Sign up for the (yes, yes: EXTREMELY late) College Bowl Mania pick 'em group. Find it via the usual name: Daily Quickie Readers.
Big day around here. No, not the snowstorm on the East Coast. No, not the celebration of the last day of Hanukkah (although my wife did make some insanely good latkes this morning). No, it's graduation day at the University of Florida. The Gainesville Sun is covering the Tebow angle with a cover story, and quoted me right at the top. Yet one more bit of closure on Tebow's college career.
More on the radar today:
*Anyone else watching UNC-Texas? I hate hoops games in massive football stadiums.
*Seriously, how many more violations does USC football have to have before the NCAA finally says "Enough." It's like thy have an unlimited free pass.
*Say this about the Mariners: They're trying to compete. There would be no other reason to take on the crazy that is Milton Bradley. But when his head is on right, he's so good.
*Name to Know: Matt Szczur, the Villanova all-purpose threat who caught 2 TDs and ran for 159 yards to lead Villanova to an undisputed college football national championship.
*Speaking of Florida, Carlos Dunlap is going to play in the Sugar Bowl -- a game too late.
Last thing: I know that I didn't set up a College Bowl Pick 'Em group this week -- I believe, if memory serves, that I actually won last year's Pick 'Em group. That would be reason enough to retire, but I really enjoy competing with everyone. So even though I'm very late, I created a Pick 'Em group for you to sign up for -- the usual group name ("Daily Quickie Readers"). To be fair to those not seeing it until Monday, I'll weight the lowest possible number of points to the three bowls happening this weekend. My system last year was to simply weight results in increasing value chronologically, as bowls happen. My apologies. I meant to do it two weeks ago.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Quickie: Bowls, Colts, Tiger, Knight, Week 15
With college bowl season starting tomorrow, it's time for my annual bowl-sponsor quiz, which leads today's SN column. (My favorite detail is related to sponsors who are only around in 2009 because they took taxpayer-funded government bailouts. It should be "The Rose Bowl presented by You." And shouldn't the GMAC Bowl be the Ally Bowl?)
Anyway, there's a ton in the column today:
*If the Colts are going to give up 31 points to the Jaguars, how many would they give up to the Saints?
*How the Bengals deal with the death of Chris Henry is a massively emotional storyline, but the fate of the Cowboys (against the Saints) and the AFC 7-6/6-7 log-jam will have more people interested.
*Bob Knight let off a broadside on John Calipari that might even make me like Knight. I certainly respect him for saying it.
*Watching PGA honcho Tim Finchem wriggle around in this Tiger mess is fascinating. He has to present confidence the Tour can survive without Tiger (ha), but he can't be so glib that he offends Tiger (ha).
*SN announced their athletes of the year, and I have a few issues. I'm actually not down on Mo Rivera as Pro AOY (better than Jeter!), although I'd make an equally strong (or stronger) case for Larry Fitzgerald, Drew Brees or Kobe.
*And SN names Colt McCoy their College AOY, which is wrong on a couple of levels -- SN just named Mark Ingram its CFB Player of the Year; Tim Tebow had a much stronger year -- January to December -- than McCoy, and if you've opened it to all college athletes, Tyler Hansbrough has a much stronger case than McCoy.
*I had an eye on that prep hoops game last night between No. 1-ranked Findlay (which I think is an astonishingly -- almost admirably astonishing -- cynical prep-hoops factory) and Northland (Ohio), which pulled the upset behind this awesome kid Jared Sullinger.
*I think we can all feel kind of bad for Cliff Lee. He certainly does.
Check out the entire column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Anyway, there's a ton in the column today:
*If the Colts are going to give up 31 points to the Jaguars, how many would they give up to the Saints?
*How the Bengals deal with the death of Chris Henry is a massively emotional storyline, but the fate of the Cowboys (against the Saints) and the AFC 7-6/6-7 log-jam will have more people interested.
*Bob Knight let off a broadside on John Calipari that might even make me like Knight. I certainly respect him for saying it.
*Watching PGA honcho Tim Finchem wriggle around in this Tiger mess is fascinating. He has to present confidence the Tour can survive without Tiger (ha), but he can't be so glib that he offends Tiger (ha).
*SN announced their athletes of the year, and I have a few issues. I'm actually not down on Mo Rivera as Pro AOY (better than Jeter!), although I'd make an equally strong (or stronger) case for Larry Fitzgerald, Drew Brees or Kobe.
*And SN names Colt McCoy their College AOY, which is wrong on a couple of levels -- SN just named Mark Ingram its CFB Player of the Year; Tim Tebow had a much stronger year -- January to December -- than McCoy, and if you've opened it to all college athletes, Tyler Hansbrough has a much stronger case than McCoy.
*I had an eye on that prep hoops game last night between No. 1-ranked Findlay (which I think is an astonishingly -- almost admirably astonishing -- cynical prep-hoops factory) and Northland (Ohio), which pulled the upset behind this awesome kid Jared Sullinger.
*I think we can all feel kind of bad for Cliff Lee. He certainly does.
Check out the entire column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Eamonn Brennan Hired By ESPN.com
Great hire. Kudos to ESPN.com. Brennan's a super talent and a great fit to help take ESPN.com's college hoops programming -- whether an uber-blog or a future TrueHoop-style "network" -- to the next level.
(I always get very nostalgic about the college basketball section at ESPN.com. I was ESPN.com's college hoops editor from '96-'97, and the beat has a long, proud lineage of editors, contributors and innovations. Oh, and you get to drive during the NCAA Tournament, which is fun.)
-- D.S.
(I always get very nostalgic about the college basketball section at ESPN.com. I was ESPN.com's college hoops editor from '96-'97, and the beat has a long, proud lineage of editors, contributors and innovations. Oh, and you get to drive during the NCAA Tournament, which is fun.)
-- D.S.
Quickie: Best. Decade. Ever.
Off the news that Tiger was named AP athlete of the decade, I lead today's SN column with an argument I've been wanting to make all year:
This decade has produced the best players ever in their respective sports in a ton of sports:
*Tiger
*Lance
*Phelps
*Federer
*Bolt
The common link: All are "individual" sports with little or no dependencies on others.
But Jimmie Johnson is arguably the greatest NASCAR driver ever. This decade, Barry Bonds established himself as arguably the greatest baseball hitter ever. LeBron may not be the best basketball player ever (yet), but he was certainly the best high school basketball player ever. And you could make a strong case that Carmelo was the best college hoops player ever. You could even make the case that, over the course of the decade, Peyton established himself as one of the greatest NFL players ever. And, yes, I'm willing to make the argument that Tim Tebow's career was the greatest of any player in college football history.
It's a testament to training. Cynically, we could say that's a euphemism for performance-enhancing drugs -- legal or otherwise -- but even above-board training methods are so advanced that it can take otherwise supremely skilled and blessed athletes (and most are some combination of natural physical gifts and extremely hard work) and turn them into "best evers."
I'll have a lot more to say about the decade -- I'd like to think that this argument is part of the larger argument that, if nothing else, this decade was overwhelmed by instant history and the superlatives that go with it. And I'd like to think that I had even a proud part of that through the Quickie. But I didn't start something -- I was merely an early adopter; "instant history" was an inevitability across media, sports and otherwise.
Lots more coming over the next two weeks on the decade we have just experienced -- and what's to come in 2010.
More you'll find in today's column:
*Kobe: His best season yet?
*Colts-Jags. Sorry, Time Warner, I wouldn't have watched anyway.
*Chris Henry: WTF?! -- updated, this is just sad, as is any death.
*Mark Ingram versus Ndamuknong Suh
*Would Jed Hoyer really trade Adrian Gonzalez?
Lots more in there. More later.
-- D.S.
This decade has produced the best players ever in their respective sports in a ton of sports:
*Tiger
*Lance
*Phelps
*Federer
*Bolt
The common link: All are "individual" sports with little or no dependencies on others.
But Jimmie Johnson is arguably the greatest NASCAR driver ever. This decade, Barry Bonds established himself as arguably the greatest baseball hitter ever. LeBron may not be the best basketball player ever (yet), but he was certainly the best high school basketball player ever. And you could make a strong case that Carmelo was the best college hoops player ever. You could even make the case that, over the course of the decade, Peyton established himself as one of the greatest NFL players ever. And, yes, I'm willing to make the argument that Tim Tebow's career was the greatest of any player in college football history.
It's a testament to training. Cynically, we could say that's a euphemism for performance-enhancing drugs -- legal or otherwise -- but even above-board training methods are so advanced that it can take otherwise supremely skilled and blessed athletes (and most are some combination of natural physical gifts and extremely hard work) and turn them into "best evers."
I'll have a lot more to say about the decade -- I'd like to think that this argument is part of the larger argument that, if nothing else, this decade was overwhelmed by instant history and the superlatives that go with it. And I'd like to think that I had even a proud part of that through the Quickie. But I didn't start something -- I was merely an early adopter; "instant history" was an inevitability across media, sports and otherwise.
Lots more coming over the next two weeks on the decade we have just experienced -- and what's to come in 2010.
More you'll find in today's column:
*Kobe: His best season yet?
*Colts-Jags. Sorry, Time Warner, I wouldn't have watched anyway.
*Chris Henry: WTF?! -- updated, this is just sad, as is any death.
*Mark Ingram versus Ndamuknong Suh
*Would Jed Hoyer really trade Adrian Gonzalez?
Lots more in there. More later.
-- D.S.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Quickie: Big Ten's 12th? Why Not Navy?
Despite my mid-career switch to SEC partisanship, I remain a loyal alum of the Big Ten. Naturally, this "Big Ten becomes Big Twelve" storyline intrigues me.
First, a caveat: I cannot see the Big Ten adopting an SEC-style championship game. I wish they would, but -- remember -- this is the league that hates playoffs in all forms.
There are a lot of contenders out there that have been tossed around: Pitt, Mizzou, Rutgers... obviously, Notre Dame is a non-starter. I hadn't seen one name that I think is the best fit of all:
Navy.
I'm going to crib from my own column this morning for the reasons why:
(UPDATE: Got an email from someone with a smart point -- Navy would kill the Big Ten's hoops schedule strength. So pull a page from Notre Dame hoops and the Big East: Navy comes into the Big Ten for football only. Probably should have thought that through. Great point. Maybe yoink Notre Dame from the Big East as a hoops addition in the Big Ten, but I'm not sure Big Ten basketball needs a 12th team as much as football does.)
More you'll find in today's column:
*I don't care about 18-0 Colts vs. 18-0 Saints in the Super Bowl. The entire story is whether or not the Saints win the Super Bowl, at all. (Doing it perfectly would be a bonus -- it doesn't really matter who they play to pull it off.)
*Central Michigan is Cincinnati's coaching pipeline -- and, given the track record, why shouldn't it be?
*My once-a-season moment for Jon Scheyer cheerleading. Yes, I hate that I am his fan -- he is the most disliked player in college basketball. You think I want to root for that? Plus: You know how much I dislike Duke hoops. At least I only have a few more months to go.
*The Rockets already proved they don't need Tracy McGrady to be a playoff contender in the West; here's hoping they are giving him a 10 mpg showcase so that they can offload him.
*What we can learn from the best-ever audience for this season's Heisman Trophy ceremony.
Lots more, too. More coming later. Don't forget to check out the post below for my latest take-your-kid-to-sports-event experiment in the NYT.
-- D.S.
First, a caveat: I cannot see the Big Ten adopting an SEC-style championship game. I wish they would, but -- remember -- this is the league that hates playoffs in all forms.
There are a lot of contenders out there that have been tossed around: Pitt, Mizzou, Rutgers... obviously, Notre Dame is a non-starter. I hadn't seen one name that I think is the best fit of all:
Navy.
I'm going to crib from my own column this morning for the reasons why:
*Academic credentials are impeccable.After thinking through the reasons why it works, I cannot understand why this isn't the obvious choice.
*Football program is solid.
*Triple-option is "3 Yards/Cloud" 2.0
*Can keep trad'l games w/ Army, AFA, ND.
*Better than Notre Dame.
*Nearly beat Ohio State this season.
*Non-competitive recruiting strategy.
*But expands B10 footprint in the East.
*Feds could use the BCS bowl revenue.
*It is entirely uncontroversial.
(UPDATE: Got an email from someone with a smart point -- Navy would kill the Big Ten's hoops schedule strength. So pull a page from Notre Dame hoops and the Big East: Navy comes into the Big Ten for football only. Probably should have thought that through. Great point. Maybe yoink Notre Dame from the Big East as a hoops addition in the Big Ten, but I'm not sure Big Ten basketball needs a 12th team as much as football does.)
More you'll find in today's column:
*I don't care about 18-0 Colts vs. 18-0 Saints in the Super Bowl. The entire story is whether or not the Saints win the Super Bowl, at all. (Doing it perfectly would be a bonus -- it doesn't really matter who they play to pull it off.)
*Central Michigan is Cincinnati's coaching pipeline -- and, given the track record, why shouldn't it be?
*My once-a-season moment for Jon Scheyer cheerleading. Yes, I hate that I am his fan -- he is the most disliked player in college basketball. You think I want to root for that? Plus: You know how much I dislike Duke hoops. At least I only have a few more months to go.
*The Rockets already proved they don't need Tracy McGrady to be a playoff contender in the West; here's hoping they are giving him a 10 mpg showcase so that they can offload him.
*What we can learn from the best-ever audience for this season's Heisman Trophy ceremony.
Lots more, too. More coming later. Don't forget to check out the post below for my latest take-your-kid-to-sports-event experiment in the NYT.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Taking My Kid To A Knicks Game
So last month, I took my 3-year-old son to his first-ever basketball game -- St. Francis, right in our Brooklyn neighborhood. It was fun. I wrote a piece about the experience for the New York Times, published in the paper the Sunday of Thanksgiving weekend.
A funny thing happened, although not entirely unexpected: In the days following the story's publication, the Knicks reached out to me to invite me to bring Gabe to their Kids Day, which was held two Sundays ago.
The Times agreed to publish a follow-up piece from me about the experience -- the comparison, really -- of taking my kid to the Knicks game. And it went live on their site this afternoon.
Check it out here, and let me know what you think. It begs some interesting questions -- more than anything, about how much you want to spend on taking your kid to a sports event (and what kind of value you get for your money).
More on that in a little bit.
-- D.S.
Meanwhile, there are supposed to be a couple of photos on the post. I think they'll get included at some point, but here are a few:
A funny thing happened, although not entirely unexpected: In the days following the story's publication, the Knicks reached out to me to invite me to bring Gabe to their Kids Day, which was held two Sundays ago.
The Times agreed to publish a follow-up piece from me about the experience -- the comparison, really -- of taking my kid to the Knicks game. And it went live on their site this afternoon.
Check it out here, and let me know what you think. It begs some interesting questions -- more than anything, about how much you want to spend on taking your kid to a sports event (and what kind of value you get for your money).
More on that in a little bit.
-- D.S.
Meanwhile, there are supposed to be a couple of photos on the post. I think they'll get included at some point, but here are a few:
Quickie: Team Tiger Blows It Again
The most stunning thing about today's New York Times investigative report linking Tiger Woods to a Canadian doctor under investigation for various PED scandalousness is the email from Tiger's agent to the Times:
“I would really ask that you guys don’t write this? If Tiger is NOT implicated, and won’t be, let’s please give the kid a break.”
It is one more example of Team Tiger complete mis-reading the situation. First, how they could send that email without off-the-record restrictions attached to it is insane.
But, more importantly, the best thing that could happen to Tiger is that, somehow, the subject gets changed. It doesn't matter that the new subject is PEDs. In fact, better that the subject is PEDs in sports than Tiger's alleged predilection for PEDs in the bedroom.
Despite his team's insistent spin-blundering, here's the good news for Tiger: Nothing turns fans off -- let alone non-fans -- like the discussion of PEDs. No one cares.
They want sex scandal, not steroid scandal. If PEDs take over the discussion, then most people -- fans and non-fans alike -- are changing the channel, looking for the next titillating thing.
That is exactly what Tiger needs.
I actually honestly believe that he has never cheated in golf -- he saves the cheating for his wife. He actually respects the game -- unlike his absent respect for his family.
Is there always a weird haze at the nexus of injured athletes and doctors practicing "innovative" treatments? Yes. You never know -- I would imagine that most athletes don't want to know, and most docs don't want to tell. Everyone feels better, and that's all that matters.
But the best thing that could happen to Tiger is to get wrapped up in some boring extraneous steroid scandal that he will ultimately be not implicated in.
"Don't write this?" One more piece of mismanagement of Tiger, Inc.
(You can read more on this in today's SN column, which also includes discussion of Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee, John Lackey and the Red Sox, the Angels and the Yankees, Jake Locker and bad decision-making and more.)
-- D.S.
“I would really ask that you guys don’t write this? If Tiger is NOT implicated, and won’t be, let’s please give the kid a break.”
It is one more example of Team Tiger complete mis-reading the situation. First, how they could send that email without off-the-record restrictions attached to it is insane.
But, more importantly, the best thing that could happen to Tiger is that, somehow, the subject gets changed. It doesn't matter that the new subject is PEDs. In fact, better that the subject is PEDs in sports than Tiger's alleged predilection for PEDs in the bedroom.
Despite his team's insistent spin-blundering, here's the good news for Tiger: Nothing turns fans off -- let alone non-fans -- like the discussion of PEDs. No one cares.
They want sex scandal, not steroid scandal. If PEDs take over the discussion, then most people -- fans and non-fans alike -- are changing the channel, looking for the next titillating thing.
That is exactly what Tiger needs.
I actually honestly believe that he has never cheated in golf -- he saves the cheating for his wife. He actually respects the game -- unlike his absent respect for his family.
Is there always a weird haze at the nexus of injured athletes and doctors practicing "innovative" treatments? Yes. You never know -- I would imagine that most athletes don't want to know, and most docs don't want to tell. Everyone feels better, and that's all that matters.
But the best thing that could happen to Tiger is to get wrapped up in some boring extraneous steroid scandal that he will ultimately be not implicated in.
"Don't write this?" One more piece of mismanagement of Tiger, Inc.
(You can read more on this in today's SN column, which also includes discussion of Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee, John Lackey and the Red Sox, the Angels and the Yankees, Jake Locker and bad decision-making and more.)
-- D.S.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Reform The Heisman Process
Last point about the Heisman vote before we pack it away until next season: Everything that is wrong with the current system -- petty regionalism, ignorance, bloat, lack of transparency -- is on display in this quote from a voter, published by the Palm Beach Post's Ben Volin:
The Heisman Trust needs to have a review of all voter credentials. (I like Volin's approach to limit voting to the former winners and a limited, even rotating, group of media experts who would have to debate the decision around a table, not unlike the Pro Football Hall of Fame.)
But, more simply, it just needs to be transparent: I want to know who this quote is from. I want to know who everyone voted for. I want to know, because if the Heisman is truly the most prestigious individual award in sports, the fans have a right to know how it is determined.
-- D.S.
"The reason that I voted for Ingram, Tebow and McCoy was because I saw them play the most. I never saw Gerhart play an entire game (we work all day Saturday and Saturday night) and only saw a few minutes of Suh’s game against Texas. I refused to vote for somebody based on highlights. And I think you have to represent your part of the country; in fact, there used to be fine print on the paper ballots that instructed balloters to vote “with regard to your region.” However, I think it’s wrong to leave a player off your ballot completely just to help a player from your region, as apparently the case with some Big 12 voters on Tebow year. So I, too, an still unhappy about that injustice."Good god. I shouldn't have to say more, but I will:
The Heisman Trust needs to have a review of all voter credentials. (I like Volin's approach to limit voting to the former winners and a limited, even rotating, group of media experts who would have to debate the decision around a table, not unlike the Pro Football Hall of Fame.)
But, more simply, it just needs to be transparent: I want to know who this quote is from. I want to know who everyone voted for. I want to know, because if the Heisman is truly the most prestigious individual award in sports, the fans have a right to know how it is determined.
-- D.S.
Monday 12/14 Quickie: Tiger, NFC East, AFC Wild Card, Ingram, LeBron
The Tiger Woods scandal is about money.
That's all.
Not marriage. Not privacy. Not the media. Not a person's individual failings or tastes.
Money.
Oh, for Tiger -- who is already rich beyond need -- it might be about his family or is salvaging his reputation (probably only the latter, given the cavalier way he treated the former).
But everyone else has a very serious financial stake in Tiger: The PGA, other golfers, the media (particularly the sports media), the sponsors.
That's what made Accenture's cancellation of Tiger's deal such a big deal: It's about the money.
And why Tiger's "leave" -- what a joke -- is also about the money.
Mistake after mistake, Tiger still doesn't seem to get it: It's in everyone's best interests - including his own -- if he just takes a beating for a few weeks. Then, it's over.
Really: That quickly.
Everyone with a financial stake has a vested interest in getting this behind them. It's a shame Tiger won't let them.
Tiger and the money question is the lead of today's SN column, but there's a ton more: About the wild AFC Wild Card situation; about the NFC East champ and runner-up backing into the playoffs; about Mark Ingram and the lessons of the '09 Heisman; about LeBron schooling Kevin Durant; about celebrating Prairie View A&M.
Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
That's all.
Not marriage. Not privacy. Not the media. Not a person's individual failings or tastes.
Money.
Oh, for Tiger -- who is already rich beyond need -- it might be about his family or is salvaging his reputation (probably only the latter, given the cavalier way he treated the former).
But everyone else has a very serious financial stake in Tiger: The PGA, other golfers, the media (particularly the sports media), the sponsors.
That's what made Accenture's cancellation of Tiger's deal such a big deal: It's about the money.
And why Tiger's "leave" -- what a joke -- is also about the money.
Mistake after mistake, Tiger still doesn't seem to get it: It's in everyone's best interests - including his own -- if he just takes a beating for a few weeks. Then, it's over.
Really: That quickly.
Everyone with a financial stake has a vested interest in getting this behind them. It's a shame Tiger won't let them.
Tiger and the money question is the lead of today's SN column, but there's a ton more: About the wild AFC Wild Card situation; about the NFC East champ and runner-up backing into the playoffs; about Mark Ingram and the lessons of the '09 Heisman; about LeBron schooling Kevin Durant; about celebrating Prairie View A&M.
Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Weekend (Very) Quickie: Ingram, Tiger
Congratulations to Mark Ingram on winning the 2009 Heisman. He had my (fictitious) vote. I was disappointed to see Ndamukong Suh finish 4th - thought he had a shot at Top 3.
Tim Tebow finished 5th -- who were the 43 voters who gave him a 1st-place vote? I mean: Even *I* wouldn't do that.
I have a few thoughts on Tiger, but I'm still putting them together. Definitely by Monday morning's column. The gist is this:
After continuously screwing up how he has handled -- and is handling -- this, Tiger finds a way to screw it up even further.
He should be playing golf TODAY. He should be making himself available to all of it -- the jeers, the jokes, the sycophantic sports media coverage.
He needs to let the sports media provide some ballast against the tabloids -- sports media is dying to talk about Tiger, just anything BUT this scandal.
And he needs to let everyone take their shots -- and punch themselves to exhaustion: Rope-a-dope. It would be painful for a few weeks... then there'd be nothing left to say.
Instead: He hides, thinking he can out-last this. When this broke, in its first day, I thought Tiger was big enough to pull it off. He's not. He needs to get crushed to his face, so he can rebuild.
Quick story: I'm at the store today and I walk past the sports-drink aisle. And then I see the Gatorade Tiger-branded bottle. And I chuckled. Then I pointed it out to the random person standing next to me, and THEY chuckled.
Not sure why he's prolonging this for himself.
-- D.S.
Tim Tebow finished 5th -- who were the 43 voters who gave him a 1st-place vote? I mean: Even *I* wouldn't do that.
I have a few thoughts on Tiger, but I'm still putting them together. Definitely by Monday morning's column. The gist is this:
After continuously screwing up how he has handled -- and is handling -- this, Tiger finds a way to screw it up even further.
He should be playing golf TODAY. He should be making himself available to all of it -- the jeers, the jokes, the sycophantic sports media coverage.
He needs to let the sports media provide some ballast against the tabloids -- sports media is dying to talk about Tiger, just anything BUT this scandal.
And he needs to let everyone take their shots -- and punch themselves to exhaustion: Rope-a-dope. It would be painful for a few weeks... then there'd be nothing left to say.
Instead: He hides, thinking he can out-last this. When this broke, in its first day, I thought Tiger was big enough to pull it off. He's not. He needs to get crushed to his face, so he can rebuild.
Quick story: I'm at the store today and I walk past the sports-drink aisle. And then I see the Gatorade Tiger-branded bottle. And I chuckled. Then I pointed it out to the random person standing next to me, and THEY chuckled.
Not sure why he's prolonging this for himself.
-- D.S.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Heisman Watch: In Praise of Suh
I'm not just lamenting the fizzled end to Tim Tebow's Heisman candidacy (though I remain stunned that he is getting ANY 1st-place votes, let alone placement on ballots at all).
I am actually here to say that Ndamukong Suh's insurgent candidacy is the greatest thing ever to happen in Heisman balloting.
This isn't Charles Woodson earning a Heisman not because he was a shut-down cornerback, but because he scored a couple of offensive touchdowns on top of it.
This is a defensive lineman -- perhaps the best defensive lineman of all time -- making a run at the Heisman Trophy, basically on the strength of a single game.
Oh, sure, Suh had an awesome year. You know what that normally gets a defensive lineman, in terms of Heisman support? Zilch.
But because he put on one of the great individual displays of destruction... in a game that everyone was watching... directly against the clubhouse Heisman leader: He catapulted himself.
It's not just that Suh has earned more 1st-place votes than any other contender with 25 percent o the ballots counted (by StiffarmTrophy.com). That's impressive enough.
No, what tips the balance to "so best Heisman contender ever" is that in the process of vaulting his own campaign, he totally destroyed Colt McCoy's.
Please consider that as recently as last Friday, McCoy was considered the favorite. Oh, sure, Mark Ingram was going to get votes if Alabama beat Florida. (Sorry: "When.")
But McCoy was still considered the guy to beat in all of the straw polls. He had all the standard Heisman credentials: "QB of an undefeated team," and the "he's due" vote.
Then Suh destroyed him, nearly KO'ing his national-title shot, let alone his Heisman cred. And, all of a sudden, with so many voters holding their ballots until Saturday night, Suh had vaulted himself to the top -- and had undercut McCoy's entire campaign.
As you can see at StiffarmTrophy, McCoy is 4th -- totally out of it. And while it appears that many voters submitted their ballots for Ingram after the SECCG but before the Big 12 title game, Suh is right in the middle of it.
Even if Suh doesn't win, he might get more 1st-place votes than any other contender.
Here's the real crime: How many Heisman voters didn't even THINK to put Suh on their ballot, because he doesn't play RB or QB, particularly for a top team?
I'm proud of the voters who championed Suh's cause -- and the ones who followed through with an unprecedented level of support for a defensive player.
But I think you'll see: Suh will be left off enough ballots that it will -- and should -- make you question why the Heisman vote is given to 900 people, many of whom have no business voting.
Those are the ones who are most likely to ignore Suh. That's too bad for them. They could have had a part in history as supporting the most interesting Heisman contender ever.
-- D.S.
UPDATE: I only just now saw Dr. Saturday's post talking about this Heisman race as the most fascinating in years -- I'd call it "most fascinating ever," but that's quibbling. I just wanted to point you all to it, because it's really well done. And to disclaim that I hadn't seen it before I wrote up my own opinions. But it's worth your time to read. Great minds...
I am actually here to say that Ndamukong Suh's insurgent candidacy is the greatest thing ever to happen in Heisman balloting.
This isn't Charles Woodson earning a Heisman not because he was a shut-down cornerback, but because he scored a couple of offensive touchdowns on top of it.
This is a defensive lineman -- perhaps the best defensive lineman of all time -- making a run at the Heisman Trophy, basically on the strength of a single game.
Oh, sure, Suh had an awesome year. You know what that normally gets a defensive lineman, in terms of Heisman support? Zilch.
But because he put on one of the great individual displays of destruction... in a game that everyone was watching... directly against the clubhouse Heisman leader: He catapulted himself.
It's not just that Suh has earned more 1st-place votes than any other contender with 25 percent o the ballots counted (by StiffarmTrophy.com). That's impressive enough.
No, what tips the balance to "so best Heisman contender ever" is that in the process of vaulting his own campaign, he totally destroyed Colt McCoy's.
Please consider that as recently as last Friday, McCoy was considered the favorite. Oh, sure, Mark Ingram was going to get votes if Alabama beat Florida. (Sorry: "When.")
But McCoy was still considered the guy to beat in all of the straw polls. He had all the standard Heisman credentials: "QB of an undefeated team," and the "he's due" vote.
Then Suh destroyed him, nearly KO'ing his national-title shot, let alone his Heisman cred. And, all of a sudden, with so many voters holding their ballots until Saturday night, Suh had vaulted himself to the top -- and had undercut McCoy's entire campaign.
As you can see at StiffarmTrophy, McCoy is 4th -- totally out of it. And while it appears that many voters submitted their ballots for Ingram after the SECCG but before the Big 12 title game, Suh is right in the middle of it.
Even if Suh doesn't win, he might get more 1st-place votes than any other contender.
Here's the real crime: How many Heisman voters didn't even THINK to put Suh on their ballot, because he doesn't play RB or QB, particularly for a top team?
I'm proud of the voters who championed Suh's cause -- and the ones who followed through with an unprecedented level of support for a defensive player.
But I think you'll see: Suh will be left off enough ballots that it will -- and should -- make you question why the Heisman vote is given to 900 people, many of whom have no business voting.
Those are the ones who are most likely to ignore Suh. That's too bad for them. They could have had a part in history as supporting the most interesting Heisman contender ever.
-- D.S.
UPDATE: I only just now saw Dr. Saturday's post talking about this Heisman race as the most fascinating in years -- I'd call it "most fascinating ever," but that's quibbling. I just wanted to point you all to it, because it's really well done. And to disclaim that I hadn't seen it before I wrote up my own opinions. But it's worth your time to read. Great minds...
Friday 12/11 Quickie: Brian Kelly, Colt McCoy, NFL Week 14, Steelers, More
You all saw below how I feel about Notre Dame hiring Brian Kelly: On the one hand, I recognize that Kelly will turn ND into a perennial BCS at-large team. On the other, I lament -- as a longtime Notre Dame schadenfreude expert -- that Notre Dame will no longer be ours to kick around.
It was the obvious lead for my SN column today, but there are a couple other notable storylines:
*Steelers humiliated by Browns: It's not just that the Browns eliminated the defending champs from any hope of making the playoffs this year; it's that the Browns eliminated the Steelers from contention as "NFL Team of the Decade."
*Colt McCoy cleans up the hardware: This is kind of awkward. McCoy won the Maxwell for "Best All-Around," and he may not even finish in the Top 3 in the Heisman balloting. Ndamukong Suh may finish with more 1st-place votes than any other Heisman candidate, yet wasn't even close to being a Maxwell finalist. And Mark Ingram -- who IS most likely to win the Heisman -- couldn't even win the award for being the best at his position (the Doak Walker for top RB went to Toby Gerhart, certainly a fine choice).
*I knew that Florida would lose to Syracuse in hoops last night. I was concerned they would lose by 20+; that they did better than that gives me some hope. Syracuse is a very very good team -- definitely good enough to make the Final Four.
*You all know I'm a huge "let the fans vote" person. Here's what I have to say about the early NBA All-Star returns that have T-Mac in the West starting lineup -- it's exactly that: "early." Give it a few more weeks, and non-Houston fans will clearly create a correction in the marketplace.
Check out the entire column here. More later.
-- D.S.
It was the obvious lead for my SN column today, but there are a couple other notable storylines:
*Steelers humiliated by Browns: It's not just that the Browns eliminated the defending champs from any hope of making the playoffs this year; it's that the Browns eliminated the Steelers from contention as "NFL Team of the Decade."
*Colt McCoy cleans up the hardware: This is kind of awkward. McCoy won the Maxwell for "Best All-Around," and he may not even finish in the Top 3 in the Heisman balloting. Ndamukong Suh may finish with more 1st-place votes than any other Heisman candidate, yet wasn't even close to being a Maxwell finalist. And Mark Ingram -- who IS most likely to win the Heisman -- couldn't even win the award for being the best at his position (the Doak Walker for top RB went to Toby Gerhart, certainly a fine choice).
*I knew that Florida would lose to Syracuse in hoops last night. I was concerned they would lose by 20+; that they did better than that gives me some hope. Syracuse is a very very good team -- definitely good enough to make the Final Four.
*You all know I'm a huge "let the fans vote" person. Here's what I have to say about the early NBA All-Star returns that have T-Mac in the West starting lineup -- it's exactly that: "early." Give it a few more weeks, and non-Houston fans will clearly create a correction in the marketplace.
Check out the entire column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Notre Dame Hires Brian Kelly: Approve
Notre Dame fans' long nightmare is over. Hope fans who were enjoying the schadenfreude will remember it fondly. Because that's done. Notre Dame fans must be overjoyed.
In hiring Brian Kelly -- the school's best coach since Lou Holtz (and, I will argue, will be even better than Holtz in the long run) -- Notre Dame has re-emerged as a Top 10 football power.
Mark it down: Kelly will have Notre Dame in a BCS-level bowl game NEXT YEAR. And while I'm not sure he'll ever win a national title, he will have them in a BCS bowl game as long as Notre Dame gets an automatic BCS bid for earning 10 wins. 10-2 seasons will be the minimum.
I'm torn: I'm a classic Notre Dame loather -- but I'm a huge Brian Kelly fan. I'm bummed that Notre Dame will re-emerge as a football powerhouse, but I like that they will do it the "right way" -- Kelly's way.
But I buy the argument that it is in the best interests of college football that Notre Dame be very very good. I'm sure I will regret that next year when they're 11-1 and I hate them even more.
The Weis Era is a distant memory, as of Thursday night. The Kelly Era is here.
And it's going to be very very successful. Sucks for the rest of us.
-- D.S.
In hiring Brian Kelly -- the school's best coach since Lou Holtz (and, I will argue, will be even better than Holtz in the long run) -- Notre Dame has re-emerged as a Top 10 football power.
Mark it down: Kelly will have Notre Dame in a BCS-level bowl game NEXT YEAR. And while I'm not sure he'll ever win a national title, he will have them in a BCS bowl game as long as Notre Dame gets an automatic BCS bid for earning 10 wins. 10-2 seasons will be the minimum.
I'm torn: I'm a classic Notre Dame loather -- but I'm a huge Brian Kelly fan. I'm bummed that Notre Dame will re-emerge as a football powerhouse, but I like that they will do it the "right way" -- Kelly's way.
But I buy the argument that it is in the best interests of college football that Notre Dame be very very good. I'm sure I will regret that next year when they're 11-1 and I hate them even more.
The Weis Era is a distant memory, as of Thursday night. The Kelly Era is here.
And it's going to be very very successful. Sucks for the rest of us.
-- D.S.
Feeling Good About Journalism's Future
(UPDATE: Check out Jeff Jarvis's post about this. Much better than mine below.)
This fall for me, it hasn't just been all Tim Tebow obsession and media consulting (and opining). I spent the fall semester helping Jeff Jarvis teach his "Entrepreneurial Journalism" course at City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism.
I loved being in the classroom -- and loved working with the students even more. The assignment was "easy": Over the course of the term, develop a journalism business that would ultimately be pitched to a jury of media industry stars -- charged with dispensing $50,000 in grant money.
What I loved most was the sense of innovation -- of possibility -- that the students brought to the challenge. Some ideas were grandiose, some were limited -- all were ultimately born of the passion of the student, which is the right foundation as they became journalism-entrepreneurs.
The jury ultimately selected four ideas to fund, and they represent a handful of the ways journalism is being innovated (I'm obviously not going to tell you about the businesses themselves):
One was from a journalist whose background was software development -- this fits right into the new nexus of journalism and engineering. One was about solving an acute problem with citizen journalism. One plays in the world of social media. And one was about the journalist as a multi-platform brand unto herself, not relying on the traditional route of a single media company making stars out of reporters. (It reminded me of the plan I first created in business school to create what would become The Daily Quickie.)
Ultimately, all journalists need to think entrepreneurially, whether they are starting their own business or simply working within a larger, more (or less) established organization. Opportunities are everywhere -- now more than ever, ironically enough. And the imperative to innovate -- not just technologically, but in our assumptions about the business -- has never been greater.
Yes, funding (not to mention a revenue model) is always going to be an issue, but there is no limit to the challenges that need solving, particularly in a landscape that keeps changing.
Jeff put it best (and it is echoed in David Carr's "fresh, ferocious wave" column from a few weeks ago -- Carr was on the jury, by the way): The students' effort -- and others like it across the country -- is the biggest reason to feel fundamentally optimistic about the future of journalism and the future of media.
-- D.S.
This fall for me, it hasn't just been all Tim Tebow obsession and media consulting (and opining). I spent the fall semester helping Jeff Jarvis teach his "Entrepreneurial Journalism" course at City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism.
I loved being in the classroom -- and loved working with the students even more. The assignment was "easy": Over the course of the term, develop a journalism business that would ultimately be pitched to a jury of media industry stars -- charged with dispensing $50,000 in grant money.
What I loved most was the sense of innovation -- of possibility -- that the students brought to the challenge. Some ideas were grandiose, some were limited -- all were ultimately born of the passion of the student, which is the right foundation as they became journalism-entrepreneurs.
The jury ultimately selected four ideas to fund, and they represent a handful of the ways journalism is being innovated (I'm obviously not going to tell you about the businesses themselves):
One was from a journalist whose background was software development -- this fits right into the new nexus of journalism and engineering. One was about solving an acute problem with citizen journalism. One plays in the world of social media. And one was about the journalist as a multi-platform brand unto herself, not relying on the traditional route of a single media company making stars out of reporters. (It reminded me of the plan I first created in business school to create what would become The Daily Quickie.)
Ultimately, all journalists need to think entrepreneurially, whether they are starting their own business or simply working within a larger, more (or less) established organization. Opportunities are everywhere -- now more than ever, ironically enough. And the imperative to innovate -- not just technologically, but in our assumptions about the business -- has never been greater.
Yes, funding (not to mention a revenue model) is always going to be an issue, but there is no limit to the challenges that need solving, particularly in a landscape that keeps changing.
Jeff put it best (and it is echoed in David Carr's "fresh, ferocious wave" column from a few weeks ago -- Carr was on the jury, by the way): The students' effort -- and others like it across the country -- is the biggest reason to feel fundamentally optimistic about the future of journalism and the future of media.
-- D.S.
Thursday 12/10 Quickie: John Wall, Ndamukong Suh, Randy Edsall
Brandon Jennings is so last month. Now, it's all about John Wall, who has needed all of 9 games to turn himself into college basketball's biggest star.
As big as the Wall-led Kentucky win over UNC last Saturday was, last night may have been his true OK-this-guy-is-the-biggest-thing-since-Iverson moment: On ESPN in primetime at Madison Square Garden, leading Kentucky past UConn with a career-high 25 points and 7 steals -- including one that was absolutely ridiculous, plucking a safe pass that has no business being stolen out of the air, racing down the court and dunking, and one.
At this point, Wall is bigger than Melo was after 9 games -- way bigger. He's bigger than Durant. He's bigger than Beasley. He's leaps and bounds bigger than Derrick Rose. He's a one-man mania.
So Wall leads today's SN column, but there's a ton more:
*Didn't I tell you not to be surprised when Notre Dame edged away from Brian Kelly to another candidate? There's no way Randy Edsall is more qualified than Kelly -- and yet ND seems to be very interested in Edsall. Hmm...
*Ndamukong Suh is this year's Tim Tebow, at least as far as the Heisman voting is concerned: He'll get the most 1st-place votes, but finish in 3rd place. With Tebow last year, that was because Big 12 voters intentionally left him off their ballots, to game the system for their guys; with Suh, I honestly think it's because many voters don't even know about him. Which is WAY worse.
*I cannot be more clear about this: Not only is Mack Brown worth $5 million a year, that -- along with the salaries of the other elite coaches, like Meyer, Saban and Carroll -- is the biggest bargain in sports. Given how important an elite coach is to making a program elite, I have no idea why schools don't spend commensurate dollars -- again, with my "Notre Dame should have offered Urban Meyer $100 million over 10 years" idea, which people scoff at, but the ROI is obvious.
*Big CFB awards show tonight. I'm curious if early voting for the Maxwell or O'Brien will give Tebow either of those awards ahead of the equally deserving Mark Ingram and Colt McCoy.
Lots more in today's column. More later.
-- D.S.
As big as the Wall-led Kentucky win over UNC last Saturday was, last night may have been his true OK-this-guy-is-the-biggest-thing-since-Iverson moment: On ESPN in primetime at Madison Square Garden, leading Kentucky past UConn with a career-high 25 points and 7 steals -- including one that was absolutely ridiculous, plucking a safe pass that has no business being stolen out of the air, racing down the court and dunking, and one.
At this point, Wall is bigger than Melo was after 9 games -- way bigger. He's bigger than Durant. He's bigger than Beasley. He's leaps and bounds bigger than Derrick Rose. He's a one-man mania.
So Wall leads today's SN column, but there's a ton more:
*Didn't I tell you not to be surprised when Notre Dame edged away from Brian Kelly to another candidate? There's no way Randy Edsall is more qualified than Kelly -- and yet ND seems to be very interested in Edsall. Hmm...
*Ndamukong Suh is this year's Tim Tebow, at least as far as the Heisman voting is concerned: He'll get the most 1st-place votes, but finish in 3rd place. With Tebow last year, that was because Big 12 voters intentionally left him off their ballots, to game the system for their guys; with Suh, I honestly think it's because many voters don't even know about him. Which is WAY worse.
*I cannot be more clear about this: Not only is Mack Brown worth $5 million a year, that -- along with the salaries of the other elite coaches, like Meyer, Saban and Carroll -- is the biggest bargain in sports. Given how important an elite coach is to making a program elite, I have no idea why schools don't spend commensurate dollars -- again, with my "Notre Dame should have offered Urban Meyer $100 million over 10 years" idea, which people scoff at, but the ROI is obvious.
*Big CFB awards show tonight. I'm curious if early voting for the Maxwell or O'Brien will give Tebow either of those awards ahead of the equally deserving Mark Ingram and Colt McCoy.
Lots more in today's column. More later.
-- D.S.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Wednesday 12/09 Quickie: Kelly, Vols, Strong, Suh, Granderson, NCAA 96
When I read my colleague Mike DeCourcy's argument against expanding the NCAA Tournament to 96 teams, I couldn't help but lead today's SN column with a point-by-point rebuttal.
Here's the larger point: The Tournament thrives not because of who is in it, but the format itself. Most fans can't tell you Coppin State from South Carolina, but they know that a "15" beating a "2" is really really fun. Or that a buzzer-beater is fun, regardless of whether it's from a "name" brand like UNC or a relatively anonymous Western Kentucky.
Fans love the first Thursday and Friday not because the quality is particularly good, but because there's a ton of games all day long on a day they'd otherwise be working; they have made predictions about those games' outcomes with their coworkers; and it's fun -- regardless of who's playing or how "good" they might be. As long as a handful of games are close and there are even a handful of upsets, fans will be happy. And to double that experience would be universally loved. To assume otherwise would be like saying "If you expand it from 32 to 64, it'll RUIN the Tournament!"
Anyway, my pal Mike touched a nerve -- expanding the Tournament is one of my favorite issues.
More you'll find in today's column:
*As you saw in the post last night, I'm a big fan of ND presumably hiring Brian Kelly, even if that means we won't have Notre Dame to kick around anymore.
*Charlie Strong is a great hire for Louisville, and Louisville is a great opportunity for Strong.
*Who had "early December in his first year" for Lane Kiffin's first potential major NCAA violation?
*Ndamukong Suh is going to get the Tim Tebow Heisman treatment from 2008: He is going to get the most 1st-place votes, but come in no better than 3rd because enough dumb voters will leave his name of their ballots entirely.
*Was last night a break-through for Greg Monroe?
*Go pick up your bottle of "Gatorade Tiger" drink, because it's going to be a collector's item.
Check out the complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Here's the larger point: The Tournament thrives not because of who is in it, but the format itself. Most fans can't tell you Coppin State from South Carolina, but they know that a "15" beating a "2" is really really fun. Or that a buzzer-beater is fun, regardless of whether it's from a "name" brand like UNC or a relatively anonymous Western Kentucky.
Fans love the first Thursday and Friday not because the quality is particularly good, but because there's a ton of games all day long on a day they'd otherwise be working; they have made predictions about those games' outcomes with their coworkers; and it's fun -- regardless of who's playing or how "good" they might be. As long as a handful of games are close and there are even a handful of upsets, fans will be happy. And to double that experience would be universally loved. To assume otherwise would be like saying "If you expand it from 32 to 64, it'll RUIN the Tournament!"
Anyway, my pal Mike touched a nerve -- expanding the Tournament is one of my favorite issues.
More you'll find in today's column:
*As you saw in the post last night, I'm a big fan of ND presumably hiring Brian Kelly, even if that means we won't have Notre Dame to kick around anymore.
*Charlie Strong is a great hire for Louisville, and Louisville is a great opportunity for Strong.
*Who had "early December in his first year" for Lane Kiffin's first potential major NCAA violation?
*Ndamukong Suh is going to get the Tim Tebow Heisman treatment from 2008: He is going to get the most 1st-place votes, but come in no better than 3rd because enough dumb voters will leave his name of their ballots entirely.
*Was last night a break-through for Greg Monroe?
*Go pick up your bottle of "Gatorade Tiger" drink, because it's going to be a collector's item.
Check out the complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Is Notre Dame's Nightmare Nearly Over?
Per the Chicago Tribune, it sounds like Brian Kelly is going to be the next coach of Notre Dame.
Let me say this: This is a GREAT hire. The best possible outcome. Kelly is, in my opinion, one of the Top 5 coaches in college football -- and certainly the best available one.
Even without Clausen/Tate, Kelly will have Notre Dame in a BCS bowl game NEXT season, and a perennial BCS bowl team after that. Not necessarily a national championship, but 9-10 Ws.
Again: This is a superb hire, by a school that hasn't had one since they brought in Lou Holtz.
Notre Dame fans should be exceptionally happy about this. The long nightmare is over... hope everyone else has enjoyed the era of schadenfreude at ND's expense. That's history.
Let me say this: This is a GREAT hire. The best possible outcome. Kelly is, in my opinion, one of the Top 5 coaches in college football -- and certainly the best available one.
Even without Clausen/Tate, Kelly will have Notre Dame in a BCS bowl game NEXT season, and a perennial BCS bowl team after that. Not necessarily a national championship, but 9-10 Ws.
Again: This is a superb hire, by a school that hasn't had one since they brought in Lou Holtz.
Notre Dame fans should be exceptionally happy about this. The long nightmare is over... hope everyone else has enjoyed the era of schadenfreude at ND's expense. That's history.
Tuesday 12/08 Quickie: Kelly, Suh, Elin, 96
For a random Tuesday in December, there sure is a lot to talk about in today's SN column:
*Nore Dame reaching out to Brian Kelly. Love that he broke the news himself via Twitter. I'm still not convinced ND really wants to hire him.
*Ndamukong Suh making a run at the Heisman -- he's Top 3! -- and, in the process, knocking Colt McCoy OUT of the Top 3.
*Danica Patrick is joining NASCAR, if in a limited role. Doesn't matter: She'll be the biggest thing to hit the sport in the "Post-E" Era.
*Elin walked out on Tiger. Good for her! Maybe Oprah wants to book Elin, not Tiger.
*NCAA tournament expanding to 96: I love this idea. You know me: I want them to replace Championship Week by expanding the Tournament to EVERY team.
*AI back in Philly: At least there's one thing to keep 76ers basketball interesting.
I'm covering all that and a lot more in today's SN column. Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
*Nore Dame reaching out to Brian Kelly. Love that he broke the news himself via Twitter. I'm still not convinced ND really wants to hire him.
*Ndamukong Suh making a run at the Heisman -- he's Top 3! -- and, in the process, knocking Colt McCoy OUT of the Top 3.
*Danica Patrick is joining NASCAR, if in a limited role. Doesn't matter: She'll be the biggest thing to hit the sport in the "Post-E" Era.
*Elin walked out on Tiger. Good for her! Maybe Oprah wants to book Elin, not Tiger.
*NCAA tournament expanding to 96: I love this idea. You know me: I want them to replace Championship Week by expanding the Tournament to EVERY team.
*AI back in Philly: At least there's one thing to keep 76ers basketball interesting.
I'm covering all that and a lot more in today's SN column. Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Tebow Legacy Impacted By Bama Loss
I have been saying it all season long about Florida and Tim Tebow: "Championship or bust." And... well, you know what happened.
I have had a lot of theories -- unified and otherwise -- floating around my head since Saturday night. You've seen bits and pieces here and, of course, over at TimTeblog.
But Dr. Saturday wanted my take on Tebow for this morning, forcing me to commit to at least some version of coming to terms with the game, particularly the impact on Tebow's legacy.
I don't mind confessing: Matt and I wrangled over it. He was appropriately harsh in his critique -- I respected his perspective but, as you can imagine, had a slightly more sympathetic take. You can read it here.
I will say this: The season started with Tebow as a contender for "greatest ever." Today, none but the most partisan followers (cough!) would call him that. I still contend he is on college football's Rushmore, if only for all the other "-est of all time" superlatives he ends his career with. (I know many of you would disagree.)
But there is not much of a question: This loss impacted Tebow's legacy.
I'll leave it to you to decide. Again, this is only one stake in the ground in what will be a much more layered process. And as editor, Matt, of course, gets to put a harsh headline on the essay.
-- D.S.
I have had a lot of theories -- unified and otherwise -- floating around my head since Saturday night. You've seen bits and pieces here and, of course, over at TimTeblog.
But Dr. Saturday wanted my take on Tebow for this morning, forcing me to commit to at least some version of coming to terms with the game, particularly the impact on Tebow's legacy.
I don't mind confessing: Matt and I wrangled over it. He was appropriately harsh in his critique -- I respected his perspective but, as you can imagine, had a slightly more sympathetic take. You can read it here.
I will say this: The season started with Tebow as a contender for "greatest ever." Today, none but the most partisan followers (cough!) would call him that. I still contend he is on college football's Rushmore, if only for all the other "-est of all time" superlatives he ends his career with. (I know many of you would disagree.)
But there is not much of a question: This loss impacted Tebow's legacy.
I'll leave it to you to decide. Again, this is only one stake in the ground in what will be a much more layered process. And as editor, Matt, of course, gets to put a harsh headline on the essay.
-- D.S.
Merry BCS-mas! Get The Griping Out Today
Merry BCS-mas! (Yes, that's pronounced "BCS-mess.")
The Monday after the BCS pairings are announced has become the annual holiday for BCS-bashers -- "Texas?!"... "TCU and/or Cincinnati was screwed!"... "Fiesta THIS!"... "Playoff! PLAYOFF! PLAYOFF!!!!"
It's a little like the folks who complain Christmas has been overcommercialized.
Everyone looks up from their shopping list -- nods their heads in complete agreement -- then casually goes back to their seasonally ambient shopping, planning and celebrating.
I'm not saying I don't agree -- I'd love to see a playoff. Yahoo's Dan Wetzel offers a thoughtful, comprehensive and elegantly simple plan.
And for all the actual impact his plan will have, he might as well be writing fiction.
Here is the reality: We all enjoy a nice little venting today about how bad the BCS is. Then, as usual, we all tune in for the bowls and uniformly acknowledge the BCS's national champ.
It's not just that we have a skewed perception from the loud and visible critics, eyeing those eye-popping 85 percent BCS-disapproval ratings, who decry the system. Fans just don't care enough to care enough.
This isn't exactly 2003 -- where USC was the best team in the country and shut out of the national-title game -- or 2004 -- where Auburn was the best team in the country and shut out of the national-title game. (And most fans STILL didn't care enough to demand change.)
After watching Saturday's beat-down (and, indeed, everyone watched), no one disagrees that Alabama is the best team in the country.
And, for better or (probably) worse, most fans are probably pleased about Texas being the opponent. Fans will tune in to that title game. And we will accept the winner as champ. Like we always do.
The "elitists" know that TCU is a superior team -- so if the AP hates the result so much, why don't they give TCU their half of the national title this year? (They had the same chance with Utah a year ago; for all the media's bluster, they embraced the BCS's conventionality.)
But it's a fine line they walk between the empathetic "I know you agree with me that this system is terrible" and the patronizing "Don't you idiots see what you continue to buy into?"
BCS opponents love BCS-mas, because their cause gets a ton of attention and it deludes them that most fans don't just agree with them -- but are actually ready to FIGHT for this.
We aren't. Oh, sure: Fans would love to see if TCU could beat Alabama, but not enough to force changes -- not when the BCS does a good enough job creating... good enough.
It must drive the most vocal and hard-line BCS critics insane to continue to passionately (and, often, intelligently) argue against a playoff, only to be undone by "good enough," the nemesis of "better."
I am not proud of the provincialism and comfortableness with "good enough" -- from voters and fans alike -- that keeps a team I think is as awesome as TCU out of the national-title game. But it is the reality. It is why the BCS was originally set up, and why it continues to maintain its power.
And even as the BCS opponents howl from here until Alabama-Texas, that game's winner will be crowned champ, recognized as champ and we will all turn our attention to next season.
Like any proponents of change, critics will ultimately need an even more acute crisis to rally enough fans around the cause to create change: Not just an unbeaten SEC champ and Big 12 champ (and Big East champ and MWC champ), but an unbeaten Pac-10 and Big Ten champ, too -- say, Texas-sized brand names like USC and Ohio State.
Even then, a 2003-like or 2004-like scenario would ultimately create a lot of noise, but then most folks would move on. It would be the exception, not the rule -- it would be as limited as BCS supporters pointing to 2005's universally loved Texas-USC title game as proving the system works.
All you can hope for is that when the current pact runs out in 2013, something new is created. But if I was a BCS honcho, I would continue to recognize that fan resentment isn't so acute that change will be forced on the system, from the bottom-up. (This was the crux of my argument why the BCS' p.r. efforts in the last month aren't just badly executed, but unnecessary.)
Fans absolutely recognize the inherently unsatisfying system that is in place. Like we recognize the commercialization of the holidays.
We care. But the reality is, we just don't care THAT much.
-- D.S.
PS: That issue was the focus of the lead item of my Sporting News column today. To see the entire thing -- including items on NFL Week 13's insanity involving the Saints, Steelers and Michael Vick, plus more on Tiger Woods, John Wall, Greg Oden, and Notre Dame -- click here.
The Monday after the BCS pairings are announced has become the annual holiday for BCS-bashers -- "Texas?!"... "TCU and/or Cincinnati was screwed!"... "Fiesta THIS!"... "Playoff! PLAYOFF! PLAYOFF!!!!"
It's a little like the folks who complain Christmas has been overcommercialized.
Everyone looks up from their shopping list -- nods their heads in complete agreement -- then casually goes back to their seasonally ambient shopping, planning and celebrating.
I'm not saying I don't agree -- I'd love to see a playoff. Yahoo's Dan Wetzel offers a thoughtful, comprehensive and elegantly simple plan.
And for all the actual impact his plan will have, he might as well be writing fiction.
Here is the reality: We all enjoy a nice little venting today about how bad the BCS is. Then, as usual, we all tune in for the bowls and uniformly acknowledge the BCS's national champ.
It's not just that we have a skewed perception from the loud and visible critics, eyeing those eye-popping 85 percent BCS-disapproval ratings, who decry the system. Fans just don't care enough to care enough.
This isn't exactly 2003 -- where USC was the best team in the country and shut out of the national-title game -- or 2004 -- where Auburn was the best team in the country and shut out of the national-title game. (And most fans STILL didn't care enough to demand change.)
After watching Saturday's beat-down (and, indeed, everyone watched), no one disagrees that Alabama is the best team in the country.
And, for better or (probably) worse, most fans are probably pleased about Texas being the opponent. Fans will tune in to that title game. And we will accept the winner as champ. Like we always do.
The "elitists" know that TCU is a superior team -- so if the AP hates the result so much, why don't they give TCU their half of the national title this year? (They had the same chance with Utah a year ago; for all the media's bluster, they embraced the BCS's conventionality.)
I want to take 30 seconds to explain why the TCU-Boise Fiesta pairing doesn't bother me.This essential fan apathy drives the lead BCS opponents in the media absolutely insane. (And probably rightfully so.)
No. 1: The bowl did what was in its own economic best interests, not the BCS's best interests -- Boise fans travel to Arizona better than Iowa fans.
No. 2: I love the potential positioning as "The Cinderella Bowl." And if folks don't tune in -- as they didn't tune in for TCU-Boise a year ago or Boise-Oklahoma in 2006 -- it does qualify as a referendum on fans' interests in the non-BCS party-crashers.
No. 3: I actually think it's great for the non-BCS teams to get their own platform, to become the first BCS bowl with TWO non-BCS teams playing in it, and that both are unbeaten.
No. 4: Critics who wanted to see each team play a big-conference team aren't thinking it through. Does anyone really want to see TCU destroy an average Iowa team? What exactly would that prove on TCU's behalf? Same with Boise against Georgia Tech. It's infantilizing of the elitists to suggest that TCU would prove anything by beating a "big conference" team -- they already did that. The only game that would have proven anything for TCU was playing Alabama. I certainly would have voted to see that.
(As for the prospects of TCU-Cincinnati, I think that Florida is better than Cincinnati -- Boise might be, too -- and, if anything, I would have preferred to see TCU play Florida. But the next-best thing is having TCU play Boise.)
But it's a fine line they walk between the empathetic "I know you agree with me that this system is terrible" and the patronizing "Don't you idiots see what you continue to buy into?"
BCS opponents love BCS-mas, because their cause gets a ton of attention and it deludes them that most fans don't just agree with them -- but are actually ready to FIGHT for this.
We aren't. Oh, sure: Fans would love to see if TCU could beat Alabama, but not enough to force changes -- not when the BCS does a good enough job creating... good enough.
It must drive the most vocal and hard-line BCS critics insane to continue to passionately (and, often, intelligently) argue against a playoff, only to be undone by "good enough," the nemesis of "better."
I am not proud of the provincialism and comfortableness with "good enough" -- from voters and fans alike -- that keeps a team I think is as awesome as TCU out of the national-title game. But it is the reality. It is why the BCS was originally set up, and why it continues to maintain its power.
And even as the BCS opponents howl from here until Alabama-Texas, that game's winner will be crowned champ, recognized as champ and we will all turn our attention to next season.
Like any proponents of change, critics will ultimately need an even more acute crisis to rally enough fans around the cause to create change: Not just an unbeaten SEC champ and Big 12 champ (and Big East champ and MWC champ), but an unbeaten Pac-10 and Big Ten champ, too -- say, Texas-sized brand names like USC and Ohio State.
Even then, a 2003-like or 2004-like scenario would ultimately create a lot of noise, but then most folks would move on. It would be the exception, not the rule -- it would be as limited as BCS supporters pointing to 2005's universally loved Texas-USC title game as proving the system works.
All you can hope for is that when the current pact runs out in 2013, something new is created. But if I was a BCS honcho, I would continue to recognize that fan resentment isn't so acute that change will be forced on the system, from the bottom-up. (This was the crux of my argument why the BCS' p.r. efforts in the last month aren't just badly executed, but unnecessary.)
Fans absolutely recognize the inherently unsatisfying system that is in place. Like we recognize the commercialization of the holidays.
We care. But the reality is, we just don't care THAT much.
-- D.S.
PS: That issue was the focus of the lead item of my Sporting News column today. To see the entire thing -- including items on NFL Week 13's insanity involving the Saints, Steelers and Michael Vick, plus more on Tiger Woods, John Wall, Greg Oden, and Notre Dame -- click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
