Tell Me I’m Crazy…

Posted on January 9, 2008 by bry

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am currently wearing my “Wild Cherry” t-shirt–the gift to all Temple basketball season ticket holders one year in the mid-90’s.  But, tell me I’m crazy thinking that the Owls have a real chance to knock off the 7th-ranked Dukies tonight.

There are several reasons for my blind optimism:

  • 1). These two teams play every year, so the Duke “prestige” is lost on the Owls
  • 2). The game is in Philly, which is not necessarily a big advantage for Temple, but it certainly isn’t the HUGE disadvantage that they would have in Cameron Indoor
  • 3). The best way to beat Duke (as seen by Pittsburgh a couple weeks ago) is to get physical with them.  Now, Temple does not have a huge team, but they certainly don’t win with finesse.  They are an aggressive, physical, hit-you-in-the-mouth kind of team.  Plus, freshman Lavoy Allen is beast in the paint and Duke’s best inside player, Brian Zoubek, has a broken foot and is out indefinitely
  • 4). One thing you have to do against Duke is get in the face of the shooters.  Well, the Owls have officially gone away from the John Chaney match-up zone and have fully adopted Fran Dunphy’s in-your-face man-to-man defensive style.  And, with the incredible length and athleticism on the wing, getting in the face of shooters is not a big problem
  • 5). Just about any time a lesser team pulls a big upset, it usually comes down to a big-time performance by one single player stepping up.  Well, the Owls have two guys that are capable of exploding in this way.  Dionte Christmas is averaging 21 pts, 7 rebs and 3 assists, while Mark Tyndale is averaging 15 pts,6 rebs and 3 assists.  Either one of these could blow up on ESPN tonight

Okay, yes, it may seem like a longshot for an average Atlantic 10 team to take out a top-10 team (particularly Duke), but I think it just might happen tonight.

Tell me I’m crazy…

Posted in College Hoops | Tagged , | 2 Comments

BSB Announcer Hall-of-Shame

Posted on January 9, 2008 by Doogan

One of the most common topics that sports fans like to rant about is television announcers, and rightly so.  They’re often mccarverspectacularly bad.  To paraprase an anonymous person (because I forget where I heard it), the United States has produced hundreds of people that can capably perform a heart transplant, hundreds of people that could help navigate a space shuttle, and maybe half a dozen people that can properly announce a football game. 

Now, after 25 years of watching sports, I usually just don’t even notice bad announcers anymore.  You just accept it after a while.  Sometimes I’ll find myself watching a game with someone who hasn’t yet reached this level of acceptance and they’ll say, “Did he just say [insert ridiculous, maybe even insane comment]?”.  I’ll wince, nod my head, and say, Yes, yes he did.  I wince, in part, because I realize that if it hadn’t been pointed out to me, I probably would have listened to that ridiculous, possibly insane comment without even batting an eye.

And so, that brings me to the point of this story, which is, it takes an especially awful performance by an announcer to get hammonmy attention these days.  There are a number ways to achieve that necessary level of incompetence, and during the Redskins-Seahawks game on Saturday, NBC play-by-play man Tom Hammond took the subtle approach.  The very, very subtle approach.

The Skins scored early in the fourth quarter to make the score 13-7 Seahawks.  So it’s a tight playoff game, with the Skins trying to build some more momentum.  On the ensuing Seahawk possession, Matt Hasselbeck throws an interception to LaRon Landry in Seattle territory.  How does Hammond respond?  With no emotion whatsoever.  He announced that the ball had been ‘intercepted’ in the same tone of voice you would expect if there had a been a false start called.  He only started to raise his voice slightly when Landry started running down the sideline.  You can see it at the 2:40 mark of this clip.  That interception was a huge, game-changing play in the fourth quarter of a playoff game!

Later in the quarter, with the Skins now leading 14-13, the Seahawks drove into Washington territory, looking to take back the lead.  Again Hasselbeck was intercepted by Landry, and again Hammond acted about as excited as someone reading their grocery list (3:20 mark of the same clip).  I’m not saying I need my play-by-play announcers getting overly excited and yelling and screaming.  But I think acting like you’re at least somewhat interested in what is happening on the field goes a long way.  When there’s a turnover in the fourth quarter of a close playoff game, you need to convey to your audience that something important has happened.  If I’m in the next room over from the TV, I should heading right in to say, “What happened?”, based on the announcer’s rise in voice.

For this performance, I actually want to thank Tom Hammond.  He has inspired me to create the BSB Announcer Hall-of-Shame.  Ladies and gentlemen, the inaugural inductees (in alphabetical order):bill walton

  • Joe Buck
  • Eric Dickerson 
  • Bryant Gumbel
  • Tom Hammond
  • Gary Matthews, Sr. (Phillies color man) 
  • Tim McCarver
  • Paul McGuire
  • Tom Paciorek (former Nationals color man)
  • Tony Siragusa
  • Bill Walton

This is just a start, membership will grow.  We did have some disagreements in our discussions of who is in and out.  Bry nominated Chris Collinsworth, but I like him.  I nominated John Madden and Joe Theismann, but Bry likes them.  I want to state my case for Madden.  I was a long time Madden supporter.  Throughout the 90’s, if there was a big game, Madden and Pat Summerall were calling it.  Now, he was never a really ‘good’ announcer.  You never got interesting insight into what was happening in the game, but he did maddenhave a lot of enthusiasm and when I heard him announcing a game, I was happy about it.  He was similar to what Dick Vitale is now.  You can say what you want about Dicky V, but I enjoy watching games with him announcing.  I like the (over) enthusiastic-style, when it’s genuine.  I think Madden, as he’s aged, has lost that enthusiasm.  I don’t hear it from him anymore.  So now, he’s just an uninformative, uninteresting guy, who I think is moving towards Hall-of-Shame status.   

I’m sure we missed plenty of terrible announcers, so nominations are welcome.

Tagged , , , | 11 Comments

The Hall of Fame

Posted on January 8, 2008 by bry

If I were a voter, here is how I would vote (and why) on each person on today’s ballot:
(If you’re wondering, I gave 3 “yes” votes–Goose Gossage, Jim Rice and Lee Smith–but I’m not really adamant about any of them making it.)

NO on Brady Anderson–Only had that one big year of 50 HRs, and that was almost undeniably steroid-aided

NO on Harold Baines–Not as far as one might think.  Look at these career numbers: 384 HRs, 1628 RBIs, .289 BA, .465 SA

NO on Rod Beck–Ferociously intimidating, but only 23rd on the all-time save list probably won’t cut it

NO on Bert Blyleven–A very controversial member on this ballot every year. I am very much opposed to his election because I do not feel like the Hall of Fame is a test of durability.  I understand that 287 wins, 3701 K’s and a 3.31 ERA are astounding numbers, but I don’t feel like Blyleven was ever a “Hall of Famer.”  He has 250 losses and never finished higher than 3rd in Cy Young voting.  How can a Hall of Famer go through 22 seasons never being in the top 2 pitchers in his league?  In my estimation, he can’t.  Great career, not a Hall of Famer.

NO on Davey Concepcion–There is nothing I like more than strong defensive shortstop play, and Concepcion is one of the best (.971 career fielding %, with incredible range).  However, he is clearly not a Hall of Famer, in my estimation.

NO on Andre Dawson–He has been real close and many people think that this is the year, however, I would not vote for “The Hawk.”  It’s tough because of his 438 HRs and 314 SBs.  He also won the 1987 MVP and finished 2nd in 1981 and 1983.  However, I think that the Hall of Fame is getting a little watered down.  I’m not saying that Dawson didn’t have the talent to be a HOFer, I just think he falls slightly short.

NO on Shawon Dunston–One of my all-time favorite players, with the best arm I’ve ever seen.  Does not get my vote, especially when he came out and said that he prefers the normal pronunication of “shawn” instead of “sha-won”

NO on Chuck Finley–Solid career (200 wins), but not a HOFer

NO on Travis Fryman–Also a solid career, but not even really close. 

YES on Rich “Goose” Gossage–Now, I actually feel somewhat unqualified to vote “yes” on this because I, admittedly, never saw Gossage pitch and, from all I’ve heard, his numbers do not tell the whole story behind “The Goose.”  But, anyone who was such a great closer and did it with saves that often lasted 6,7,8 even 9 outs, he’s got my vote.  But, please understand, this is mostly on what others have said about him. 

NO on Tommy John–Much like Blyleven, Tommy John has big numbers because of his durability (the medical marvel that is “Tommy John Surgery”), but 4700 innings pitched, though impressive, doesn’t get you a plaque next to Babe Ruth.   Though his 288 wins puts him in the discussion, I still think he’s slightly out.

NO on David Justice–Steroids only got him 305 HRs.  Uh…no

NO on Chuck Knoblauch–Now, I really like Chuck Knoblauch and I feel bad for all that he has gone through in his playing career.  A really solid career (now tainted by more steroid accusations), but never finished in the top 15 of the MVP vote.  Even without the accusations, Knoblauch falls well short.

NO on Don Mattingly–Anyone outside of New York City knows that Donny Baseball, though tragically falling just in between the two Yankees dynasties was a very good player, but not a HOFer.  He was one of the best players in baseball from 1984-1987 (averaging .337 BA, 30 HRs, and 121 RBIs over those 4, pre-steroid era years), but the rest of his career was not as impressive and he is not a HOFer in my book.

NO on Mark McGwire–There is no doubt that he had a HOF career.  In fact, I get really annoyed when anyone tries to sell the whole “even without steroids, his one-dimensional career is not HOF-worthy.”  That is absolutely ridiculous and I have heard it more than once, from respected sportswriters.  I think it is just them trying to make themselves feel better about passing a moral judgment on a really good man and what he did or didn’t do.  I, on the other hand, have no problem passing that judgment and believe that, until we really know what happened during this “era,” the HOF should not include McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, etc.  It is easy to add these players retroactively, if we, as a society so decide.  It is impossible to take them out.

NO on Jack Morris–Pitched 10 shutout innings in the greatest baseball game that I have ever seen, but his ERA is over 4 and he has nearly 200 career losses.  As great as a postseason pitcher as Morris was, he is not a HOFer.

NO on Dale Murphy–All this talk of Jim Rice snubs is only because he is from fricken Boston and they have nothing better to do than shovel snow and complain about how their media-darling Red Sox don’t get any respect.  If Murphy was a Red Sox or a Yankee, he would have already been elected.  Fortunately, for the integrity of the HOF, he wasn’t.  Murphy had a great career (and was unstoppable in RBI Baseball for Nintendo), but I do not think that a .265 career hitter is a HOFer.

NO on Robb Nen–Funny because it doesn’t seem like it’s been 5 baseball seasons without Robb Nen somewhere.  He is 15th on the all-time save list, but is not really that close to a HOFer in my opinion, even though he shares my birthday.

NO on Dave Parker–Parker put up surprisingly good numbers, which is probably why he is still on the ballot after all these years.  However, the other reason why he is still on the ballot is because he is not a HOFer.

NO on Tim Raines–Another superstar in RBI Baseball, “Rock” Raines stole 808 bases, good enough for 5th all-time.  He also pounded out 2,605 hits.  Raines is actually really close, in my book, just not quite there.

NO on Jose Rijo–One of my favorite pitchers ever, but clearly not a HOFer

YES on Jim Rice–Though I kind of ripped him earlier, I do think that Rice deserves to be in the HOF.  Six times he finished in the Top 5 of the MVP voting, including winning the 1978 award.  A lot of people (including me at times) think that Rice was only a home run hitter, but this is not true.  He has a career .298 batting average and slugged over .500 for his career.  It is really close, in my book, but I think I give him a “yes,” barely.

YES on Lee Smith–Maybe I am being completely hypocritical here because I have clearly denied voting for Tommy John and Bert Blyleven because I think their numbers are purely because of durability.  However, with Smith, I think it is different.  He was #1 all-time in saves, a pretty important statistic (granted a new phenomenon), until Hoffman recently surpassed him.  That alone should count for something.   Plus, his ERA is slightly over 3, and he struck out 1,251 batters in 1,289 innings.  Yes, I am in the minority, but I vote “yes” on Lee Arthur Smith.  Okay, maybe I’m swayed by his giving up the Mother’s Day grand slam to Mariano Duncan with the Cardinals up 3 in the 9th inning, but whatever.

NO on Todd Stottlemyre–Pitched about 5 innings in the WORST baseball game I have ever seen (Game 4 of the 1993 World Series), and for his slide into 3rd base in that game, he is automatically excluded from HOF consideration, if you ask me.  Well, that and his career 138-121 record and 4.27 ERA.

NO on Alan Trammell–Terrific player and I think I probably think he is closer than most people think, however, he just doesn’t have the numbers.

Tagged , | 8 Comments

Cimorelli’s Question of the Day

Posted on January 7, 2008 by bry

In recognition of Kansas State’s 85-25 win over Savannah State tonight, what is the most lopsided game that you’ve ever seen?

PS…Kansas State shot 28-55 (50.9%), while Savannah State shot 9-58 (15.5%).  Michael Beasley had as many points as the whole Savannah State team.  And, Kansas State outscored Savannah State 48-4 in the second half…FORTY-EIGHT to FOUR!!!

Posted in Questions of the Day | 1 Comment

Why Do We NOT Believe Roger Clemens?

Posted on January 7, 2008 by bry

A couple weeks ago I wondered why we believed Andy Pettitte and his story of brief, injury-driven steroid use.  At the time, it seemed like the public was somewhat okay with Pettitte’s explanation and sort of gave him a pass.  (NOTE:  a lot of that sentiment has faded into distrust of Pettitte also, but at the time, I thought the question worth asking.  It even generated a lively discussion on in the comments of that post.)  In almost a complete contrary to the [immediate] public reaction to Pettitte’s qualified, yet spirited mea culpa, the public reaction to Roger Clemens’s bold-faced denial is complete distrust and public admonishment of the 7-time Cy Young award winner.  Just as I raised the [semi-rhetorical] question of why we believed Andy Pettitte, I raise the question of why we do not believe Roger Clemens.

Where is the benefit of the doubt?  Where is the innocent until proven guilty?  Why can we not just wait and see about all of this so-called “evidence?”

I do not like Roger Clemens.  I never have, and I never will.  I think he is cocky, brash and obnoxious.  I think he sees himself as an almighty figure who does not need to travel with his team or even play the first couple months of the season.  But, does this make him a cheater?  I do not want to believe Roger Clemens, but is there really enough evidence to convict him?  I say, no…

…But, you know what?  I don’t care.  I do not believe Roger Clemens in any way whatsoever.

I would love to explain all the reasons why, but a much better writer already did it for me.  Gene Wojciechowski’s latest blog entry on ESPN.com sums up exactly how I feel.  I love his very first point about the complete hypocrisy of Clemens’s defense that “steroids are a short-term fix” and anyone who takes them will get “punishment enough” by what is done to their bodies over the long-term.  Yet, as Wojchiechowski so astutely points out, Clemens boasts about taking pain injections and numbing agents so that he could pitch with a “golf-ball sized knot in his elbow.”

I am not going to pile on the best pitcher of our time (much like everyone did to the best hitter of our time) because I think, this time, the public is getting it right.  I am not, generally, a cynical malcontent who believes that everyone is cheating and nothing is pure anymore, but in the case of this steroid fiasco in baseball, when there is smoke, there has proven to always be fire.

Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Yet Another Pet Peeve

Posted on January 6, 2008 by bry

Something in the Pittsburgh-Jacksonville game just occurred that has been driving me absolutely nuts for a while now.  I am so sick of NFL coaches completely out-thinking themselves on important plays–particularly 4th downs and 2-point conversions.  I have been meaning to post this pet peeve for a while now (I’ve even had a sort of draft written for a couple of weeks now), and I kind of wish that it didn’t come into play tonight on such a big stage because my complaint may not seem as long-standing.  But, either way it is completely frustrating to me.  So, friends, lend me your ears so I can finally get it off my chest…

The occurrence that happened tonight was with Pittsburgh going for two from the TWELVE yard line.  Why?  Why?  Why?  Personally, I was semi-rooting for Jacksonville because with no horse in the race, I am just looking for good football, and I think the Jags will give New England a better game next week.  But, I was still yelling “Forget the f&*^-ing chart” when Tomlin decided to go for two.  I hate that chart.  You probably all know by now that if he kicks the extra point (from the 12 yard-line) then he does not have to go for two on the next TD, and the Steelers get to 31 points with Jacksonville’s final FG only tying the game.

(By the way, I am listening to Mark Schlereth on ESPN right now and he is saying exactly what I have been wanting to say for a while now–exactly why I wish it hadn’t happened, but oh well.  I’m sorry that you are hearing this again from another person.)

But, I have been upset by this for several years now with NFL coaches.  I am not, in any way, saying that they are not smart, informed or good at what they do.  I am also not saying that they do not make good decisions.  I have never been one of those guys that claims to know better than any coach in any sport (with the possible exception of Steve Lappas).  However, I am completely frustrated with these 2-point conversion and 4th down playcalls.  I have had this conversation with my esteemed colleague, Doogan, on several occaisions.  I do not believe in going for any 4th down that is a yard or more before the 4th quarter.  I also do NOT believe in those silly 2-point charts.  Do NOT go for 2 unless you absolutely must.  Joe Gibbs knows that from the Week 10 loss to the Eagles, and Omar Epps (playing the role of Mike Tomlin) learned that tonight.  Either way, I am so irritated by intelligent NFL coaches out-thinking themselves on 4th down and 2-point situations. 

Sorry this is such a flustered explanation.  I guess that is why they say not to let emotion infiltrate your work.  Anyway, as always, thanks for listening, friends…

Posted in Pet Peeves | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments

Saturday’s Wild Card Games

Posted on January 4, 2008 by Doogan

Jaguars at Steelers

This is by far the best game of Wild Card Weekend.  Not only are both teams really good, but they’re also so evenly matched that picking a winner is almost impossible.  The Jags did go into Pittsburgh just a few weeks ago and win 29-22, but winning in a place like Heinz Field in the playoffs is really tough.roethlisberger

The Steelers have some injury concerns coming into this one.  Running back Willie Parker, who was leading the NFL in rushing through 14 games, is done for the year and Najeh Davenport takes over his role.  Due in part to Parker’s absence, Ed Bouchette of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette thinks the Steelers will rely on Ben Roethlisberger, and come out throwing the ball early and often.  The run-heavy Steeler offense has done this before in the playoffs, as Bouchette points out, going to the air in 2005 to beat the Colts and Broncos en route to Super Bowl XL. 

If the Steelers are planning on leaning on the passing game, there may be one fatal flaw to the plan: the left tackle situation.  Starter Marvel Smith went down with an injury a few weeks ago and his replacement, Max Starks, was injured last week and is also unavailable for Saturday’s game.  So the job of protecting Roethlisberger’s blind-side falls to Trai Essex, who has spent almost his whole career on the practice squad.  If Essex ends up doing his best Winston Justice impression, the Steelers will move veteran guard Alan Faneca over to the left tackle spot.  This has to be a major point of concern for the Steeler coaching staff coming into the game.  Jags All-Pro DT Marcus Stroud is injured, but they still have a formidable defensive line that can eat up sub-par blockers.  If Faneca is moved over to tackle, that leaves a backup guard to handle blocking John Henderson and Grady Jackson on the interior of the Jacksonville D-line.

I really have no idea who’s going to win this game.  Logic probably points to Jacksonville.  They won in Pittsburgh a few weeks ago and now the Steelers have more injury problems.  Also, the Steelers only beat one playoff team all year (Seattle in early October).  They will have to stop Fred Taylor (who has killed them throughout his career) and Maurice Jones-Drew and force David Garrard to beat them.  Garrard is still inexperienced and it will tough for him in a hostile, playoff atmosphere to put the team on his shoulders.  If he does, he will solidify himself as a franchise quarterback.  But for the Steelers, Roethlisberger has already done that.

The Pick: Steelers 14, Jags 13

Redskins at Seahawkstaylor

I’ve been saying all year that the Redskins stink.  I couldn’t believe the Eagles lost to them in Week 2 and I wasn’t surprised in the least when a 3-5 Eagles team (a week after getting plastered at home by Dallas) went to Washington and beat them in Week 10.  I stand by that.  They were not a good team.  But now they have two giant ‘X-Factors’ working in their favor:  Sean Taylor and Todd Collins.  Yup, a dead guy and a quarterback that hadn’t started an NFL game since 1997.  Makes sense, right?

Now, I’m not a huge believer in these ‘Tragedy strikes, Team starts winning’ stories.  For every team that “Won One for the Gipper”, you could point to another team where people were saying, “Well, they’re losing because they’re emotionally worn down”, or something like that.  But there are these facts:  Prior to Taylor’s funeral on December 3rd, the Skins had lost 5 of 6 games, with the one win being in overtime against the 4-12 Jets.  Since December 3rd, they have won four straight, including road wins over the Giants and Vikings.

Now, if you’re not a believer in the ‘inspirational’ explanation for that turnaround, there is another (probably better) explanation:  Collins taking over at quarterback at the start of this four-game winning streak.  After an injury to starter Jason Campbell, Collins came out of nowhere to win NFC Offensive Player of the Month honors for December. collins His quarterback rating of 106.4 is almost 30 points higher than Campbell’s and the team went from averaging 19 points/game with Campbell, to 26 with Collins under center.  I watched the Skins win over Dallas last weekend and Collins was really impressive.  Troy Aikman, commentating for the game, was constantly showing replays of Collins releasing the ball long before a receiver was open, only to have the ball drop right in their hands just as they broke into a seam.  I’m not saying he looked like Tom Brady, but he was doing things you don’t see from Campbell.  Basically, I think Collins gives the Skins a shot in this game.

Meanwhile, the Seahawks will also count on a big game from their quarterback, Matt Hasselbeck.  Les Carpenter, of the Washington Post, writes that the Seahawks season turned around when Mike Holmgren decided to abandon a balanced offense and start throwing the ball more and more.  With the team at 4-4 and Shaun Alexander showing that he’s past his prime, Holmgren decided to put the offense on Hasselbeck’s shoulders and his team went 6-2 in the second half of the season.

Like the Jags-Steelers, home-field advantage will play a key role in this game.  Seattle is a surprisingly tough place to play, with the stadium being considered one of the loudest in the league.  The Redskins have those ‘X-Factors’ working in their favor and they’re a popular upset pick in this game, but I think the difference will ultimately be the coaching.  I don’t think Joe Gibbs can be trusted anymore and I expect Holmgren to out-maneuver him.

The Pick: Seahawks 27, Redskins 23             

   

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Tell Me I’m Crazy (Part 1)

Posted on January 4, 2008 by bry

Okay, I have been away for a while now (planning a wedding 500 miles away is not exactly easy), so I probably have a bunch of pent-up opinions just itching to get ignored.  In fact, I have a three-part version of “Tell Me I’m Crazy” to unload because, well, I am not really smart.

I understand that the goal of every NFL team every season is to win the Super Bowl.  In the end, when it comes to American football, every franchise, every player, every coach, every stadium, every city, every generation of fans is defined by one thing and one thing only–how many Super Bowls have you won? 

I also understand that the ends justify the means in this vein.  In other words, it does not matter–at all–how you accomplish this.  The Super Bowl champion is the most successful franchise each and every year.

With all of that being said, tell me I’m crazy.  I think that, if I were the Patriots, I would rather lose the Super Bowl than any of the regular season games.  I know that I am probably in a minority of one here, but I really think that the undefeated regular season is accomplishment enough to warrant jeopardizing a Super Bowl title.

Now, obviously, the Patriots did not have to make that choice because they have a very good chance to get both.  However, I think that in the annals of NFL history, a 16-0 season without a Super Bowl title will be more historical, more memorable and, dare I say, more impressive than a 15-1 season with the Super Bowl title.  I will try and make the case for each

1). More Historical–This is an easy case to make.  There have been 41 years in the Super Bowl era.  Forty-one times has a team won the Super Bowl.  Two times has a team had an undefeated regular season.  I recognize the arguments against this.  I recognize that catcher’s interference, though extraordinarily more rare, is not preferable to a home run.  Either way, this undefeated season, obviously, is something for the record books.

2). More Memorable–History, in itself, is memorable.  But, over and above the historical significance, this accomplishment is utterly more memorable than a non-undefeated team winning a Super Bowl.  This should be another obvious point, but in case you do not agree, think to yourself:  Who won the Super Bowl ten years ago?  What about twenty?  Thirty?  Now, think about ten, twenty, even thirty years from now, is there ANY chance that you do not remember that the Patriots were the team that went 16-0 in 2007?  I doubt it.

3). More impressive–This is the tough one and the crux of the entire debate.  I do, however, believe that winning 16 regular season games is a more impressive season than winning the Super Bowl, despite a loss–and a lot of why I think this is because of the above.  Why do you want to win the Super Bowl?  Why is it the ultimate accomplishment?  Because you strive for history.  You strive to be “the best.”  I think the 16-0 shows that more than winning three straight in January.  It shows that you showed up every week and played.  It shows that you defeated any adversity.  And, it shows that for 17 straight weeks, you were the best.  Someone wins the Super Bowl every year.  A team goes undefeated about once every 25 years.

Tell me I’m crazy…

Posted in Tell Me I'm Crazy | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Tell Me I’m Crazy (Part B)

Posted on January 4, 2008 by bry

Are we going to wake up in 20 years to find out the the NFL is really just a glorified WWF (and I don’t mean the World Wildlife Federation, I mean the league currently known as the WWE)?  Is it scripted like some kind of sick male soap opera?

Now, I know that the NFL is the most successful sports league in North America.  I also know that the best way to utterly destroy that is to “fix” anything.  So, yes, I am crazy, but tell me you weren’t thinking that when you saw Tom Brady make a bad, but catchable throw to Randy Moss, who dropped it, then the very next play Brady throws a perfect strike to a WIDE-OPEN Moss clinching 16-0, Brady’s passing TD record and Moss’s receiving TD record.  The only reason that isn’t the most historically significant play in the history of the league is if the plot was predetermined.

Tell me I’m crazy…

Posted in Tell Me I'm Crazy | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Tell Me I’m Crazy (Part III)

Posted on January 4, 2008 by bry

It should not be the “Big 6” in college basketball because the Atlantic 10 is clearly a major conference.

FACT:  There are 7 programs in Division 1 basketball history that have 1,600 wins.  Here are the conferences that those seven teams represent:
-ACC (2)
-Big East (2)
-SEC
-Big XII
-Atlantic 10

FACT:  Since 1995-96, only two conferences in the nation has produced at least THREE national players of the year:  The ACC and the Atlantic 10.  In fact, the Big East, Big Ten, Pac 10, and SEC have all combined for ZERO over that stretch–a period of time when the A-10 has had three!

Yes, all that is history, but what about today?
FACTS:
-Dayton is ranked #20 in the current AP poll.  The Flyers are 12-1, including a 5-point road win at then-ranked #11 Louisville and a 80-55 shellacking of #6 Pittsburgh.
-Rhode Island is ranked #24 in the current AP poll.  The Rams are 14-1, including a 17-point home win over Providence and road wins over UAB and Syracuse.
-Xavier is unranked, but many believe is the best team in the conference.  They are 10-3, with their only losses coming at Miami (OH), at Arizona State and a neutral site loss against #12 Tennessee.  They also can boast a 15-point win over #8 Indiana.
-UMass is 11-2.  Duquesne is 10-3.  And, Charlotte, St. Louis, St. Joe’s and Richmond are all teams with good programs and solid 2007-08 teams.  Temple and George Washington may be down, but still very dangerous.  Fordham is improving.  LaSalle and St. Bonaventure are no longer complete doormats.  This league is solid from top to bottom.

Look, I will not dare make the claim that the A-10 is any better than the 7th best conference in the country.  My only big issue is where you draw the line between “major” and “mid-major.”  Maybe it belongs in its own category because it does not really hold up to any of the Big 6, but with multiple bids nearly every year, 3 national POYs in the last 11 seasons (more than any other conference) and solid programs top to bottom, this conference is not the MAC, it is not the Horizon and it is not even the heralded Missouri Valley or Colonial Conferences.  Though, I am a huge proponent of the “little guys” in college hoops, the A-10 is, in my opinion, clearly MUCH closer to the #6 conference than the #8 conference, and should, therefore, not be considered “mid-major.”

Tell me I’m crazy…
 

Posted in College Hoops, Tell Me I'm Crazy | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments