So Pat Robertson has decided that the Denver Broncos treated Tim Tebow poorly. They cast him off when they signed Peyton Manning. They traded him for cash and fourth- and sixth-round draft picks. Honestly, the only reason Robertson even cares about this is because of Tebow's over-publicized Christianity. If this were any other player, let alone quarterback, in any sport, Robertson wouldn't have a clue. Looking at the deal, the Broncos let Tebow have a say in where he was traded. He chose the New York Jets. Most players, when they are traded can usually veto a trade if they don't like it, but don't get to choose where they go. The Broncos treated their sub-par quarterback better than most other players get treated in any sport.
Robertson also said that it would be fitting if Manning were to get injured. This from a religious leader. However, as with most religious leaders, they don't exactly practice any of the real tenets of Christ. At least Robertson is consistent.
Was it because they traded him to a team that they knew would put him on the bench? Tebow wouldn't start for any team in the league once Denver got Manning. He ranked last in completion percentage, the only quarterback with 200 or more attempts to complete less than half of them. His completion percentage last season was 46.5%. His QB rating was 72.9, good enough for 28th of the 34 qualifying quarterbacks. Yay, he went 7-4 in the regular season and 1-1 in the playoffs, which in and of itself is ridiculous. As for the 7-4 part, let's look at the games: Overtime against an as of yet winless Dolphins team; a win against a .500 Oakland team still orienting a new quarterback; a 7 point win over a Kansas City team that would lose a starting quarterback, lose to a winless Dolphins team, and fire their head coach by seasons end (Tebow would complete 2 passes that whole game); a .500 Jets team, a 4-7 Chargers team; the 2-10 Vikings by 3 points; and the only team in the regular season with a winning record to lose to Tebow, the Cutlerless Chicago Bears, who would also lose to the anemically scoring Chiefs. All of those victories except the win against Kansas City, the Broncos had to come from behind, scoring in the fourth quarter. Once teams looked at Tebow and realized that he was just running on them, not so much beating them with any sort of air game (Denver would finish 31st out of 32 teams in passing, but first in rushing), the Broncos were beatable. Even the quarterback who everyone called for Tebow to replace, Kyle Orton, got revenge when the Chiefs beat Denver in the regular season finale.
The Denver defense, inconsistent as it was, kept the Broncos close enough and stayed energized enough to lock down the fourth quarter. They'd make big plays after adjustments in the second half. In games where the Broncos lost, the defense didn't play well. New England just flat out exploited them. Detroit moved the ball at will, as did a late-season Buffalo team. The defense played poorly those games; Tebow played like Tebow in every game. In some games, the defense had kept them close enough to come back. They couldn't do that against strong teams like the Lions, Patriots, and, lesser extent, Bills. The Kansas City defense came alive for new coach Romeo Crennel and locked down on Denver for the entire four quarters. The key was when Tebow would get out in space, the linebackers would rush him and he'd pass over them. Once teams realized that Tebow couldn't throw, they'd let him run, get across the line of scrimmage, and then drill him for little or no gain. Once defenses started playing this way, and loading 7-8 men in the box, but not blitzing, Denver started losing. Pittsburgh's blitz wacky defense leads to some entertaining plays, but big blitzing also gives up big plays (like an 80 yd touchdown pass to open overtime).
Going back to why Robertson even cares. Tebow is Super-Christian. He wears his religion on his sleeve but we can't talk about it if it is negative. Charles P. Pierce does a good job looking at it for Grantland.com. Robertson is another Christian who likes to beat people over the head with his religion. Where was his outrage when Kurt Warner (a Christian who would tell you if you asked but not flaunt it) was let go by the St. Louis Rams? Or Emmit Smith being traded to the Arizona Cardinals with very little fanfare? Or Reverend Reggie White going to Green Bay? Or San Francisco firing Christian coach Mike Singletary?
The only reason that Robertson even cares was because it really was miracles that provided Denver with wins. Now they have a legitimate shot at real victories over teams with better records that .500. They don't need miracles to win; they have a quarterback with skill.
As a Chiefs fan, I was really disappointed that Manning chose Denver. KC now has to play him twice a season and compete with him for the division. I was kind of rooting for KC's young defense to get in and hit him around Denver's weaker defensive line. However, I despise Robertson more than I despise the Broncos. I don't want Manning to get injured. I'll actually find myself wanting to root for Denver (when they're not playing KC or going for the same playoff spot). And really, Manning is aging for an NFL quarterback. Chances are, unless he goes Favre on us, he's only got 3 years, tops left in him. With a surgically repaired neck/spine, combined with his age and weak offensive line, an injury isn't entirely out of the question. For Robertson to call for one, if it does actually happen, he'll chalk it up to God. Honestly, the God I worship doesn't work that way, Pat.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
So a Sports Guy Walks into an Anthropology Conference...
Wooo, spring break in Pendleton, Oregon. It didn't suck. I'm so glad I didn't have any money riding on the Final Four; my brackets look like the poor mangled wrecks that BigFoot used to run over. Seriously, two number 15 seeds into the round of 32?
Why was I at The Wild Horse Casino for spring break? Why, for the NorthWest Anthropological Conference of 2012, of course. The Sports Fiancee is an aspiring anthropologist who contributed research to one of the presentations at the aforementioned NWAC. I, being an aspiring linguist (among other things) tagged along and went to some of the presentations, especially those on linguistic anthropology.
What the hell does this have to do with sports? Well, one of the great things about English and anthropology is that we can study/write about just about anything. I went to a talk on the Bacon Phenomenon. I also went to a talk about Sportscasters' language in sports. I found the title interesting and decided that this would be more fun than losing money at the slots or crying in my beer at the sports bar as my brackets were taken out behind the woodshed and put down like a rabid chihuahua.
One of the points of said paper/presentation was to lament the use of language by sportscasters to describe role players in college and professional basketball. Looking at how much the announcers would talk about the stars on the teams vs. said role players, how much playing time one would get vs. the others, and how the players were talked about. The presenter used Marxist theory to point out that the sportscasters are using language to keep this lower/working class of basketball player down.
This also piqued my interest. Are we keeping these "noble savages," to use a phrase now frowned upon in anthropological as well as literary circles, from achieving their full potential by not talking about them as much as the Kobe Bryants, LeBron Jameses, or Derrick Roses of the basketball world? Are we infringing on their rights as people and basketball players to be treated with dignity and respect? Are we hindering their eventual earning potential by not highlighting them and giving them as much playing time as the previously mentioned stars? Are we $^&#ing stupid?!
Do the NBA and NCAA need more reasons for us not to really care about watching? Yes, there is a discrepancy between your mega stars and bench players. Commentators talk about the stars more because they play more. They play more because they are better players. Go fig, teams that want to win keep their stars in until the game is far enough out of reach that they are no longer needed. Kobe is averaging 38.8 minutes per game this season, LeBron is averaging 37.6 minutes, and Rose is averaging 35.6. Note that I didn't really have to use their full names because if you have even a passing knowledge of NBA basketball you know Kobe and LeBron. A regulation (non-overtime game is 48 minutes). This means that, not surprisingly, these three players play a bulk of their teams minutes at their position. Would we want to watch the Lakers with Andrew Goudelock playing at shooting guard? Do you think he scores as much as Kobe? Do you even know who the hell he is? What about Shane Battier, LeBron's back up. He, at least, is the foil to the "they don't talk about role players" argument. Battier has been written about quite a bit. Rose's bad back and toe have led to his replacement, C.J. Watson, having more playing time to a point we've also heard of him beyond passing (if you pay attention to the NBA).
We watch to watch stars. Arguably, that's the whole reason we have All-Star games. The NBA suffered a HUGE drop in popularity after Michael Jordan's three retirements. The championship runs of the San Antonio Spurs led to drops in NBA Finals ratings. It wasn't because the Spurs were a bad team. The fact they have multiple championships illustrates quite the opposite. But they aren't flashy. Tim Duncan, their star center during the duration is a fundamental player. He will kill you and he will kill you by the book. Manu Ginobli and Tony Parker make great plays, but they don't do it with flash. They don't rock the boat (Kobe, LeBron) they get out and do their jobs. Like it or not, Kobe, LeBron, Kevin Durrant, Rose, the Chris Paul/Blake Griffin duo are the faces of the NBA. They are the stars. They have their own highlights nightly on SportsCenter or YouTube. And we tune in to watch.
Are we going to watch highlights of Adam Morrison (deep bench warmer who has 2 more rings than you or I do) for the Lakers when he averaged a whopping 7.8 minutes per game in 2010? Is anyone outside of the Spokane area going to care that Morrison even made it to the NBA? It isn't some Machiavellian plot to keep Morrison down. It is because he didn't really play an NBA caliber game. Announcers talking about an Adam Morrison either don't use his name ("Lakers emptying the bench now") because most fans won't know it anyway or they don't use it because then they'd have to stop and tell you who the hell he is.
One of the complaints the anthropological presentation made was that role players are reduced to their roles. The particular phrase "the coach is putting in a couple of big bodies" irked the presenter. He thought that these players were being reduced to their limited role in the defense (maybe offense) to take up space, get rebounds, and hinder close shots. I have to ask if the speaker would have been offended if the statement was "the coach is putting in Purdue and Worthington for a couple of big bodies." Does that make the statement any less offensive because we know the names of the two individuals we've never heard of? What if the statement was "the coach is putting Shaquille O'Neal and David Robinson, for a couple of big bodies?" Does it make a difference if we know their names when they are Hall-Of-Famers? We've actually heard of them. Viewers who had a working knowledge of the NBA at the time would recognize the two. So why wouldn't it be offensive to call them a couple of big bodies?
Why are announcers going to spend time talking about a guy who's on the bench all but 7 minutes of the game unless he just tripped someone or got a technical for storming the court or some other boneheaded play? Describing why these players are coming in (couple of big bodies, 3-point specialist, defensive specialist) lets us know what the role is of these players who we've never seen. Most of the announcers actually do use players names when they are talking about them. They don't simply say "New Jersey's Center" (I have no idea who he is starter or otherwise, New Jersey isn't nationally broadcast and isn't really a very good team anymore, either) they say (pause to look it up) "Shelden Williams is checking in," or "heading to the bench" or "shooting an ill-advised three."
The speaker also complained about these poor players being pigeonholed into their positions. Seriously, are we going to have a debate as to why a 7 footer shouldn't play point guard? Or why Jeremy Lin shouldn't try his hand at power forward? Sometimes your body actually does define your job. Watching Shaquille O'Neal try to dribble down the court was amusing from the side but terrifying from the view in front. As evidenced here...note the bench finding it hilarious. Imagine Shaq bringing the ball down the court in a set play. If an actual point guard moved up to guard him, Shaq would either have to pick up the dribble and pass or the point guard (some of whom could stand under Shaq's dribble) would easily steal the ball and be off to the races the other way.
Bottom line newsflash: Players are not equal. You don't treat a pawn like a queen in chess; you don't treat a role player like a star in basketball; you don't treat a center like a point guard. All men are not created equal in the sports world. It is a fact. It is the way things are. If all men were equal skillwise, and everyone was equal with Michael Jordan, games would be closer and a hell of a lot more amusing to watch. Trade rumors would be non-existent because trades would be non-existent. I'll trade you this player who is perfectly equal to that player wouldn't make sense at all. Fantasy sports would be boring or equally nonexistent.
The language of basketball announcing reflects this nature. It isn't some insult or put down to a player if they are referred to as a "big body" or "defense specialist." It is defining the role of that player on the team. That player has a job to do within that association. The sportscasters are simply filling in those of us following along at home what that role is. Some roles are not needed as often as others. With a slight lead late in games, stars who were liabilities at the free throw line (Shaq) would be on the bench while five free throw shooters were on the floor. In many cases, teams would go with either five guards or have a small forward mixed in. Some of these guys wouldn't play all game, but would be in to shoot free throws during the final two minutes of a game. In this case, the game is on the line with "scrub" players in. And stars on the bench. Equal? No. Part of the sport? Yes.
Why was I at The Wild Horse Casino for spring break? Why, for the NorthWest Anthropological Conference of 2012, of course. The Sports Fiancee is an aspiring anthropologist who contributed research to one of the presentations at the aforementioned NWAC. I, being an aspiring linguist (among other things) tagged along and went to some of the presentations, especially those on linguistic anthropology.
What the hell does this have to do with sports? Well, one of the great things about English and anthropology is that we can study/write about just about anything. I went to a talk on the Bacon Phenomenon. I also went to a talk about Sportscasters' language in sports. I found the title interesting and decided that this would be more fun than losing money at the slots or crying in my beer at the sports bar as my brackets were taken out behind the woodshed and put down like a rabid chihuahua.
One of the points of said paper/presentation was to lament the use of language by sportscasters to describe role players in college and professional basketball. Looking at how much the announcers would talk about the stars on the teams vs. said role players, how much playing time one would get vs. the others, and how the players were talked about. The presenter used Marxist theory to point out that the sportscasters are using language to keep this lower/working class of basketball player down.
This also piqued my interest. Are we keeping these "noble savages," to use a phrase now frowned upon in anthropological as well as literary circles, from achieving their full potential by not talking about them as much as the Kobe Bryants, LeBron Jameses, or Derrick Roses of the basketball world? Are we infringing on their rights as people and basketball players to be treated with dignity and respect? Are we hindering their eventual earning potential by not highlighting them and giving them as much playing time as the previously mentioned stars? Are we $^&#ing stupid?!
Do the NBA and NCAA need more reasons for us not to really care about watching? Yes, there is a discrepancy between your mega stars and bench players. Commentators talk about the stars more because they play more. They play more because they are better players. Go fig, teams that want to win keep their stars in until the game is far enough out of reach that they are no longer needed. Kobe is averaging 38.8 minutes per game this season, LeBron is averaging 37.6 minutes, and Rose is averaging 35.6. Note that I didn't really have to use their full names because if you have even a passing knowledge of NBA basketball you know Kobe and LeBron. A regulation (non-overtime game is 48 minutes). This means that, not surprisingly, these three players play a bulk of their teams minutes at their position. Would we want to watch the Lakers with Andrew Goudelock playing at shooting guard? Do you think he scores as much as Kobe? Do you even know who the hell he is? What about Shane Battier, LeBron's back up. He, at least, is the foil to the "they don't talk about role players" argument. Battier has been written about quite a bit. Rose's bad back and toe have led to his replacement, C.J. Watson, having more playing time to a point we've also heard of him beyond passing (if you pay attention to the NBA).
We watch to watch stars. Arguably, that's the whole reason we have All-Star games. The NBA suffered a HUGE drop in popularity after Michael Jordan's three retirements. The championship runs of the San Antonio Spurs led to drops in NBA Finals ratings. It wasn't because the Spurs were a bad team. The fact they have multiple championships illustrates quite the opposite. But they aren't flashy. Tim Duncan, their star center during the duration is a fundamental player. He will kill you and he will kill you by the book. Manu Ginobli and Tony Parker make great plays, but they don't do it with flash. They don't rock the boat (Kobe, LeBron) they get out and do their jobs. Like it or not, Kobe, LeBron, Kevin Durrant, Rose, the Chris Paul/Blake Griffin duo are the faces of the NBA. They are the stars. They have their own highlights nightly on SportsCenter or YouTube. And we tune in to watch.
Are we going to watch highlights of Adam Morrison (deep bench warmer who has 2 more rings than you or I do) for the Lakers when he averaged a whopping 7.8 minutes per game in 2010? Is anyone outside of the Spokane area going to care that Morrison even made it to the NBA? It isn't some Machiavellian plot to keep Morrison down. It is because he didn't really play an NBA caliber game. Announcers talking about an Adam Morrison either don't use his name ("Lakers emptying the bench now") because most fans won't know it anyway or they don't use it because then they'd have to stop and tell you who the hell he is.
One of the complaints the anthropological presentation made was that role players are reduced to their roles. The particular phrase "the coach is putting in a couple of big bodies" irked the presenter. He thought that these players were being reduced to their limited role in the defense (maybe offense) to take up space, get rebounds, and hinder close shots. I have to ask if the speaker would have been offended if the statement was "the coach is putting in Purdue and Worthington for a couple of big bodies." Does that make the statement any less offensive because we know the names of the two individuals we've never heard of? What if the statement was "the coach is putting Shaquille O'Neal and David Robinson, for a couple of big bodies?" Does it make a difference if we know their names when they are Hall-Of-Famers? We've actually heard of them. Viewers who had a working knowledge of the NBA at the time would recognize the two. So why wouldn't it be offensive to call them a couple of big bodies?
Why are announcers going to spend time talking about a guy who's on the bench all but 7 minutes of the game unless he just tripped someone or got a technical for storming the court or some other boneheaded play? Describing why these players are coming in (couple of big bodies, 3-point specialist, defensive specialist) lets us know what the role is of these players who we've never seen. Most of the announcers actually do use players names when they are talking about them. They don't simply say "New Jersey's Center" (I have no idea who he is starter or otherwise, New Jersey isn't nationally broadcast and isn't really a very good team anymore, either) they say (pause to look it up) "Shelden Williams is checking in," or "heading to the bench" or "shooting an ill-advised three."
The speaker also complained about these poor players being pigeonholed into their positions. Seriously, are we going to have a debate as to why a 7 footer shouldn't play point guard? Or why Jeremy Lin shouldn't try his hand at power forward? Sometimes your body actually does define your job. Watching Shaquille O'Neal try to dribble down the court was amusing from the side but terrifying from the view in front. As evidenced here...note the bench finding it hilarious. Imagine Shaq bringing the ball down the court in a set play. If an actual point guard moved up to guard him, Shaq would either have to pick up the dribble and pass or the point guard (some of whom could stand under Shaq's dribble) would easily steal the ball and be off to the races the other way.
Bottom line newsflash: Players are not equal. You don't treat a pawn like a queen in chess; you don't treat a role player like a star in basketball; you don't treat a center like a point guard. All men are not created equal in the sports world. It is a fact. It is the way things are. If all men were equal skillwise, and everyone was equal with Michael Jordan, games would be closer and a hell of a lot more amusing to watch. Trade rumors would be non-existent because trades would be non-existent. I'll trade you this player who is perfectly equal to that player wouldn't make sense at all. Fantasy sports would be boring or equally nonexistent.
The language of basketball announcing reflects this nature. It isn't some insult or put down to a player if they are referred to as a "big body" or "defense specialist." It is defining the role of that player on the team. That player has a job to do within that association. The sportscasters are simply filling in those of us following along at home what that role is. Some roles are not needed as often as others. With a slight lead late in games, stars who were liabilities at the free throw line (Shaq) would be on the bench while five free throw shooters were on the floor. In many cases, teams would go with either five guards or have a small forward mixed in. Some of these guys wouldn't play all game, but would be in to shoot free throws during the final two minutes of a game. In this case, the game is on the line with "scrub" players in. And stars on the bench. Equal? No. Part of the sport? Yes.
Monday, February 20, 2012
No Sports in a Sports City
Ah, Seattle.
Home of the 12th man in Football.
Home of the Mariners, where one pitcher has his own section of fans.
Home of MLS's Sounders.
Home of no NBA teams since 2008.
Seattle is one of the towns who has a constant buzz about their teams. They are the city who cheered so loud during a football game, the nearby university (U of Washington) registered a 3-point earthquake. This is a city that has Mariners memorabilia everywhere, even during these last few leans years. There is still Supersonics memorabilia around this city even after being abandoned nearly four years ago. Sorry, Oklahoma City, I grew up in one of your suburbs (Mustang), but I will never root for your Thunder, the team that used to be the Supersonics. In a time where so many NBA teams are so mismanaged and so many fans need to dredge care out of Give A Fuck Bay in order to even care about the local NBA team, the NBA pulled out of a city that genuinely cared about their team.
There is a proposal in Seattle to build a new stadium. SafeCo Field is state of the art and friggin awesome! QWest, now Century Link (the Clink) are state of the art. And now the city of Starbucks and Microsoft takes aim at once again getting an NBA team. Or possibly an NHL team, or, heaven forbid, both. But Seattle is still classy. They've been the jilted lovers. They don't want to take another city's team. The downside to that is that, after the recent lockout, the operating losses for mid-and small market teams (seriously, if you can't manage to make money in American sports, for the love of God, never breed), and the low attendance for teams, it is highly unlikely that Stern and company are going to be in any shape for expansion.
Right now, the NBA owns one of its own teams (don't get me started on Stern's meddling in the CP3 trade) in the New Orleans Hornets (who packed up and ran out of Charlotte in 2002). Since New Orleans did just trade CP3 (the fact that they did isn't what gets my hackles up, but that Owner's Monkey Stern blocked the trade because Paul would have gone to a major market, only to trade him to the same major market, just another team) the Hornets have gone way downhill. Since they won against Linsantiy and the Knicks on Friday, the Hornets are all the way up to 7 victories. Attendance is down because their best player is now the LA Clippers best player. New Orleans is riding high on the successes of the Saints, but with no baseball, New Orleans would feel the hurt of going back to being a one sport city. They would also be one of the cities to have two NBA teams leave (the Jazz moved to Utah in 1979 because, you know, when I think Jazz, I think Utah).
Another possibility of a team for Seattle is one that has practically moved out of their stadium and turned off the lights already--the Sacramento Kings. What could be better for King County than to have the Kings play NBA ball in Seattle. If Sacramento doesn't build a new stadium, the Kings are gone. They almost moved to (you guessed it) LA (Anaheim) putting 3, count 'em 3! NBA teams in the LA area! And Owner's Monkey Stern has already all but signed off on it. Sacramento hasn't been relevant in the NBA since the Clinton administration. But they suddenly have a core of young talent (if they can afford to pay them once their rookie contracts are up) to build on. If the Kings are already gone, then why not go to King County, Washington? They want a new stadium, Seattle is building it. They want a new city that is growing despite the economy? Seattle is still booming away.
My trip to Seattle this month was strangely subdued. This was my second time into the town when there were no major sports going on. The first time, I didn't know enough about the pulse of the city to be able to tell. But this time, after visiting the city during the height of baseball season last June and baseball/football last September, Seattle felt more subdued. People were excited about seafood and Pike Place, which are normal tourist busy points. The area was buzzing about a recent visit by Andrew Zimmer and Bizarre Foods on the Travel Channel, which had aired the week before my own trip. But the stadiums were still. The Sodo district (where all three current Seattle teams play) was quiet. There was a Presidents of the United States of America concert, but even that was downtown. Key Arena was silent. The nearby Space Needle and Experience Music Project being a bigger draw.
There are always things to do in Seattle. But when the sports are done, there isn't a unity that comes with the support of a team. There isn't a feeling of citywide celebration, even being there on the weekend before Mardi Gras, that comes with a sports team when they are bringin it. Seattle is one of the cities that needs, needs needs sports year round. Right now, there is nothing between January NFL and St. Paddy's day when the Sounders start up again.
Move the Kings, move the Hornets (and for the love of God, rename them), or resurrect the Sonics, but bring the NBA back to Seattle.
And, as always, send Stern packing.
Home of the 12th man in Football.
Home of the Mariners, where one pitcher has his own section of fans.
Home of MLS's Sounders.
Home of no NBA teams since 2008.
Seattle is one of the towns who has a constant buzz about their teams. They are the city who cheered so loud during a football game, the nearby university (U of Washington) registered a 3-point earthquake. This is a city that has Mariners memorabilia everywhere, even during these last few leans years. There is still Supersonics memorabilia around this city even after being abandoned nearly four years ago. Sorry, Oklahoma City, I grew up in one of your suburbs (Mustang), but I will never root for your Thunder, the team that used to be the Supersonics. In a time where so many NBA teams are so mismanaged and so many fans need to dredge care out of Give A Fuck Bay in order to even care about the local NBA team, the NBA pulled out of a city that genuinely cared about their team.
There is a proposal in Seattle to build a new stadium. SafeCo Field is state of the art and friggin awesome! QWest, now Century Link (the Clink) are state of the art. And now the city of Starbucks and Microsoft takes aim at once again getting an NBA team. Or possibly an NHL team, or, heaven forbid, both. But Seattle is still classy. They've been the jilted lovers. They don't want to take another city's team. The downside to that is that, after the recent lockout, the operating losses for mid-and small market teams (seriously, if you can't manage to make money in American sports, for the love of God, never breed), and the low attendance for teams, it is highly unlikely that Stern and company are going to be in any shape for expansion.
Right now, the NBA owns one of its own teams (don't get me started on Stern's meddling in the CP3 trade) in the New Orleans Hornets (who packed up and ran out of Charlotte in 2002). Since New Orleans did just trade CP3 (the fact that they did isn't what gets my hackles up, but that Owner's Monkey Stern blocked the trade because Paul would have gone to a major market, only to trade him to the same major market, just another team) the Hornets have gone way downhill. Since they won against Linsantiy and the Knicks on Friday, the Hornets are all the way up to 7 victories. Attendance is down because their best player is now the LA Clippers best player. New Orleans is riding high on the successes of the Saints, but with no baseball, New Orleans would feel the hurt of going back to being a one sport city. They would also be one of the cities to have two NBA teams leave (the Jazz moved to Utah in 1979 because, you know, when I think Jazz, I think Utah).
Another possibility of a team for Seattle is one that has practically moved out of their stadium and turned off the lights already--the Sacramento Kings. What could be better for King County than to have the Kings play NBA ball in Seattle. If Sacramento doesn't build a new stadium, the Kings are gone. They almost moved to (you guessed it) LA (Anaheim) putting 3, count 'em 3! NBA teams in the LA area! And Owner's Monkey Stern has already all but signed off on it. Sacramento hasn't been relevant in the NBA since the Clinton administration. But they suddenly have a core of young talent (if they can afford to pay them once their rookie contracts are up) to build on. If the Kings are already gone, then why not go to King County, Washington? They want a new stadium, Seattle is building it. They want a new city that is growing despite the economy? Seattle is still booming away.
My trip to Seattle this month was strangely subdued. This was my second time into the town when there were no major sports going on. The first time, I didn't know enough about the pulse of the city to be able to tell. But this time, after visiting the city during the height of baseball season last June and baseball/football last September, Seattle felt more subdued. People were excited about seafood and Pike Place, which are normal tourist busy points. The area was buzzing about a recent visit by Andrew Zimmer and Bizarre Foods on the Travel Channel, which had aired the week before my own trip. But the stadiums were still. The Sodo district (where all three current Seattle teams play) was quiet. There was a Presidents of the United States of America concert, but even that was downtown. Key Arena was silent. The nearby Space Needle and Experience Music Project being a bigger draw.
There are always things to do in Seattle. But when the sports are done, there isn't a unity that comes with the support of a team. There isn't a feeling of citywide celebration, even being there on the weekend before Mardi Gras, that comes with a sports team when they are bringin it. Seattle is one of the cities that needs, needs needs sports year round. Right now, there is nothing between January NFL and St. Paddy's day when the Sounders start up again.
Move the Kings, move the Hornets (and for the love of God, rename them), or resurrect the Sonics, but bring the NBA back to Seattle.
And, as always, send Stern packing.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
More Karma (?) in Sports...Beware Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Bill Belichick has lost another Super Bowl. That means he is now 3-2 as a head coach in the Big Game. He is 0-2 since SpyGate.
Gregg Easterbrook who writes Tuesday Morning Quarterback, one of my regular weekly reads during the football season, here, links SpyGate and Belichick's Super Bowl losses to the Football Gods raging against him. They rage because he has never admitted that it was outright cheating, but only a "misinterpretation of the rules."
There is a correlation between the two. Before SpyGate, Belichick was undefeated in the Super Bowl. But is it Karma and the Football Gods catching up to him that has put the Patriots at home while another team gets a NFL Championship Parade? I would suggest several other factors before crediting the Football Gods.
Disclaimer: I actually do believe in Karma. I invoked the Football Gods during the final rivalry game of U of I and Boise State when BSU was still throwing long bombs despite being up by five touchdowns. They lost to Nevada two weeks later and also lost any hope of playing in a major bowl game. It serves them right. But was it an angry Football God that made their kicker miss two easy ones?
On to Belichick. There are several other reasons why Belichick hasn't won the big one since SpyGate. Think about it, he was nigh unstoppable before they caught his cameraman...could it be because he HAD A CAMERAMAN ON THE OPPOSING SIDELINES?!?! And now he doesn't and he isn't unstoppable.
Belichick is a very good coach. He is intense, knows how to draft (or at least knew), and studies more than just the other team's players, but also coaches' tendencies as well. He plain outfoxed Fox in the first Denver meeting. But he hasn't done a lot of innovation lately. He is the IBM of the NFL (mmm, alphabet soup). He has stopped innovating. He throws different defensive looks at teams, but most teams have realized he doesn't have a dominant secondary anymore. They've realized he's stuck with an aging pass rush, too. New England's defense was among the worst in the NFL. But it's offense could carry it...against poor teams. Of the teams that New England beat in the regular season, only one finished with a winning record. Teams with decent defenses knew that Brady was going to drop back and pass...and pass...and pass. Name a starting running back for the Patriots...John Jacob Jingleheimer-Schmidt BenJarvis Green-Ellis? 667 yards rushing...sandwiched in the rushing leaders by Cam Newton (706) and Tim "Oh Dear God, Let's Not Keep Talking About Him" Tebow (660). Green-Ellis, New England's leading rusher was down there among the quarterbacks, running quarterbacks to be fair, but still quarterbacks. Teams knew what the Patriots were going to do. The teams that beat them, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and New York (twice), had defenses good enough to stop Brady. In the playoffs, the Ravens (who should have beaten the Pats if not for a shanked close field goal) also had a defense good enough to stop Brady. In the second half of the Super Bowl, the Giants were in nickel almost the entire time. How do you beat a nickel or dime? You rush. This is one case where a quarter rarely beats a nickel. Coughlin knew Belichick despised the run this year. He dared him to run. Belichick didn't/couldn't.
Belichick's former drafting greatness has fallen by the wayside as well. With the notable exception of Rob Gronkowski in the second round in 2010, he hasn't drafted a star or diamond in the rough in years. New England had a raft of first round draft picks and has another two in the upcoming draft. But they haven't been making headlines with their players. Belichick has even been credited with a few busts in recent years.
Another reason for the lack of trophies in Foxborough for the past 7 years could also be that the NFL is a copycat league. The wildcat has come and gone. We are again in a spread offense and running quarterback phase (Cam Newton meet Randall Cunningham). The NFL caught up to Belichick. They figure him out. Drew Brees had more yards passing than Brady did this season, even though both broke Dan Marino's single season record. In a game of Tecmo Bowl (1991 NES video game, for those of you not familiar) pass wacky offenses could work. Some teams didn't need running backs. Run heavy teams could also work. But that was a video game. If a team never rushes, they face a secondary that gets coverage sacks, like a few we saw Sunday. If a team is run heavy, they wind up facing seven or eight men in the box, like New England did to Denver during the regular season and playoffs. It became obvious that Belichick's innovative offense was pass wacky. Coughlin is a good enough coach to see that and plan for it. The Giants have a good enough defense to follow through on those plans.
Yeah, there might be some modicum of karma in sports. But don't assume for a minute that that was the only reason New York was victorious Sunday.
Gregg Easterbrook who writes Tuesday Morning Quarterback, one of my regular weekly reads during the football season, here, links SpyGate and Belichick's Super Bowl losses to the Football Gods raging against him. They rage because he has never admitted that it was outright cheating, but only a "misinterpretation of the rules."
There is a correlation between the two. Before SpyGate, Belichick was undefeated in the Super Bowl. But is it Karma and the Football Gods catching up to him that has put the Patriots at home while another team gets a NFL Championship Parade? I would suggest several other factors before crediting the Football Gods.
Disclaimer: I actually do believe in Karma. I invoked the Football Gods during the final rivalry game of U of I and Boise State when BSU was still throwing long bombs despite being up by five touchdowns. They lost to Nevada two weeks later and also lost any hope of playing in a major bowl game. It serves them right. But was it an angry Football God that made their kicker miss two easy ones?
On to Belichick. There are several other reasons why Belichick hasn't won the big one since SpyGate. Think about it, he was nigh unstoppable before they caught his cameraman...could it be because he HAD A CAMERAMAN ON THE OPPOSING SIDELINES?!?! And now he doesn't and he isn't unstoppable.
Belichick is a very good coach. He is intense, knows how to draft (or at least knew), and studies more than just the other team's players, but also coaches' tendencies as well. He plain outfoxed Fox in the first Denver meeting. But he hasn't done a lot of innovation lately. He is the IBM of the NFL (mmm, alphabet soup). He has stopped innovating. He throws different defensive looks at teams, but most teams have realized he doesn't have a dominant secondary anymore. They've realized he's stuck with an aging pass rush, too. New England's defense was among the worst in the NFL. But it's offense could carry it...against poor teams. Of the teams that New England beat in the regular season, only one finished with a winning record. Teams with decent defenses knew that Brady was going to drop back and pass...and pass...and pass. Name a starting running back for the Patriots...
Belichick's former drafting greatness has fallen by the wayside as well. With the notable exception of Rob Gronkowski in the second round in 2010, he hasn't drafted a star or diamond in the rough in years. New England had a raft of first round draft picks and has another two in the upcoming draft. But they haven't been making headlines with their players. Belichick has even been credited with a few busts in recent years.
Another reason for the lack of trophies in Foxborough for the past 7 years could also be that the NFL is a copycat league. The wildcat has come and gone. We are again in a spread offense and running quarterback phase (Cam Newton meet Randall Cunningham). The NFL caught up to Belichick. They figure him out. Drew Brees had more yards passing than Brady did this season, even though both broke Dan Marino's single season record. In a game of Tecmo Bowl (1991 NES video game, for those of you not familiar) pass wacky offenses could work. Some teams didn't need running backs. Run heavy teams could also work. But that was a video game. If a team never rushes, they face a secondary that gets coverage sacks, like a few we saw Sunday. If a team is run heavy, they wind up facing seven or eight men in the box, like New England did to Denver during the regular season and playoffs. It became obvious that Belichick's innovative offense was pass wacky. Coughlin is a good enough coach to see that and plan for it. The Giants have a good enough defense to follow through on those plans.
Yeah, there might be some modicum of karma in sports. But don't assume for a minute that that was the only reason New York was victorious Sunday.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
The Death of an Icon
Joe PA
JoePa is dead.
The winningest Division I college coach and the icon for longevity and loyalty to one institution died of lung cancer this morning/last night.
A pox upon Penn State! Penn State will now be the new Boston Red Sox pre-2004. The curse of JoePa will be the new Curse of the Bambino. The way that PSU let Paterno go, firing him in the aftermath of the breaking of the Sandusky accusations, will insure a pox upon the program.
Columnists (Easterbrook, Reilly) have pointed out the two-facedness of the PSU regents' actions. Their actions show that they had to know something. They threw Paterno under the bus but retained the two administrators (long enough that the university paid their legal fees for perjury) that Paterno did report the accusations to, the athletic director and then president of the university. Paterno cooperated in the investigation, the other two were tried for perjury for lying about their knowledge. But it was Paterno who was fired, even after announcing that he would retire at the end of the season.
Compare the PSU scandal against the Syracuse scandal. Syracuse stands by Bernie Fine and hasn't touched Jim Boeheim. There is damning evidence against Fine, recordings and even his wife knew about his inappropriate relationship with at least one ball boy. Paterno admitted he knew. Paterno went through college channels reporting the abuse when then Grad Assistant McCreary told him. And was fired. Should he have done more? Absolutely. Even he acknowledged that he should have done more. Everyone should have done more.
Then it came out that he was diagnosed with lung cancer. Then he broke his pelvis. With all the media attention, we practically watched the post-football decline of a man who's very nickname carries the nickname of the state where he coached for longer than some people live. He was at Penn State for 62 years, 46 as a head coach. How many people even work for 62 years? Let alone at one place. JoePa was Penn State. And they kicked him to the curb.
Do you know those people who are completely defined by their job--by what they do? Not in a bad way. Not in the I have to do this above and beyond anything and everything. But in the "that was what he was put on this earth to do" kind of way. Think Charles Schultz, the creator of Peanuts. Defined by Charlie Brown, Schultz died the same day the last new Peanuts strip ran. In an interview in 2008, a sportswriter asked him about life after football and the possibility of retirement. JoePa didn't know what he would do. Think about it. He had been doing football for 62 years at Penn State. That doesn't count playing at Brown. JoePa was football. Paterno responded to the question that he didn't know what he'd do after football. He was scared to think about life after football. As it turns out, there was only 77 days of life after football. JoePa didn't have to watch a Penn State game that he wasn't coaching after being fired.
After Paterno was fired, Penn State only won one game. Against a struggling, unranked Ohio State team that would later fire its own coach. Over the season, Penn State didn't beat a ranked team. Of course, the only ranked team that faced Paterno's Nittany Lions was Alabama, then ranked #2. The team was 8-1 when Paterno was fired. They finished 9-4. At least two highly ranked high school prospects withdrew commitments to Penn State.
Without JoePa, Penn State will fade into obscurity. Beyond talking about the Sandusky scandal, Penn State will be irrelevant. They will not be a highly ranked team. They will not play in any of the big bowls. They will not win another national championship.
They owed more to JoePa. Penn State has an all-time record of 827-360-43. 409 of those 827 wins were JoePa's. Only 136 of those losses were his. Only 3 of those ties were his. He put Penn State on the NCAA Football map.
He deserved more.
JoePa is dead.
The winningest Division I college coach and the icon for longevity and loyalty to one institution died of lung cancer this morning/last night.
A pox upon Penn State! Penn State will now be the new Boston Red Sox pre-2004. The curse of JoePa will be the new Curse of the Bambino. The way that PSU let Paterno go, firing him in the aftermath of the breaking of the Sandusky accusations, will insure a pox upon the program.
Columnists (Easterbrook, Reilly) have pointed out the two-facedness of the PSU regents' actions. Their actions show that they had to know something. They threw Paterno under the bus but retained the two administrators (long enough that the university paid their legal fees for perjury) that Paterno did report the accusations to, the athletic director and then president of the university. Paterno cooperated in the investigation, the other two were tried for perjury for lying about their knowledge. But it was Paterno who was fired, even after announcing that he would retire at the end of the season.
Compare the PSU scandal against the Syracuse scandal. Syracuse stands by Bernie Fine and hasn't touched Jim Boeheim. There is damning evidence against Fine, recordings and even his wife knew about his inappropriate relationship with at least one ball boy. Paterno admitted he knew. Paterno went through college channels reporting the abuse when then Grad Assistant McCreary told him. And was fired. Should he have done more? Absolutely. Even he acknowledged that he should have done more. Everyone should have done more.
Then it came out that he was diagnosed with lung cancer. Then he broke his pelvis. With all the media attention, we practically watched the post-football decline of a man who's very nickname carries the nickname of the state where he coached for longer than some people live. He was at Penn State for 62 years, 46 as a head coach. How many people even work for 62 years? Let alone at one place. JoePa was Penn State. And they kicked him to the curb.
Do you know those people who are completely defined by their job--by what they do? Not in a bad way. Not in the I have to do this above and beyond anything and everything. But in the "that was what he was put on this earth to do" kind of way. Think Charles Schultz, the creator of Peanuts. Defined by Charlie Brown, Schultz died the same day the last new Peanuts strip ran. In an interview in 2008, a sportswriter asked him about life after football and the possibility of retirement. JoePa didn't know what he would do. Think about it. He had been doing football for 62 years at Penn State. That doesn't count playing at Brown. JoePa was football. Paterno responded to the question that he didn't know what he'd do after football. He was scared to think about life after football. As it turns out, there was only 77 days of life after football. JoePa didn't have to watch a Penn State game that he wasn't coaching after being fired.
After Paterno was fired, Penn State only won one game. Against a struggling, unranked Ohio State team that would later fire its own coach. Over the season, Penn State didn't beat a ranked team. Of course, the only ranked team that faced Paterno's Nittany Lions was Alabama, then ranked #2. The team was 8-1 when Paterno was fired. They finished 9-4. At least two highly ranked high school prospects withdrew commitments to Penn State.
Without JoePa, Penn State will fade into obscurity. Beyond talking about the Sandusky scandal, Penn State will be irrelevant. They will not be a highly ranked team. They will not play in any of the big bowls. They will not win another national championship.They owed more to JoePa. Penn State has an all-time record of 827-360-43. 409 of those 827 wins were JoePa's. Only 136 of those losses were his. Only 3 of those ties were his. He put Penn State on the NCAA Football map.
He deserved more.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Linkage in Sports: Wins and Gods
Athletes thank God when they win. Some blame God over twitter when they don't (Buffalo Bills receiver Stevie Johnson here last year). Bob Costas and sportswriters tackle the thought from time to time and wonder if God really has anything to do with sports. A recent example is a look at Tim Tebow's faith by Charles R. Pierce here. Is God responsible for Tebow's success in the NFL this year? Is God responsible for Tebow's 6 game win streak that was broken Sunday by the New England Patriots? (More on them later). Could it maybe have been that they played a shaky Raider team playing with a new starting quarterback the first week? Could it maybe have been that they played an injury-riddled, struggling Chiefs team the second week? Could it maybe have been that they played a Jets team that is infamous for inconsistency the third week? Could it maybe have been that they played a San Diego team mired in one of their worst slumps with the current coach (Norv "I'm not quite sure what's going on" Turner) and quarterback (Philip "Cry me a" Rivers) in the fourth week? Could it maybe have been that they played a Minnesota team with two wins in the fifth week? Could it maybe have been that they played a Bears team without a starting quarterback or running back, with a quarterback who could play for Kansas City, he has been so futile, in the sixth week?
Then the Patriots came to town. Tebow finally faced a coach who knows what he is doing. Look at the six coaches Tebow has faced; Hue Jackson, a rookie coach, Todd Haley, who is now unemployed; a bragging blabbermouth in Rex Ryan who routinely blames his quarterback for Ryan's bad calls; Turner; Leslie Frazier (the team record speaks for itself); and Lovie Smith. Out of all of those coaches, I would only take Smith, who has coached in a Super Bowl (he lost to Peyton Manning).
But now, Tebow and coach John Fox faced the master, Bill Belichick. Even though the Patriots defense is one of the league worst, surprising for a Belichick team, they held the Denver Tebows to 23 points. To be fair, 23 points would have been enough to beat 4 of the 6 teams of suck that the Tebows had beaten the previous six weeks. But the Patriots scored 41 against the real reason the Tebows had won those games--the Tefense. The Denver defense kept games close even though the Tebow offense really just kind of sucked for three quarters in every game, and then came from behind on weird runs against tired defenses. Basically the Denver Tebows used high school tactics (run-run-run-run-long bomb...run-run-run long bomb) until the defense was tired in the fourth quarter. With a good defensive team like Denver has, they could apply this tactic. But against a Belichick offense that picks apart defenses? Not so much.
Belichick's team also figured out the way around the Tebow offense. Tebow scrambles; he is a very mobile quarterback. When he scrambles, teams react to try to hit him for a loss. When they do, they leave their receiver open for Tebow to hit with a short pass right over the defensive back-now-pass rusher. The Patriots figured out that if they let Tebow run until he crosses the line of scrimmage, they can then take free runs at him because he can no longer pass. Tebow would scramble and the db's wouldn't react. He would cross the line of scrimmage and then the linebackers and db's would collapse. This is what kept Tebow from being fully effective. An offense that was running on all cylinders came into Denver made it so that Tebow couldn't just run; he had to pass in order to try to catch up.
The Patriots exposed the Denver Tebows. They showed the weakness of the team. They didn't thwart the plans of a higher deity that prefers missionaries' sons over male models who happen to play QB. They didn't enter into some sort of cosmic theological contest for all of our souls. They played a football game.
That brings me back to the Patriots. Remember when they won the first Super Bowl after 9/11? When they were the good guys? They were the red-white-and-blue team who came back from a national tragedy and won a championship. Then came spygate in their taping the Jets sideline. Suddenly Belichick and the Patriots are the bad guys. They are still red-white-and-blue. They are still called the Patriots.
In 2007, the Patriots were the first team since the '72 Dolphins to go undefeated through the regular season. The way that they did so was one of that is commonly associated with the villain teams in 80s sports movies. They were a juggernaut that ran up the score and threw long bombs when the game was already out of reach. Their starters would play the whole game, even when they were up by 3 or more touchdowns.
The Patriots went from the patriotic heroes who pulled themselves up after the tragedy of a nation to the cocky champions that would often be seen as bullies. They lost the Super Bowl, their only loss that season.
Did they anger God with their cockiness and cheating? Is that why they lost? Did God turn his back on them? Most of the football fans outside New England did. One way of looking at religion is that it is an extension of the culture. The people drive what the deity is doing. The ancient Greeks conquered the people who had previously worshiped the beings we now know as the titans. In Greek mythology, the Greek gods defeated the titans. The general populace turned against the Patriots. Since we turned against them, we felt like they were the bad guys. Since they were the bad guys, God would also be against them. They lost and we felt vindicated. We felt like God had spoken and punished the evildoers.
Nearly four years later the Patriots with the same core, same QB, same star receiver, many members of the same defense, and, most importantly, the same coach, came into God fearing Denver. They played the God fearing Denver Tebows. They beat the Denver Tebows by more than double the Tebows' score. If God is involved in football, or any sport, games, then he is fickle and easily angered. What did Tebow do to anger God? Is it the rumors that he is dating a divorcee in Lindsey Vonn? Does God read the tabloids? I would think those were well within the domain of Lucifer. Right in between public officials and bankers.
Does the Patriots win over the God fearing Tebows have deeper religious implications? Are we really supposed to be vain, wrathful, disdainful of others, and unapologetic when we are caught cheating? Are all of those better than allegedly dating a recent divorcee (who denies she is dating Tebow)?
Or does God have better things to do than worry about the morality of football players? Looking at the current state of the image of the pro football player, I'd say he'd have a lot to worry about. With the exception of Tebow.
Then the Patriots came to town. Tebow finally faced a coach who knows what he is doing. Look at the six coaches Tebow has faced; Hue Jackson, a rookie coach, Todd Haley, who is now unemployed; a bragging blabbermouth in Rex Ryan who routinely blames his quarterback for Ryan's bad calls; Turner; Leslie Frazier (the team record speaks for itself); and Lovie Smith. Out of all of those coaches, I would only take Smith, who has coached in a Super Bowl (he lost to Peyton Manning).
But now, Tebow and coach John Fox faced the master, Bill Belichick. Even though the Patriots defense is one of the league worst, surprising for a Belichick team, they held the Denver Tebows to 23 points. To be fair, 23 points would have been enough to beat 4 of the 6 teams of suck that the Tebows had beaten the previous six weeks. But the Patriots scored 41 against the real reason the Tebows had won those games--the Tefense. The Denver defense kept games close even though the Tebow offense really just kind of sucked for three quarters in every game, and then came from behind on weird runs against tired defenses. Basically the Denver Tebows used high school tactics (run-run-run-run-long bomb...run-run-run long bomb) until the defense was tired in the fourth quarter. With a good defensive team like Denver has, they could apply this tactic. But against a Belichick offense that picks apart defenses? Not so much.
Belichick's team also figured out the way around the Tebow offense. Tebow scrambles; he is a very mobile quarterback. When he scrambles, teams react to try to hit him for a loss. When they do, they leave their receiver open for Tebow to hit with a short pass right over the defensive back-now-pass rusher. The Patriots figured out that if they let Tebow run until he crosses the line of scrimmage, they can then take free runs at him because he can no longer pass. Tebow would scramble and the db's wouldn't react. He would cross the line of scrimmage and then the linebackers and db's would collapse. This is what kept Tebow from being fully effective. An offense that was running on all cylinders came into Denver made it so that Tebow couldn't just run; he had to pass in order to try to catch up.
The Patriots exposed the Denver Tebows. They showed the weakness of the team. They didn't thwart the plans of a higher deity that prefers missionaries' sons over male models who happen to play QB. They didn't enter into some sort of cosmic theological contest for all of our souls. They played a football game.
That brings me back to the Patriots. Remember when they won the first Super Bowl after 9/11? When they were the good guys? They were the red-white-and-blue team who came back from a national tragedy and won a championship. Then came spygate in their taping the Jets sideline. Suddenly Belichick and the Patriots are the bad guys. They are still red-white-and-blue. They are still called the Patriots.
In 2007, the Patriots were the first team since the '72 Dolphins to go undefeated through the regular season. The way that they did so was one of that is commonly associated with the villain teams in 80s sports movies. They were a juggernaut that ran up the score and threw long bombs when the game was already out of reach. Their starters would play the whole game, even when they were up by 3 or more touchdowns.
The Patriots went from the patriotic heroes who pulled themselves up after the tragedy of a nation to the cocky champions that would often be seen as bullies. They lost the Super Bowl, their only loss that season.
Did they anger God with their cockiness and cheating? Is that why they lost? Did God turn his back on them? Most of the football fans outside New England did. One way of looking at religion is that it is an extension of the culture. The people drive what the deity is doing. The ancient Greeks conquered the people who had previously worshiped the beings we now know as the titans. In Greek mythology, the Greek gods defeated the titans. The general populace turned against the Patriots. Since we turned against them, we felt like they were the bad guys. Since they were the bad guys, God would also be against them. They lost and we felt vindicated. We felt like God had spoken and punished the evildoers.
Nearly four years later the Patriots with the same core, same QB, same star receiver, many members of the same defense, and, most importantly, the same coach, came into God fearing Denver. They played the God fearing Denver Tebows. They beat the Denver Tebows by more than double the Tebows' score. If God is involved in football, or any sport, games, then he is fickle and easily angered. What did Tebow do to anger God? Is it the rumors that he is dating a divorcee in Lindsey Vonn? Does God read the tabloids? I would think those were well within the domain of Lucifer. Right in between public officials and bankers.
Does the Patriots win over the God fearing Tebows have deeper religious implications? Are we really supposed to be vain, wrathful, disdainful of others, and unapologetic when we are caught cheating? Are all of those better than allegedly dating a recent divorcee (who denies she is dating Tebow)?
Or does God have better things to do than worry about the morality of football players? Looking at the current state of the image of the pro football player, I'd say he'd have a lot to worry about. With the exception of Tebow.
Monday, November 14, 2011
A Sad Week in the Football Mind
It has not been a good week in my football mind. Of course, I am talking about the Penn State scandal. I admired JoePa. As a coach, he had a reputation for holding is players to academic standards as well as moral standards. Under Joe Paterno, Penn State wasn't just a football factory that concentrated solely on the production of football players and championships.
After an astounding 46 years of head coaching, after an astounding 62 years with the same program, after two national championships and five undefeated teams, JoePa was fired.
Now, we're left wondering how much of that reputation was real, if his "Grand Experiment" was really just a sham. This isn't JoePa's first scandal. This wasn't the first time the board of regents had called for his resignation. In 2008 he faced a scandal again dating back years. From 2002 to the time of the scandal, 2008, 46 football players faced 163 criminal charges. It appeared that Paterno's "Grand Experiment" didn't include a moral/criminal clause, only focusing on academics and athletics.
I am torn at the Sandusky scandal. The grad assistant told Paterno and Paterno told the Athletic Director and the President of the University. No one did anything. It was a black eye on the Penn State. Now, it is a whole fist fight. If someone, any one of those four people had gone to the police at the time, this could have been avoided. The kicker? Sandusky wasn't even a member of the coaching staff or employed at all at the university when the grad assistant allegedly witnessed the abuse. Even after that, Sandusky was still given access to PSU facilities.
No. One. Did. Anything.
Now everyone who could have done something years ago has either been fired in disgrace or is on leave after death threats (the former grad assistant, now one of the Nittany Lions coaches). Sandusky is out on bail (and lives next door to an elementary school), and facing charges on the sexual abuse.
Not surprisingly, and barely worth noting in comparison to what is happening off the field, Penn State lost Saturday to a lower ranked opponent.
In depressing news on the field (again which pales in comparison to the above), The Kansas City Chiefs suck.
Even when this team is good (13-3 a few years ago) they suck. Whenever they have a season like their 13-3 seasons, I have the feeling that they won't win against any contenders. Looking at even last season, they didn't face any terribly challenging teams, given that the AFC West is not exactly a strong division. Sometimes last season, I would have wondered how the teams in the division would stand against the SEC. I'd almost take LSU against these guys.
The reason the Chiefs suck this time around? Gregg Easterbrook of ESPN's Page 2 would call it declining football IQ. Going late into the game, Chiefs are down by 10 against the Broncos. Four minutes left in the contest, definitely four down situations. The Chiefs do go for it on fourth down, that's not the stupid part. The stupid part is that Matt Cassell, who the Chiefs, for some reason unbeknownst to many Chiefs fans, is the Chiefs QB of the future, has less than 100 yards. It is the fourth quarter of the contest and your QB of the future has 93 yards passing. Against Denver. Great Lou Holtz's Not Dead Yet Ghost! Kansas City goes four and out. Pass attempt incomplete. Run for 7 yards. Pass attempt incomplete. It is fourth and 3. There are four minutes left in the game. You're quarterback is sucking more than usual. Run. The. Ball. Your running game has been carrying your sorry team throughout the contest. Run. The. Ball. Cassell lines up in a shotgun. I start crying in my beer. Hey, it wasn't an incompletion. Cassell gets sacked for a five yard loss.
How much does Todd Haley make? I will take a fraction of it to coach this team. It is fairly obvious Charlie Weis was the offensive genius behind last year's team. Weis called the plays. Weis made Cassell tolerable.
Weis announced he was leaving for a college head coaching job. The Cheifs still had two games to play last year. The final game of the season and one playoff game. They lost both. They have been even less than impressive on offense than they were last year. Last year they had a great running attack. Cassell, even though the Chiefs were winning, still sucked. They ranked 30th out of 32 teams in passing. Their running attack? 1st. Granted, this year Jamaal Charles, last year's work horse, is injured. But Battle has been showing flashes of above-average-ness.
After Weis announced his eventual departure, Kansas City again choked in the playoffs. Do you know how long it has been since the Chiefs have won a playoff game? I was in high school. Bill Clinton was not yet president, hadn't even had the election. George H. W. Bush was the President of these United States. The last quarterback to win a playoff game for Kansas City? Joe Friggin Montana! Have you seen his latest commercials? Do you know how old Montana is?? The answer to the trivia question is December 199-stinking-3.
The Chiefs have been famous at shackling themselves with mediocre draft picks or not keeping successes (see Jared Allen, who is a sack machine for the Vikings now). Oh, look, Allen just sacked Aaron Rodgers on Monday Night Football to jump into the NFL lead for sacks this season. Hi, Jared! I remember when you wore red and led the league in sacks, too! Hi!
What goes through the Kansas City powers that be on draft days? Take the first round this year. Hmmm, we have a mediocre QB and a GREAT wide receiver. We have an AWESOME running back. Our defense has been suspect, but is improving. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhh---uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. LET'S DRAFT A RECEIVER herp-de-derp!
Yaaaaay, now we have two receivers the quarterback can't hit!
It was announced today that Cassell may be out for the season with a "significant" throwing hand injury. That explains the late game suckitude. Herp-de-Let's Have Our Sucky Injured Quarterback Throw on Fourth Down-FRIGGIN-DERP!!
I'm hoping and praying that the pundits that be (including ESPN's Mel Kiper) are right about Ricky Stanzi. I'm hoping he's the next coming of Kurt Warner and Pretty Boy Brady. I'm hoping he gets in and the Cheifs take off and Cassell gets traded for Bobby Boucher (see: Waterboy).
Here's the problem (yeah, another one). The Chiefs haven't given Stanzi any snaps in practice all year. They haven't had him even think about taking a snap all year. Journeyman Tyler Palko will be the starter next Monday night against New England.
Herp-de-derp.
After an astounding 46 years of head coaching, after an astounding 62 years with the same program, after two national championships and five undefeated teams, JoePa was fired.
Now, we're left wondering how much of that reputation was real, if his "Grand Experiment" was really just a sham. This isn't JoePa's first scandal. This wasn't the first time the board of regents had called for his resignation. In 2008 he faced a scandal again dating back years. From 2002 to the time of the scandal, 2008, 46 football players faced 163 criminal charges. It appeared that Paterno's "Grand Experiment" didn't include a moral/criminal clause, only focusing on academics and athletics.
I am torn at the Sandusky scandal. The grad assistant told Paterno and Paterno told the Athletic Director and the President of the University. No one did anything. It was a black eye on the Penn State. Now, it is a whole fist fight. If someone, any one of those four people had gone to the police at the time, this could have been avoided. The kicker? Sandusky wasn't even a member of the coaching staff or employed at all at the university when the grad assistant allegedly witnessed the abuse. Even after that, Sandusky was still given access to PSU facilities.
No. One. Did. Anything.
Now everyone who could have done something years ago has either been fired in disgrace or is on leave after death threats (the former grad assistant, now one of the Nittany Lions coaches). Sandusky is out on bail (and lives next door to an elementary school), and facing charges on the sexual abuse.
Not surprisingly, and barely worth noting in comparison to what is happening off the field, Penn State lost Saturday to a lower ranked opponent.
In depressing news on the field (again which pales in comparison to the above), The Kansas City Chiefs suck.
Even when this team is good (13-3 a few years ago) they suck. Whenever they have a season like their 13-3 seasons, I have the feeling that they won't win against any contenders. Looking at even last season, they didn't face any terribly challenging teams, given that the AFC West is not exactly a strong division. Sometimes last season, I would have wondered how the teams in the division would stand against the SEC. I'd almost take LSU against these guys.
The reason the Chiefs suck this time around? Gregg Easterbrook of ESPN's Page 2 would call it declining football IQ. Going late into the game, Chiefs are down by 10 against the Broncos. Four minutes left in the contest, definitely four down situations. The Chiefs do go for it on fourth down, that's not the stupid part. The stupid part is that Matt Cassell, who the Chiefs, for some reason unbeknownst to many Chiefs fans, is the Chiefs QB of the future, has less than 100 yards. It is the fourth quarter of the contest and your QB of the future has 93 yards passing. Against Denver. Great Lou Holtz's Not Dead Yet Ghost! Kansas City goes four and out. Pass attempt incomplete. Run for 7 yards. Pass attempt incomplete. It is fourth and 3. There are four minutes left in the game. You're quarterback is sucking more than usual. Run. The. Ball. Your running game has been carrying your sorry team throughout the contest. Run. The. Ball. Cassell lines up in a shotgun. I start crying in my beer. Hey, it wasn't an incompletion. Cassell gets sacked for a five yard loss.
How much does Todd Haley make? I will take a fraction of it to coach this team. It is fairly obvious Charlie Weis was the offensive genius behind last year's team. Weis called the plays. Weis made Cassell tolerable.
Weis announced he was leaving for a college head coaching job. The Cheifs still had two games to play last year. The final game of the season and one playoff game. They lost both. They have been even less than impressive on offense than they were last year. Last year they had a great running attack. Cassell, even though the Chiefs were winning, still sucked. They ranked 30th out of 32 teams in passing. Their running attack? 1st. Granted, this year Jamaal Charles, last year's work horse, is injured. But Battle has been showing flashes of above-average-ness.
After Weis announced his eventual departure, Kansas City again choked in the playoffs. Do you know how long it has been since the Chiefs have won a playoff game? I was in high school. Bill Clinton was not yet president, hadn't even had the election. George H. W. Bush was the President of these United States. The last quarterback to win a playoff game for Kansas City? Joe Friggin Montana! Have you seen his latest commercials? Do you know how old Montana is?? The answer to the trivia question is December 199-stinking-3.
The Chiefs have been famous at shackling themselves with mediocre draft picks or not keeping successes (see Jared Allen, who is a sack machine for the Vikings now). Oh, look, Allen just sacked Aaron Rodgers on Monday Night Football to jump into the NFL lead for sacks this season. Hi, Jared! I remember when you wore red and led the league in sacks, too! Hi!
What goes through the Kansas City powers that be on draft days? Take the first round this year. Hmmm, we have a mediocre QB and a GREAT wide receiver. We have an AWESOME running back. Our defense has been suspect, but is improving. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhh---uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. LET'S DRAFT A RECEIVER herp-de-derp!
Yaaaaay, now we have two receivers the quarterback can't hit!
It was announced today that Cassell may be out for the season with a "significant" throwing hand injury. That explains the late game suckitude. Herp-de-Let's Have Our Sucky Injured Quarterback Throw on Fourth Down-FRIGGIN-DERP!!
I'm hoping and praying that the pundits that be (including ESPN's Mel Kiper) are right about Ricky Stanzi. I'm hoping he's the next coming of Kurt Warner and Pretty Boy Brady. I'm hoping he gets in and the Cheifs take off and Cassell gets traded for Bobby Boucher (see: Waterboy).
Here's the problem (yeah, another one). The Chiefs haven't given Stanzi any snaps in practice all year. They haven't had him even think about taking a snap all year. Journeyman Tyler Palko will be the starter next Monday night against New England.
Herp-de-derp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)