics in 1996 and with my San Diego Padres battling for the pennant that summer, the World Cup was an afterthought. And then the United States finished dead last. Didn't really help.
I guess you can say I started as a bandwagoner in 2002. I didn't know too much about the team. I didn't know about its young stars (a kid by the name of Landon Donovan, who barely had his receding hairline and this young speedster by the name of DeMarcus Beasley who flew up and down the left side of the pitch). I knew that it's cover boy, Clint Mathis, had an awesome haircut.
But they were successful. A new coach. A new youth movement. A new World Cup. There was no way that Team USA was going to finish last in 2002. So I followed them and followed that World Cup, waking up or staying awake until the 2 a.m. start times on the west coast for the U.S.'s games.
And then I saw the pride and the fans. And I saw this team win, getting all the way to the quarterfinals.
But since then, with the team waning back towards mediocrity, have I still followed the beautiful game? Why is it that I carve out two hours of my Tuesdays and Wednesdays to watch the Champions League? Why do I watch the MLS Cup Final? Why do I care about meaningless friendlies against Argentina and Spain (which, actually, mean more than you think)?
Well, I'm a fan of my national team for the same reason that someone who grew up in England is a fan of the Three Lions, or someone who group up in Mexico is a fan of El Tri. It's my country. It's my nation. And in a world where nationalism is looked down upon in everyday life, sport gives us pseudo-nationalist the avenue to cheer for our country without feeling embarrassed.
Part of it has to do with the United States' coming together after those tragic events seven years ago. To see the U.S. Men's National Team succeed on a global stage, at least for me--the 16-year-old kid in San Diego--said that we were going to be okay. And it was easier for us, as Americans, to go out and cheer for our national sides because, well, for a short period of time, we were all American. Our country was no longer made up of Californians or Southerners or New Yorkers, but Americans.
The second and most obvious is reason is because of the fans. After that World Cup, I started to watch soccer, not religiously or feverishly (because going to high school, I couldn't watch all the European games), but casually. And I noticed how awesome the fans were around the world, and these were games that had little consequence at the end of the season. Why couldn't we have that in professional sport in America?
And third, of course, the beauty of the game. It's not called the beautiful game for nothing. It's a simple game, with a simple premise. Most anyone--check that--anyone can play this game. All you have to do is get a ball, find some grass or dirt or concrete, and kick it around. It's amazing.
But then, what these professionals can do, it's magic. How can someone bend the ball into the top right corner from 37 yards out? How can someone juggle a soccer ball like that? How can midfielder thread a pass through four different players and, even more amazingly, have the vision to see his teammate make that run?
And there are so many different styles. You have the flair and creativity of the Spanish, the Dutch and Latin America. There's the fast-paced style of England. The defensive poise of the Italians and the brute strength and muscle of the Germans. And all of these schools of football compete against each other every week of the year.
But finally, and I'd hate to admit it because Franklin Foer points this out in his book How Soccer Explains the World, soccer in America isn't the "in" thing. It never has. I hope one day that it will, because it is such a beautiful game and a great game, but it's not mainstream, not at all. And that way, when I first fell in love with it, I could call it my own. It was a way to separate me and my friends. I can be an individual, because I loved soccer and no one else did.
But my view on that has changed. I'm not one of those "yuppie soccer fans" that Foer talks about in his book. I encourage my friends to watch. My last semester at Cal, every week, as the editor at the Daily Cal, I would invite the writers at the sports desk to come what the Champions League knockout stages with me at the on campus pub. Barely anyone came, but people who never watched soccer got their interest piqued and when the Euro Cup came around this year, a lot of my former writers, who never watched soccer, watched.
And so, that's why I love soccer. There's passion in it, there's beauty, it's unique and it's a simple game. It's the people's game. And it is around the world.
But it also might be appropriate given the times and where U.S. Soccer is in the world.
I had the pleasure of sitting with Sam's Army for the first time at last night's World Cup Qualifier against Trinidad and Tobago at cozy Toyota Park. It was an awesome experience, as it reminded me of my old college days (which aren't that old, by the way), of when the student section would stand the entire game and lead the entire stadium in chants and cheers (though I don't know how much the other 11,000 fans in the Chicago suburb went along with the Army's cheers and jeers).
But it was support, and support of the highest kind. And it wasn't blind support. Members of Sam's Army were able to say when they didn't like a decision by an American player. Sure they bitched if a referee blew the whistle the other way, but their fans, and they have that right. But at least there was recognition of when our team was at fault.
You see, you don't get that at any other professional sporting event in the United States. Where are the rooting sections in NFL stadiums, in baseball ballparks, in NBA arenas or NHL ice rinks? Where is the character and the heart of the fans?
The fans, that's one of the reasons why this game, the one that's called football in other parts of the world, is one of my favorites. There is passion. And passion not just when it's a crucial game 7 in the finals for the championship or passion on the final drive of an American football game. There is passion at all games, against all opponents, no matter the situation.
But I wasn't exposed to that until I watched my very first World Cup, the one back in 2002. I know, that seems a tad late, but I do remember watching the 1998 World Cup in France, but trust me, especially after the Olympics in 1996 and with my San Diego Padres battling for the pennant that summer, the World Cup was an afterthought. And then the United States finished dead last. Didn't really help.
I guess you can say I started as a bandwagoner in 2002. I didn't know too much about the team. I didn't know about its young stars (a kid by the name of Landon Donovan, who barely had his receding hairline and this young speedster by the name of DeMarcus Beasley who flew up and down the left side of the pitch). I knew that it's cover boy, Clint Mathis, had an awesome haircut.
But they were successful. A new coach. A new youth movement. A new World Cup. There was no way that Team USA was going to finish last in 2002. So I followed them and followed that World Cup, waking up or staying awake until the 2 a.m. start times on the west coast for the U.S.'s games.
And then I saw the pride and the fans. And I saw this team win, getting all the way to the quarterfinals.
But since then, with the team waning back towards mediocrity, have I still followed the beautiful game? Why is it that I carve out two hours of my Tuesdays and Wednesdays to watch the Champions League? Why do I watch the MLS Cup Final? Why do I care about meaningless friendlies against Argentina and Spain (which, actually, mean more than you think)?
Well, I'm a fan of my national team for the same reason that someone who grew up in England is a fan of the Three Lions, or someone who group up in Mexico is a fan of El Tri. It's my country. It's my nation. And in a world where nationalism is looked down upon in everyday life, sport gives us pseudo-nationalist the avenue to cheer for our country without feeling embarrassed.
Part of it has to do with the United States' coming together after those tragic events seven years ago. To see the U.S. Men's National Team succeed on a global stage, at least for me--the 16-year-old kid in San Diego--said that we were going to be okay. And it was easier for us, as Americans, to go out and cheer for our national sides because, well, for a short period of time, we were all American. Our country was no longer made up of Californians or Southerners or New Yorkers, but Americans.
The second and most obvious is reason is because of the fans. After that World Cup, I started to watch soccer, not religiously or feverishly (because going to high school, I couldn't watch all the European games), but casually. And I noticed how awesome the fans were around the world, and these were games that had little consequence at the end of the season. Why couldn't we have that in professional sport in America?
And third, of course, the beauty of the game. It's not called the beautiful game for nothing. It's a simple game, with a simple premise. Most anyone--check that--anyone can play this game. All you have to do is get a ball, find some grass or dirt or concrete, and kick it around. It's amazing.
But then, what these professionals can do, it's magic. How can someone bend the ball into the top right corner from 37 yards out? How can someone juggle a soccer ball like that? How can midfielder thread a pass through four different players and, even more amazingly, have the vision to see his teammate make that run?
And there are so many different styles. You have the flair and creativity of the Spanish, the Dutch and Latin America. There's the fast-paced style of England. The defensive poise of the Italians and the brute strength and muscle of the Germans. And all of these schools of football compete against each other every week of the year.
But finally, and I'd hate to admit it because Franklin Foer points this out in his book How Soccer Explains the World, soccer in America isn't the "in" thing. It never has. I hope one day that it will, because it is such a beautiful game and a great game, but it's not mainstream, not at all. And that way, when I first fell in love with it, I could call it my own. It was a way to separate me and my friends. I can be an individual, because I loved soccer and no one else did.
But my view on that has changed. I'm not one of those "yuppie soccer fans" that Foer talks about in his book. I encourage my friends to watch. My last semester at Cal, every week, as the editor at the Daily Cal, I would invite the writers at the sports desk to come what the Champions League knockout stages with me at the on campus pub. Barely anyone came, but people who never watched soccer got their interest piqued and when the Euro Cup came around this year, a lot of my former writers, who never watched soccer, watched.
And so, that's why I love soccer. There's passion in it, there's beauty, it's unique and it's a simple game. It's the people's game. And it is around the world.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
If a Tree Falls Next to a Stadium...
...Then everyone notices.
After a really long one and a half years, the trees came down and along with them, the affectionately called treewoks.
I will say that this took longer than expected, and it had nothing to do with the protesters in the trees. The beginnings of the Student-Athlete High Performance Center, which were also the beginnings of renovations to the 85-year-old Memorial Stadium, was supposed to start back in 2006, after the annual Big Game against Stanford.
But Cal got sued, which delayed construction (and cost the university a shit-load of money) and people ascended into the trees.
Fast forward to today, the trees are gone and construction can finally begin on something that was supposed to be done, like, today.
And I know, I may sound like a tree-hater, a fascist industrialist who doesn't care about the environment. But, I'm actually the opposite. And the trees that were cut down were nothing special. They were all planted back when the stadium was built back in 1923, contrary to what many of the protesters said. The set of trees that did precede the stadium are all being saved and will be replanted elsewhere within the university.
And, by the way, for every tree that Cal has cut down, it will replace it with three other trees.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
But it's all over. Finally. I'll have more on what this means for Cal, and not just the football team either. This thing will benefit the entirety of Cal sports.
For now, here's a little video that the Daily Cal made that chronicles the history of this controversy. And it features a few lines by yours truly, with me sounding like a garbled voice at the end of a phoneline, because, that's what I was--a garbled voice at the end of a phoneline. I'm also not too coherent. I apologize. But everyone else is pretty awesome.
After a really long one and a half years, the trees came down and along with them, the affectionately called treewoks.
I will say that this took longer than expected, and it had nothing to do with the protesters in the trees. The beginnings of the Student-Athlete High Performance Center, which were also the beginnings of renovations to the 85-year-old Memorial Stadium, was supposed to start back in 2006, after the annual Big Game against Stanford.
But Cal got sued, which delayed construction (and cost the university a shit-load of money) and people ascended into the trees.
Fast forward to today, the trees are gone and construction can finally begin on something that was supposed to be done, like, today.
And I know, I may sound like a tree-hater, a fascist industrialist who doesn't care about the environment. But, I'm actually the opposite. And the trees that were cut down were nothing special. They were all planted back when the stadium was built back in 1923, contrary to what many of the protesters said. The set of trees that did precede the stadium are all being saved and will be replanted elsewhere within the university.
And, by the way, for every tree that Cal has cut down, it will replace it with three other trees.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
But it's all over. Finally. I'll have more on what this means for Cal, and not just the football team either. This thing will benefit the entirety of Cal sports.
For now, here's a little video that the Daily Cal made that chronicles the history of this controversy. And it features a few lines by yours truly, with me sounding like a garbled voice at the end of a phoneline, because, that's what I was--a garbled voice at the end of a phoneline. I'm also not too coherent. I apologize. But everyone else is pretty awesome.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Another WTF?! Moment: Pac-10 Officials Got it Right
That. Was. Correct, according to the Pac-10.
What? Are you kidding? Okay, so it's what the rules say. I'll give you that. Maybe, if the referees always called it the way it says in the rule book, then I'd be okay with that. But refs interpret things so wildly sometimes that to say that it seems pretty cut and dry is absurd. And, every decision a referee makes in any sport is a judgment call. Every decision.
I'll complain about the refs, because it's always easy to. But what needs to be done is to change the rule. It takes the fun and the emotion out of college football. The reason why Jake Locker threw that ball high into the air is because he was excited. He wasn't trying to shove it in BYU's face. He wasn't trying to show them up.
He was excited because his team was a extra point away from tying the game against what used to be the No. 15 team in the country.
And the thing is, the head of the national referee association said that "I think it's safe to say on emotional moments officials might become a little more lenient."
There. Even the NCAA thinks that the judgment call the ref made could have taken into account all the circumstances.
For a team that could have had its marquee win of the season, that might have saved its coach's job, the leader of the team, the quarterback Locker, couldn't express the joy and the emotional high of the situation.
That's not "teaching principles of class and integrity" as the BYU coach said. That's teaching conformity and the institute of the mundane.
And that should go no where near college football or even socity.
So Who's The Favorite Now?
I don't remember where I saw it or where I read it. But I did see it. I did read it. And it went something like this: Because of Brett Favre, with Tom Brady out for the season, the New York Jets are now the favorites to win the AFC East.
Say what?
First, I don't know if there's a favorite out east anymore? New England was the prohibited favorite to defend its AFC East crown, but with Brady sidelined, obviously the Pats aren't favorites. But then, I don't think anyone is in that division. I think New England, the Jets and Buffalo all have a shot of winning the division. Miami not so much.
But to say that the Jets are the favorites? C'mon. And all this after the Jets (who by the way won only four games last year) inched by a team that won one game last year.
And the Bills? Let's just say that that offense is beginning to gel a little quicker than most thought. And, Marshawn Lynch is brining the hyphy, while Trent Edwards is showing how good of a quarterback he can be if someone just blocked for him just once.
Second: just because of Brett Favre the Jets are going to win the division? Please. What is with this love affair with Favre and (most) of the media. Maybe it comes from the fact that during the summertime, when baseball's beginnings are too far away in the rear view mirror and baseball's postseason is too far ahead to see over the horizon, that the media actually loved to cover Favre and his soap opera in Green Bay.
I have to say that's it. Because the Favre I saw Sunday was a Favre that took too many risk, and just prayed for this to go right. Maybe that's another reason people love him. He doesn't care. He's that epitome of the gunslinging cowboy, out to do good with a reckless abandon. But if you asked me, in this generation's NFL, you don't want a quarterback who'll just throw it up and hope someone catches it. You want efficiency. Yes, Favre stats seemed efficient, but if you watched his play, it looked nothing like the new breed of NFL quarterback that is prevalent today.
That miracle play he made, when he just threw the ball up on 4th and 13, that pass could have easily been intercepted. Easily. But it's Favre and he's magical. We know.
And maybe that's what the media people like. He's different. Different in a sense that he's "old school," though no one has said that about him.
But one person doesn't make a team (cliche, I know, but it works), especially in football. And, in this generation's football, I'm sorry, but the quarterbacks aren't the true focus anymore. Yeah, there's the whole leadership and star power that still comes to NFL qbs, and yes, a few teams still use the passing game as their centerpiece of their offensive attack, but it's the running game that dominates.
I don't care how good your passing game is, if there's no attack on the ground, then there aren't any wins, especially in the playoffs. And, so many teams are no beginning to use this dual back threat, having as many as two or three backs as the featured guy, all being different and giving offensive attacks a different look.
It's now up to the quarterbacks to "manage" the football games and not go out and win them.
And for that reason, I don't think the Jets can be labeled "favorites." I still don't think their in the top half of that division. The Pats and Bills look mighty fine, and guess what, they both have good running games.
Show me a Jets running game, and I'll show you a winner.
Oh, and by the way, Aaron Rodgers sure looked good tonight.
Say what?
First, I don't know if there's a favorite out east anymore? New England was the prohibited favorite to defend its AFC East crown, but with Brady sidelined, obviously the Pats aren't favorites. But then, I don't think anyone is in that division. I think New England, the Jets and Buffalo all have a shot of winning the division. Miami not so much.
But to say that the Jets are the favorites? C'mon. And all this after the Jets (who by the way won only four games last year) inched by a team that won one game last year.
And the Bills? Let's just say that that offense is beginning to gel a little quicker than most thought. And, Marshawn Lynch is brining the hyphy, while Trent Edwards is showing how good of a quarterback he can be if someone just blocked for him just once.
Second: just because of Brett Favre the Jets are going to win the division? Please. What is with this love affair with Favre and (most) of the media. Maybe it comes from the fact that during the summertime, when baseball's beginnings are too far away in the rear view mirror and baseball's postseason is too far ahead to see over the horizon, that the media actually loved to cover Favre and his soap opera in Green Bay.
I have to say that's it. Because the Favre I saw Sunday was a Favre that took too many risk, and just prayed for this to go right. Maybe that's another reason people love him. He doesn't care. He's that epitome of the gunslinging cowboy, out to do good with a reckless abandon. But if you asked me, in this generation's NFL, you don't want a quarterback who'll just throw it up and hope someone catches it. You want efficiency. Yes, Favre stats seemed efficient, but if you watched his play, it looked nothing like the new breed of NFL quarterback that is prevalent today.
That miracle play he made, when he just threw the ball up on 4th and 13, that pass could have easily been intercepted. Easily. But it's Favre and he's magical. We know.
And maybe that's what the media people like. He's different. Different in a sense that he's "old school," though no one has said that about him.
But one person doesn't make a team (cliche, I know, but it works), especially in football. And, in this generation's football, I'm sorry, but the quarterbacks aren't the true focus anymore. Yeah, there's the whole leadership and star power that still comes to NFL qbs, and yes, a few teams still use the passing game as their centerpiece of their offensive attack, but it's the running game that dominates.
I don't care how good your passing game is, if there's no attack on the ground, then there aren't any wins, especially in the playoffs. And, so many teams are no beginning to use this dual back threat, having as many as two or three backs as the featured guy, all being different and giving offensive attacks a different look.
It's now up to the quarterbacks to "manage" the football games and not go out and win them.
And for that reason, I don't think the Jets can be labeled "favorites." I still don't think their in the top half of that division. The Pats and Bills look mighty fine, and guess what, they both have good running games.
Show me a Jets running game, and I'll show you a winner.
Oh, and by the way, Aaron Rodgers sure looked good tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
